Don't forget your 6 foot distancing. Cause viruses can't float past the magical 6 foot barrier.

More sarcasm

I use my arm when I cough. That's common knowledge. I don't need a mask to cover it.

But according to your meme, it does no good.
Wearing even a bandana helps reduce the spread of viruses is common knowledge, at least for most of us.

Unless you're wearing an N 95 mask, they don't work to stop the spread of a virus. Coughing, yes, but not a virus. And that's why most people wear them.

You do realize the common cold is a virus, don’t you? So, when you cover your mouth, you’re stopping most of the droplets that could contain a virus.

As has been mentioned in another comment, it’s the droplets that a mask blocks. Not from just from coughing or sneezing, but normal breathing. That’s why they say to wear a mask. It’s for when you can’t maintain a minimum 6’ distance (like at a store or on an airline) - which apparently is far enough to avoid droplets from other peoples’ normal breathing. Coughing or sneezing can propel droplets well beyond 6’, which is why we should always cover our months, even when social distancing.

Virologists work directly with viruses that are not necessary contained in droplets, so they need the extra protection. Plus, it makes sense if you know you’re working directly with a deadly virus instead of walking around in public. They also work in sealed rooms with special ventilation systems. They also destroy or sanitize all clothing and instruments they use in those rooms. I doubt you would expect the general public to do that every time they go visit a public place.

I agree with you on many things politics, but not this. Wearing masks for long periods of time causes more harm than good and lowers your immune system. This is what many medical professionals are telling us, but are being silenced.

When you're in close quarters with others and you don't feel safe, wear a mask. I don't have a problem with others doing what they feel the need to do, but when I'm told I'm a rotten person and want to "kill Grandma" if I'm not complying, that's where I have the problem.

That may be true with N95 masks. Not so much with cloth masks. That’s why non medical N95 masks have a one way valve, so you don’t keep rebreathing your own breath.
But remember, the mask is more for protecting others from you, so vented N95 masks don’t really help in the general public unless everyone is wearing one. Wearing a cloth mask because you don’t feel safe in close quarters is useless unless everyone else does too. That’s why people might think you’re a rotten person for not wearing one. It’s not because of an irrational fear, there is actual logic behind it.

Half truth here.

The extensive PPE is *partly* to protect the virologist from the virus. But more so, it is to protect the virus sample from the virologist.

You can't do valid, meaningful science with contaminated samples. Without all this PPE, the samples could get infested with any of the trillions of normal microbes present in a human being.

I agree with the half truth part. (I'm not saying the rest is untrue)

This isn't about does it protect you or does it not. This isn't pregnancy or American politics, and people need to learn to recognize nuance. The only time anyone has been 100% protected was before the virus existed. N95's provide a measure of protection. Cloth masks provide significantly less, but more than nothing at all. Protection is not either/or, it's how much.

That's why we see partial re-opening of the states. Governments are evaluating acceptable risk because long term full closure is unsustainable. Essential workers aren't paid enough to keep the economy afloat by themselves. So if wearing some form of mask, combined with social distancing and limited business opening reduces the risk while allowing increased commerce, then the risk is worth it.

Based, nuanced analysis of these complex interwoven issues.

Thanks man

You were a bully in high school weren't you?

Personally, I find SpursFanFromAround to be one of the most respectful conservatives around here.

It is a pretty low bar though.

I don’t see this meme as ”bullying,” just evidence of deep delusion and a propensity to spread dangerous viral disinformation that could get people killed.

Delivered with a smile, though.

In the meantime here is a good article explaining why masks are helpful, even the less-than-ideal ones:

https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all-wear-masks-there-is-new-scientific-rationale-280e08ceee71

That chart is utter garbage. Particles? Viruses are sub-micron, while mask material only stop particles 5 microns or larger. More "magic cloth" that is somehow more effective in one direction than that other. Try reading something written before the hysteria began.

https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/

And if viruses were expelled from the body freefloating and completely detached from anything else, that would be accurate.

But they don't.

They go out in droplets of moisture -- the same moisture that fogs up your glasses when you exhale while wearing a mask. The fact your glasses fog up shows this moisture is being diverted away from others and back to you.

You obviously didn't read the article. You are quoting outdated knowledge. Due to technical advancements it is now known that bacteria and viruses do indeed get expelled as free-floating particles and are NOT suspended in droplets.

Masks are useless.

I think based on the nanometers of particle vs n95 that may be optimistic.

Worse, it misses the point: ocular penetration entirely sidesteps the mask, making them pointless.

41rqcq.jpg (click to show)

Fallacy of the planted axiom - as you yourself should be smart enough to know.

You assume -heavily influenced by the corporatocracy's very media slaves - that because he's a large businessman he must actaully be its agent, rather than - as is the unacknowledged actuality - an existential threat to its existence.

Like nothing in fact that it has ever faced before.

^Which is why it is in maximal gear to get rid of him by any means possible.^

Which is also why good agents desperately worked hard at the last minute to get him in when even he himself figured he had a snowball's chance in hell. Because, unlike most politicians who rose through the conventional political channels, he didn't give them time to get a viable blackmail dossier together fast enough.

Ross Perot, another billionaire and still better man, represented the same kind of threat years ago, but the white hats didn't have enough strength back then to make him a real potential force.

You know the saying, only Nixon could go to China.

You may yet discover you've been lied to. Be patient and open-minded, and you could always life can surprise sometimes.

What has Trump done to dismantle corporatacracy rather than subplant the interest of one handful of corporations versus another handful?

Republicans have constantly touted Trump as pro-business by doing tax cuts that benefit all (but mostly the rich) and that increasing taxes for the rich will drive them out (which is good if you're anti-corporatacracy).

We've seen the media go after the Republican party time and time again. This is no different than Reagan era media, and W. Bush era media... the only exception is that first two years where we swallowed up that shallow US propaganda as "we're all in this together" before they enacted the Patriot act which lead to the much criticized surveillance of the NSA under Obama.

Trump criticized his chance at winning the Electoral vote because he failed to understand how it worked and that because Republicans had the House and the Senate, there was a good chance the electorate would be much kinder than the Populous vote. He had more than a snowballs chance thanks to the Republican party's relentless accusations levied at Hillary for over 4 years which trumped any accusations against Trump being a poor businessman and human being. No one could accuse Trump of being a poor politician, at the time, because he was a Republican wildcard with no prior experience and it was spun in such a way that it made him more appealing to an anti-establishment crowd which had been bubbling under the surface and carefully crafted by the same media resources you and Trump now demonize. Far be it a minority of that same group, but the same tactics no less that are openly criticize by Trump and his cabinet members (those still working for him, at least.) and employed by the media outlets he endorses.

Ross Perot's threat wasn't that he had a chance to be elected, even in his time the third party system was broken. The best thing Perot contributed was that he revealed that you could not buy your way into the Presidency, and the worst thing Perot contribute was showing how third parties can successfully sway moderate to disgruntled voters away from potential Democrat and Republican votes. Clearing the way for super pacs to discourage future third party candidates from having that kind of effective sway, and encouraging people like Perot (Trump and Bloomberg) to directly play ball with the two majority political parties that have successfully monopolized our government. Leaving the third option of a Presidential candidate as nothing more than a significantly impotent vote.

I appreciate your respectful tone and relative optimism. I apologize for doing this post in two-parts. It looks like your response got away from you while I sent mine into orbit and am still waiting for it to come back. I'll try to exercise a bit more brevity next time.

Oh no, the establishment was very definitely for Hillary, which is why the pollsters got it so wildly wrong, they thought they could "nudge" it with a little preferential skew. And I think its antipathy towards Trump on the other hand is beyond evident. I could comment further based on my own close familiarity with media institutions but won't here.

Let me demonstrate my clarity on the Nixon/China analogy I made. The point of the aphorism in the day was that only a vehement anti-communist could normalize relations with the communist PRC. Ergo the aptitude of the application as I gave it: only a billionaire (albeit a non-dependent one) could take on the corporatocracy. Straightforward enough, even if you elect to disagree.

The meme here is my best take for how I feel I have to let most of the key differences between us come to be resolved ;-)

The establishment is the Republican and Democrat parties. The anti-establishment crowd just ate up Trump's nomination and the Republicans were desperate as they'd seen no results from their relentless attacks against Hillary, nor had they a unifying voice much as they do now under Trump. (Much like the Democrats have no unifying voice now and will likely pick a Trump-like candidate if Biden loses. Which, yes... Biden will likely lose in 2020.)

The pollsters actually got it right because they were fielding individuals and Hillary still won the popular vote. I assume you're referring to why they reported Hillary and not Trump would take the swing states. Hillary only lost the electoral vote by 48 votes. The key three states Trump won by were Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Previously those states had all voted blue since 1992. Yet, all were swing states in 2016 because of their manufacturing industries all took a hit under Obama-era polices and opened the door for Trump to take them away under the promise of reform and de-regulation.

Trump's performance in his first term could significantly swing these states back. But yes, we'll have to wait and see.

Establishment = both: I largely agree, but I think that became less true with Trump's election, which is why the ultra-establishmenters like that ditz Romney (I un-libertarianed for a bit and voted for Obama again over him) turned on him.

I argue the swamp is real and bigger than people know, which is why the establishment so rallied against Trump on both "sides." It is my belief though that when the truth starts coming out, it will start blowing people's socks off.

The poll stuff went still beyond those things (you recall the "likelihood of victory" stuff too), and the Dems were doing the exact same electoral-vote calculating and strategizing that the GOP was. I believe, if we're honest, the illegal immigrant variance was more than enough to cover the numerical difference - which is why Pelosi and her ilk are absolutely falling all over themselves to issue them drivers' licenses in NY, buy them over with Covid money, end the most basic voter ID restrictions, and go for the mail-in ballots (I have personal experience with Democratic fraud with those, don't get me going). Which panderings to illegals, if they had all been right-leaning Cuban refugees instead, she and the DNC would obviously have fought and not been pushing. I like to think you allow this kind of naked politically motivated contempt of law is at least mercenary, cynical, and unworthy of respect.

I agree with your assessment of those swing states, though I'm of the view that black-box questions and election integrity itself may become a pivotal question. And time will indeed tell.

.