Kate Brown imposes OUTDOOR mask mandate, regardless of vaccination status.

[Gunner3456]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1430270923186315266

Read More

 

[Ura-Ki]

Kate brown needs to go suck start a 1911!

 

[Cavedweller]

"Masks have been proven to be effective." When? Where? By whom? Follow the science they say. Where is the evidence? NOT ONE STUDY! Color me pissed.

OK, I'm cool. Can anyone provide a link to any actual study showing that masks reduce transmission of Covid-19? An actual study, not just the opinion of some "expert."

 

[Bam]

I will not comply. Okay, so I got the vaccine, I suppose the statistics show the vaccine will prevent me from getting seriously sick. SO! With that said, I am not wearing a mask outside.

This is getting ridiculous, they are now making rules just because they can. You're not going to catch the virus outdoors with airflow. Someone with delta would have to cough directly in your face.

 

[Ura-Ki]

"Masks have been proven to be effective." When? Where? By whom? Follow the science they say. Where is the evidence? NOT ONE STUDY! Color me pissed.

OK, I'm cool. Can anyone provide a link to any actual study showing that masks reduce transmission of Covid-19? An actual study, not just the opinion of some "expert."

Nope!

Even worse, Dr. Fakesy said during the past plandemic that face masks didn't work at all, and not to bother!
There have been a number of doctors who have pointed out studies that not only do masks not stop vaper transfer through any number of masks, but that they actually hold vaper partials in the material and can actually make you more suspectable due to a longer exposure time to any virus!

 

[titsonritz]

F' you, not going to happen.

 

[Bob D]

"Masks have been proven to be effective." When? Where? By whom? Follow the science they say. Where is the evidence? NOT ONE STUDY! Color me pissed.

OK, I'm cool. Can anyone provide a link to any actual study showing that masks reduce transmission of Covid-19? An actual study, not just the opinion of some "expert."

A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19

Airborne transmission arises through the inhalation of aerosol droplets exhaled by an infected person and is now thought to be the primary transmission route of COVID-19. By assuming that the respiratory droplets are mixed uniformly through an indoor space, we derive a simple safety guideline...

www.pnas.org

This study only deals with indoor transmission and in fact I think there's results in there that demonstrate that they don't make enough difference outdoors to even be measurable.

So yeah. This seems a bit ridiculous, but... whatever

 

[Ura-Ki]

How are they enforcing this? And who will be enforcing it?

 

[Bob D]

How are they enforcing this? And who will be enforcing it?

Kens and Karens with cameras and social media accounts?

 

[Ura-Ki]

A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19

Airborne transmission arises through the inhalation of aerosol droplets exhaled by an infected person and is now thought to be the primary transmission route of COVID-19. By assuming that the respiratory droplets are mixed uniformly through an indoor space, we derive a simple safety guideline...

www.pnas.org

This study only deals with indoor transmission and in fact I think there's results in there that demonstrate that they don't make enough difference outdoors to even be measurable.

So yeah. This seems a bit ridiculous, but... whatever

That's a good source, all except the mask effectiveness ratings, this has been proved in correct by a large number of doctors to be false! I don't have the time to search it out and post it but there is emperical data that's been peer reviewed that shows masks do not protect you or others!

 

[Cavedweller]

A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19

Airborne transmission arises through the inhalation of aerosol droplets exhaled by an infected person and is now thought to be the primary transmission route of COVID-19. By assuming that the respiratory droplets are mixed uniformly through an indoor space, we derive a simple safety guideline...

www.pnas.org

This study only deals with indoor transmission and in fact I think there's results in there that demonstrate that they don't make enough difference outdoors to even be measurable.

So yeah. This seems a bit ridiculous, but... whatever

Thanks for that. But this is not empirical data. It is a theoretical model based on assumptions and estimates. If I missed something, please let me know.

 

[titsonritz]

Kens and Karens with cameras and social media accounts?

As long as they remain a minimum of 6' away I could care less what they do. Wanna get in my face there's gonna be a problem.

 

[Bob D]

I would like to see that data too, I'm a data nerd and I take it all. The link I posted is empirical, peer reviewed data concluding that masks DO protect you and others, including detailing the conditions and exceptions they found.

Edit: I am investigating my claim that the study I posted includes empirical data... on second thought I am not sure of that.

Edit 2: this study itself did not directly include empirical datasets, but one of the sources did include empirical data (cited source 38) and they found that the results were consistent.

 

[albin25]

And who will be enforcing it?

Any "peace officer" who's job is more important to them ....
.... than the oath that they swore to get it!

 

[Cavedweller]

I don't have the time to search it out and post it but there is emperical data that's been peer reviewed that shows masks do not protect you or others!

Danish Mask Study: No Benefit

The Danish randomized controlled trial on the real-world efficacy of face masks against coronavirus infection – the first of its kind – has now been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. As…

swprs.org

 

[Longwalkhome]

I wonder who is doing Oregons covid testing?

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[mrblond]

we get to this point yet ?

 

[Cavedweller]

I would like to see that data too, I'm a data nerd and I take it all.

"A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."

ACP Journals

 

[Bob D]

I read that Danish study when it came out. It seemed to address only whether there was benefit to the wearer, not whether there was a larger benefit of reduced spread to others. There has also been some disagreement about whether it actually indicated no benefit to the wearer. I seem to remember that their data showed that the wearer was 18% less likely to be infected, which was not concluded to be enough to mandate a public policy requiring them.

But again, they did not study the greater effect of reducing spread in a larger population where everyone is masked, only to the masked individual when among a population that is largely unmasked.

I'm not arguing here, just discussing. I dont know any of these people and didn't perform the study myself.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yea, no. F you, Kate.