On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Not forced to but there are a lot of people who are still either
>ridiculously paranoid or who wear them as a political statement, to
>broadcast to everyone that they're 'progressive'.

We have a young lady in our Toastmasters club who wore a mask up to
about six weeks ago. Her transformation in the short time since she
stopped wearing it has truly been remarkable. Complete change of
outlook and smiles a lot (perhaps she did under the mask but who would
ever know?!?)

On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>
>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>> bullshit.
>
> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.

And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
protection for the wearer./

On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>
>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>> bullshit.
>>
>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
>
>
> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
> protection for the wearer./

Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.

In article
<17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
> > On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
> >>>
> >>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
> >>> bullshit.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
> >
> > And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
> > protection for the wearer./
>
> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.

It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
behind a chain-link fence.

On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>
>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
>>>
>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>> protection for the wearer./
>>
>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>
> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
> behind a chain-link fence.

Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.

In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article
> > <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
> >>>>> bullshit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
> >>>
> >>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
> >>> protection for the wearer./
> >>
> >> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
> >
> > It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
> > behind a chain-link fence.
>
> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.

That would happen mask or no mask.

On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
>>>>>
>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>
>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>
>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>
>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>
> That would happen mask or no mask.

If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
of the airborne droplets.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> >>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> >>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>> >>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>> >>>>> bullshit.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
>> >>>
>> >>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>> >>> protection for the wearer./
>> >>
>> >> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>> >
>> > It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>> > behind a chain-link fence.
>>
>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>
>That would happen mask or no mask.

As "airborne pocket" is a meaningless term except to moviePig (because
he's refusing to write "droplets" to communicate clearly), it wouldn't
happen at all.

In article <17b96071086ae14c$2$2175118$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> >>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
> >>>>>>> bullshit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
> >>>>>> fearful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
> >>>>> protection for the wearer./
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
> >>>
> >>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
> >>> behind a chain-link fence.
> >>
> >> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
> >> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
> >
> > That would happen mask or no mask.
>
> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
> of the airborne droplets.

Yes, that's like saying if a sand storm blows by, the chain link fence
might intercept a portion of the airborne sand particles.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:02:39 -0500, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>> protection for the wearer./
>
>Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.

My daughter caught her dose not long after my son had returned home
from a company course in Texas and his then one year old daughter (who
of course had had lots of hugs from daddy on his return home) sneezed
directly in her face while my daughter held her.

My daughter lives with me though we didn't come within 10' of each
other for more than a week after that.

On 3/3/2024 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17b96071086ae14c$2$2175118$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>>>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>>>
>>> That would happen mask or no mask.
>>
>> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
>> of the airborne droplets.
>
> Yes, that's like saying if a sand storm blows by, the chain link fence
> might intercept a portion of the airborne sand particles.

Yes, if the chain link fence is dense and absorbs sand particles.

On 3/3/2024 8:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:02:39 -0500, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>> protection for the wearer./
>>
>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>
> My daughter caught her dose not long after my son had returned home
> from a company course in Texas and his then one year old daughter (who
> of course had had lots of hugs from daddy on his return home) sneezed
> directly in her face while my daughter held her.
>
> My daughter lives with me though we didn't come within 10' of each
> other for more than a week after that.

My personal guess is that everyone got exposed to it, and a lucky few
didn't contract it. And I take Fauci's word that the vaccine saved
lives. Beyond that, even my guesser overheats...

In article <17b97216f7720193$2312$3015764$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/3/2024 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <17b96071086ae14c$2$2175118$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
> >>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
> >>>>>>>>> bullshit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
> >>>>>>>> fearful.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
> >>>>>>> protection for the wearer./
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
> >>>>> behind a chain-link fence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
> >>>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
> >>>
> >>> That would happen mask or no mask.
> >>
> >> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
> >> of the airborne droplets.
> >
> > Yes, that's like saying if a sand storm blows by, the chain link fence
> > might intercept a portion of the airborne sand particles.
>
> Yes, if the chain link fence is dense and absorbs sand particles.

But chain link fences aren't dense compared to sand particles, much like
masks aren't dense with regard to virions.

On 3/3/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>
>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
>>>
>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>> protection for the wearer./
>>
>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>
> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
> behind a chain-link fence.

That's not an accurate analogy but at least you're on the right track.
Color me astonished.

On 3/3/24 5:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17b96071086ae14c$2$2175118$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article >>>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>>>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>>>
>>> That would happen mask or no mask.
>>
>> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
>> of the airborne droplets.
>
> Yes, that's like saying if a sand storm blows by, the chain link fence
> might intercept a portion of the airborne sand particles.

Yes, or a Mexico funded border wall even. LOL!

On 3/3/24 2:02 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>
>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>> bullshit.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are fearful.
>>
>>
>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>> protection for the wearer./
>
> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.

Not statistically significant. We're talking viruses which are very
small particles.

On 3/3/24 3:34 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>> fearful.
>>>>
>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>
>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>
>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>> behind a chain-link fence.
>
> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.

"Germs" is a generic term for viruses and bacteria. Viruses are
extremely small and require the most filtration, so you might want to
put your thinking cap back on unless you're going full MAGA and believe
facts to be optional.

On 3/3/24 4:06 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a
>>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>>
>>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>>
>>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>>
>> That would happen mask or no mask.
>
> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
> of the airborne droplets.

Follow the science and stop making stuff up:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9915213/

A Review of Filtration Performance of Protective Masks

On 3/3/24 9:36 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 8:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:02:39 -0500, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>
>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>
>> My daughter caught her dose not long after my son had returned home
>> from a company course in Texas and his then one year old daughter (who
>> of course had had lots of hugs from daddy on his return home) sneezed
>> directly in her face while my daughter held her.
>>
>> My daughter lives with me though we didn't come within 10' of each
>> other for more than a week after that.
>
> My personal guess is that everyone got exposed to it, and a lucky few
> didn't contract it.  And I take Fauci's word that the vaccine saved
> lives.  Beyond that, even my guesser overheats...

Holy fuck is that guy stupid. "Caught her dose?" What the fuck does
that even mean?

On 3/3/24 4:06 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a
>>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>>
>>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>>
>>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>>
>> That would happen mask or no mask.
>
> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
> of the airborne droplets.

By praying to God for help?

On 3/4/2024 4:28 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/3/24 4:06 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a
>>>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>>>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>>>
>>> That would happen mask or no mask.
>>
>> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a
>> portion of the airborne droplets.
>
>
> Follow the science and stop making stuff up:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9915213/
>
> A Review of Filtration Performance of Protective Masks

Skimming that, it seems to support my suppositions.

On 3/3/2024 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17b97216f7720193$2312$3015764$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17b96071086ae14c$2$2175118$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2024 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <17b95eb4208ccf8f$1505$1032858$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>>>>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of germs
>>>>>> gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you inhale.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would happen mask or no mask.
>>>>
>>>> If you walk through such a fresh cloud, a mask might intercept a portion
>>>> of the airborne droplets.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's like saying if a sand storm blows by, the chain link fence
>>> might intercept a portion of the airborne sand particles.
>>
>> Yes, if the chain link fence is dense and absorbs sand particles.
>
> But chain link fences aren't dense compared to sand particles, much like
> masks aren't dense with regard to virions.

But masks may be dense with regard to virion-carrying droplets.

On 3/4/2024 4:22 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/3/24 3:34 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 3:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17b959b3a8100e43$27188$2757267$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/24 9:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:29 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why Progressives Can't Quit Their Masks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because covid is still killing people. Just saved everybody a lot of
>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I don't know the actual risks, but I'd assume wearers are
>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>
>>>>> And ignorant, since a standard mask never has and never will be a
>>>>> protection for the wearer./
>>>>
>>>> Maybe much less than he thinks, but at least some, I should imagine.
>>>
>>> It's like trying to protect yourself against a dust storm by standing
>>> behind a chain-link fence.
>>
>> Well, if you subscribe to the model that says airborne pockets of
>> germs gradually disperse, a mask may critically lessen the dose you
>> inhale.
>
>
> "Germs" is a generic term for viruses and bacteria.  Viruses are
> extremely small and require the most filtration, so you might want to
> put your thinking cap back on unless you're going full MAGA and believe
> facts to be optional.

Iirc, airborne germs travel in droplets, which are much larger.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 22:36:59 -0500, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

>> My daughter lives with me though we didn't come within 10' of each
>> other for more than a week after that.
>
>My personal guess is that everyone got exposed to it, and a lucky few
>didn't contract it. And I take Fauci's word that the vaccine saved
>lives. Beyond that, even my guesser overheats...

I dispute being "lucky" - speaking personally since my wife's death
I've been limiting my personal contact to the extent needed to get
things done. So did she - though we'll never know whether her death
was cardiac or COVID related though the coroner's office hasn't
provided us with a copy of the report (we were told that it would be 6
months and Thursday is 2 years)

I haven't exactly been going to weddings and kissing everybody at the
reception (which some relatives of mine were in the habit of doing
pre-COVID).

So I dispute that I've been "lucky"

On 3/4/2024 10:49 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 22:36:59 -0500, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>>> My daughter lives with me though we didn't come within 10' of each
>>> other for more than a week after that.
>>
>> My personal guess is that everyone got exposed to it, and a lucky few
>> didn't contract it. And I take Fauci's word that the vaccine saved
>> lives. Beyond that, even my guesser overheats...
>
> I dispute being "lucky" - speaking personally since my wife's death
> I've been limiting my personal contact to the extent needed to get
> things done. So did she - though we'll never know whether her death
> was cardiac or COVID related though the coroner's office hasn't
> provided us with a copy of the report (we were told that it would be 6
> months and Thursday is 2 years)
>
> I haven't exactly been going to weddings and kissing everybody at the
> reception (which some relatives of mine were in the habit of doing
> pre-COVID).
>
> So I dispute that I've been "lucky"

The "luck" I'd imagine to be most relevant here would be in the timely
composition of one's immune system.