COVID Cult Scientist Says Masks Totally Work

The COVID cultists just won’t give up, and Zeynep Tufekci is super excited to tell us why the Cochrane study doesn’t stand up in an op-ed

Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work

The debate over masks’ effectiveness in fighting the spread of the coronavirus intensified recently when a respected scientific nonprofit said its review of studies assessing measures to impede the spread of viral illnesses found it was “uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”

Now the organization, Cochrane, says that the way it summarized the review was unclear and imprecise, and that the way some people interpreted it was wrong.

“Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane review shows that ‘masks don’t work,’ which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor in chief of the Cochrane Library, said in a statement.

“The review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses,” Soares-Weiser said, adding, “Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.”

Obviously, this cherry picked statement, which doesn’t fully support the actual study, makes super scientist Tufekci and her NY Times Comrades very happy, because…oh, wait, she’s not a scientist, she has a degree in sociology, and forced masking was never about science. It was always about compliance.

“Mask mandates, social distancing, the other shutdowns we had in terms of even restaurants and things like that — if places like New York City didn’t do that, the number of deaths would have been much higher,” he told me. “I’m very confident of that statement.”

So the evidence is relatively straightforward: Consistently wearing a mask, preferably a high-quality, well-fitting one, provides protection against the coronavirus.

Yet, we were told that it was OK to not wear a mask while eating in a restaurant. The number of COVID related deaths and infections was much higher during the time of forced masking, even with the vaccines, than prior to forced masking. If pollen was getting into the mask, then COVID could get in. Regardless, government decided it would force compliance on the peasants, all while the Elites would play games with removing their own masks

https://twitter.com/vpp2021/status/1634422284533526528

How often did we see it play out where they did not wear masks? Remember the Super Bowl in California? How about Joe Biden and all his people who would come up to the podium and remove the mask? If they worked, wouldn’t wearing it while speaking inside be the exact freaking time to wear it to stop COVID from spreading? It was a scam. A way to force compliance with government mandates. Hence why a hardcore leftist sociologist would heavily support masking.

Besides being an insufferable cult, why the need for Enovid if masks work? Enovid, which is not approved for use in Canada (or the US) yet, is supposed to be over 95% effective at killing off COVID and other viruses. It’s also expensive, so, this is a nice case of Elite privilege. These people are all nuts. And, separately, how much pollution are they creating? You are supposed to dispose an N95 at least daily.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

48 Responses to “COVID Cult Scientist Says Masks Totally Work”

  1. I am perfectly willing to allow those people who believe that masks make a difference to wear masks themselves. I also believe in their First Amendment rights to urge other people to wear masks. As long as they don’t attempt to use government or employer force to require people to wear masks, I don’t care what else they do.

  2. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Obviously, this cherry picked statement, which doesn’t fully support the actual study

    The actual study: “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.”

    William Teach: Besides being an insufferable cult, why the need for Enovid if masks work?

    Because masks don’t work perfectly.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: As long as they don’t attempt to use government or employer force to require people to wear masks, I don’t care what else they do.

    Employers have the intrinsic right to make such decisions. Government has the power to enforce mandates under common law and statutory law.

    • Dana says:

      Zachriel wrote:

      As long as they don’t attempt to use government or employer force to require people to wear masks, I don’t care what else they do.

      Employers have the intrinsic right to make such decisions. Government has the power to enforce mandates under common law and statutory law.

      Fortunately, in many states, the legislatures have greatly restricted the Governor’s authority to impose such mandates. Here in the Bluegrass State, the General Assembly passed, and then overrode Reichsstatthalter Andy Beshear’s (NSDAP-KY) veto, legislation which limits the Governor’s authority to issue those kinds of executive orders to thirty days, unless the legislature consents to an extension.

      Republican state legislative candidates ran on limiting the Governor’s power in the 2020 elections, and the voters rewarded then with 14 additional seats in the state House of Representatives, and two more in the state Senate. Then, in 2022, the voters gave the GOP five more House seats, for an 80-20 majority, and an additional state Senate seat, which resulted in a 31-7 Republican advantage.

      We get it: the left just love them some authoritarian power, and have, in effect, become the fascists they falsely claimed that Donald Trump was.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The Conspiracy of Everything!!

        Anyway… Covid deaths/100K residents:

        KY 405/100K
        TN 412
        WV 444
        IN 386
        MO 323
        OH 357
        ________
        VA 277
        NC 271
        IL 311

        Looking at neighbor states of KY it looks like the blue/purple states have fared better than KY and other red states.

        Perhaps the KY Großdeutscher Reichstag could learn something from VA, NC or IL?

        • James Lewis says:

          Dear Elwood:

          I don’t know what you think you’ve proved. But let’s compare:

          KY 405 IL 396
          TN 412 PA 392
          WV 444 MI 423
          IN 386 NJ 406
          MO 323 CT 347
          OH 357 NY 397

        • Zachriel says:

          James Lewis: let’s compare

          This chart shows the effectiveness of vaccination, and the difference between red and blue states. Keep in mind that the differences in death rates translates into thousands of additional lives lost, not to mention even more who were hospitalized, had serious long-term deleterious effects, or those families effected by these losses.

          • david7134 says:

            Would you look at that. A chart that shows if you have the jab and are an idiot liberal, you have less chance of dying in a car crash.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: A chart that shows if you have the jab and are an idiot liberal, you have less chance of dying in a car crash.

            Huh? Those are COVID deaths. Note the correlation between COVID outbreaks and excess deaths.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Child, we have been through this with other adolescents in your debate group. You know nothing. The chart you presented was all cause mortality. It obviously was part of propaganda. Go away.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: The chart you presented was all cause mortality.

            The chart compares reported COVID deaths with excess deaths. Note the strong correlation over time. When reported COVID deaths increase, excess deaths increase. When reported COVID deaths decrease, excess deaths decrease. From your previous statement, you are claiming that much of the increase in reported COVID deaths is due to fatal car crashes while positive with COVID. So, your hypothesis is that COVID positivity leads to an increase in fatal car crashes. Is that your final answer? Or can your provide an alternative hypothesis that explains the correlation?

          • James Lewis says:

            Dear Zach:

            My point to Elwood was to show there is really no difference between red/blue states.

            I can’t make heads or tails of your chart.

            The vaccines were described in 12/20 by the CDC as being effective around 90% and 72%. No time table was given for length of effectiveness. So it shouldn’t have been a surprise when many took the shot and still got the disease. It was around April when it was noted that the vaccines reduced the symptoms.

            And yes, the Feds and the media oversold them.

          • Zachriel says:

            James Lewis: I can’t make heads or tails of your chart.

            Death Rates Per Capita by State/Territory shows that as the percentage of the population that is fully vaccinated increases, the death rate decreases. It also shows that blue states have higher rates of vaccination.

            James Lewis: No time table was given for length of effectiveness.

            That’s because no one knew, because it was a novel coronavirus.

            James Lewis: So it shouldn’t have been a surprise when many took the shot and still got the disease.

            With 90% effectiveness, people will still get sick.

            James Lewis: It was around April when it was noted that the vaccines reduced the symptoms.

            It was thought that the vaccines would reduce the symptoms, but it wasn’t known for sure, because it was a novel coronavirus.

        • Dana says:

          LOL! The erudite Mr Dowd wrote:

          Perhaps the KY

          Großdeutscher Reichstag

          could learn something from VA, NC or IL?

          Of course, Großdeutscher Reichstag does not translate to General Assembly, but Greater German Reichstag; the term would be Generalversammlung. As poor as my German is, I recognized immediately that Großdeutscher was incorrect.

          As it happens, my darling bride — of 43 years, 9 months, and 21 days — has been studying German for the past few months, but she wasn’t here for me to ask.

          But our Generalversammlung did learn something! It learned, from the election results in 2020 and 2022, that the people of the Bluegrass State did not approve of Reichsstatthalter Andy Beshear’s (NSDAP-KY) authoritarian dictates, and when the Republican candidates for die Generalversammlung campaigned on reining in Herr Beshear’s executive orders, the voters rewarded them with 14 additional seats in the state House, and two in the state Senate. After they had done that, the voters had a chance to approve or disapprove of the legislature’s actions, and rewarded the GOP with another five seats in the House, plus one in the Senate.

          The Democrats keep screaming about Democracy! but here you are, criticizing a state legislature for listening to what the actual voters in the Commonwealth wanted.

          As I noted here, two Washington Post reporters said the quiet part out loud in Covid backlash hobbles public health and future pandemic response: Lawsuits and legislation have stripped public health officials of their powers in three years. Lauren Weber and Joel Achenbach wrote that “conservative and libertarian forces” — quite the liberal bugaboo there! — used “legislation and litigation” to “(defang) much of the nation’s public health system”. Legislation is the act of legislatures, the elected representatives of the people, and litigation is the use of the courts, the legal system, to bring to account actions taken which might be outside existing law. Are not both acts of democracy in a democratic system?

          The left sure love them some authoritarian government, as long as the authoritarians are leftists.

      • Zachriel says:

        Dana: Fortunately, in many states, the legislatures have greatly restricted the Governor’s authority to impose such mandates.

        That will not serve well if the next pandemic is even more deadly than the previous one, which killed over a million Americans.

        Dana: the left just love them some authoritarian power, and have, in effect, become the fascists they falsely claimed that Donald Trump was.

        As noted, government powers during epidemics, such as quarantines, are deeply rooted in common law (meaning long predating fascism) as necessary during times of emergency. No rational society can allow people possibly infected with, say, smallpox, to roam freely in public. The legislature has the power to set rules, but that doesn’t mean they are wise.

        Elwood P. Dowd: KY 405/100K

        That translates into thousands of more deaths in Kentucky and in Tennessee than would have if those states had the same death rate as Virginia or North Carolina.

        • CarolAnn says:

          As noted, government powers during epidemics, such as quarantines, are deeply rooted in common law (meaning long predating fascism) as necessary during times of emergency. No rational society can allow people possibly infected with, say, smallpox, to roam freely in public. The legislature has the power to set rules, but that doesn’t mean they are wise.

          That’s not true Zachriel. Nobody is saying people infected with small pox should roam freely. Is that your interpretation of Dana’s objection?

          I think his objection was the instant course of action by the leftists to forbid healthy people from roaming freely. For some reason the morons among us in power forced healthy people into quarantine. They locked down businesses. Mostly small and medium business owned by their political rivals while enhancing their friends on the internet or at Amazon etc. The little pizza shop and beauty parlor were closed down while billionaire democommie bundlers got richer and richer. Got a chart for that? How many small businesses went out and how many billions did Bezos, Gates, Buffet Walton etc. during the scamdemic?

          I have not read of common law forcing non sick people into quarantines or suppressing the rights of the healthy. But I could have missed it. BTW, fascism has existed for centuries by other names. Just because Il Douche named it fascism does not mean it or something like it didn’t exist. Any dictatorship or monarchy where the leader/king is in bed with the merchants/elites is essentially fascist. The democommies in America have fascist tendencies hence the secret partnership between social media and FBI, CIA, DHS and other govmnt agencies to promote certain candidates and speech while trampling others. That’s why trusting any “facts” about the scamdemic is chancy at best. Some facts, charts and graphs are censored if they don’t agree with the leftist bosses. You should know that, you’re a comrade.

        • Zachriel says:

          CarolAnn: Nobody is saying people infected with small pox should roam freely.

          Dana is suggesting government should have no power to compel individuals even during an epidemic, saying such power is “authoritarian” and “fascist”. How else would you read his comment?

          CarolAnn: I think his objection was the instant course of action by the leftists to forbid healthy people from roaming freely.

          Quarantine refers to isolating people if they may have been exposed, even if they are healthy.

          CarolAnn: I have not read of common law forcing non sick people into quarantines or suppressing the rights of the healthy.

          Common law isn’t necessarily written like a statute but is the body of court precedents that make up the foundation of law. The United States adopted English common law at the founding, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the common law power of quarantines in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824.

          CarolAnn: BTW, fascism has existed for centuries by other names.

          Fascism is an ultranationalist ideology, so it can’t exist without the modern concept of nationalism.

          CarolAnn: Any dictatorship or monarchy where the leader/king is in bed with the merchants/elites is essentially fascist.

          Not all dictators are fascist, even when they are in alliance with the merchant class. Redefining terminology to suit a partisan position does not make a valid argument. You betray the weakness of your position when you resort to vitriol, such as “democommies,” and when you conflate fascism with communism, which are very different ideologies.

          • Dana says:

            Zachriel wrote:

            CarolAnn: Nobody is saying people infected with small pox should roam freely.

            Dana is suggesting government should have no power to compel individuals even during an epidemic, saying such power is “authoritarian” and “fascist”. How else would you read his comment?

            I note here that you changed the subject: CarolAnn’s example was “people infected with smallpox,” but you replied with “individuals even during an epidemic,” which means the entire group of individuals, even if they are not infected with anything.

            I am aware of two instances in which the state government, at least one without any due process of law, put people who tested positive for COVID under house arrest, one with an armed deputy stationed outside his home, and the other forcing the individuals into ankle monitors, all for a disease which killed fewer than 2% of those infected.

            CarolAnn: I think his objection was the instant course of action by the leftists to forbid healthy people from roaming freely.

            Quarantine refers to isolating people if they may have been exposed, even if they are healthy.

            But that wasn’t what was done, was it? Rather, the government simply assumed that if people left their homes for anything other than “essential” work or “essential” tasks would be exposed, not “may have been exposed.”

            Reichstatthalter Beshear said that liquor stores were essential business, and graciously allowed them to remain open, but issued an executive order that churches had to close. Churches, an institution protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ordered churches. He had the Staatliche Polizei check parking lots in churches on Easter Sunday, Easter Sunday!, the holiest day in the Christian calendar, to record license and vehicle identification numbers of automobiles parked there, and issuing orders that the owners and their families self-quarantine for 14 days.

            Fortunately, not one but two federal judges ruled his actions unconstitutional and illegal, but the legal system being what it is, only after churches had been forced to close for nine weeks. Our First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion and peaceable assembly were both suspended for nine weeks, by a governor who should have been impeached and thrown in jail.

            There is nothing in the Constitution which says our constitutional rights can be curtailed for a panicdemic.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Perhaps Mr Dana can round up several hundred friends who think as he does and storm the Governor’s mansion since it seems the laws are being abused by Gov Beshears and the police can’t be bothered.

          • Zachriel says:

            Dana: “conservative and libertarian forces” — quite the liberal bugaboo there! — used “legislation and litigation” to “(defang) much of the nation’s public health system”. Legislation is the act of legislatures, the elected representatives of the people, and litigation is the use of the courts, the legal system, to bring to account actions taken which might be outside existing law. Are not both acts of democracy in a democratic system?

            Absolutely. However, that doesn’t make it wise. Note that you are implicitly granting the existence of public health powers.

            Dana: CarolAnn’s example was “people infected with smallpox,” but you replied with “individuals even during an epidemic,” which means the entire group of individuals, even if they are not infected with anything.

            You had suggested government had no power over individuals during a deadly epidemic, so the example was pertinent. Apparently, you do believe government has power over individuals during a deadly epidemic.

            Dana: Rather, the government simply assumed that if people left their homes for anything other than “essential” work or “essential” tasks would be exposed, not “may have been exposed.”

            Hence, become carriers and a threat to public health.

            Dana: There is nothing in the Constitution which says our constitutional rights can be curtailed for a panicdemic.

            As noted, the Supreme Court has said public safety is a realm over which the government has power. The limitation is that the policy must be the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of disease; hence subject to litigation.

  3. Steve (retired/recovering lawyer) says:

    The hair color people, look at the hair color. Always a dead giveaway.

  4. H says:

    Masks reduce transmission. That is why they are still mandatory in hospitals for both healthcare workers and visitors.
    They do not stop COVID transmission, they reduce transmission just like vaccinations.
    Covering your mouth when sneezing or coughing does not stop transmission it only reduces transmission. However most people know this and still cover their mouths. Do you cover your mouth when you sneeze? Why?
    Likewise mandated seat belt use does not stop all injurirs but it does reduce the it n in meet. W he en Reagan mandated seat belt use conservatives were appalled at this loss of personal freedom.
    Do you cover your mouth when sneezing or coughing?
    The red states that had lowest vaccination and mask wearing rates had per capita death rates up to 300% higher than some blue states.in addition to the 1,1 million deaths about 3million infected had to be e put on ventilators in order to o survive.

    • The fascist authoritarian government loving Mr H wrote:

      Likewise mandated seat belt use does not stop all injurirs but it does reduce the it n in meet. W he en Reagan mandated seat belt use conservatives were appalled at this loss of personal freedom.

      And I disobey mandatory seat belt usage laws.

      Masks reduce transmission. That is why they are still mandatory in hospitals for both healthcare workers and visitors.

      They are no longer mandatory in all hospitals; at least they aren’t mandatory in the hospital in which my wife works.

      They do not stop COVID transmission, they reduce transmission just like vaccinations.

      Given that almost everyone has contracted the virus at some point, your statement would not seem to be accurate.

      SARS-CoV-2 has mutated to the point where it is far more easily transmissible than ever before, but also far less serious than the strain which escaped the Wuhan lab. It’s basically like the flu now, annoying but rarely serious, and even more rarely fatal. It’s something with which society will just have to live at this point. If you want to wear a mask from now until the day you go to your eternal reward, hey, that’s your right, go for it! But please, leave the rest of us alone.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The Kentucky Kontrarian typed:

        but also far less serious than the strain which escaped the Wuhan lab

        The strains in wide circulation appears to be less deadly than the original strain. There is no evidence that the original strain somehow escaped from the Wuhan Institute.

        The 7-day average of Covid deaths in the US is 300-600 deaths/day. Hardly the ‘flu’.

        There are nearly 3000 new hospitalizations a day with 16,000 currently in hospital.

        It’s something with which society will just have to live at this point.

        People with comorbidities (old; obese; lung, heart, kidney, liver disease etc) should keep up with their vaccine schedule.

        • Dana says:

          Our madcap Missourian wrote:

          The strains in wide circulation appears to be less deadly than the original strain. There is no evidence that the original strain somehow escaped from the Wuhan Institute.

          It seems that, every day, some new organization, some private and some governmental, has been concluding that there is enough evidence to claim that the greater probability is that the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute for Biological Weapons Virology. Try to keep up.

          Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says
          U.S. agency’s revised assessment is based on new intelligence

          By Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel | Updated Feb. 26, 2023 4:29 pm ET

          WASHINGTON—The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress.

          The shift by the Energy Department, which previously was undecided on how the virus emerged, is noted in an update to a 2021 document by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines’s office.

          The new report highlights how different parts of the intelligence community have arrived at disparate judgments about the pandemic’s origin. The Energy Department now joins the Federal Bureau of Investigation in saying the virus likely spread via a mishap at a Chinese laboratory. Four other agencies, along with a national intelligence panel, still judge that it was likely the result of a natural transmission, and two are undecided.

          The Energy Department’s conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research.

          The Energy Department made its judgment with “low confidence,” according to people who have read the classified report.

          The FBI previously came to the conclusion that the pandemic was likely the result of a lab leak in 2021 with “moderate confidence” and still holds to this view.

          Back to Mr Dowd:

          People with comorbidities (old; obese; lung, heart, kidney, liver disease etc) should keep up with their vaccine schedule.

          That is expressed as something people should do, and, as long as it isn’t accompanied by force, I have no objection.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The DOE and FBI have ‘low to moderate confidence’ that the virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Other intelligence agencies disagree.

            Neither the DOE or FBI have revealed their evidence.

            It’s interesting that right-wingers suddenly trust Biden agencies!

    • L'Roy White says:

      The Chinese Wuhan Flu vaccine was sold as stopping said flu. That was a lie. The masks were sold as stopping transmission. That too was a lie. When you start out lying to the people everything that follows is assumed a lie to cover the previous lies. The demcom party has been lying about almost every important topic from “Russia, Russia, Russia” to the Ukrainian/Russian war. They are pathological.

      Do you cover your mouth when you sneeze? Why?

      Because it’s not polite to spit all over people. Breathing is not spitting.

      The red states that had lowest vaccination and mask wearing rates had per capita death rates up to 300% higher than some blue states.

      Were there no other contributing reasons for those numbers? Age, jobs, pre existing conditions? Since the start of the Scamdemic leftists who want to use science to force political policies have continuously lied about so many things it’s hard to follow the truth. Just making a statement without the underlying investigation means nothing. Especially when it’s being promoted by known liars.

      in addition to the 1,1 million deaths about 3million infected had to be e put on ventilators in order to o survive.

      Again, 1.1 million Americans did not die from Chinese Wuhan Flu though they may have died with it. There is another instance of your continuous lies and refusal to correct the record. The seasonal flu and associated pneumonia average about 350,000 per year. In 2021 there were only 12,000 reported. All the rest were lobbed into “Wuhan flu” data. It has been estimated by both government and independent sources available to you that at least 50% of the Wuhan Flu deaths are attributable to:, obesity, heart disease, lung disease and “other medical complications unrelated to the Wuhan flu”.

      Therefore, after removing those who died from the seasonal flu and pneumonia and adjusting for other diseases the estimated actual mortality from the Chinese flu was about 400,000 Americans. Now personally I think that’s severe enough and can’t figure out why anyone would want to inflate that number unless for political or financial reasons. Can you?

      You are just making your favorite Chinese sympathizer and mass murderer Anthony “The Needle” Fauci look even more of a monster than he already is. In fact right now Fauci is the next greatest mass murderer in history next to Idi Amin. Congratulations you guys finally got an American demCom leftist on the list with other great leftists like Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Way to go, guys!

    • Zachriel says:

      The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: And I disobey mandatory seat belt usage laws.

      Being a scofflaw is not the argument you might think it to be.

      The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: Given that almost everyone has contracted the virus at some point, your statement would not seem to be accurate.

      COVID-19 was a novel coronavirus. That means the human immune system had no previous experience with the virus. Consequently, the immune response took considerable time to clear the virus. This allowed the virus to multiple and wreck havoc on the body. Having once been infected, antibodies were very effective at preventing a reinfection. However, as the virus mutated, the effectiveness of the antibodies waned. But, the immune system’s memory cells remembers the previous infection, which allows a much faster immune response. So, a person may become infected, but it will typically be much milder and short-lived. Immunization has the same effect as infection, but without the dangers associated with the disease itself.

      As for social measures, such as distancing and masks, there is strong evidence of their efficacy with respiratory illnesses. For instance, influenza practically disappeared during the 2020-21 flu season.

      L’Roy White: Again, 1.1 million Americans did not die from Chinese Wuhan Flu though they may have died with it.

      There are a number of studies which have confirmed the death rate, including examination of death certificates and medical records, and the statistics of excess deaths. When COVID ran amok, excess deaths increased. When COVID waned, excess deaths decrease to the background rate.

      L’Roy White: The seasonal flu and associated pneumonia average about 350,000 per year. In 2021 there were only 12,000 reported.

      That’s funny. You do know there’s a test for influenza? Of nearly a million tests for influenza, only 0.2% were positive.

      L’Roy White: All the rest were lobbed into “Wuhan flu” data.

      That wouldn’t explain why excess deaths increased during times when COVID was prevalent and returned to the background rate when COVID receded.

      L’Roy White: Therefore, after removing those who died from the seasonal flu and pneumonia and adjusting for other diseases the estimated actual mortality from the Chinese flu was about 400,000 Americans.

      The number of excess deaths is over a million. Note how reported COVID deaths track closely to excess deaths.

      • Dana says:

        Zachriel wrote:

        The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: And I disobey mandatory seat belt usage laws.

        Being a scofflaw is not the argument you might think it to be.

        No, I suppose to someone used to knuckling under to authority, it wouldn’t be.

        The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: Given that almost everyone has contracted the virus at some point, your statement would not seem to be accurate.

        COVID-19 was a novel coronavirus. That means the human immune system had no previous experience with the virus. Consequently, the immune response took considerable time to clear the virus. This allowed the virus to multiple and wreck havoc on the body. Having once been infected, antibodies were very effective at preventing a reinfection. However, as the virus mutated, the effectiveness of the antibodies waned. But, the immune system’s memory cells remembers the previous infection, which allows a much faster immune response. So, a person may become infected, but it will typically be much milder and short-lived. Immunization has the same effect as infection, but without the dangers associated with the disease itself.

        As for social measures, such as distancing and masks, there is strong evidence of their efficacy with respiratory illnesses. For instance, influenza practically disappeared during the 2020-21 flu season.

        It’s true: documented influenza cases dropped dramatically. And that means the isolation techniques worked, on influenza!

        But they sure didn’t seem to work as far as COVID-19 was concerned, did they? The virus spread quickly, and even now continues to spread, despite the ‘vaccines,’ and despite the masking which had been forced.

        You will doubtlessly claim that things would have been worse without masking and the vaccines, but there’s really no way to know that.

        • Zachriel says:

          Dana: No, I suppose to someone used to knuckling under to authority, it wouldn’t be.

          Hmm. The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana? Without the rule of law there is no libertarianism, only anarchy.

          Dana: It’s true: documented influenza cases dropped dramatically. And that means the isolation techniques worked, on influenza!

          Influenza is a respiratory illness and spreads in a like manner to coronaviruses.

          Dana: But they sure didn’t seem to work as far as COVID-19 was concerned, did they?

          Areas that use masks have lower rates of infection than areas that did not. See Abaluck et al., Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh, Science 2021: “We see larger reductions in symptoms and symptomatic seropositivity in villages that experienced larger increases in mask use.”

  5. Jl says:

    And there was only one blue state with that statistic compared to the worst red state, but thanks for the drama, Johnny.
    “Do you cover your mouth when sneezing or coughing?” Does the government mandate covering your mouth?

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: And there was only one blue state with that statistic compared to the worst red state

      This chart shows the effectiveness of vaccination, and the difference between red and blue states. Keep in mind that the differences in death rates translates into thousands of additional lives lost, not to mention even more who were hospitalized, had serious long-term deleterious effects, or those families effected by these losses.

  6. st says:

    How does ‘Top Gun Maverick’ not win “Best Picture” at Oscars? Top Gun movie clips – relieve the magic here:

    https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2023/03/how-does-top-gun-maverick-not-win-best.html

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    On this day in 2003 – The World Health Organization officially release a global warning of outbreaks of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). We all didn’t die from that one, either.

    #LosingTheNarrative
    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  8. Matthew says:

    Is this an article about masks or how many wrongheaded, cult-like rituals one can participate in? Now do washing the mail or curfews (including how the virus can tell time). Well documented that fear helps alter behaviors and that adherence to patterns help alleviate fears.

    Almost adorable how people will grasp almost anything to convince themselves that they weren’t bamboozled, as though the refusal to admit a blunder will somehow eliminate various or compounding negative effects of a mistake. At what life stage would you choose to cement and wallow in your current goofs? I suppose it’s easier if you’re operating with reduced oxygen and the associated impaired thought processes. Under those conditions you’re much more likely to continue to believe and defend an inaccuracy.

    I did use masks against my better judgement for a few months before I saw the light. I was also reckless with sharp tools until I realized I was using a lot of band-aids on my left hand.

  9. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Mr Teach continues his further descent into madness – every activity/issue he renounces is a CULT!

    All part of the Conspiracy of Everything where communist ELITES have a single objective – CONTROL! Global warming – CULT! Covid – CULT! Gun control – CULT! Drag shows – CULT! Ukraine war – CULT!

    A popular and effective ploy that propagandists such as Mr Teach utilize is all-or-nothing phrasing. Since masking is not 100% effective, masking is 100% ineffective. Since vaccines are not 100% effective… etc, etc.

    Here are some conclusions from the Cochrane Review:

    We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.

    The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.

    There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.

    Please read the opinion piece yourself.

    Used properly and consistently masks are likely to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Please read the opinion piece yourself.

      Nah. No need to when we have Rimjob to interpret the “real” meaning.

      Such a dumbfuck that one.

      #LosingTheNarrative
      #TheScienceIsSettled
      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        It’s good that you finally recognize my AUTHORITAY!

        The honorable Mr Teach probably disapproves of your use of vulgar language, though.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Well, in your case, a dumbfuck is what dumbfuck does.
          Good to see you still think you know what others approve or disapprove of…

          #PedosPervs&KiddieDiddlers
          #Galera
          Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  10. James Lewis says:

    It’s bedtime but before I go…..

    The Cause of Death guidelines are straightforward. If a person has an existing disease and is being successfully treated and dies after a new disease is acquired, the Cause of Death is the new disease. Say a person has diabetes and is being successfully treated and then catches Covid and dies the Cause of Death is Covid.

    Masks were meant to be part of the 6′ separation, hand washing regime. They were meant to reduce the amount sprayed by an infected person, not protecting the uninfected.

    Asian countries that have historically worn masks have a much lower deaths per million than western countries. E.G. Japan has a rate of 583 vs our 3431.

    If something works, use it.

    As a vehicle to quickly support vaccine problems VAERS is useless. Anyone and everyone can report anything at anytime. But when enough reports are made the problem eventually gets looked at. Not a good system but it is what it is.

    The Federal government cannot mandate vaccines, etc. That’s the states job. See the 10th Amendment. And it’s been done before. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and NY locked up Typhoid Mary…. So yes, it can be done

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

  11. James Lewis says:

    Dear Zach:

    My point to Elwood was to show there is really no difference between red/blue states.

    I can’t make heads or tails of your chart.

    The vaccines were described in 12/20 by the CDC as being effective around 90% and 72%. No time table was given for length of effectiveness. So it shouldn’t have been a surprise when many took the shot and still got the disease. It was around April when it was noted that the vaccines reduced the symptoms.

    And yes, the Feds and the media oversold them.

  12. Moving this down to an original comment, snce the response threat has reached its decent limit, Zachriel wrote:

    Dana: “conservative and libertarian forces” — quite the liberal bugaboo there! — used “legislation and litigation” to “(defang) much of the nation’s public health system”. Legislation is the act of legislatures, the elected representatives of the people, and litigation is the use of the courts, the legal system, to bring to account actions taken which might be outside existing law. Are not both acts of democracy in a democratic system?

    Absolutely. However, that doesn’t make it wise. Note that you are implicitly granting the existence of public health powers.

    Noting that “public health” laws exist does not mean that all are constitutional. More, that such laws exist, whether constitutional or not, still requires due process of law, which was frequently simplt shoved aside during the panicdemic.

    Dana: CarolAnn’s example was “people infected with smallpox,” but you replied with “individuals even during an epidemic,” which means the entire group of individuals, even if they are not infected with anything.

    You had suggested government had no power over individuals during a deadly epidemic, so the example was pertinent. Apparently, you do believe government has power over individuals during a deadly epidemic.

    Even if government does have such powers, due process of law is required to use them. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that no person may have his life, liberty, or property taken without due process of law. Requiring any person to quarantine, or any legal business to close, or any restrictions on our freedom of peaceable assembly simply by executive order does not meet the standard of due process of law.

    Dana: Rather, the government simply assumed that if people left their homes for anything other than “essential” work or “essential” tasks would be exposed, not “may have been exposed.”

    Hence, become carriers and a threat to public health.

    So, not are carriers, but may “become carriers.” If I suggested that urban black males should all be restricted to their homes, with ankle bracelet monitoring, because the statistics show that they are far more likely than anyone else to be the “carriers” of violence, you would go absolutely bonkers, but such is the logic that you have just used concerning everybody whose work was not deemed “essential.”

    Dana: There is nothing in the Constitution which says our constitutional rights can be curtailed for a panicdemic.

    As noted, the Supreme Court has said public safety is a realm over which the government has power. The limitation is that the policy must be the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of disease; hence subject to litigation.

    Does the fact that “public safety is a realm over which the government has power” extend to the violation of constitutional rights? Apparently you think it does, but I certainly do not. What part of “Congress shall make no law,” now expanded to cover the states as well, do you believe actually means the government may make some laws if it’s really, really important?

    We all learned of those famous words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” but the left, including you, seem to believe that a disease which had, at the worst of the panicdemic, a less than 2% fatality rate, and much lower now, is worth the loss of liberty?

    Well, the majority, the vast majority, of people have voted with their bare faces: they ain’t wearing no stinkin’ masks. They voted at the polls for Republicans who removed the power of Democratic governors to impose restrictions on their freedom. You agreed that the people have those rights, even though you stated such “doesn’t make it wise”. I agree: sometimes the voters take unwise decisions, such as electing Democrats. But I don’t want to make autocracy our form of government, and it seems as though you do.

    • Zachriel says:

      The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: Requiring any person to quarantine, or any legal business to close, or any restrictions on our freedom of peaceable assembly simply by executive order does not meet the standard of due process of law.

      The Supreme Court has affirmed the common law power of quarantines in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824.

      The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: Does the fact that “public safety is a realm over which the government has power” extend to the violation of constitutional rights?

      All rights have limitations. Again, should society allow someone infected with smallpox to mingle in public? He has a right to free association, doesn’t he?

      The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: But I don’t want to make autocracy our form of government, and it seems as though you do.

      Public health laws passed by a freely elected legislature adjudicated by an independent judiciary using a least restrictive means necessary standard under a constitution is not autocracy or fascism. That is our objection to your position.

      • CarolAnn says:

        We can see you are the type of leftist that will just keep going around in circles be cause being wrong is not in your book of facts.

        Public health laws passed by a freely elected legislature adjudicated by an independent judiciary using a least restrictive means necessary standard under a constitution is not autocracy or fascism.

        Sure they are. Bad, immoral and fascist laws are passed by a freely elected legislature adjudicated by an independent judiciary using a least restrictive means necessary standard under a constitution all the time. It DOES NOT MAKE THE RIGHT, JUST LEGAL. Almost every law passed by every dictator including Hitler and Stalin were legal under THEIR sysyem. Do you think they were right or moral? But they were sure legal.

        You are the type who would give up MY freedom to make YOUR point. IOW, a tyrant.

        • Zachriel says:

          CarolAnn: Bad, immoral and fascist laws are passed by a freely elected legislature adjudicated by an independent judiciary using a least restrictive means necessary standard under a constitution all the time.

          That’s not fascism, by definition.

          CarolAnn: Almost every law passed by every dictator including Hitler and Stalin were legal under THEIR sysyem.

          There was no independent judiciary applying common law standards under Hitler or Stalin.

        • david7134 says:

          Carol,
          The Z people are a group of debaters, high school level. The only academic accomplishment that they possess is a middle school degree. All are devoted communist, but I seriously doubt they could tolerate 48 hours in a communist country. All are budding lawyers, hence the ridiculous legal references, they don’t know the meaning of most legal crap..

          I find they are a waste of time as they are only here to hone debate arguments. And they simply talk in circles, lie, and get confused regarding their references.

      • Dana says:

        Zachriel wrote:

        The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: Requiring any person to quarantine, or any legal business to close, or any restrictions on our freedom of peaceable assembly simply by executive order does not meet the standard of due process of law.

        The Supreme Court has affirmed the common law power of quarantines in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824.

        A rather strange case to cite. While it does state that

        That inspection laws may have a remote and considerable influence on commerce will not be denied, but that a power to regulate commerce is the source from which the right to pass them is derived cannot be admitted. The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labour of a country, to fit them for exportation, or, it may be, for domestic use. They act upon the subject before it becomes an article of foreign commerce or of commerce among the States, and prepare it for that purpose. They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government; all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.

        No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation.

        However, while Gibbons does state that quarantine laws are the province of the states, it was decided in 1824, when the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, as decided in Barron v Baltimore in 1833.

        It was through various decisions following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that the Bill of Rights was ‘incorporated’ to apply to states and localities. Freedom of peaceable assembly was incorporated under De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), while free exercise of religion was incorporated under Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Thus, while the states can pass various laws regarding public health and quarantine, they cannot violate our First Amendment rights.

        The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana: Does the fact that “public safety is a realm over which the government has power” extend to the violation of constitutional rights?

        All rights have limitations. Again, should society allow someone infected with smallpox to mingle in public? He has a right to free association, doesn’t he?

        The comparison with smallpox is silly; smallpox had a mortality rate of around 30%, not the under 2% that was initially seen with COVID.

        However, I disagree that “all rights have limitations.” How can something be a right is it is not always a right? And even if you believe that a right has a limitation, under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state may infringe upon any person’s rights without due process of law.

        What the various states did was to take away groups of people’s rights willy-nilly, without any due process. Any legitimate infringement of my rights must be taken, individually, via due process against me, specifically, in a court of law in which I have a right to defend my rights, with the assistance of counsel.

        More, the states were taking away people’s rights without determining whether they were, individually, infected, but on the basis that they could become infected.

        • Zachriel says:

          Dana: However, while Gibbons does state that quarantine laws are the province of the states . . .

          Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1905) upheld mandatory vaccination. Oregon Railroad v. Washington (1926) found that “In the absence of any action taken by Congress on the subject matter, it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings”.

          Dana: The comparison with smallpox is silly; smallpox had a mortality rate of around 30%, not the under 2% that was initially seen with COVID.

          No. It means that you do seemingly accept that the government can exercise power over public health, even when you argue otherwise. The standard under common law is the “least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of disease.”

          Dana: However, I disagree that “all rights have limitations.”

          Of course all rights have limitations. Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater can be prosecuted. Slander is subject to civil action. You may need a permit to hold a rally in the public square. Property rights are subject to all sorts of rules.

          Dana: And even if you believe that a right has a limitation, under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state may infringe upon any person’s rights without due process of law.

          So, you do think society can allow someone to roam public spaces while contagious with smallpox. To stop it, they would have to take each and every such individual to court for an injunction, with a hearing and right of appeal before anything could be done. That’s nonsensical.

          Dana: What the various states did was to take away groups of people’s rights willy-nilly, without any due process.

          Quarantine means the government can impound people and goods without knowing if they were infected, or even if they had been exposed, even if they were citizens. (It comes from the time when ships and their crews would be held for forty days in the port.) Because of the danger of infectious diseases, due process comes afterwards. The rules and particulars can be challenged in court. In the meantime, government can act under statutes and common law to protect the public.

          Dana: Any legitimate infringement of my rights must be taken, individually, via due process against me, specifically, in a court of law in which I have a right to defend my rights, with the assistance of counsel.

          Well, that might work in the fantasy libertarian world, but in the real world, society can’t survive if they can’t quarantine you before you spread your smallpox to others.

  13. Zachriel says:

    david7134: All are devoted communist

    We support a strong market economy as the engine of economic growth and technological innovation, and private property as a bulwark of liberty. So, no. We’re not communist in any sense of the word.

Pirate's Cove