-6
1.
Vivian 2 year s ago
#31 - nothing says ‘adorable’ like an angry, obese little girl that dresses like a boy
-14
2.
Suzie 2 year s ago
#5 Kids don't need masks. The cloth masks do nothing against a virus and they are psychologically damaging. You are a BAD parent.
9
3.
Margaret 2 year s ago
Suzie,
Sounds like you have weak kids, scared by a piece of cloth. No need to call someone with stronger kids a bad parent though. That's just petty.
Sounds like you have weak kids, scared by a piece of cloth. No need to call someone with stronger kids a bad parent though. That's just petty.
6
4.
Brad 2 year s ago
Suzie sounds like an anti-vaxxer. Don't cover their face, let them die. You can make more and I'm sure you will.
0
5.
Vivian 2 year s ago
Brad, According to the WHO: “the use of a mask is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection against COVID-19.” As you can see, it’s not a matter of being weak or an anti-vaxxer - it’s about common sense and questioning the popular political narrative. For many it’s easier to just behave like a good sheep - but not everyone is like you - some people can still filter out the bull.
7
6.
Margaret 2 year s ago
Vivian,
No one ever said masks are "adequate". Shoes are not "adequate" to clothe someone. So by your logic, no one should wear shoes. I mean, by your own reasoning, it's common sense and anyone that wears shoes is simply a good sheep.
No one ever said masks are "adequate". Shoes are not "adequate" to clothe someone. So by your logic, no one should wear shoes. I mean, by your own reasoning, it's common sense and anyone that wears shoes is simply a good sheep.
-4
7.
Adela 2 year s ago
Margaret, 
Shoes are adequate for their intended purpose. Masks are not adequate for their intended purpose. Is that easier for you to understand? This is not a hard concept to grasp. The COVID-19 virus can vary in length from 9 to 12 nm. N95 masks remove 95% of particles at 300 nm - that’s a 3232% - 2400% difference. Water vapor is 70nm. Come on man, think!
Shoes are adequate for their intended purpose. Masks are not adequate for their intended purpose. Is that easier for you to understand? This is not a hard concept to grasp. The COVID-19 virus can vary in length from 9 to 12 nm. N95 masks remove 95% of particles at 300 nm - that’s a 3232% - 2400% difference. Water vapor is 70nm. Come on man, think!
2
8.
Margaret 2 year s ago
Adela,
It hard to understand because they are adequate for their intended purpose. You just don't want to know that. With a reduction in risk of around 70%, they aren't sufficient, but they sure as hell are better than getting a face full of spit. Which is of course their intended purpose. Not to filter out free floating viruses, but the viruses contained in much larger spit droplets. Come on man, think! Drop the ideology and look at the results.
Or to put it in terms even someone as hell bent on ignoring real world results: "Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger), but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured. In one study, conducted prior to widespread circulation of the Delta variant, masks worked equally well for blocking aerosolized particles containing both “wild-type” virus and the Alpha variant (a more infectious variant).
It hard to understand because they are adequate for their intended purpose. You just don't want to know that. With a reduction in risk of around 70%, they aren't sufficient, but they sure as hell are better than getting a face full of spit. Which is of course their intended purpose. Not to filter out free floating viruses, but the viruses contained in much larger spit droplets. Come on man, think! Drop the ideology and look at the results.
Or to put it in terms even someone as hell bent on ignoring real world results: "Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger), but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured. In one study, conducted prior to widespread circulation of the Delta variant, masks worked equally well for blocking aerosolized particles containing both “wild-type” virus and the Alpha variant (a more infectious variant).
2
9.
Margaret 2 year s ago
Margaret,
At least ten studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system, a German city, two U.S. states, a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., as well as both Canada and the U.S. nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S. also demonstrated reductions in mortality. Another 10-site study showed reductions in hospitalization growth rates following mask mandate implementation. A separate series of cross-sectional surveys in the U.S. suggested that a 10% increase in self-reported mask wearing tripled the likelihood of stopping community transmission. An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.
But according to you, the internet genius, they don't provide any protection. And according to Suzie, using this information to protect your kids makes you a bad parent.
At least ten studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system, a German city, two U.S. states, a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., as well as both Canada and the U.S. nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S. also demonstrated reductions in mortality. Another 10-site study showed reductions in hospitalization growth rates following mask mandate implementation. A separate series of cross-sectional surveys in the U.S. suggested that a 10% increase in self-reported mask wearing tripled the likelihood of stopping community transmission. An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.
But according to you, the internet genius, they don't provide any protection. And according to Suzie, using this information to protect your kids makes you a bad parent.
1
10.
Suzie 2 year s ago
Margaret,
The COVID mortality rate for school-age children/teenagers is virtually ZERO. More school-age kids died from seasonal flu than COVID. A kid has a higher chance of being killed in a car accident than dying from COVID. If you want to 'save' the children, stop allowing them in cars.
The COVID mortality rate for school-age children/teenagers is virtually ZERO. More school-age kids died from seasonal flu than COVID. A kid has a higher chance of being killed in a car accident than dying from COVID. If you want to 'save' the children, stop allowing them in cars.
0
11.
Margaret 2 year s ago
Suzie,
Are these kids orphans or something? No older relatives? No interaction with other people? They represent about 17% of all COVID cases in the US. It would be best to limit the spread of the disease.
Around 7 million kids have gotten covid in the US. Only 24 states report on hospitalizations, but their number is about 27,000 kids in hospitals due to COVID. And your right, only 700 or so dead kids, rotting in the ground.
As to cars, I believe quite a few steps have been taken to make them safer and to limit the risk of driving as much as possible. Wearing a mask (that has repeatedly been shown to reduce risk) is using the same logic.
Are these kids orphans or something? No older relatives? No interaction with other people? They represent about 17% of all COVID cases in the US. It would be best to limit the spread of the disease.
Around 7 million kids have gotten covid in the US. Only 24 states report on hospitalizations, but their number is about 27,000 kids in hospitals due to COVID. And your right, only 700 or so dead kids, rotting in the ground.
As to cars, I believe quite a few steps have been taken to make them safer and to limit the risk of driving as much as possible. Wearing a mask (that has repeatedly been shown to reduce risk) is using the same logic.
4
12.
Rube 2 year s ago
Margaret,
For fun, I looked up auto death risk for kids. 608 kids 12 and under died in car accidents in 2019, so on par with COVID as a risk. Of those, 38% were not wearing restraints (e.g. taking basic recommended safety precautions).
(Note this leaves teenagers out, who frequently get themselves into trouble driving)
For fun, I looked up auto death risk for kids. 608 kids 12 and under died in car accidents in 2019, so on par with COVID as a risk. Of those, 38% were not wearing restraints (e.g. taking basic recommended safety precautions).
(Note this leaves teenagers out, who frequently get themselves into trouble driving)
-1
13.
Suzie 2 year s ago
Margaret,
If you're that terrified of children potentially giving you COVID, then stay at home. Your fear doesn't dictate our lives. You've already signaled your virtue, so stay home and leave the rest of us alone.
If you're that terrified of children potentially giving you COVID, then stay at home. Your fear doesn't dictate our lives. You've already signaled your virtue, so stay home and leave the rest of us alone.
0
14.
Hessy 2 year s ago
Suzie,
After whining about someone else's parenting and then whining about being called out on your aggressive awfulness has got to be one the funniest pieces of ironic hypocrisy I've seen today.
After whining about someone else's parenting and then whining about being called out on your aggressive awfulness has got to be one the funniest pieces of ironic hypocrisy I've seen today.
Sounds like you have weak kids, scared by a piece of cloth. No need to call someone with stronger kids a bad parent though. That's just petty.
No one ever said masks are "adequate". Shoes are not "adequate" to clothe someone. So by your logic, no one should wear shoes. I mean, by your own reasoning, it's common sense and anyone that wears shoes is simply a good sheep.
Shoes are adequate for their intended purpose. Masks are not adequate for their intended purpose. Is that easier for you to understand? This is not a hard concept to grasp. The COVID-19 virus can vary in length from 9 to 12 nm. N95 masks remove 95% of particles at 300 nm - that’s a 3232% - 2400% difference. Water vapor is 70nm. Come on man, think!
It hard to understand because they are adequate for their intended purpose. You just don't want to know that. With a reduction in risk of around 70%, they aren't sufficient, but they sure as hell are better than getting a face full of spit. Which is of course their intended purpose. Not to filter out free floating viruses, but the viruses contained in much larger spit droplets. Come on man, think! Drop the ideology and look at the results.
Or to put it in terms even someone as hell bent on ignoring real world results: "Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger), but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured. In one study, conducted prior to widespread circulation of the Delta variant, masks worked equally well for blocking aerosolized particles containing both “wild-type” virus and the Alpha variant (a more infectious variant).
At least ten studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system, a German city, two U.S. states, a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., as well as both Canada and the U.S. nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S. also demonstrated reductions in mortality. Another 10-site study showed reductions in hospitalization growth rates following mask mandate implementation. A separate series of cross-sectional surveys in the U.S. suggested that a 10% increase in self-reported mask wearing tripled the likelihood of stopping community transmission. An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.
But according to you, the internet genius, they don't provide any protection. And according to Suzie, using this information to protect your kids makes you a bad parent.
The COVID mortality rate for school-age children/teenagers is virtually ZERO. More school-age kids died from seasonal flu than COVID. A kid has a higher chance of being killed in a car accident than dying from COVID. If you want to 'save' the children, stop allowing them in cars.
Are these kids orphans or something? No older relatives? No interaction with other people? They represent about 17% of all COVID cases in the US. It would be best to limit the spread of the disease.
Around 7 million kids have gotten covid in the US. Only 24 states report on hospitalizations, but their number is about 27,000 kids in hospitals due to COVID. And your right, only 700 or so dead kids, rotting in the ground.
As to cars, I believe quite a few steps have been taken to make them safer and to limit the risk of driving as much as possible. Wearing a mask (that has repeatedly been shown to reduce risk) is using the same logic.
For fun, I looked up auto death risk for kids. 608 kids 12 and under died in car accidents in 2019, so on par with COVID as a risk. Of those, 38% were not wearing restraints (e.g. taking basic recommended safety precautions).
(Note this leaves teenagers out, who frequently get themselves into trouble driving)
If you're that terrified of children potentially giving you COVID, then stay at home. Your fear doesn't dictate our lives. You've already signaled your virtue, so stay home and leave the rest of us alone.
After whining about someone else's parenting and then whining about being called out on your aggressive awfulness has got to be one the funniest pieces of ironic hypocrisy I've seen today.