-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
US CDC Says Wearing Double Mask Reduce COVID by 95%. Sam Leong very Angry, Red Faced
- Thread starter Kraken
- Start date
When the admin himself wrote that he’s a high order twit, those that believe what he has written can walk around Singapore mask less at their own peril lor. So many infos/propaganda on the internet, choose and react wisely.LOL! I see the ADMIN is at it again, trying very hard to lie and spread misinformation. What a sore loser
So when there was a shortage Fauci was willing to lie and risk the lives of millions by saying something that was not true? Why didn't he just explain the shortage and urge everyone to stay away from each other while "essential" mask production was being ramped up.
Not only did he say they don't work. He went to talk about people touching their faces and making things worse.
This so called "explanation" of his initial advice regarding masks does nothing more than prove that he says what he is told to say depending upon the circumstances.
If masks work then the data from the ground will illustrate this fact.
Who's the liar now?
Deaths per 100,000 population | |
| 134.97 |
| 152.24 |
| 119.87 |
| 84.9 |
| 75.98 |
| 171.56 |
| 38.72 |
| 12.74 |
| 10.97 |
| 119.69 |
As you can see there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between mask use and covid outcomes.
Sweden is the WORST performing of all the countries with low mask usage and yet the death rate is still way better than countries like Spain, Italy, UK and on par with France which has a high compliance rate to the mask mandate.
View attachment 103563
134.97 152.24 119.87 84.9 75.98 171.56 38.72 12.74 10.97 119.69
As you can see there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between mask use and covid outcomes.
Sweden is the WORST performing of all the countries with low mask usage and yet the death rate is still way better than countries like Spain, Italy, UK and on par with France which has a high compliance rate to the mask mandate.
Dude your forum is like out of control. It used to be really good, with chinks cant drive, ginfreely etc but now all you have here is real cuckoos, Q-anon, and then you are like racing to the bottom of the pile with this mask and dont trust the vaccine crap.
Some of us actually have brains, not all of us are spastic, you know? I mean Q-anon? Seriously?
Just saying.
It's not up to me. The users make it what it is.
Wreckage upon wreckage, lie upon lie | The Conservative Woman
By Daniel Miller
8-10 minutes
In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State – Solzhenitsyn
IN A healthy society the publication of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that lockdowns have no clear positive effect on reducing mortality from SARS2-COVID19, along with irrefutable evidence from Sweden, Japan, Florida, South Dakota, Mexico, Belarus and elsewhere that lockdowns are unnecessary would lead to the immediate cessation of this catastrophically destructive policy, just as evidence that wearing masks has no clear positive effect would have led to the cessation of this shameful assault on human dignity.
The fact that this has not occurred in either case, or even been considered, shows that whatever logic is driving UK government policies it cannot be a reasonable concern for public health, nor is it based on science.
What then is the logic? Since at least May last year, by which point it was clear that initial claims about the lethality of the virus had been wildly exaggerated, the same question of madness or conspiracy has exercised the minds of everyone who refuses to stop thinking for themself.
Evidently both panic and incompetence, on the one hand, and sociopathic opportunism on the other are involved to some degree; the question is their relative proportions. Who is the conductor of this orchestra, and who is only following the score?
The central role of China was anatomised by Michael Senger in a forensic article published in Tablet last year. As Senger notes, the policy of lockdown, never implemented in any previous pandemic, was in effect invented by the Chinese Communist Party in January 2020. It was then pushed in the West by online botnets and China-friendly institutions including the World Health Organisation and Imperial College London, not to mention Anthony Fauci, the American medical bureaucrat involved in commissioning ‘gain of function’ research on coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab from which SARS2-COVID19 probably emerged.
For the CCP, weakening American and therefore Western influence is a logical objective in itself given their geopolitical ambitions. The problem is that this aim is shared inside the United States by the globalist coalition which controls the Democratic Party and its clients.
For them, lockdowns facilitated the destruction of a booming Trump economy which had produced the first downward transfer of wealth in America in this century, and sent it back towards their oligarch backers. At the same time, it allowed the Democrats to institute a new voting system, which they used to install Biden in the White House.
The importance of vaccine capitalist Bill Gates, who last October organised the pandemic simulation exercise Event 201, and who financially backs all the key players pushing for lockdowns and vaccines, awaits a systematic exposition, but his economic motives are relatively clear. A genius at creating monopolies, Gates once boasted of the huge returns his investments in global health have produced: ‘We feel there’s been over a 20-to-1 return.’
But there is a broader vision. As a strategic partner of the World Economic Forum, an honorific held only by those whose share an ‘alignment with forum values’, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an architect of the ‘great reset’ initiative of technocratic corporatism replacing capitalism and democracy. From this perspective the lockdowns and the devastation they cause is a means towards an end, and there’s no reason to think the next phase of the plan will be gentler.
Conspiratorial power exists in every society, and in a healthy society represents the spirit of enterprise. But as civilisations decline it becomes corrupt and rapacious. The power elite and their retinues are dominated by individuals without any integrity or even personality, who have acquired positions through flattery and collusion rather than merit or virtue. Incapable of leadership, they surrender to delusions and greed.
Doubtless every crisis creates opportunities for profiteers: hence the return of Anthony Blair, the true scale of whose global business empire is revealed here, one based on lucrative contracts with many who can be described as criminal and tyrants. Nonetheless from a more national perspective, the political failure which lockdowns represent is unmistakable. Like the slave-labour economy of post-revolutionary Russia, it represents the sacrifice of an entire society by dysfunctional governments, incapable of managing social problems in a more sophisticated way.
Notwithstanding their recent logistical success in the roll-out of an untested experimental genetic therapy, in fact a highly risky gamble, the corruption and incompetence of Johnson and his government must be obvious to everyone with eyes to see. But the deeper issue lies in the system which delivered them to power in the first place.
In a healthy system, Parliamentarians of the calibre of Graham Brady, Desmond Swayne and Charles Walker would be normal, not extraordinary, and Labour would be a party of the workers, not the creature of the administrative State. In the House of Commons sit six hundred individuals who have no business being there, and a similar number in the Lords. This same story extends to journalism, which is overcrowded with careerist apparatchiks, not to mention the police force, education and the law. As with the virus itself, which presents only a minimal risk to healthy individuals, it was the weakened social immune system of Britain and the West in general which enabled the events of 2020 to devastate the free world with such force.
Abuse of power always involves abuse of language. Since March 2020 discourse in the UK has been dominated by mixed metaphors and leaden cliches, and propaganda slogans designed by government behavioural psychologists to terrorise the population.
Emergency press conferences called with calculated urgency showcase Johnson and his henchmen speaking in unfalsifiable subjunctives and conditionals intended to suspend the question of the truth. Elsewhere, a clumsy use of metaphors and metonyms, whether the depersonalising ‘jabs in arms’ or Johnson’s refusal to take his ‘foot off the neck of the beast’, reveals the failure of leadership to grasp the nature of the problem.
Misuse of language is accompanied by a blizzard of decontextualised and manipulated numbers deployed to justify yet more repressive policies.
‘The ideal subject of totalitarian rule,’ remarks Hannah Arendt, ‘is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.’ This is a description of the British government and also the broader British elite. What matters to them isn’t controlling the virus, but controlling the narrative, regardless of the suffering it causes.
The usual idea of madness is a dramatic deviation from a normal rationality, but the truth is that most people are not thinking rationally most of the time. Balanced judgment is the exception, not the rule. The point of education and culture is to produce a people and a leadership which is capable of thinking clearly and confronting problems calmly. Evidently such a culture hasn’t existed in this country for some time.
Johnson, who is interested in classics, will know the term phronesis, or wise practical judgment. In its absence Britain is abandoned to shallow, therefore widespread motives which the Prime Minister embodies: arrogance and vanity and cowardice, piling wreckage upon wreckage, lie on lie.
If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here.
Thank you.
By Daniel Miller
8-10 minutes
In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State – Solzhenitsyn
IN A healthy society the publication of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that lockdowns have no clear positive effect on reducing mortality from SARS2-COVID19, along with irrefutable evidence from Sweden, Japan, Florida, South Dakota, Mexico, Belarus and elsewhere that lockdowns are unnecessary would lead to the immediate cessation of this catastrophically destructive policy, just as evidence that wearing masks has no clear positive effect would have led to the cessation of this shameful assault on human dignity.
The fact that this has not occurred in either case, or even been considered, shows that whatever logic is driving UK government policies it cannot be a reasonable concern for public health, nor is it based on science.
What then is the logic? Since at least May last year, by which point it was clear that initial claims about the lethality of the virus had been wildly exaggerated, the same question of madness or conspiracy has exercised the minds of everyone who refuses to stop thinking for themself.
Evidently both panic and incompetence, on the one hand, and sociopathic opportunism on the other are involved to some degree; the question is their relative proportions. Who is the conductor of this orchestra, and who is only following the score?
The central role of China was anatomised by Michael Senger in a forensic article published in Tablet last year. As Senger notes, the policy of lockdown, never implemented in any previous pandemic, was in effect invented by the Chinese Communist Party in January 2020. It was then pushed in the West by online botnets and China-friendly institutions including the World Health Organisation and Imperial College London, not to mention Anthony Fauci, the American medical bureaucrat involved in commissioning ‘gain of function’ research on coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab from which SARS2-COVID19 probably emerged.
For the CCP, weakening American and therefore Western influence is a logical objective in itself given their geopolitical ambitions. The problem is that this aim is shared inside the United States by the globalist coalition which controls the Democratic Party and its clients.
For them, lockdowns facilitated the destruction of a booming Trump economy which had produced the first downward transfer of wealth in America in this century, and sent it back towards their oligarch backers. At the same time, it allowed the Democrats to institute a new voting system, which they used to install Biden in the White House.
The importance of vaccine capitalist Bill Gates, who last October organised the pandemic simulation exercise Event 201, and who financially backs all the key players pushing for lockdowns and vaccines, awaits a systematic exposition, but his economic motives are relatively clear. A genius at creating monopolies, Gates once boasted of the huge returns his investments in global health have produced: ‘We feel there’s been over a 20-to-1 return.’
But there is a broader vision. As a strategic partner of the World Economic Forum, an honorific held only by those whose share an ‘alignment with forum values’, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an architect of the ‘great reset’ initiative of technocratic corporatism replacing capitalism and democracy. From this perspective the lockdowns and the devastation they cause is a means towards an end, and there’s no reason to think the next phase of the plan will be gentler.
Conspiratorial power exists in every society, and in a healthy society represents the spirit of enterprise. But as civilisations decline it becomes corrupt and rapacious. The power elite and their retinues are dominated by individuals without any integrity or even personality, who have acquired positions through flattery and collusion rather than merit or virtue. Incapable of leadership, they surrender to delusions and greed.
Doubtless every crisis creates opportunities for profiteers: hence the return of Anthony Blair, the true scale of whose global business empire is revealed here, one based on lucrative contracts with many who can be described as criminal and tyrants. Nonetheless from a more national perspective, the political failure which lockdowns represent is unmistakable. Like the slave-labour economy of post-revolutionary Russia, it represents the sacrifice of an entire society by dysfunctional governments, incapable of managing social problems in a more sophisticated way.
Notwithstanding their recent logistical success in the roll-out of an untested experimental genetic therapy, in fact a highly risky gamble, the corruption and incompetence of Johnson and his government must be obvious to everyone with eyes to see. But the deeper issue lies in the system which delivered them to power in the first place.
In a healthy system, Parliamentarians of the calibre of Graham Brady, Desmond Swayne and Charles Walker would be normal, not extraordinary, and Labour would be a party of the workers, not the creature of the administrative State. In the House of Commons sit six hundred individuals who have no business being there, and a similar number in the Lords. This same story extends to journalism, which is overcrowded with careerist apparatchiks, not to mention the police force, education and the law. As with the virus itself, which presents only a minimal risk to healthy individuals, it was the weakened social immune system of Britain and the West in general which enabled the events of 2020 to devastate the free world with such force.
Abuse of power always involves abuse of language. Since March 2020 discourse in the UK has been dominated by mixed metaphors and leaden cliches, and propaganda slogans designed by government behavioural psychologists to terrorise the population.
Emergency press conferences called with calculated urgency showcase Johnson and his henchmen speaking in unfalsifiable subjunctives and conditionals intended to suspend the question of the truth. Elsewhere, a clumsy use of metaphors and metonyms, whether the depersonalising ‘jabs in arms’ or Johnson’s refusal to take his ‘foot off the neck of the beast’, reveals the failure of leadership to grasp the nature of the problem.
Misuse of language is accompanied by a blizzard of decontextualised and manipulated numbers deployed to justify yet more repressive policies.
‘The ideal subject of totalitarian rule,’ remarks Hannah Arendt, ‘is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.’ This is a description of the British government and also the broader British elite. What matters to them isn’t controlling the virus, but controlling the narrative, regardless of the suffering it causes.
The usual idea of madness is a dramatic deviation from a normal rationality, but the truth is that most people are not thinking rationally most of the time. Balanced judgment is the exception, not the rule. The point of education and culture is to produce a people and a leadership which is capable of thinking clearly and confronting problems calmly. Evidently such a culture hasn’t existed in this country for some time.
Johnson, who is interested in classics, will know the term phronesis, or wise practical judgment. In its absence Britain is abandoned to shallow, therefore widespread motives which the Prime Minister embodies: arrogance and vanity and cowardice, piling wreckage upon wreckage, lie on lie.
If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here.
Thank you.
View attachment 103563
134.97 152.24 119.87 84.9 75.98 171.56 38.72 12.74 10.97 119.69
As you can see there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between mask use and covid outcomes.
Sweden is the WORST performing of all the countries with low mask usage and yet the death rate is still way better than countries like Spain, Italy, UK and on par with France which has a high compliance rate to the mask mandate.
shut up you moron
Nobody can refute the data so name calling and personal attacks are the only comebacks.
Pathetic.
Nobody can refute the data so name calling and personal attacks are the only comebacks.
Pathetic.
When no one, not even for 1/1000th of a second, trusts your cut and paste diarrhea, then you are a moron
so its not name calling, moron. Understand?
My data is taken from the same sources that everyone else uses. The deaths per 100,000 by country is from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country
The mask usage data is taken from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1114375/wearing-a-face-mask-outside-in-european-countries/
If these sources are not accurate then point me to the ones that are and I'll do a comparison based upon the stats that you would use from your trusted sources.
The problem with the mask fanatics like yourself is that your mask wearing has become your religion rather than being an informed choice. This is why you turn a blind eye to any data that does not fit your agenda.
Attacking the messenger is not going to get you anywhere. It just exposes your ignorance of the science.
How come there is no mention of the political and the obsession by gahmens to force the ppl to wear mask? If the virus is soo tiny n easily spread. A normal face mask is not capable of filtering the tiny droplets etc.
as I said, you are a moron.
Excuse me, but I strongly disagree that Redbull313 is the one demonstrating an ignorance to science on this discussion thread. With all due respect, there are so many datas and information available online. We should think on how we impact others' lives before we share misinformation that can bring about negative impacts.
I look at data that compares infection and death rates between countries that require masks and countries that don't and the data tells me that masks don't make any difference and in fact probably make matters worse.
If I have made a mistake in my analysis point out where the mistake is and I'll gladly correct it.
I live in NZ and there has never been a requirement to wear masks in public and the country has successfully brought community transmission down to zero 3 times without a mask in sight.
In the US states that require masks have worse infection rates than states that don't.
In Europe countries that don't require masks have lower infection rates than those that do.
If masks worked the statistics would clearly show a distinct delta between the two.
You might get a court summons at some point for your posting of mask ineffectiveness. Why? Because if someone gets hurt, they can then sue you for damages, and then your so called data will be laughed off in a court of law. If you get served a cease and desist order, don't be too surprised.
5 Billion people around the world are masking for reason. One twit sitting in front of a computer in New Zealand is not going to change that.
LOL! Exactly. The ADMIN here constantly and welcomes conspiracy theories, such as anti-vaxxing, and many others. The problem with this is, eventually ALL conspiracy theories get consumed by their own lies. As you can see here for yourself OUCH
So when there was a shortage Fauci was willing to lie and risk the lives of millions by saying something that was not true? Why didn't he just explain the shortage and urge everyone to stay away from each other while "essential" mask production was being ramped up.
Not only did he say they don't work. He went to talk about people touching their faces and making things worse.
This so called "explanation" of his initial advice regarding masks does nothing more than prove that he says what he is told to say depending upon the circumstances.
If masks work then the data from the ground will illustrate this fact.
Who's the liar now?
liar liar pants on fire
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/scicheck-video-wrong-about-fauci-covid-19/
Video Wrong About Fauci, COVID-19
By Jessica McDonald, D'Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely
Posted on February 3, 2021
THIS ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE IN BOTH ENGLISH AND ESPAÑOL English Español
Quick Take
A video from conservative commentator Liz Wheeler falsely claims the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, repeatedly “lied” to the American public about the COVID-19 pandemic. She also misleads about COVID-19 vaccination prioritization and distorts the findings of a scientific paper to argue that face masks do not need to be worn by healthy people.
Full Story
In a video titled “Fauci lied to you AGAIN,” conservative commentator Liz Wheeler makes a series of false claims about Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the government’s most prominent experts on the coronavirus.
The Fauci-focused video, which runs nearly four minutes long and has accumulated more than 1.7 million views on Facebook since being posted in early January, also features Wheeler posing several questions about COVID-19 vaccination or mask use. As we’ll explain, her responses are misleading and contain inaccurate information.Wheeler is a former television host on the One America News Network, a conservative cable channel known for being a favorite of former President Donald Trump and for spreading false information.
The Case Fatality Rate
The video starts with Wheeler falsely claiming that Fauci “lied” about the COVID-19 case fatality rate.
“First, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that the COVID-19 case fatality rates was 3.6%. That turned out to be a lie,” she said. “The actual fatality rate of the virus is probably less than 1%.”
We could find no instance of Fauci misrepresenting the case fatality rate, or ratio, which is the percentage of those with confirmed cases who have died. In fact, we found the opposite.
Before the U.S. had even reported its first COVID-19 death, Fauci co-authored a Feb. 28 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that said the case fatality rate is probably “considerably less than 1%.” At the time, the rate was about 2%.
“If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%,” according to the editorial co-authored by Fauci and two others federal health officials, including the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Less than a month later, Fauci noted at a House committee hearing on March 11 that the case fatality rate then was up from 2% to 3% — but he still maintained that the true rate was much lower than that. Again, he stated that the case fatality rate misses “all the cases of minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic infection.”
It is important to note that the case fatality rate is a simplistic measure that merely divides COVID-19 deaths by confirmed cases. “The true severity of a disease can be described by the Infection Fatality Ratio,” which accounts for COVID-19 deaths “among all infected individuals,” as explained by the World Health Organization. It’s not lying when someone states the case fatality rate, whether it was 2%, 3% or 3.6%, and then explains why it is not an accurate measure of the severity of a disease.
False Claim About Lockdowns
Wheeler’s second purported Fauci “lie” concerns lockdowns.
“Fauci said lockdowns work. This was obviously false,” she said. “The places with the harshest lockdowns like Los Angeles and New York City have had the worst outcomes. And no, it’s not because they didn’t lock down soon enough. There is literally zero scientific evidence. And now, nine months into COVID-19, zero empirical evidence that lockdowns work to stop the virus.”
Certainly, there have been debates about whether and when to implement a lockdown — a nebulous term that has various meanings, but usually refers to movement restrictions and stay-at-home orders. Public health experts, including those at the World Health Organization, recognize that lockdowns impose high costs to society, and should be avoided whenever possible. But to claim there is zero scientific evidence that the measure works is inaccurate.
“Lockdowns are a very extreme form of the measures that we have seen have the desired effect throughout this pandemic. And there is scientific evidence that they work,” said Lauren Ancel Meyers, director of the University of Texas at Austin’s COVID-19 modeling consortium, in a phone interview.
As one example, she pointed to a study her group published in Emerging Infectious Diseases that looked at data from 58 different cities in China early on in the pandemic. “We found a very strong data-driven statistical correlation between how quickly a city acted and how quickly they were able to bring the outbreak under control,” she said.
Laura Matrajt, a research associate at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who has modeled the effects of social distancing interventions, also told us Wheeler’s claim was “obviously … false.”
She pointed us to several studies to support the notion that lockdowns can be effective, including a rapid review of 11 European countries, which found that lockdown implementation was associated with a 82% drop in the effective reproduction number, or Rt. The measure refers to how many people on average each person with COVID-19 infects at a given time; a number above one indicates a growing epidemic, whereas a number below one means disease transmission is slowing and will eventually peter out.
According to the paper, the findings “suggest a positive effect of the containment measures on the spread of COVID-19 pandemic, with a major effect in countries where lockdown started early and was more restrictive.”
A study analyzing data from Europe and the U.S. also concluded that lockdowns likely played “a key role” in bringing epidemics under control in many places by late April. “No state had an estimated Rt below 1.0 before lockdown,” the authors wrote, “but 29 states reached an Rt below 1.0 after lockdown.”
A paper published in June in the journal Nature likewise found that “major non-pharmaceutical interventions — and lockdowns in particular — have had a large effect on reducing transmission” of the coronavirus.
A string of other studies have found similar results and other fact-checkers have debunked claims about lockdowns being ineffective.
Meyers also batted down the notion that lockdowns don’t work just because some places with bad outbreaks have implemented stricter measures.
“If we look back at what happened in the spring wave and in New York, it was the growing threat to the hospitals, the growing numbers of cases that led New York to enact its spring 2020 stay home order,” she said, noting that in many places governmental restrictions are not full lockdowns. “That initial wave did subside after people started taking precautions and staying home.”
The same pattern repeated, she said, with the surge of COVID-19 cases in the Sun Belt and in Texas over the summer and with the spike in cases and hospitalizations this winter.
“We’re seeing all over the country that as risks start increasing, policies and communication are put in place to encourage these behavioral measures,” she said, “and when they’re enacted and people adhere to those recommendations, the virus starts slowing.”
Fauci’s Comments on Masks
Wheeler falsely claims that Fauci admitted to lying when he initially said early last year that widespread use of face masks was not necessary.
She says: “Fauci also said, ‘masks don’t work, so please don’t buy them,’ he told us. This is actually probably true of cloth masks, but Fauci later admitted he lied to us to manipulate us into not buying masks so that there wouldn’t be a shortage for health care workers.”
First, Fauci did not say “masks don’t work.”
During an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” in March 2020, Fauci actually said that “masks are important for someone who’s infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.” But he added that face masks generally do not provide the “perfect protection” from getting infected “that people think” and so “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”
Fauci still said he was “not against” anyone wearing a mask “if you want to do it.” Although, he warned that if everyone wore them it “could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it,” particularly health care providers and people who were ill.
His comments were in line with CDC guidance at the time to conserve face masks for health care workers and those who had COVID-19 and had symptoms.
Then, in April, after health officials learned more about how much the virus was being transmitted by asymptomatic carriers, the CDC reversed course and began recommending that everyone wear face coverings in public. At that point, Fauci, too, began encouraging universal mask use.
Fauci later explained the reversal in a June interview with TheStreet, in which he acknowledged that concern for medical workers was a major factor in the early guidance for the public not to wear masks.
But that doesn’t mean Fauci “lied to us,” as Wheeler claims.
During a virtual event with the Washington Post in July, Fauci said that, in addition to wanting to preserve face masks for those most in need, health officials truly did not realize the degree to which infected people without symptoms were spreading the virus.
“I mean, back then, the critical issue was to save the masks for the people who really needed them because it was felt that there was a shortage of masks,” he said. “Also, we didn’t realize at all the extent of asymptomatic spread and that a person who could be without symptoms at all could inadvertently and innocently spread it to someone who was uninfected.”
Fauci added: “But what happened is that as the weeks and months came by, two things became clear: one, that there wasn’t a shortage of masks. We had plenty of masks and covering that you could put on that, plain cloth covering. That took care of that problem. Secondly, we fully realized that there were a lot of people who were asymptomatic who were spreading infection. So it became clear that we absolutely should be wearing masks consistently.”
Misleading Claim on Natural Infection
Wheeler proceeds to question why people who have previously had COVID-19 are being vaccinated — and in the process, misleadingly claims that natural infection is “better” than immunization.
“Why are people who’ve already had COVID-19 and recovered from it getting the vaccine?” she asks. “You might say, well, to protect against reinfection. But nope, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which followed 12,541 health care workers for 31 weeks after they’d had COVID, six months into the study they found natural immunization was solid. They found only two cases of asymptomatic reinfections. So why are we vaccinating people who’ve already recovered from COVID? They don’t seem to be at risk of reinfection and natural immunization is better than artificial immunization. It makes no sense.”
As we’ve written, many vaccines don’t provide quite as good immunity as that triggered by an infection, but that hardly means going that route is better, as contracting the disease is inherently risky. And there are numerous vaccines, such as those that protect against tetanus and human papillomavirus, or HPV, that produce superior immunity than natural infection. (For more, see our SciCheck story “Paul Misleads on Natural Infection and COVID-19 Vaccines.”)
For the coronavirus, it’s not yet known how immunity from vaccination compares with that from infection. Some initial signs suggest that the vaccines produce higher levels of infection-blocking neutralizing antibodies than those seen in patients recovering from COVID-19, but the strength and duration of immunity from both natural infection and immunization remain an area of investigation. Regardless, getting vaccinated is far safer than contracting the novel coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2.
It’s true that people who have previously had COVID-19 likely have some immunity for a certain amount of time and therefore aren’t at high risk of becoming reinfected soon. For this reason, some experts have proposed that people who have had COVID-19 should not be prioritized for immunization.
But there’s no way to know for certain whether a person is immune — the so-called correlates of immunity have yet to be worked out for COVID-19 — and it’s unclear how long immunity might last.
As a result, the CDC website states, “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that re-infection with COVID-19 is possible, vaccine should be offered to you regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 infection.”
Elsewhere, the agency recognizes the lower risk to individuals who have previously had COVID-19, adding that it’s reasonable for people with infections in the last three months to choose to delay vaccination, at least while vaccines remain in short supply.
The CDC also advises that people with active coronavirus infections wait until they’ve recovered to receive a shot and for anyone who has received monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma to delay vaccination for at least 90 days, as those therapies might prevent the vaccine from working.
It’s worth noting that even though the study Wheeler cited does suggest reinfection is rare, she botched some of the details. While 12,541 health care workers were included, not all of them had COVID-19. Instead, only 1,265 tested positive on a particular antibody test, suggesting they probably had been previously infected. Two of those individuals then went on to test positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus with a PCR test.
Misleading Vaccine Distribution Claim
Millions of health care workers have direct contact with patients and are at high risk of being exposed to the virus or becoming infected and then spreading it to others. But Wheeler suggests health care workers have been among the first to be offered the vaccine only because they tend to be “more racially diverse” than other populations.
“Why are young and otherwise healthy health care workers getting the vaccine before it’s offered to elderly people in nursing homes,” she asks. “It’s not because health care workers are at higher risk; they’re not. Elderly people are at the highest risk hands down. The only reason health care workers are being vaccinated first is because, as a University of Pennsylvania professor explained, health care workers are more racially diverse while nursing home residents tend to be white. So, in other words, the vaccine is being distributed according to critical race theory, not according to science.”
It’s true older individuals are at greater risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19, and residents of long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes and assisted-living residences, have been hit especially hard by the pandemic.
But Wheeler simply ignores that the approximately 21 million U.S. health care workers — who work in settings such as hospitals, outpatient clinics and home health care — are a vulnerable group as well. More than 15 million medical workers — of whom 59% are white — are estimated to have direct contact with patients.
“Health care personnel’s race and ethnicity, underlying health conditions, occupation type, and job setting can contribute to their risk of acquiring COVID-19 and experiencing severe outcomes, including death,” the CDC explains. “By providing critical care to those who are or might be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, health care personnel have a high risk of being exposed to and getting sick with COVID-19.”
The CDC further notes that because those workers cannot “provide key services for patients or clients” if they contract the virus and become ill, “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” It also warns that workers who get COVID-19 can spread it to their colleagues, as well as those they are caring for, who may well have “underlying health conditions that put them at risk for severe COVID-19 illness.”
That being the case, the CDC, following guidance from the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, recommended in December that, in the first phase of the vaccine program, state and local officials prioritize giving the first doses available to both health care workers and those living in long-term care facilities. (According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, all 50 states and the District of Columbia are vaccinating health care workers and long-term care residents and staff in Phase 1a. But 16 states depart from the recommendation in some way, primarily by including other groups to be immunized.)
The CDC and ACIP say the recommendations are based on “evidence-based information” about the coronavirus vaccines, with the goal of decreasing death and serious disease, preserving the function of society and reducing the burden COVID-19 is having on people already facing disparities.
As of Feb. 2, there had been over 391,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 1,343 deaths among health care workers, according to the CDC. But that may be an undercount.
In December, Kaiser Health News said its joint investigation with the Guardian found that “more than 2,900 U.S. health care workers have died in the COVID-19 pandemic since March, a far higher number than that reported by the government.”
The news site said those fatalities “have skewed young, with the majority of victims under age 60 in the cases for which there is age data.” In addition, “people of color have been disproportionately affected, accounting for about 65% of deaths in cases in which there is race and ethnicity data,” KHN said.
Faulty Mask Claim
Wheeler then goes on to distort a study to question why people who aren’t ill are told to wear masks.
“Speaking of science, why do people who aren’t sick have to wear masks?” she asks. “You might say, well, to prevent asymptomatic transmission. But no. A new study from the University of Florida’s department of biostatistics found that the secondary attack rate for asymptomatic index cases was not statistically different from zero.”
But that’s a misinterpretation of that research. The senior author of the paper, University of Florida biostatistician Natalie E. Dean, explained in a Twitter thread that her study “did not conclude ‘no asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread’ of SARS-CoV-2” or that “masks and lockdowns are pointless.”
The paper, which was published in the journal JAMA Network Open in December, synthesized and analyzed 54 previously conducted studies to better understand how infectious the coronavirus is within households. The studies provided estimates of the secondary attack rate, or how frequently the virus spread to others from an index, or initial, case.
One of several findings was that far more people contracted COVID-19 if the first infected person in the household had symptoms. Specifically, the secondary attack rate was 18.0% when the index case was symptomatic, versus 0.7% when the index case did not have symptoms.
While this does suggest that transmission of the coronavirus within households is more likely if a person is symptomatic, it does not mean that the virus is not spread from people who aren’t sick or that there’s no reason to wear a mask.
For one, as our colleagues at PolitiFact and the Associated Press noted when debunking similar claims based on the study, the paper itself cautioned that the secondary attack estimate for index cases without symptoms was based on just four studies — and concluded that “important questions remain” about infectiousness and symptom severity.
The combined estimate also included studies assessing the attack rate for people who never develop symptoms, and are asymptomatic, as well as those who haven’t yet developed symptoms, but will, and are pre-symptomatic.
As Dean pointed out, it’s increasingly clear that people who never develop symptoms are less infectious, but pre-symptomatic transmission does occur — and even if less frequent than symptomatic spread, these modes of transmission can still be important to the pandemic.
“If an asymptomatic person is far less infectious but has far more contacts than someone home with a fever,” Dean said, “it can come out in the wash.”
The attack rate estimates, too, are only for households, not for transmission in the community, which is more relevant to Wheeler’s complaint about people being told to wear masks in public.
Finally, while the mask guidance did shift in response to the recognition that people without symptoms can spread the virus — which by some estimates is quite common — that isn’t the only reason to wear a mask. As the CDC explains, some evidence suggests masks may also provide a degree of protection to the wearer as well.
“How well it protects you from breathing in the virus likely depends on the fabrics used and how your mask is made (e.g. the type of fabric, the number of layers of fabric, how well the mask fits),” the CDC says.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Sources
I doubt that 5 billiion people are masking but even if they are it doesn't mean that masking is effective. There are always more sheep than shepherds and numbers mean absolutely nothing. After all almost 4 billion humans have below average intelligence and 7 billion have an IQ below 120 which is the threshold to be considered just reasonably bright.
People are masking because governments around the world because they don't have the brains to do their own research. They just follow orders.
Of all the responses I've received not one has challenged the data or discredited the source. All I see is personal attacks and threats which is the typical response of those who don't have a leg to stand on as far as evidence is concerned.
Similar threads
