Every Lie Has a How and Why

Quote: redietz

Your last three lines are a complete mangle filled with false implications and conclusions.

What implications and conclusions?

True or false?
According to the study, 85% of the case patients either always or often wore a mask.

True or false?
According to the study only 7.8% of the case patients either rarely or never wore a mask.

True or false?
That is an eleven to one ratio.

From the summary you provided to prove me wrong:

“The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the majority of the people in the study reported using cloth face coverings or mask types “often” or “always” when in public.” -Dr. Rice

Quote: Tanko

“The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the majority of the people in the study reported using cloth face coverings or mask types “often” or “always” when in public.” -Dr. Rice

Never forget that in the early
weeks Foochi-Woochi and
the Surgeon General both
said masks were basically
ineffective. These are medical
professionals, they deal with
this for a living. They both
did a 180, why. Politics! Masks
are a joke, they don't stop you from
getting the virus. Medical people
wear masks during surgery
not to protect themselves, but
to protect the patient.

If you are in the symptom stage
of covid, wearing a mask might
stop you from spreading it.
Probably not.

Quote: Evenbob

Masks are a joke, they don't stop you from getting the virus.

I always wear a mask in public, and I still caught this nasty cold.

Like my cold, corona virus is spread through respiratory droplets that can more easily enter your always open eyes, than your nose and mouth.

France, Italy and Spain mandate masks. Violators are subject to a 1,000 euro fine. Despite the mandates and heavy fines, those mask mandating countries are experiencing a surge in cases higher than the peak they saw in March.

Sweden does not require masks, and concentrates instead on social distancing and health guidelines. Sweden is also experiencing a surge in cases, but not as high as the mask mandating nations.

Quote: Tanko

What implications and conclusions?

True or false?
According to the study, 85% of the case patients either always or often wore a mask.

True or false?
According to the study only 7.8% of the case patients either rarely or never wore a mask.

True or false?
That is an eleven to one ratio.

From the summary you provided to prove me wrong:

“The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the majority of the people in the study reported using cloth face coverings or mask types “often” or “always” when in public.” -Dr. Rice

Your line in the first post, "Less than 8% of the case patients who never or rarely wore a mask, caught the disease," is nonsense.

It implies that somehow those wearing masks are somehow MORE vulnerable than those who do not.

When I see people sitting or talking a normal distance away inside, I don't think they realize masks and social distancing work hand in hand.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested just wearing a mask fulltime is the substitute for not social distancing.

Or in other words, Fauci or any other of the current team has ever suggested to my knowledge a mask alone is good enough without social distancing.

Quote: Tanko

What implications and conclusions?

True or false?
According to the study, 85% of the case patients either always or often wore a mask.

True or false?
According to the study only 7.8% of the case patients either rarely or never wore a mask.

True or false?
That is an eleven to one ratio.

From the summary you provided to prove me wrong:

“The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the majority of the people in the study reported using cloth face coverings or mask types “often” or “always” when in public.” -Dr. Rice

Quote: redietz

Your line in the first post, "Less than 8% of the case patients who never or rarely wore a mask, caught the disease," is nonsense.

It implies that somehow those wearing masks are somehow MORE vulnerable than those who do not.

To you it does. I specifically referred to case patients six times in the post.

That statistic is directly from the study.

I specifically referred to case patients in every one of my posts.

The study found that case patients were twice as likely as were control-participants to have reported dining at a restaurant in the 14 days before becoming ill.

It completely ignored discussing the possible reason why only 7.8% of those same case patients who never or rarely wore a mask, became infected.

It completely ignored discussing the possible reason why only 7.2% of those same case patients who sometimes wore a mask, tested positive, versus 70.6% of the case patients who always wore a mask.

Mask wearers contaminate their masks with their hands. The virus remains active on a mask for seven days.

And talk about ‘complete mangle filled with false implications and conclusions’.

Using your screwball logic:

If my posting “Less than 8% of the case patients who never or rarely wore a mask, caught the disease.” implies that those wearing masks are somehow more vulnerable than those who do not, then the study results and CNN article imply that 85% of the people who always or often wear masks are more vulnerable than those who never or rarely wear a mask.


"The study also found that, of the 154 participants who tested positive, a total of 85% said they had worn a mask either "always" (70.6%) or "often" (14.4%) over the 14 days prior to the onset of their illness." - CNN

Quote: Tanko

To you it does. I specifically referred to case patients six times in the post.

That statistic is directly from the study.

I specifically referred to case patients in every one of my posts.

The study found that case patients were twice as likely as were control-participants to have reported dining at a restaurant in the 14 days before becoming ill.

It completely ignored discussing the possible reason why only 7.8% of those same case patients who never or rarely wore a mask, became infected.

It completely ignored discussing the possible reason why only 7.2% of those same case patients who sometimes wore a mask, tested positive, versus 70.6% of the case patients who always wore a mask.

Mask wearers contaminate their masks with their hands. The virus remains active on a mask for seven days.

And talk about ‘complete mangle filled with false implications and conclusions’.

Using your screwball logic:

If my posting “Less than 8% of the case patients who never or rarely wore a mask, caught the disease.” implies that those wearing masks are somehow more vulnerable than those who do not, then the study results and CNN article imply that 85% of the people who always or often wear masks are more vulnerable than those who never or rarely wear a mask.


"The study also found that, of the 154 participants who tested positive, a total of 85% said they had worn a mask either "always" (70.6%) or "often" (14.4%) over the 14 days prior to the onset of their illness." - CNN

Masks work if you get EVERYBODY onboard
Taiwan 7 deaths
That blows me away
Especially since I have visited Taipei
The city is massive and crowded
Yet only 7 deaths
Shows masks, social distancing, testing and tracking work if you get everybody on board
In Taiwan, you would be viewed as pro virus Tanko

Quote: Tanko

It completely ignored discussing the possible reason why only 7.2% of those same case patients who sometimes wore a mask, tested positive, versus 70.6% of the case patients who always wore a mask.

Mask wearers contaminate their masks with their hands. The virus remains active on a mask for seven days.

The White House super spreader event unfortunately hosted by our previously infected President does little to help your theory with all of them running around without masks before the run up to their infection.