If you think overreactions like this are warranted for a virus w/ a 99.8% survival rate that predominantly only endangers the elderly and obese then you're a fucking moron. Congrats on reducing world wide flu cases from over 30 million to a couple thousand... yeah that seems legit.

So you have the evidence that masks and lockdowns work? Or the evidence that they don't? You have the longitudinal data on the mRNA "vaccines"? What about the claims from leaders that we must still mask and social distance even after vaccination? They don't seem to have much faith in this experimental technology that they are being very insistent that every body receives.

2020: if you died of heart attack with COVID you died of COVID; 2021: if you die 5 mins after getting vaccine, you died of natural causes at age 40. Hurrr, trust the "experts"

https://pic8.co/sh/lek6eU.jpeg

the blue masks cant filter a virus, cloth is like a window screen. Plus they do not seal correctly as anyone who wear glasses. this should be a insult to your intelligence. all this can be found in studies. influenza is larger than corona virus, cdc said everything the recommended is ineffective for it.

virus can enter thru your ears and eyes

you know this is a tired topic, really at this point there is no need for me to waste my time debating it. do your own fucking research

HAAA! 2 of the 4 vaccines have been suspended due to reactions. FUCK YOU!

You criticize this theoretical Facebook person for using an emotional argument and post a headline like that?

If you come on poal to lecture us about useless masks and an an untested experimental "vaccine" that provides no immunity you are a jewish paid shill.

A 2020 meta-analysis found that face masks have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. It found: “Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”: T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

Another 2020 meta-analysis, published by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility: J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal protective and environmental measures. Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Yet another 2020 meta-analysis found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, “very slightly reduced” odds of developing influenza-like illness. The remainder of the 31 studies did not confirm that finding: J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf

A 2019 study of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks “resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.”: L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial. JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

A 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission “may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday.”: J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

A 2011 meta-analysis of 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that “none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”: F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801

Face mask use was likewise found to be not protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers: J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002

Masks have been assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Considering those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer, there have been farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals, by means of “several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards,” and a “potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several meters.” All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking: M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf

For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask: S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086

A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration, while “general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency.” The study found that “Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols.”: H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 Jun. 14:991-1002. https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf

In another study, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%: C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

A meta-analysis found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections: V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942

Another study found that 624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks: M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601

A 2010 study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza: 16 C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR- su9me9vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A80ffXUABRQdhQlc8Wo

Another study found that surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, although S aureus particles were about 6 times the diameter of influenza particles: N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci. 2018; 23(2). 61-69. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

Use of masks in surgery were found to slightly increase incidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3,088 surgeries. The surgeons’ masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients: T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736

Other studies found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical mask use during surgery: N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf; N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual? J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242. https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

A 2015 study found that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.": C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558

A 2020 study found that medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency: L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols: S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798. https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

In another study, that observed subjects while coughing, “neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.” And more viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested: S Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through a variety of cloth masks examined was found to be between 74 and 90%. The filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33%: S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798. https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks: C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

A 2020 Duke University study found that a likely reason for the poor effect of cloth masks is that the mesh of the mask dispersed larger expired respiratory droplets “into a multitude of smaller droplets... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case.” It was also noted that those smaller particles are likely to stay airborne longer than larger droplets, which resulted in “counterproductive” use of these cloth masks: E Fischer, M Fischer, et al. Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Science Advances. Sep 2 2020. 6 (36). https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083?fbclid=IwAR0TPVlflF_sUEiSdad6oM1NVQGO5w2S7Wfs tCIKaIJ15JJaKaDMzBkD5YY

The New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the topic of mask use versus Covid-19 assesses the matter as follows: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”: M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Surgical mask wearers had significantly increased dyspnea after a 6-minute walk than non-mask wearers: E Person, C Lemercier et al. Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance. Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560

Researchers are concerned about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. As a result of hypercapnia, there may be cardiac overload, renal overload, and a shift to metabolic acidosis: B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes. Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devil’s sword – a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322

Healthcare workers’ surgical masks were considered as “personal bioaerosol samplers” and were found to collect and to harbor influenza virus: F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810

Various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result in self-contamination. The risk was found to be higher with longer duration of mask use: A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777

Surgical masks were found to be a repository of bacterial contamination. The source of the bacteria was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. Given that surgeons are gowned from head to foot for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for laypeople who wear masks: L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls: C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons have been found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes: A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126. http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

(From 'Masks are neither effective nor safe: A summary of the science' by Colleen Huber, NMD, https://files.catbox.moe/vq07ln.pdf)

The biggest problem with your anti-vax friend, and your argument as well, is there are no real numbers you can point at.

VAERS is commonly used, but that's a voluntary system that even the CDC admits is all but useless:

Because VAERS allows anyone to report possible side effects from vaccines, it includes reports that might or might not be caused by vaccines. VAERS is not designed to identify cause and effect. VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness.

They're very careful to point out that those numbers don't really mean anything because no one checks them. I can submit 10,000 reports of adverse reactions, but they aren't vetted for veracity.

There's also questions as to if it does much. As Nature pointed out in February:

“The data is certainly intriguing and suggestive that vaccination may reduce the infectiousness of COVID-19 cases, even if it does not prevent infection altogether,”

That's not an uncommon comment. What's the use of getting this if it doesn't prevent the infection?

A story pointed posted recently questions if they even do anything to prevent transmission to other people.

All three authorized vaccines in the United States offer recipients robust protection against illness, particularly the worst cases. But how good are they at blocking transmission to other people?

Shouldn't we have answered that questions before going into this mess? How do you pass on a disease that you can't have because you're supposedly vaccinated from it?

Looking at other vaccines, one of the most common given is the Influenza vaccines, of which:

Serious adverse reactions were not noted; the reported adverse reactions were relatively minor and transient.

No deaths, blood clots, or other life-debilitating reactions. But then again, I fully admit I can't point to any numbers because VAERS is a bullshit system made up of bullshit numbers. Vaers does say that it received 3,005 reports of death but is vary quick to point out that "they aren't linked."

All I know is I and everyone I know has had this stuff, and I have to keep being told I still need this injection because *it's safe."

I learned many years ago if you have to keep telling me something like it's safe, it's fun, it's in your best interests - it's not.

Sources:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z

https://archive.is/LclJ2#selection-1061.116-4626.0

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19050354/

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AfxppOqJHtMJ:https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Define vaccine