And I heard that.

I am pro mask only because I am at risk, as is my husband. However, I got vaccinated. I plan on going maskless next week when my immunity reaches its full potential. I mean, why not? The husband will still wear one and that's his choice because he is afraid of needles. I have a nice supply of KN-95's for the family to use.

I got into a HUGE fight this fall with a lady in our neighborhood who decided to ***** about the cross country team not wearing masks while running. She did this on Nextdoor. I completely lost it on her. I mean, they are kids. They run, they are healthy..and THEY ARE OUTSIDE.

People have freaking lost their minds.

Charpie said:

---

I hear you. I saw someone yell "SHEEP" to someone wearing a mask yesterday.

It really does go both way.

It's like people forgot how to be decent to one another through this whole thing.

---

Yeah, it does go both ways. I'll admit I say "sheep" to myself when I see someone out walking by themselves or driving in a car alone with a mask on, and my favorite...ol Hoss and his girl cruising down 59 in Houston on a sportbike wearing shorts, t-shirts, no helmets, and masks. For them, I'm not sure if they should be called sheep or squids.

t - cam said:

---

While I support masking I'm wondering how many people that are against mask mandates are also for masking at personal discretion.
It seems that there are three categories: pro mandate, anti mandate / pro masking, anti-masking all together.

---

I'd say most would fall into a 4th category: anti-mandate/pro personal choice.

My issue was never with the mask (I don't like nor want to wear one). My issue was always with the government mandating a business require one. It should be 100% left up to the individual business on whether or not they want to require a mask to enter their establishment. If that is what the business wanted and I had to go in, I would suck it up and wear one. If I could go to another business that didn't require a mask that was nearby to get what I needed, I'd have the ability to make that choice.

Airlines fall under Biden's EO, so expect that to last a lot longer than makes sense.

aTm2004 said:

---

t - cam said:

---

While I support masking I'm wondering how many people that are against mask mandates are also for masking at personal discretion.
It seems that there are three categories: pro mandate, anti mandate / pro masking, anti-masking all together.

---

I'd say most would fall into a 4th category: anti-mandate/pro personal choice.

My issue was never with the mask (I don't like nor want to wear one). My issue was always with the government mandating a business require one. It should be 100% left up to the individual business on whether or not they want to require a mask to enter their establishment. If that is what the business wanted and I had to go in, I would suck it up and wear one. If I could go to another business that didn't require a mask that was nearby to get what I needed, I'd have the ability to make that choice.

---

ding ding ding. Winner

My main issue is there is no sound science supporting widespread mask usage as a mitigation measure, yet we have people like the director of the CDC getting up in front of congress and testifying as follows, while holding a surgical mask:

Quote:

---

"I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me," Redfield said. "This face mask will."

---

That's a lie. It's a brazen lie.

We are told again and again that masks "work", that there is "science" supporting their use, and yet none of it is true! Every piece of sound research prior to Q1 2020 pointed to not employing widespread masking in a pandemic. But it's preached with the same certainty as the sun rising in the east, despite empirical observations in hundreds of locales in the US and Europe indicative of ineffectiveness. There are numerous data sets that would be impossible if masks were as effective as claimed.

If someone in authority is reduced to obvious lying to try to convince others to do something, that is a good way to ensure massive skepticism and non-compliance. That is doubled when those trying to convince others resort to cheap moralistic bullying like calling those opposed to mask mandates "murderers".

If the "experts" were honest and said something to the effect of "Look, we don't have good data, but masks may be of some marginal benefit, so if it makes you and those around you more comfortable, we would suggest the practice", that would be honest, and many would be far more inclined to go along.

Capitol Ag said:

---

Like trying to turn a train or B-1 bomber around. Takes a while.

---

Non-Sequitur/Point of order...I can turn the Bone on a dime...You're thinking a B-52

Keegan99 said:

---

My main issue is there is no sound science supporting widespread mask usage as a mitigation measure, yet we have people like the director of the CDC getting up in front of congress and testifying as follows, while holding a surgical mask:

Quote:

---

"I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me," Redfield said. "This face mask will."

---

That's a lie. It's a brazen lie.

We are told again and again that masks "work", that there is "science" supporting their use, and yet none of it is true! Every piece of sound research prior to Q1 2020 pointed to not employing widespread masking in a pandemic. But it's preached with the same certainty as the sun rising in the east, despite empirical observations in hundreds of locales in the US and Europe indicative of ineffectiveness. There are numerous data sets that would be impossible if masks were as effective as claimed.

If someone in authority is reduced to obvious lying to try to convince others to do something, that is a good way to ensure massive skepticism and non-compliance. That is doubled when those trying to convince others resort to cheap moralistic bullying like calling those opposed to mask mandates "murderers".

If the "experts" were honest and said something to the effect of "Look, we don't have good data, but masks may be of some marginal benefit, so if it makes you and those around you more comfortable, we would suggest the practice", that would be honest, and many would be far more inclined to go along.

---

Horrible. Another example of how, in the interest of public health, some public health officials either lie of intentionally alter the truth to try to encourage a policy. The messaging by or "experts" has been one of the biggest reasons for so many issues during this pandemic. But to do it by stating that the vaccine, one that is 95% effective against infection and over 99% effective against sever illness and/or death, is "less" effective than masking is criminal. You'd think they were just trying to make sure people do not vaccinate. SMDH

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Capitol Ag said:

---

Like trying to turn a train or B-1 bomber around. Takes a while.

---

Non-Sequitur/Point of order...I can turn the Bone on a dime...You're thinking a B-52

---

user name checks out!

Capitol Ag said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

I am doing good navigating this charade without incident. I avoid wearing a mask where I can.

I am curious, and concerned on some levels, how long the government run institutions hold out on masks (airlines, public schools, universities, etc.)?

---

For the feds, I'd expect quite a while honestly. Fauci and POTUS have already stated their desire to keep the mandate past the fall. Fauci has stated that this could be reevaluated so it might be earlier. With POTUS, I figure he will want to hold out as his constituency base will demand it. But the good thing is that with more vaccinations, I could see Fauci and public health experts who still favor widespread masking being ok with eliminating the policy by the fall if numbers are significantly down. Biden doesn't have much recourse for states that eliminate the mandate nor that decide to open up fully. I actually will "call my shot" that places like Kyle Field will be maskless by Fall. At least in seats as it's outdoor. Indoor by the spring as well. But the feds will be slow to move just as one would expect them to do with anything. So I feel personally that the federal mandates won't truly end until next spring unfortunately. By then it truly will be past the time to drop masking but that's government for you. Like trying to turn a train or B-1 bomber around. Takes a while.

---

Sadly, I agree with everything you said.


It's really amazing though. When the federal government wants to take away freedoms, they can do it swiftly and quickly. When it's time to give them back? Takes a while.

Capitol Ag said:

---

The messaging by or "experts" has been one of the biggest reasons for so many issues during this pandemic

---

Yes. This has been my biggest issue. It has all been weaponized and politicized. Still is. Almost criminal

They are the CDC. All of their work is based on science. I don't understand why you're undermining them. Lots of those folks are career scientists who specialize in certain areas. They know what they're talking about.

I'm not sure what your occupation is. But I presume you're an expert in your career. I mean that sincerely. But whatever it is, I wouldn't go around questioning if you knew what you were talking about and asking you to back it up with studies. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. And heck, you went to A&M and earned a good education, so I sincerely would think you knew what you're talking about.

Marissa99 said:

---

They are the CDC. All of their work is based on science. I don't understand why you're undermining them. Lots of those folks are career scientists who specialize in certain areas. They know what they're talking about.

I'm not sure what your occupation is. But I presume you're an expert in your career. I mean that sincerely. But whatever it is, I wouldn't go around questioning if you knew what you were talking about and asking you to back it up with studies. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. And heck, you went to A&M and earned a good education, so if sincerely would think you knew what you're talking about.

---

In my profession, you don't get to change your damn mind every other week to conveniently match the political winds...
They are partisan hacks, the past 14 months have proven that.

From the CDC:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR0B5G7uCEL5gOKB989joPmiH75VfzGsFdlUl0QSIsd3wET3uxGZl7Bf120

As some of you question experts, I have to wonder if you constantly question and challenge the medical opinion of your healthcare providers.

Example - you're at risk of heart disease. You're 40. It runs in your family. The healthcare provider run labs and detects elevated LDL cholesterol. Provider tells you given your family history of heart disease and your high cholesterol, you're advised to eat healthy, cut back on alcohol etc.

Do you constantly question them about it? Are you asking for the studies that show 40-somethings are having heart attacks? Are you going to another healthcare provider for a second opinion?

Or are you simply, "Thanks doc. But life is too short. I'm going to eat what I want and if I have a heart attack, so be it?

Marissa99 said:

---

As some of you question experts, I have to wonder if you constantly question and challenge the medical opinion of your healthcare providers.

---

If your argument rests on "you're not educated enough and must be trained properly to understand", you don't really have an argument.

I have questioned doctors about medications and side effects. They provided me with clinical trials that addressed my concerns

When the CDC provided studies (see my previous post), it directly contradicts their advice.

That's a problem.

Marissa99 said:

---

As some of you question experts, I have to wonder if you constantly question and challenge the medical opinion of your healthcare providers.

Example - you're at risk of heart disease. You're 40. It runs in your family. The healthcare provider run labs and detects elevated LDL cholesterol. Provider tells you given your family history of heart disease and your high cholesterol, you're advised to eat healthy, cut back on alcohol etc.

Do you constantly question them about it? Are you asking for the studies that show 40-somethings are having heart attacks? Are you going to another healthcare provider for a second opinion?

Or are you simply, "Thanks doc. But life is too short. I'm going to eat what I want and if I have a heart attack, so be it?

---

Marissa,

All I ask is show me where the POLICIES have worked. There are 50 states that did things 50 different ways. Many of those states have been far more restrictive than others.

We dont need lab tests or scientific theories at this point. There is plenty of real world evidence.

I am not saying there is or isn't proof that it works. I just havent seen it yet.

Uh... If masks don't work for flu, and COVID is more transmissible than flu, then masks should be less effective for COVID, not magically more effective.

Marissa99 said:

---

As some of you question experts, I have to wonder if you constantly question and challenge the medical opinion of your healthcare providers.

Example - you're at risk of heart disease. You're 40. It runs in your family. The healthcare provider run labs and detects elevated LDL cholesterol. Provider tells you given your family history of heart disease and your high cholesterol, you're advised to eat healthy, cut back on alcohol etc.

Do you constantly question them about it? Are you asking for the studies that show 40-somethings are having heart attacks? Are you going to another healthcare provider for a second opinion?

Or are you simply, "Thanks doc. But life is too short. I'm going to eat what I want and if I have a heart attack, so be it?

---

Yes I question them, and would be a fool not to. I also questioned a plumber who wanted to charge us ~$5000 to fix a plumbing issue the 2nd guy fixed for <$100. Just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they know everything or what's best.

Therein lies the issue - every state did their own thing.

When the pandemic ends and the analysis has concluded years from now, it'll be interesting to see what truly worked to help inform public health guidance and messaging for the next pandemic. Like I said in an earlier reply, I hope there isn't another
one. And if there is, I hope it's detected and contained at the outset.

Marissa99 said:

---

Therein lies the issue - every state did their own thing.

When the pandemic ends and the analysis has concluded years from now, it'll be interesting to see what truly worked to help inform public health guidance and messaging for the next pandemic. Like I said in an earlier reply, I hope there isn't another
one. And if there is, I hope it's detected and contained at the outset.

---

I do not understand. Why does this have to be evaluated 'years from now?' This could be flushed out by a stat team from any University over a weekend. The fact that each state did their own thing is not an issue. It provides the answer.

Marissa99 said:

---

No that's not my contention.

I simply don't understand why CDC is being discredited
. Before we entered a polarizing climate, CDC had always been regarded as global premier institution. In fact, it still is. There are career scientists there who are at the top of their fields who are devoted to their research to ultimately improve outcomes and save lives.

If there was an outbreak of Ebola or some other public health issue, the global medical and scientific community looked to the CDC. Even among many people here in the US, the CDC is considered a crown jewel.

So I don't get the continual berating and questioning of their experts as if they had some ulterior motive.

I wouldn't question the findings of let's say, a civil engineering society, on how to best build homes to withstand hurricane winds along the Texas coast. Sure I'd probably have some questions. But I'm not going to constantly look for information that refutes the engineering society's guidance.

---

When the CDC director testifies that masks are more effective than a vaccine and presents that as fact, that strains credulity past the breaking point.

Scientific inquiry and laboratory studies have a place in public policy decisions, but allowing that to determine what level of risk is acceptable will lead to wearing masks for years. It has led to the assertion that those fully vaccinated need to continue masks because no laboratory studies have been done to determine if they can still transmit the virus. Sorry, no. I will not put scientists on a pedestal such that they cannot be questioned.

88planoAg said:

---

Marissa99 said:

---

No that's not my contention.

I simply don't understand why CDC is being discredited
. Before we entered a polarizing climate, CDC had always been regarded as global premier institution. In fact, it still is. There are career scientists there who are at the top of their fields who are devoted to their research to ultimately improve outcomes and save lives.

If there was an outbreak of Ebola or some other public health issue, the global medical and scientific community looked to the CDC. Even among many people here in the US, the CDC is considered a crown jewel.

So I don't get the continual berating and questioning of their experts as if they had some ulterior motive.

I wouldn't question the findings of let's say, a civil engineering society, on how to best build homes to withstand hurricane winds along the Texas coast. Sure I'd probably have some questions. But I'm not going to constantly look for information that refutes the engineering society's guidance.

---

When the CDC director testifies that masks are more effective than a vaccine and presents that as fact, that strains credulity past the breaking point.

---

The CDC quote was from September and clearly states "if I didn't illicit an immune response, a mask would be more effective." This was said before we had vaccine results and assumed the best we'd see was a ~50% effective vaccine.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Using that study to "prove" masks don't work is disingenuous at best. One of the authors of the paper has said as such.

Most health experts agree widespread masking, hygiene, distance helps slow the spread. Is it 100% effective, of course not.


This forum is exhausting.

ETFan said:

---

88planoAg said:

---

Marissa99 said:

---

No that's not my contention.

I simply don't understand why CDC is being discredited
. Before we entered a polarizing climate, CDC had always been regarded as global premier institution. In fact, it still is. There are career scientists there who are at the top of their fields who are devoted to their research to ultimately improve outcomes and save lives.

If there was an outbreak of Ebola or some other public health issue, the global medical and scientific community looked to the CDC. Even among many people here in the US, the CDC is considered a crown jewel.

So I don't get the continual berating and questioning of their experts as if they had some ulterior motive.

I wouldn't question the findings of let's say, a civil engineering society, on how to best build homes to withstand hurricane winds along the Texas coast. Sure I'd probably have some questions. But I'm not going to constantly look for information that refutes the engineering society's guidance.

---

When the CDC director testifies that masks are more effective than a vaccine and presents that as fact, that strains credulity past the breaking point.

---

The CDC quote was from September and clearly states "if I didn't illicit an immune response, a mask would be more effective." This was said before we had vaccine results and assumed the best we'd see was a ~50% effective vaccine.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Using that study to "prove" masks don't work is disingenuous at best. One of the authors of the paper has said as such.

Most health experts agree widespread masking, hygiene, distance helps slow the spread. Is it 100% effective, of course not.


This forum is exhausting.

---

I didn't use a study to say masks don't work. I used cdc testimony to point out the fallibility of the cdc's public statements.