Good post, i-node, even though I agree with only a small percentage of it.
I'll just address a few points.
First of all, if HCQ (and later IvermeQtin) were as effective of a treatment as it was billed to be, then why did the states whose residents believed in them the most experience high death rates?
And why didn't any of the poorer nations who were hit hard by COVID-19, including India, rely on these oh so safe, effective, and easily available treatments?
As for masks, yes, you need the N-95 or equivalent (e.g. the Korean KF-94 standard) in order to make a difference. In that sense, you can argue that mask mandates did not help. That's because many people were either wearing the wrong type of masks, or they were wearing them incorrectly. Even here in mask-loving Santa Clara County, I can't tell you how many times I've seen people wearing masks without covering the nose. Like what's the point?
Moreover, masks are more effective at preventing the spread when an infected person is wearing it, and less effective at preventing infection when an uninfected person is wearing it. Unfortunately the very people who are more likely to be infected are those who are less likely to wear a mask, so it's a Catch-22. The only way to overcome that is via draconian means.
I don't have the links offhand to prove all of the above, but these are the rules I go by based on what I have read over the past two years. As of yet, I have not seen any data to contradict what I have observed with regard to mask-wearing.
I can tell you, though, that I've been able to counter all of the silly arguments that the anti-maskers have brought up over that time period. The idea of a "chain-link fence" stopping air molecules is one such analogy that the anti-maskers love to bring up, no matter how invalid it is.
Tenchusatsu |
