You start with this
“Oh, really? “Science”, you say, mmm? (While referencing a pseudoscientist)”
How about a comment on what was said in the article and all the links it provided?
I can only assume you like SA are avoiding that for some reason.
You then put a few selective quotes from selective articles. Did you see how many links where in the article your avoiding talking about?
I picked one of your articles at random, read it and a few of it’s own links. You quoted from the first paragraph, but not from the start, which sets the tone slightly different from your selective quote don’t you think?
“Many governments have instructed the population to wear simple mouth-and-nose covers or surgical face masks to protect themselves from droplet infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in public. However, the basic protection mechanisms and benefits of these masks remain controversial”.
Is that not a relevant piece of the article?
How about this(again before what you quoted).
“we provide visual evidence that typical household materials used by the population to make masks do not provide highly efficient protection against respirable particles and droplets with a diameter of 0.3–2 μm as they pass through the materials largely unfiltered.”
Like you I’ve left some bits out. See how that works?
The article contradicts itself multiple times and works from a starting point that already knows what answers it wants to find and diligently sets out it’s experiment to achieve that(just look at the cough photo. Who does that in the real world?).
I was going to highlight bits, but why bother with conclusions like this
“If these general rules are followed and all people use suitable particle-filtering respirators correctly, the transmission of viruses via droplets/aerosols can be effectively prevented. Otherwise, these types of masks would never have received certification, nor would they be a core component of the personal protective equipment in hospitals and other environments. Therefore, proper face masks can save lives while maintaining social life and securing the economy and the state.”
That first sentence even if it was correct(it isn’t) is logistically impossible.
Second sentence is a lie. As all the science before April 2020 agreed.
A few they seem to have missed
Ritter et al., in 1975
Laslett and Sabin, in 1989(again in 2002)
Skinner and Sutton in 2001
Lahme et al., in 2001
Figueiredo et al., in 2001
Therefore the third sentence is a lie and pseudowhatitscalled.
But they still don’t know when to quit
“Second, some people are extremely bad at following rules, either because they do not want to or because they simply cannot. These people can become super spreaders”.
That’s science is it?
So lots of words. Many that where contradictory and no mention of the massive harm they cause to the wearer, or the possibility that they spread more than protect.
None of it taking into account real world scenarios, like this bit from your selective quote
“Firstly, because they protect against habitual contact of the face with the hands and thus serve as self-protection against contact infection. Secondly, because the flow resistance of the masks ensures that the air remains close to the head ”
Firstly, it’s well documented that the general public don’t know how to use correctly, constantly touch whilst on and reuse.
Secondly, the air doesn’t do that in the real world.
You end with the same sad condescension you started with
“Those are just a few quick examples: I could fill your screen with dozens more”
Before April 2020?
Go for it. Anyone that looks will be able to beat you at least 10/1
And you finish with
” It doesn’t take many minutes to lift a rumour from a dubious pseudoscientific website and regurgitate it in a forum. Checking the relevant science takes a great deal longer; and it’s hardly the province of amateurs”
After the article I read, I have to say that’s very honest of you. Try reading more.
Enough of the distractions now. I’m not interested in playing.
As you’ll know(if you read why I posted that article,so maybe not) my concern is children(adults can follow any cult they like) and I have to say well done to parents of Broadgreen International School pupils for fighting back. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go look at the letter they sent to parents on Friday(I believe).
There’s something that should worry people.