It appears the American Association of Family Physicians have been promoting mandatory helmet laws while no on has been looking. Everyone is all tied up in this covid hoax so those amicable to tyrannical laws are at it again.

Studies of Football helmets which were pretty close to bicycle helmets have shown that they increase head and neck injuries while we have the mentally ill people here claiming that their lives were saved by wearing a bicycle helmet.

In one study in Australia it was calculated that wearing helmets increases injuries and deaths by 21% (Robinson 1993) this never occurred because people simply stopped riding bicycles rather than have a mandatory helmet law. Reminds one of the Australian government presently locking up people for leaving their homes now doesn't it?

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:39:22 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:

> It appears the American Association of Family Physicians have been
> promoting mandatory helmet laws while no on has been looking. Everyone
> is all tied up in this covid hoax so those amicable to tyrannical laws
> are at it again.
>
> Studies of Football helmets which were pretty close to bicycle helmets
> have shown that they increase head and neck injuries while we have the
> mentally ill people here claiming that their lives were saved by wearing
> a bicycle helmet.
>
> In one study in Australia it was calculated that wearing helmets
> increases injuries and deaths by 21% (Robinson 1993)

This is correct and based on recorded data, because...

> this never occurred
> because people simply stopped riding bicycles rather than have a
> mandatory helmet law.

Several points;
a) it did occur because of helmet design,the mushroom, cause trauma to
the neck, in a novel way.
b) they stopped riding because helmets were expensive and you were
fined if caught riding without one on public roads.
c) yes, major health problems as significant people did stop riding

> Reminds one of the Australian government presently
> locking up people for leaving their homes now doesn't it?

Only if you are stupid* and get caught(aka acting like an arsehole to
draw plods attention).

* In certain LGAs of spreading sars-con-19 infection; there are stay at
home orders affecting everyone, with the following exceptions;
a) you can go to work,
b) you can go shopping,
c) you can go to medical appointments,
d) you can go for exercise for 1h, 2h, all day,
e) you can have a outdoor picnic with 5, 10, 20, people
f) various levels of people can go to other peoples places,
g, h, i, j..... a whole pile of stuff that you can say you are on the
way to/from.

It has been mildly amusing to see the number of Covid-hoax people who
when plod gives them the attention they want, can not manage to give a
plausible excuse and cop a fine. Hint, they do check for medical
appointment claims, but that articular 'Karen' was waving a placard
outside LGA building, with cop shop next door and courthouse on the other
side.

Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed certificate
or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 12:14:40 AM UTC+1, News 2021 wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:39:22 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
>
> > It appears the American Association of Family Physicians have been
> > promoting mandatory helmet laws while no on has been looking. Everyone
> > is all tied up in this covid hoax so those amicable to tyrannical laws
> > are at it again.
> >
> > Studies of Football helmets which were pretty close to bicycle helmets
> > have shown that they increase head and neck injuries while we have the
> > mentally ill people here claiming that their lives were saved by wearing
> > a bicycle helmet.
> >
> > In one study in Australia it was calculated that wearing helmets
> > increases injuries and deaths by 21% (Robinson 1993)
>
> This is correct and based on recorded data, because...
>
> > this never occurred
> > because people simply stopped riding bicycles rather than have a
> > mandatory helmet law.
>
> Several points;
> a) it did occur because of helmet design,the mushroom, cause trauma to
> the neck, in a novel way.
> b) they stopped riding because helmets were expensive and you were
> fined if caught riding without one on public roads.
> c) yes, major health problems as significant people did stop riding
>
> > Reminds one of the Australian government presently
> > locking up people for leaving their homes now doesn't it?
>
> Only if you are stupid* and get caught(aka acting like an arsehole to
> draw plods attention).
>
> * In certain LGAs of spreading sars-con-19 infection; there are stay at
> home orders affecting everyone, with the following exceptions;
> a) you can go to work,
> b) you can go shopping,
> c) you can go to medical appointments,
> d) you can go for exercise for 1h, 2h, all day,
> e) you can have a outdoor picnic with 5, 10, 20, people
> f) various levels of people can go to other peoples places,
> g, h, i, j..... a whole pile of stuff that you can say you are on the
> way to/from.
>
> It has been mildly amusing to see the number of Covid-hoax people who
> when plod gives them the attention they want, can not manage to give a
> plausible excuse and cop a fine. Hint, they do check for medical
> appointment claims, but that articular 'Karen' was waving a placard
> outside LGA building, with cop shop next door and courthouse on the other
> side.
>
> Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
> clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed certificate
> or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.
..
Telling people to lie to the police... You're an embarrassment to all decent Australians, Peter Howard, aka News[some year]. What a wretched wanker you are. Unsigned for the usual reason.

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 4:14:40 PM UTC-7, News 2021 wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:39:22 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
>
> > It appears the American Association of Family Physicians have been
> > promoting mandatory helmet laws while no on has been looking. Everyone
> > is all tied up in this covid hoax so those amicable to tyrannical laws
> > are at it again.
> >
> > Studies of Football helmets which were pretty close to bicycle helmets
> > have shown that they increase head and neck injuries while we have the
> > mentally ill people here claiming that their lives were saved by wearing
> > a bicycle helmet.
> >
> > In one study in Australia it was calculated that wearing helmets
> > increases injuries and deaths by 21% (Robinson 1993)
>
> This is correct and based on recorded data, because...
>
> > this never occurred
> > because people simply stopped riding bicycles rather than have a
> > mandatory helmet law.
>
> Several points;
> a) it did occur because of helmet design,the mushroom, cause trauma to
> the neck, in a novel way.
> b) they stopped riding because helmets were expensive and you were
> fined if caught riding without one on public roads.
> c) yes, major health problems as significant people did stop riding
>
> > Reminds one of the Australian government presently
> > locking up people for leaving their homes now doesn't it?
>
> Only if you are stupid* and get caught(aka acting like an arsehole to
> draw plods attention).
>
> * In certain LGAs of spreading sars-con-19 infection; there are stay at
> home orders affecting everyone, with the following exceptions;
> a) you can go to work,
> b) you can go shopping,
> c) you can go to medical appointments,
> d) you can go for exercise for 1h, 2h, all day,
> e) you can have a outdoor picnic with 5, 10, 20, people
> f) various levels of people can go to other peoples places,
> g, h, i, j..... a whole pile of stuff that you can say you are on the
> way to/from.
>
> It has been mildly amusing to see the number of Covid-hoax people who
> when plod gives them the attention they want, can not manage to give a
> plausible excuse and cop a fine. Hint, they do check for medical
> appointment claims, but that articular 'Karen' was waving a placard
> outside LGA building, with cop shop next door and courthouse on the other
> side.
>
> Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
> clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed certificate
> or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.
Tell us how Australians are different from Israelis who have found the vaccinated catching covid more often and more violently than the non-vaccinated.

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:55:13 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 12:14:40 AM UTC+1, News 2021 wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:39:22 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
> >
> > > It appears the American Association of Family Physicians have been
> > > promoting mandatory helmet laws while no on has been looking. Everyone
> > > is all tied up in this covid hoax so those amicable to tyrannical laws
> > > are at it again.
> > >
> > > Studies of Football helmets which were pretty close to bicycle helmets
> > > have shown that they increase head and neck injuries while we have the
> > > mentally ill people here claiming that their lives were saved by wearing
> > > a bicycle helmet.
> > >
> > > In one study in Australia it was calculated that wearing helmets
> > > increases injuries and deaths by 21% (Robinson 1993)
> >
> > This is correct and based on recorded data, because...
> >
> > > this never occurred
> > > because people simply stopped riding bicycles rather than have a
> > > mandatory helmet law.
> >
> > Several points;
> > a) it did occur because of helmet design,the mushroom, cause trauma to
> > the neck, in a novel way.
> > b) they stopped riding because helmets were expensive and you were
> > fined if caught riding without one on public roads.
> > c) yes, major health problems as significant people did stop riding
> >
> > > Reminds one of the Australian government presently
> > > locking up people for leaving their homes now doesn't it?
> >
> > Only if you are stupid* and get caught(aka acting like an arsehole to
> > draw plods attention).
> >
> > * In certain LGAs of spreading sars-con-19 infection; there are stay at
> > home orders affecting everyone, with the following exceptions;
> > a) you can go to work,
> > b) you can go shopping,
> > c) you can go to medical appointments,
> > d) you can go for exercise for 1h, 2h, all day,
> > e) you can have a outdoor picnic with 5, 10, 20, people
> > f) various levels of people can go to other peoples places,
> > g, h, i, j..... a whole pile of stuff that you can say you are on the
> > way to/from.
> >
> > It has been mildly amusing to see the number of Covid-hoax people who
> > when plod gives them the attention they want, can not manage to give a
> > plausible excuse and cop a fine. Hint, they do check for medical
> > appointment claims, but that articular 'Karen' was waving a placard
> > outside LGA building, with cop shop next door and courthouse on the other
> > side.
> >
> > Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
> > clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed certificate
> > or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.
> .
> Telling people to lie to the police... You're an embarrassment to all decent Australians, Peter Howard, aka News[some year]. What a wretched wanker you are. Unsigned for the usual reason.
If that is Peter Howard, no wonder he doesn't seem to even know what's going on in the world around him.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 02:55:11 -0700, Andre Jute scribed:

> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 12:14:40 AM UTC+1, News 2021 wrote:
>
>> It has been mildly amusing to see the number of Covid-hoax people who
>> when plod gives them the attention they want, can not manage to give a
>> plausible excuse and cop a fine. Hint, they do check for medical
>> appointment claims, but that articular 'Karen' was waving a placard
>> outside LGA building, with cop shop next door and courthouse on the
>> other side.
>>
>> Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
>> clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed
>> certificate or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.
> .
> Telling people to lie to the police... You're an embarrassment to all
> decent Australians,

Hahaha. How many hours did you claim to 'live' in Australia?

>Peter Howard, aka News[some year]. What a wretched
> wanker you are. Unsigned for the usual reason.

You need to join silly little tommy in taking dried frog pills.
Your understanding of english as used here is nil.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 07:57:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:

> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:55:13 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 12:14:40 AM UTC+1, News 2021 wrote:

>> Telling people to lie to the police... You're an embarrassment to all
>> decent Australians, Peter Howard, aka News[some year]. What a wretched
>> wanker you are. Unsigned for the usual reason.
> If that is Peter Howard, no wonder he doesn't seem to even know what's
> going on in the world around him.

Bzzt, wrong, as usual silly little tommy.
Try not to worsen AJ's dementia.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 07:56:24 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:

>> Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
>> clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed
>> certificate or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.

> Tell us how Australians are different from Israelis who have found the
> vaccinated catching covid more often and more violently than the
> non-vaccinated.

Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 07:56:24 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
> >> Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
> >> clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed
> >> certificate or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.
>
> > Tell us how Australians are different from Israelis who have found the
> > vaccinated catching covid more often and more violently than the
> > non-vaccinated.
> Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.

It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.

In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 07:56:24 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
> > >> Now, if you're double vaxed and thus highly unlikely to join the ones
> > >> clogging up the medical services, you just wave your printed
> > >> certificate or show it on your smartphone, and they don't give a toss.
> >
> > > Tell us how Australians are different from Israelis who have found the
> > > vaccinated catching covid more often and more violently than the
> > > non-vaccinated.
> > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
>
> In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.

A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study, but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things. As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95 mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved" when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air. Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks? The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.

You know what you idiot - one of the local wineries is owned by a couple of surgeons that work for Doctor's Without Borders and when I go up to purchase a case of wine from them we will sit around and get a good laugh out of the comments on masks from people like you. Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery. They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.

But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
> >
> > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
> A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,

Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:

"the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S.. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "

You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".

Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".

As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.

But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!

You've been duped tommy!

> but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.

True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.

Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

> As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95

Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"

> mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.

Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
"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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.

>
> Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.

Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?

> They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
>
> But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.

Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.

Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
> > >
> > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
> > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
> Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
>
> "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U..S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
>
> You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
>
> Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
>
> As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
>
> But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
> And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
> Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
>
> You've been duped tommy!
> > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
> True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
> Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
> Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host..
>
> Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
>
> https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
> Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
> > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
> Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
> "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
> >
> > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
> Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
> > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
> >
> > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
> Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
>
> Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.

Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere. I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results. As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?

Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?

As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon" or "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"

These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science. But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid..
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
> > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
> > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
> >
> > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
> >
> > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
> >
> > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
> >
> > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
> >
> > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
> > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
> > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
> >
> > You've been duped tommy!
> > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
> > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
> > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
> > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
> >
> > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
> >
> > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
> > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
> > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
> > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
> > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
> > >
> > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
> > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
> > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
> > >
> > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
> > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
> >
> > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
> Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere. I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results. As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?
>
> Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?
>
> As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon" or "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"
>
> These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science. But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.

For those who think that FuzzyWuzzy's reference might be in any way scientific - it STARTS by saying that "SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by inhalation of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe." People do not commonly "cough, sneeze, sing". They commonly talk and more commonly breath. And that makes the form of transmission NOT droplets of effluents from coughing or sneezing. But clouds of aerosols from breathing that hang in the air in clouds of virus particles. possibly for HOURS in inside areas with little ventilation or air motion. Masks have NO ABILITY to slow or stop aerosols. But to FuzzyWuzzy, that report is science. After all, the people that worked in medical science know nothing about it but hair salon operators do.

This is like talking to a cat, they don' t know what you're saying but they will scratch you anyway because they don't like the tone of your voice. Not to mention the absolute cowardice of doing it from a position of anonymity.

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:05:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> > > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> > > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
> > > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
> > > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
> > >
> > > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
> > >
> > > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
> > >
> > > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
> > >
> > > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
> > >
> > > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
> > > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
> > > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
> > >
> > > You've been duped tommy!
> > > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
> > > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
> > > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
> > > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
> > >
> > > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
> > >
> > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> > > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
> > > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
> > > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> > > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> > > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> > > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
> > > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
> > > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
> > > >
> > > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
> > > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
> > > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
> > > >
> > > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
> > > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
> > >
> > > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
> Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere.

Introspection is a good thing, sparky. Good to see you trying it.

> I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results.

I hate to point this out to you sparky, but I haven't offered an opinion here. I've proven that the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.

> As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?

Sure sparky, unlike you, I did my homework rather than pulling opinions out of my ass and claiming they were facts:
"the genomes of these 2 viruses differ in polarity and segmentation. Influenza virus is comprised of 8 single-stranded, negative-sense, viral RNA segments. SARS-CoV-2 has single-stranded, non-segmented, positive-sense, viral RNA"
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/July/COVID-19-and-the-Flu

Completely different RNA structure in a very different surface protein structure, with different propagation mechanisms. I guess in tommy world that equals "identical"

>
> Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?

You mean like claiming a link you posted is the latest CDC study proving that masks are ineffective against covid, when in reality it isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid ?

>
> As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon"
> "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"

It's a good thing for the rest of us that the CDC does. Other wise the death toll in the US would be a lot higher. It's also a good thing that the rest of us don't accept a meta study of 5-year-old data by a chinese college student at the university of hong kong as science that trumps the most recent CDC research.

>
> These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science.

These are the things that most of the world thinks of as science, sparky, especially the people who actually perform the work. I'm going to trust them a lot further than a cranky old bastard in a bicycle forum who can't be bothered to confirm his rants before dropping his pants and letting them plop into this forum.

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:27:54 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:05:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > > > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > > > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> > > > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> > > > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
> > > > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
> > > > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
> > > >
> > > > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
> > > >
> > > > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
> > > >
> > > > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
> > > >
> > > > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
> > > >
> > > > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
> > > > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
> > > > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
> > > >
> > > > You've been duped tommy!
> > > > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
> > > > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
> > > > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
> > > > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> > > > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
> > > > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
> > > > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> > > > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> > > > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> > > > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
> > > > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
> > > > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
> > > > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
> > > > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
> > > > >
> > > > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
> > > > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
> > > >
> > > > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
> > Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere.
> Introspection is a good thing, sparky. Good to see you trying it.
> > I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results.
> I hate to point this out to you sparky, but I haven't offered an opinion here. I've proven that the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.
> > As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?
> Sure sparky, unlike you, I did my homework rather than pulling opinions out of my ass and claiming they were facts:
> "the genomes of these 2 viruses differ in polarity and segmentation. Influenza virus is comprised of 8 single-stranded, negative-sense, viral RNA segments. SARS-CoV-2 has single-stranded, non-segmented, positive-sense, viral RNA"
> https://asm.org/Articles/2020/July/COVID-19-and-the-Flu
>
> Completely different RNA structure in a very different surface protein structure, with different propagation mechanisms. I guess in tommy world that equals "identical"
> >
> > Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?
> You mean like claiming a link you posted is the latest CDC study proving that masks are ineffective against covid, when in reality it isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid ?
> >
> > As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon"
> > "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"
> It's a good thing for the rest of us that the CDC does. Other wise the death toll in the US would be a lot higher. It's also a good thing that the rest of us don't accept a meta study of 5-year-old data by a chinese college student at the university of hong kong as science that trumps the most recent CDC research.
> >
> > These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science.
> These are the things that most of the world thinks of as science, sparky, especially the people who actually perform the work. I'm going to trust them a lot further than a cranky old bastard in a bicycle forum who can't be bothered to confirm his rants before dropping his pants and letting them plop into this forum.
> > But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.
> Yes, you are.
> > For those who think that FuzzyWuzzy's reference might be in any way scientific -
> > it STARTS by saying that "SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by inhalation
> > of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe."
> > People do not commonly "cough, sneeze, sing". They commonly talk and more commonly breath.
> > And that makes the form of transmission NOT droplets of effluents from coughing or sneezing.
> Sure, so beacuse talking is more common than coughing, sneezing and singing, that means infection by coughing, sneezing and singing isn't possible. Right.
> > But clouds of aerosols from breathing that hang in the air in clouds of virus particles.
> > possibly for HOURS in inside areas with little ventilation or air motion.
> > Masks have NO ABILITY to slow or stop aerosols.
> You missed this little tidbit, sparky "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"
>
> Another failing grade for reading comprehension for tommy.
> > But to FuzzyWuzzy, that report is science.
> > After all, the people that worked in medical science know nothing about it but hair salon operators do.
> Funny, I seemed to have missed the part where the hair salon employees conducted any research. Care to point it out?
> > This is like talking to a cat, they don' t know what you're saying but they will scratch you anyway because they don't like the tone of your voice..
> Yup, and the name of this cat is Sparky Kunich.
> > Not to mention the absolute cowardice of doing it from a position of anonymity.
> Relevance = none. You'll still be a raging ignorant arrogant narcissistic redneck asshole.

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:27:54 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:05:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail..com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > > > > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> > > > > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> > > > > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
> > > > > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
> > > > > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
> > > > >
> > > > > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
> > > > >
> > > > > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
> > > > >
> > > > > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
> > > > >
> > > > > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
> > > > > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
> > > > > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
> > > > >
> > > > > You've been duped tommy!
> > > > > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
> > > > > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
> > > > > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
> > > > > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> > > > > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
> > > > > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
> > > > > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> > > > > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> > > > > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> > > > > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
> > > > > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
> > > > > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
> > > > > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
> > > > > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
> > > > > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
> > > Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere.
> > Introspection is a good thing, sparky. Good to see you trying it.
> > > I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results.
> > I hate to point this out to you sparky, but I haven't offered an opinion here. I've proven that the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.
> > > As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?
> > Sure sparky, unlike you, I did my homework rather than pulling opinions out of my ass and claiming they were facts:
> > "the genomes of these 2 viruses differ in polarity and segmentation. Influenza virus is comprised of 8 single-stranded, negative-sense, viral RNA segments. SARS-CoV-2 has single-stranded, non-segmented, positive-sense, viral RNA"
> > https://asm.org/Articles/2020/July/COVID-19-and-the-Flu
> >
> > Completely different RNA structure in a very different surface protein structure, with different propagation mechanisms. I guess in tommy world that equals "identical"
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?
> > You mean like claiming a link you posted is the latest CDC study proving that masks are ineffective against covid, when in reality it isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid ?
> > >
> > > As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon"
> > > "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"
> > It's a good thing for the rest of us that the CDC does. Other wise the death toll in the US would be a lot higher. It's also a good thing that the rest of us don't accept a meta study of 5-year-old data by a chinese college student at the university of hong kong as science that trumps the most recent CDC research.
> > >
> > > These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science.
> > These are the things that most of the world thinks of as science, sparky, especially the people who actually perform the work. I'm going to trust them a lot further than a cranky old bastard in a bicycle forum who can't be bothered to confirm his rants before dropping his pants and letting them plop into this forum.
> > > But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.
> > Yes, you are.
> > > For those who think that FuzzyWuzzy's reference might be in any way scientific -
> > > it STARTS by saying that "SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by inhalation
> > > of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe."
> > > People do not commonly "cough, sneeze, sing". They commonly talk and more commonly breath.
> > > And that makes the form of transmission NOT droplets of effluents from coughing or sneezing.
> > Sure, so beacuse talking is more common than coughing, sneezing and singing, that means infection by coughing, sneezing and singing isn't possible.. Right.
> > > But clouds of aerosols from breathing that hang in the air in clouds of virus particles.
> > > possibly for HOURS in inside areas with little ventilation or air motion.
> > > Masks have NO ABILITY to slow or stop aerosols.
> > You missed this little tidbit, sparky "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"
> >
> > Another failing grade for reading comprehension for tommy.
> > > But to FuzzyWuzzy, that report is science.
> > > After all, the people that worked in medical science know nothing about it but hair salon operators do.
> > Funny, I seemed to have missed the part where the hair salon employees conducted any research. Care to point it out?
> > > This is like talking to a cat, they don' t know what you're saying but they will scratch you anyway because they don't like the tone of your voice.
> > Yup, and the name of this cat is Sparky Kunich.
> > > Not to mention the absolute cowardice of doing it from a position of anonymity.
> > Relevance = none. You'll still be a raging ignorant arrogant narcissistic redneck asshole.
>
> FuzzyWuzzy has to repeat things he read on the Internet because he actually knows nothing about it and hates anyone that does.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:27:54 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:05:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> > > > > > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> > > > > > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> > > > > > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial..
> > > > > > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
> > > > > > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest.. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
> > > > > > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
> > > > > > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've been duped tommy!
> > > > > > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
> > > > > > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> > > > > > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
> > > > > > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
> > > > > > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> > > > > > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> > > > > > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> > > > > > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
> > > > > > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
> > > > > > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
> > > > > > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
> > > > > > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
> > > > > > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
> > > > Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere.
> > > Introspection is a good thing, sparky. Good to see you trying it.
> > > > I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results.
> > > I hate to point this out to you sparky, but I haven't offered an opinion here. I've proven that the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.
> > > > As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?
> > > Sure sparky, unlike you, I did my homework rather than pulling opinions out of my ass and claiming they were facts:
> > > "the genomes of these 2 viruses differ in polarity and segmentation. Influenza virus is comprised of 8 single-stranded, negative-sense, viral RNA segments. SARS-CoV-2 has single-stranded, non-segmented, positive-sense, viral RNA"
> > > https://asm.org/Articles/2020/July/COVID-19-and-the-Flu
> > >
> > > Completely different RNA structure in a very different surface protein structure, with different propagation mechanisms. I guess in tommy world that equals "identical"
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?
> > > You mean like claiming a link you posted is the latest CDC study proving that masks are ineffective against covid, when in reality it isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid ?
> > > >
> > > > As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon"
> > > > "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"
> > > It's a good thing for the rest of us that the CDC does. Other wise the death toll in the US would be a lot higher. It's also a good thing that the rest of us don't accept a meta study of 5-year-old data by a chinese college student at the university of hong kong as science that trumps the most recent CDC research.
> > > >
> > > > These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science.
> > > These are the things that most of the world thinks of as science, sparky, especially the people who actually perform the work. I'm going to trust them a lot further than a cranky old bastard in a bicycle forum who can't be bothered to confirm his rants before dropping his pants and letting them plop into this forum.
> > > > But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.
> > > Yes, you are.
> > > > For those who think that FuzzyWuzzy's reference might be in any way scientific -
> > > > it STARTS by saying that "SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by inhalation
> > > > of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe."
> > > > People do not commonly "cough, sneeze, sing". They commonly talk and more commonly breath.
> > > > And that makes the form of transmission NOT droplets of effluents from coughing or sneezing.
> > > Sure, so beacuse talking is more common than coughing, sneezing and singing, that means infection by coughing, sneezing and singing isn't possible. Right.
> > > > But clouds of aerosols from breathing that hang in the air in clouds of virus particles.
> > > > possibly for HOURS in inside areas with little ventilation or air motion.
> > > > Masks have NO ABILITY to slow or stop aerosols.
> > > You missed this little tidbit, sparky "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"
> > >
> > > Another failing grade for reading comprehension for tommy.
> > > > But to FuzzyWuzzy, that report is science.
> > > > After all, the people that worked in medical science know nothing about it but hair salon operators do.
> > > Funny, I seemed to have missed the part where the hair salon employees conducted any research. Care to point it out?
> > > > This is like talking to a cat, they don' t know what you're saying but they will scratch you anyway because they don't like the tone of your voice.
> > > Yup, and the name of this cat is Sparky Kunich.
> > > > Not to mention the absolute cowardice of doing it from a position of anonymity.
> > > Relevance = none. You'll still be a raging ignorant arrogant narcissistic redneck asshole.
> >
> > FuzzyWuzzy has to repeat things he read on the Internet because he actually knows nothing about it and hates anyone that does.
> It's called citing a reference, sparky, something you might understand if you had ever finished high school. Even the study you keep referring to has supporting references. Making a statement without a supporting reference is little better than the shit you post here and are always proven wrong about.
> > He could argue with the person who wrote those studies if they posted here denying their validity.
> I didn't make the claim that the chinese study wasn't valid. It was well-researched and supported, giving credibility to the context of the study. Since your reading comprehension is so abysmal, here's a reminder of my criticism: the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was. The problem isn't with the study itself, the problem is that you don't understand that it doesn't prove what you think it does.
> > But a fool always shows himself
> Yes, by constantly repeating false claims, deflecting, then resorting to insults when you have no ability to counter the fact that you've been proven wrong.
> > and he is painted in iridescent orange.
> Quite true: https://www.healthing.ca/wellness/the-orange-face-trump-may-be-doing-it-wrong/
You cite what is called "self reporting and non-peer reviewed" crap and call it truth. I actually cite the real CDC numbers and review of all real peer reviewed studies and you call that lies and distortions. At your age I doubt that you will ever change and grow a brain. If you haven't by now you don't have anything to grow.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:27:54 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:05:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
>> > > > > > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
>> > > > > > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
>> > > > > > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
>> > > > > > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
>> > > > > > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
>> > > > > > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
>> > > > > > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You've been duped tommy!
>> > > > > > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
>> > > > > > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
>> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
>> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
>> > > > > > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
>> > > > > > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
>> > > > > > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
>> > > > > > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
>> > > > > > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
>> > > > > > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
>> > > > > > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
>> > > > > > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
>> > > > > > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
>> > > > > > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
>> > > > > > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
>> > > > Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere.
>> > > Introspection is a good thing, sparky. Good to see you trying it.
>> > > > I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results.
>> > > I hate to point this out to you sparky, but I haven't offered an opinion here. I've proven that the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.
>> > > > As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?
>> > > Sure sparky, unlike you, I did my homework rather than pulling opinions out of my ass and claiming they were facts:
>> > > "the genomes of these 2 viruses differ in polarity and segmentation. Influenza virus is comprised of 8 single-stranded, negative-sense, viral RNA segments. SARS-CoV-2 has single-stranded, non-segmented, positive-sense, viral RNA"
>> > > https://asm.org/Articles/2020/July/COVID-19-and-the-Flu
>> > >
>> > > Completely different RNA structure in a very different surface protein structure, with different propagation mechanisms. I guess in tommy world that equals "identical"
>> > > >
>> > > > Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?
>> > > You mean like claiming a link you posted is the latest CDC study proving that masks are ineffective against covid, when in reality it isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid ?
>> > > >
>> > > > As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon"
>> > > > "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"
>> > > It's a good thing for the rest of us that the CDC does. Other wise the death toll in the US would be a lot higher. It's also a good thing that the rest of us don't accept a meta study of 5-year-old data by a chinese college student at the university of hong kong as science that trumps the most recent CDC research.
>> > > >
>> > > > These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science.
>> > > These are the things that most of the world thinks of as science, sparky, especially the people who actually perform the work. I'm going to trust them a lot further than a cranky old bastard in a bicycle forum who can't be bothered to confirm his rants before dropping his pants and letting them plop into this forum.
>> > > > But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.
>> > > Yes, you are.
>> > > > For those who think that FuzzyWuzzy's reference might be in any way scientific -
>> > > > it STARTS by saying that "SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by inhalation
>> > > > of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe."
>> > > > People do not commonly "cough, sneeze, sing". They commonly talk and more commonly breath.
>> > > > And that makes the form of transmission NOT droplets of effluents from coughing or sneezing.
>> > > Sure, so beacuse talking is more common than coughing, sneezing and singing, that means infection by coughing, sneezing and singing isn't possible. Right.
>> > > > But clouds of aerosols from breathing that hang in the air in clouds of virus particles.
>> > > > possibly for HOURS in inside areas with little ventilation or air motion.
>> > > > Masks have NO ABILITY to slow or stop aerosols.
>> > > You missed this little tidbit, sparky "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"
>> > >
>> > > Another failing grade for reading comprehension for tommy.
>> > > > But to FuzzyWuzzy, that report is science.
>> > > > After all, the people that worked in medical science know nothing about it but hair salon operators do.
>> > > Funny, I seemed to have missed the part where the hair salon employees conducted any research. Care to point it out?
>> > > > This is like talking to a cat, they don' t know what you're saying but they will scratch you anyway because they don't like the tone of your voice.
>> > > Yup, and the name of this cat is Sparky Kunich.
>> > > > Not to mention the absolute cowardice of doing it from a position of anonymity.
>> > > Relevance = none. You'll still be a raging ignorant arrogant narcissistic redneck asshole.
>> >
>> > FuzzyWuzzy has to repeat things he read on the Internet because he actually knows nothing about it and hates anyone that does.
>> It's called citing a reference, sparky, something you might understand if you had ever finished high school. Even the study you keep referring to has supporting references. Making a statement without a supporting reference is little better than the shit you post here and are always proven wrong about.
>> > He could argue with the person who wrote those studies if they posted here denying their validity.
>> I didn't make the claim that the chinese study wasn't valid. It was well-researched and supported, giving credibility to the context of the study. Since your reading comprehension is so abysmal, here's a reminder of my criticism: the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was. The problem isn't with the study itself, the problem is that you don't understand that it doesn't prove what you think it does.
>> > But a fool always shows himself
>> Yes, by constantly repeating false claims, deflecting, then resorting to insults when you have no ability to counter the fact that you've been proven wrong.
>> > and he is painted in iridescent orange.
>> Quite true: https://www.healthing.ca/wellness/the-orange-face-trump-may-be-doing-it-wrong/
>You cite what is called "self reporting and non-peer reviewed" crap and call it truth. I actually cite the real CDC numbers and review of all real peer reviewed studies and you call that lies and distortions. At your age I doubt that you will ever change and grow a brain. If you haven't by now you don't have anything to grow.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:28:07 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:27:54 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:05:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma....@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
> >> > > > > > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
> >> > > > > > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
> >> > > > > > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
> >> > > > > > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
> >> > > > > > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
> >> > > > > > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
> >> > > > > > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > You've been duped tommy!
> >> > > > > > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
> >> > > > > > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
> >> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
> >> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> >> > > > > > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
> >> > > > > > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
> >> > > > > > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
> >> > > > > > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
> >> > > > > > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
> >> > > > > > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
> >> > > > > > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
> >> > > > > > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
> >> > > > > > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
> >> > > > > > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool..
> >> > > > > > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
> >> > > > Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere.
> >> > > Introspection is a good thing, sparky. Good to see you trying it.
> >> > > > I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results.
> >> > > I hate to point this out to you sparky, but I haven't offered an opinion here. I've proven that the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.
> >> > > > As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?
> >> > > Sure sparky, unlike you, I did my homework rather than pulling opinions out of my ass and claiming they were facts:
> >> > > "the genomes of these 2 viruses differ in polarity and segmentation. Influenza virus is comprised of 8 single-stranded, negative-sense, viral RNA segments. SARS-CoV-2 has single-stranded, non-segmented, positive-sense, viral RNA"
> >> > > https://asm.org/Articles/2020/July/COVID-19-and-the-Flu
> >> > >
> >> > > Completely different RNA structure in a very different surface protein structure, with different propagation mechanisms. I guess in tommy world that equals "identical"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?
> >> > > You mean like claiming a link you posted is the latest CDC study proving that masks are ineffective against covid, when in reality it isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon"
> >> > > > "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"
> >> > > It's a good thing for the rest of us that the CDC does. Other wise the death toll in the US would be a lot higher. It's also a good thing that the rest of us don't accept a meta study of 5-year-old data by a chinese college student at the university of hong kong as science that trumps the most recent CDC research.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science.
> >> > > These are the things that most of the world thinks of as science, sparky, especially the people who actually perform the work. I'm going to trust them a lot further than a cranky old bastard in a bicycle forum who can't be bothered to confirm his rants before dropping his pants and letting them plop into this forum.
> >> > > > But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.
> >> > > Yes, you are.
> >> > > > For those who think that FuzzyWuzzy's reference might be in any way scientific -
> >> > > > it STARTS by saying that "SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by inhalation
> >> > > > of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe."
> >> > > > People do not commonly "cough, sneeze, sing". They commonly talk and more commonly breath.
> >> > > > And that makes the form of transmission NOT droplets of effluents from coughing or sneezing.
> >> > > Sure, so beacuse talking is more common than coughing, sneezing and singing, that means infection by coughing, sneezing and singing isn't possible. Right.
> >> > > > But clouds of aerosols from breathing that hang in the air in clouds of virus particles.
> >> > > > possibly for HOURS in inside areas with little ventilation or air motion.
> >> > > > Masks have NO ABILITY to slow or stop aerosols.
> >> > > You missed this little tidbit, sparky "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"
> >> > >
> >> > > Another failing grade for reading comprehension for tommy.
> >> > > > But to FuzzyWuzzy, that report is science.
> >> > > > After all, the people that worked in medical science know nothing about it but hair salon operators do.
> >> > > Funny, I seemed to have missed the part where the hair salon employees conducted any research. Care to point it out?
> >> > > > This is like talking to a cat, they don' t know what you're saying but they will scratch you anyway because they don't like the tone of your voice.
> >> > > Yup, and the name of this cat is Sparky Kunich.
> >> > > > Not to mention the absolute cowardice of doing it from a position of anonymity.
> >> > > Relevance = none. You'll still be a raging ignorant arrogant narcissistic redneck asshole.
> >> >
> >> > FuzzyWuzzy has to repeat things he read on the Internet because he actually knows nothing about it and hates anyone that does.
> >> It's called citing a reference, sparky, something you might understand if you had ever finished high school. Even the study you keep referring to has supporting references. Making a statement without a supporting reference is little better than the shit you post here and are always proven wrong about.
> >> > He could argue with the person who wrote those studies if they posted here denying their validity.
> >> I didn't make the claim that the chinese study wasn't valid. It was well-researched and supported, giving credibility to the context of the study.. Since your reading comprehension is so abysmal, here's a reminder of my criticism: the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was. The problem isn't with the study itself, the problem is that you don't understand that it doesn't prove what you think it does.
> >> > But a fool always shows himself
> >> Yes, by constantly repeating false claims, deflecting, then resorting to insults when you have no ability to counter the fact that you've been proven wrong.
> >> > and he is painted in iridescent orange.
> >> Quite true: https://www.healthing.ca/wellness/the-orange-face-trump-may-be-doing-it-wrong/
> >You cite what is called "self reporting and non-peer reviewed" crap and call it truth. I actually cite the real CDC numbers and review of all real peer reviewed studies and you call that lies and distortions. At your age I doubt that you will ever change and grow a brain. If you haven't by now you don't have anything to grow.
> Ah, but Tommy, can we believe you? After all you seem so inconsistent.
> I came across a site, just yesterday, where you claimed to have
> graduated from High School in 1962 while right here on RBT you first
> claimed to Not to have graduated, and then after Frank had mentioned a
> GED test you claimed to have taken that test.
> You claimed to have joined the Air Force and in proof mentioned two
> commands in which you served which, upon checking, were found to never
> have existed. Then we have your claim of creeping around in the bomb
> bay of a flying B-52 while at a later date you claim to have been an
> assistant to another fellow on the ready line and made repairs that
> even the "stars" couldn't accomplished. One can only assume that after
> making your repairs that you flapped your wings and flew away to join
> "your" bomber somewhere over the Pacific Ocean.
>
> In short Tommy, you do appear to exhibit certain inconsistencies.
> Perhaps remembering to take your medicine will relieve your dementia
> to the extent that you can, at least, appear rational.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 17:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:28:07 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:27:54 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:05:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:44:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, News 2021 wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > Lol, once again (I score all the points for skewering silly little tommies
>> >> > > > > > > > > claims. I'd link a graph, but you clearly can not read one.
>> >> > > > > > > > It's likely he would read that chart the same way he reads any other chart - by completely distorting the the data and the intent. We can recall how he was trotting out a years-old mask study, claiming it was "the CDCs own data showing that masks are ineffective against covid". Never mind the fact that it was a meta study done by a chinese undergrad at hong kong university (published by the CDC, not the CDCs own research), in which the newest data reviewed was from 2015 and it was looking at influenza, not covid.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > In the case of the Israeli infections, he'll willingly ignore the fact that the demographics for the vaccinated skews extremely
>> >> > > > > > > > to seniors, so break-through infection cases are more likely to be much more severe and more frequent than in an vaccinated millennial.
>> >> > > > > > > A "year old mask study"? That was the LATEST approved CDC study,
>> >> > > > > > Not only was it not a "cdc approved" study, it isn't the latest. There's even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > "the conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. "
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > You should really read these links before you post them. It was actually a metastudy of some previous studies, the latest of which was in 2016, and focused on influenza, not Covid. Even the title of the study states "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings".
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Influenza, sparky, not Covid. Data from 2016 studies, not "the latest".
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > As far as "cdc approved", the EID section of the website isn't a repository for CDC approved research, it's a publication in a journal. The study was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. The cdc had nothing to do with the study, other than agreeing to publish it.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > But wait, there's more! You know how we absolutely _love_ it when you rail against how the evil demoncrats are allowing the chinese to take over the country?
>> >> > > > > > And you know how we love it when you rail against college edumacated folk being worthless?
>> >> > > > > > Well guess what? The study you linked is by Jingyi Xiao, a postgraduate student at the School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China - a post-grad _student_, not even a real doctor!
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > You've been duped tommy!
>> >> > > > > > > but then morons don't usually understand these sorts of things.
>> >> > > > > > True, morons like you don't understand that a study released in may of 2021 is newer than a study released in may of 2020.
>> >> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that a study titled "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings" doesn't address the spread of covid.
>> >> > > > > > Morons like you don't understand that there is a difference between a study approved by the CDC and a study published in a medical journal they host.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Here's the _real_ latest study, Sponsored by the CDC, and addressing the spread of covid, not ythat you'd understand any of it:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
>> >> > > > > > > As we know, masks have been SOOO improved over the last year. For instance - you can hardly even buy an N95
>> >> > > > > > Guess what else sparky, this chinese study that you love so much doesn't address the effectiveness of N95 masks except to state "N95 and P2 masks can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency"
>> >> > > > > > > mask because even hospitals can't even get them since people like you seem to think them "new and improved"
>> >> > > > > > > when the pores through which you breath HAVE to remain the same size to allow the passage of breathing air.
>> >> > > > > > > Or maybe you think that the 30 nm size of the virus has changed improving the performance of masks?
>> >> > > > > > > The difference in size remains the 200 times between pores and virus.
>> >> > > > > > Which wold make a difference if you understood anything at all about virus transmission vehicles. Here's a quote from the _real_ study:
>> >> > > > > > "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 up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Masks don't even prevent bacterial diseases and it was decided that you didn't even need masks in a surgery.
>> >> > > > > > Decided by whom? Or is that another brain dropping you pulled out of your ass like you claim that Pelosi said she was going to cut veterans benefits?
>> >> > > > > > > They are only worn to prevent distraction of the surgeon from spray from an open wound.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > But that study was, after all, a year old you idiotic fool.
>> >> > > > > > Yup, it was a year old. Not the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Still laughing _at_ you, sparky.
>> >> > > > Speaking to a moron like you is getting nowhere.
>> >> > > Introspection is a good thing, sparky. Good to see you trying it.
>> >> > > > I hate to point this out to you but the RESULTS of a study DOESN'T HAVE TO BE your opinion for the results to be the results.
>> >> > > I hate to point this out to you sparky, but I haven't offered an opinion here. I've proven that the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.
>> >> > > > As for "not even covid" Tell us what the difference is between an influenza virus which is a corona virus and the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus which is identical except for the theorized spike proteins?
>> >> > > Sure sparky, unlike you, I did my homework rather than pulling opinions out of my ass and claiming they were facts:
>> >> > > "the genomes of these 2 viruses differ in polarity and segmentation. Influenza virus is comprised of 8 single-stranded, negative-sense, viral RNA segments. SARS-CoV-2 has single-stranded, non-segmented, positive-sense, viral RNA"
>> >> > > https://asm.org/Articles/2020/July/COVID-19-and-the-Flu
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Completely different RNA structure in a very different surface protein structure, with different propagation mechanisms. I guess in tommy world that equals "identical"
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Perhaps you can explain that when you know nothing about nothing you go to such great lengths to convince yourself that your position is correct?
>> >> > > You mean like claiming a link you posted is the latest CDC study proving that masks are ineffective against covid, when in reality it isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid ?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > As for that supposed CDC study? We don't accept things like "2 symptomatically infected stylists and 139 patrons of a hair salon"
>> >> > > > "374,021 persons who completed web-based surveys. Self-reported mask wearing in grocery stores and in the homes of family or friends"
>> >> > > It's a good thing for the rest of us that the CDC does. Other wise the death toll in the US would be a lot higher. It's also a good thing that the rest of us don't accept a meta study of 5-year-old data by a chinese college student at the university of hong kong as science that trumps the most recent CDC research.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > These are the sorts of things you actually think of as science.
>> >> > > These are the things that most of the world thinks of as science, sparky, especially the people who actually perform the work. I'm going to trust them a lot further than a cranky old bastard in a bicycle forum who can't be bothered to confirm his rants before dropping his pants and letting them plop into this forum.
>> >> > > > But then once a fool, always a fool, moron.
>> >> > > Yes, you are.
>> >> > > > For those who think that FuzzyWuzzy's reference might be in any way scientific -
>> >> > > > it STARTS by saying that "SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by inhalation
>> >> > > > of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe."
>> >> > > > People do not commonly "cough, sneeze, sing". They commonly talk and more commonly breath.
>> >> > > > And that makes the form of transmission NOT droplets of effluents from coughing or sneezing.
>> >> > > Sure, so beacuse talking is more common than coughing, sneezing and singing, that means infection by coughing, sneezing and singing isn't possible. Right.
>> >> > > > But clouds of aerosols from breathing that hang in the air in clouds of virus particles.
>> >> > > > possibly for HOURS in inside areas with little ventilation or air motion.
>> >> > > > Masks have NO ABILITY to slow or stop aerosols.
>> >> > > You missed this little tidbit, sparky "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"
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Another failing grade for reading comprehension for tommy.
>> >> > > > But to FuzzyWuzzy, that report is science.
>> >> > > > After all, the people that worked in medical science know nothing about it but hair salon operators do.
>> >> > > Funny, I seemed to have missed the part where the hair salon employees conducted any research. Care to point it out?
>> >> > > > This is like talking to a cat, they don' t know what you're saying but they will scratch you anyway because they don't like the tone of your voice.
>> >> > > Yup, and the name of this cat is Sparky Kunich.
>> >> > > > Not to mention the absolute cowardice of doing it from a position of anonymity.
>> >> > > Relevance = none. You'll still be a raging ignorant arrogant narcissistic redneck asshole.
>> >> >
>> >> > FuzzyWuzzy has to repeat things he read on the Internet because he actually knows nothing about it and hates anyone that does.
>> >> It's called citing a reference, sparky, something you might understand if you had ever finished high school. Even the study you keep referring to has supporting references. Making a statement without a supporting reference is little better than the shit you post here and are always proven wrong about.
>> >> > He could argue with the person who wrote those studies if they posted here denying their validity.
>> >> I didn't make the claim that the chinese study wasn't valid. It was well-researched and supported, giving credibility to the context of the study. Since your reading comprehension is so abysmal, here's a reminder of my criticism: the study you linked isn't the latest, not a CDC study, not reviewing N95 masks, and not reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was. The problem isn't with the study itself, the problem is that you don't understand that it doesn't prove what you think it does.
>> >> > But a fool always shows himself
>> >> Yes, by constantly repeating false claims, deflecting, then resorting to insults when you have no ability to counter the fact that you've been proven wrong.
>> >> > and he is painted in iridescent orange.
>> >> Quite true: https://www.healthing.ca/wellness/the-orange-face-trump-may-be-doing-it-wrong/
>> >You cite what is called "self reporting and non-peer reviewed" crap and call it truth. I actually cite the real CDC numbers and review of all real peer reviewed studies and you call that lies and distortions. At your age I doubt that you will ever change and grow a brain. If you haven't by now you don't have anything to grow.
>> Ah, but Tommy, can we believe you? After all you seem so inconsistent.
>> I came across a site, just yesterday, where you claimed to have
>> graduated from High School in 1962 while right here on RBT you first
>> claimed to Not to have graduated, and then after Frank had mentioned a
>> GED test you claimed to have taken that test.
>> You claimed to have joined the Air Force and in proof mentioned two
>> commands in which you served which, upon checking, were found to never
>> have existed. Then we have your claim of creeping around in the bomb
>> bay of a flying B-52 while at a later date you claim to have been an
>> assistant to another fellow on the ready line and made repairs that
>> even the "stars" couldn't accomplished. One can only assume that after
>> making your repairs that you flapped your wings and flew away to join
>> "your" bomber somewhere over the Pacific Ocean.
>>
>> In short Tommy, you do appear to exhibit certain inconsistencies.
>> Perhaps remembering to take your medicine will relieve your dementia
>> to the extent that you can, at least, appear rational.
>
>So you don't seem able to get anything right do you? I'm just this poor little uneducated person who worked for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, NASA, and dozens of other places. No education and yet I was making a quarter million a year, when that was real money. So poorly educated that one of my managers on a recommendation said that we couldn't have finished a project without me - the project that helped rid the world of AIDS.
>
>It must really pain you to see an Airman 2nd make you look like the POS you are. By the way - you never answered the question - what do you think that HE is?

On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 17:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm just this poor little uneducated person who worked for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, NASA, and dozens of other places.

Dozens? I thought it was 14 pages of employment history that
mysteriously disappeared in an unrecoverable computer crash?

I notice that you made some changes to your online resume and that you
now know the correct names for LLL and LBL. Oddly, LLL, LBL, NASA,
and those dozens of former employers fail to appear on your online
resume at:
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
Could you kindly explain why?

>No education and yet I was making a quarter million a year, when
>that was real money.

I'm not sure about when you worked for these companies, but during
that 1970's, a quarter million per year was probably the salary of the
company or organization president.

>So poorly educated that one of my managers on a recommendation
>said that we couldn't have finished a project without me - the
>project that helped rid the world of AIDS.

Which manager was that and where does it appear on your rather amazing
collection of Skills & Endorsements and Recommendations?
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
Also, that's rather interesting collection of people who recommend or
endorse your abilities. A tutor, who looks reputable, but I have my
doubts about a sports CEO who endorsed you in 16 areas, a dentist, a
land surveyor, a family law litigator, etc. In your area of
expertise, which seems to be firmware, you have 9 endorsements, most
of which appear to be genuine co-workers or customers. However, I
would expect better from someone who saved the world from AIDS.

I was wondering what it might take to obtain your military records
from the NPRC.
<https://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records>
Not too horrible except that they reduced staffing about 2 months ago
and are only doing emergency requests. Also, I cannot request service
records on anyone who left the service less than 62 years ago (1959).
Your resume shows that you were at Lowry AFB 1965-1966, so I'll need
to wait about 7 more years and until full staffing returns.

Looks like some of your eBay items have sold:
<https://www.ebay.com/sch/tomk37/m.html?LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1>
with 100% positive feedback. However, it also appears that you've
already spent the proceeds on 8 bicycle items in the past month:
<https://www.ebay.com/fdbk/feedback_profile/tomk37?lb=1>
Anyway, congrats on the sales and the 100% positive feedback.

[30 mins wasted, but 15 mins reading through the archive.gov site
proved to be interesting]

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:35:50 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> You cite what is called "self reporting and non-peer reviewed" crap and call it truth.

I cited a CDC meta study. It is the latest CDC study reviewing the efficacy of mask wearing in the context of covid transmission. It was fully peer-reviewed before publication. Where you got the idea it wasn't peer-reviewed was probably the same place you got the idea that pelosi is going to cut veterans benefits - your ass.

> I actually cite the real CDC numbers

No, you didn't. You cited a meta study by a chinese college student, of which none of the individual studies were done by the CDC, and most of those were 'self-reported'. The CDC had nothing to do with the chinese study.

> and review of all real peer reviewed studies

There's no information in either of those that suggest one was more peer reviewed than the other. We do know this: you claimed the chinese study was the latest CDC study showing that masks are ineffective against covid. One more time since you really aren't getting it: it isn't the latest, it isn't a CDC study, it isn't reviewing N95 masks, and it isn't reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.

> and you call that lies and distortions.

No, I very clearly stated there wasn't any thing wrong with the chinese study. I said your interpretation of it was lies and distortions. I know this concept is a bit subtle for you to grasp with your limited intellect.

> At your age I doubt that you will ever change and grow a brain. If you haven't by now you don't have anything to grow.

And where does that leave you sparky? making blatant lies, and even after proven wrong sticking with those lies? Seriously, There's only one person here who is showing seriously deficient mental capacity, and that person is in your mirror.

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 5:41:13 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:35:50 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > You cite what is called "self reporting and non-peer reviewed" crap and call it truth.
> I cited a CDC meta study. It is the latest CDC study reviewing the efficacy of mask wearing in the context of covid transmission. It was fully peer-reviewed before publication. Where you got the idea it wasn't peer-reviewed was probably the same place you got the idea that pelosi is going to cut veterans benefits - your ass.
> > I actually cite the real CDC numbers
> No, you didn't. You cited a meta study by a chinese college student, of which none of the individual studies were done by the CDC, and most of those were 'self-reported'. The CDC had nothing to do with the chinese study.
> > and review of all real peer reviewed studies
> There's no information in either of those that suggest one was more peer reviewed than the other. We do know this: you claimed the chinese study was the latest CDC study showing that masks are ineffective against covid. One more time since you really aren't getting it: it isn't the latest, it isn't a CDC study, it isn't reviewing N95 masks, and it isn't reviewing Covid - all of which you claimed it was.
> > and you call that lies and distortions.
> No, I very clearly stated there wasn't any thing wrong with the chinese study. I said your interpretation of it was lies and distortions. I know this concept is a bit subtle for you to grasp with your limited intellect.
> > At your age I doubt that you will ever change and grow a brain. If you haven't by now you don't have anything to grow.
> And where does that leave you sparky? making blatant lies, and even after proven wrong sticking with those lies? Seriously, There's only one person here who is showing seriously deficient mental capacity, and that person is in your mirror.

FuzzyWuzzy thinks that he can say things and they automatically become true.. That is the ways and means of the radical left. It is rapidly falling apart as the graduating classes realize that under management of the radical left they have NO future. Sooner or later those 360 Million guns in the USA are going to be used on you.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 9:19:29 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 17:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm just this poor little uneducated person who worked for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, NASA, and dozens of other places.
> Dozens? I thought it was 14 pages of employment history that
> mysteriously disappeared in an unrecoverable computer crash?
>
> I notice that you made some changes to your online resume and that you
> now know the correct names for LLL and LBL. Oddly, LLL, LBL, NASA,
> and those dozens of former employers fail to appear on your online
> resume at:
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
> Could you kindly explain why?
> >No education and yet I was making a quarter million a year, when
> >that was real money.
> I'm not sure about when you worked for these companies, but during
> that 1970's, a quarter million per year was probably the salary of the
> company or organization president.
> >So poorly educated that one of my managers on a recommendation
> >said that we couldn't have finished a project without me - the
> >project that helped rid the world of AIDS.
> Which manager was that and where does it appear on your rather amazing
> collection of Skills & Endorsements and Recommendations?
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
> Also, that's rather interesting collection of people who recommend or
> endorse your abilities. A tutor, who looks reputable, but I have my
> doubts about a sports CEO who endorsed you in 16 areas, a dentist, a
> land surveyor, a family law litigator, etc. In your area of
> expertise, which seems to be firmware, you have 9 endorsements, most
> of which appear to be genuine co-workers or customers. However, I
> would expect better from someone who saved the world from AIDS.
>
> I was wondering what it might take to obtain your military records
> from the NPRC.
> <https://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records>
> Not too horrible except that they reduced staffing about 2 months ago
> and are only doing emergency requests. Also, I cannot request service
> records on anyone who left the service less than 62 years ago (1959).
> Your resume shows that you were at Lowry AFB 1965-1966, so I'll need
> to wait about 7 more years and until full staffing returns.
>
> Looks like some of your eBay items have sold:
> <https://www.ebay.com/sch/tomk37/m.html?LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1>
> with 100% positive feedback. However, it also appears that you've
> already spent the proceeds on 8 bicycle items in the past month:
> <https://www.ebay.com/fdbk/feedback_profile/tomk37?lb=1>
> Anyway, congrats on the sales and the 100% positive feedback.
>
> [30 mins wasted, but 15 mins reading through the archive.gov site
> proved to be interesting]

Tell me Jeff, when was the last time you even looked at a bicycle?

On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 09:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 9:19:29 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 17:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm just this poor little uneducated person who worked for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, NASA, and dozens of other places.
>> Dozens? I thought it was 14 pages of employment history that
>> mysteriously disappeared in an unrecoverable computer crash?
>>
>> I notice that you made some changes to your online resume and that you
>> now know the correct names for LLL and LBL. Oddly, LLL, LBL, NASA,
>> and those dozens of former employers fail to appear on your online
>> resume at:
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
>> Could you kindly explain why?

>> >No education and yet I was making a quarter million a year, when
>> >that was real money.

>> I'm not sure about when you worked for these companies, but during
>> that 1970's, a quarter million per year was probably the salary of the
>> company or organization president.
>> >So poorly educated that one of my managers on a recommendation
>> >said that we couldn't have finished a project without me - the
>> >project that helped rid the world of AIDS.
>> Which manager was that and where does it appear on your rather amazing
>> collection of Skills & Endorsements and Recommendations?
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
>> Also, that's rather interesting collection of people who recommend or
>> endorse your abilities. A tutor, who looks reputable, but I have my
>> doubts about a sports CEO who endorsed you in 16 areas, a dentist, a
>> land surveyor, a family law litigator, etc. In your area of
>> expertise, which seems to be firmware, you have 9 endorsements, most
>> of which appear to be genuine co-workers or customers. However, I
>> would expect better from someone who saved the world from AIDS.
>>
>> I was wondering what it might take to obtain your military records
>> from the NPRC.
>> <https://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records>
>> Not too horrible except that they reduced staffing about 2 months ago
>> and are only doing emergency requests. Also, I cannot request service
>> records on anyone who left the service less than 62 years ago (1959).
>> Your resume shows that you were at Lowry AFB 1965-1966, so I'll need
>> to wait about 7 more years and until full staffing returns.
>>
>> Looks like some of your eBay items have sold:
>> <https://www.ebay.com/sch/tomk37/m.html?LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1>
>> with 100% positive feedback. However, it also appears that you've
>> already spent the proceeds on 8 bicycle items in the past month:
>> <https://www.ebay.com/fdbk/feedback_profile/tomk37?lb=1>
>> Anyway, congrats on the sales and the 100% positive feedback.
>>
>> [30 mins wasted, but 15 mins reading through the archive.gov site
>> proved to be interesting]

>Tell me Jeff, when was the last time you even looked at a bicycle?

Nice change of topic. About 30 minutes ago. My mountain bike:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Gary-Fisher-Tassajara.JPG>
is currently blocking a doorway and I'm debating the relative merits
of several places to move it. I can provide current photos and
additional information if you find it useful for explaining why you
didn't bother including NASA, LLL, LBL and 14 pages of prior employers
in your online resume. It would also be helpful if you would disclose
which company paid you $250,000/year and approximately in what year.

I don't think I could cram enough years in between companies on your
employment history to allow for adding even a tiny number of jobs,
much less 14 pages of employers. Even if the lost 14 pages contained
one job per page, there's no room for 14 years, much less 14 months,
of employment. Your current resume shows 13 former employers. Between
when you left the USAF in 1966(?) and your most recent employment in
2014 are 48 years. Subtract 3 years for a head injury and you would
have 45 years available for employment. Dividing by 13 former
employers yields 3.5 years average per employer. Adding NASA, LLL,
and LBL for a total of 16 employers yields 2.8 years average per
employer. Adding the 14 lost pages of former employers yields:
45 / (13 + 14) = 1.7 year average per employer.
Unless there was some error in my estimates or you held two jobs at
the same time, a history of so many short duration jobs are not
indicative of an engineer who is allegedly paid $250,000/year.

[30 minutes wasted on keeping Tom entertained]

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558