This is a good example of the "Stupid Argument" against masks. Ignore everyone who measures the size of the virus and the size of mask holes and tells you it means something. It doesn't.https://twitter.com/marrlin/status/1356666646832812035 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @TherealzCRS @ScottAdamsSays
It seems unlikely that both of those would be the case at the same time. If a single particle (or a few) can infect, then the stated mechanism of action of masks makes no sense. (Of course, we already have abundant evidence that masks don't work anyway, which Scott ignores)
2 replies 1 retweet 63 likes -
I think I saw some figures where you needed 300 virons to be infected and the average minute of conversation spews 750,000. If that's true, masks being 60 or 90% effective, but not effective at all. "They work!" "They don't work" Both true.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
In that case the correct answer is "don't work". Since the outcome we care about is transmission, not about "number of particles emitted". We only care about the "particles" insofar as they contribute or don't contribute to infection of others. (I get the point you're making)
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Our "common sense" doesn't really nanoscale.. The truth is that we don't know the answers to most things at the nanoscale, so we make our case at whatever scale we can understand, be it right or wrong, It's "common sense". ;-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No argument there. That is one of many reasons why I vehemently oppose the whole pseudoscientific mask trend. Masks seem like they would work if you don't think too hard about the dynamics at play. (or more broadly, whether we should even try to slow spread of SARS-2 in gen pop)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Did someone tell you we solved the problem of long-haulers? And if you don't know what the question means, you have some research to do about the virus.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Well, I definitely think that the hype around "long COVID" (I assume that's what you're referring to) is completely overblown, and to the extent it occurs it also occurs in other viruses we don't freak out about. But more importantly, I do take that into account. Briefly...
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
You base that "thinking" on what? A hunch?
-
-
"The area under the curve will be the same." the virologists stated from the beginning. "Here's a brake that might help". (didn't help much). Now we have more faith in the brake than we do in the invisible unstoppable virus. It's visible, tangible, and controllable. Virus isn't.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.