https://archive.ph/PFBXK
No evidence face masks protected vulnerable from Covid, health officials >admit
Critics say authorities are failing to prepare for any future pandemics
by not examining the effectiveness of masks
By
Joe Pinkstone,
SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT
12 April 2023 7:59pm
A rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that
masks were effective during lockdown
A rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that
masks were effective during lockdown CREDIT: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Europe >There is not enough evidence to suggest medical-grade face masks protect >vulnerable people from Covid, health officials have admitted.
A rapid review report published by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) >investigated if high-quality masks, such as the N95, KN95 and FFP2
coverings, protect clinically vulnerable people in the community from >catching Covid.
However, the report was unable to find a single piece of scientific
research which had usable data.
The review did not identify any studies for inclusion, and so could
provide no evidence to answer the research question, the authors state.
No studies matching the inclusion criteria were found, so no evidence
could be presented.
The rapid review looked at 4,371 studies specifically about Covid but
there were none that examined the effectiveness of N95 and equivalent
face masks as wearer protection against Covid-19 when used in the
community by people at higher risk of becoming seriously ill.
Government scientists collected data up until September 2022 and the
at-risk groups included people with Downs Syndrome, some cancer
patients and people with immune system disorders.
Contentious debate
Throughout the pandemic there has been a contentious debate about the
pros and cons of wearing face coverings among scientists with little
decisive evidence either way.
Various studies have purportedly shown masks to reduce transmission and >disease, while others have shown them to be ineffective.
Some vocal academics entrenched in scientific politicking have
vociferously defended their own position for the last three years while
other scientists calling for more research have often been met with >criticism.
Now, health officials are struggling with a lack of data which experts
warn leaves us just as in the dark now as we were three years ago about >whether masks work or not.
Prof Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at the
University of Oxford, told The Telegraph it is a significant failing
that there have not been high-quality trials done on the effectiveness
of masks.
I do not understand why there's been a lack of will to do high-quality >trials in this area, he said. We have completely failed to address
this issue and I actually consider that to be an issue that the [Covid] >inquiry needs to look at.
For those people at low risk, these questions don't necessarily matter
too much, but if you're at high risk, you really want this question to
be addressed. You want to know the answer.
He added that the scientific fields inability to conduct good clinical >trials that gather robust data leaves us exposed and at risk of making
the same mistakes in the next pandemic as we did in the last one.
If there's another pandemic around the corner, we still haven't
addressed any of these issues. We've not learned anything, Prof
Heneghan said.
A previous UKHSA which was wider in scope concluded that all types of
face coverings are effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to
some extent in both healthcare and community settings. In this review,
it was noted that N95 respirators are likely to be the most effective. >However, a Cochrane review published last month found insufficient
evidence to inform on the effectiveness of masks. It is impossible to
say if masks work or not because there is not enough good data, the
review found.
Information about the effectiveness of wearing mask needs to be clearer,
some scientists have said
Information about the effectiveness of wearing mask needs to be clearer,
some scientists have said CREDIT: SOPA Images
Prof Paul Hunter, Professor in Medicine at the Norwich School of
Medicine, led a study at the end of 2020 looking at how effective masks
were and used data on flu, as well as other viruses.
Masks did reduce risk of transmission by about 20 per cent and in the
early days of the pandemic that was really important, Prof Hunter told
The Telegraph. But they were never the cast-iron guarantee that some
people seem to have been saying. However, since the appearance of
omicron masks no longer provide much if any value.
The exception is people who remain particularly vulnerable to severe
disease as there is some evidence that if you catch Covid whilst wearing
a mask you generally get a less severe infection.
'No good evidence'
In my view, there is no good evidence that N95 masks work any better
than surgical masks.
Dr Aodhn Breathnach, a Consultant Global Health Microbiologist at UKHSA
and a Consultant Medical Microbiologist at St Georges University
Hospitals, recently published a study which found masks in hospitals had >little impact on Covid transmission in the omicron wave.
He told The Telegraph that conducting randomised clinical trials for >mask-wearing would be very difficult to do in practice.
It is maybe surprising that there is no conclusive evidence one way or >another [as to whether masks work], given that SARS-CoV-2 is perhaps the
most studied virus ever, and masking was always a debated topic, Dr >Breathnach said.
Nonetheless, the fact that the studies that do exist (including our own
late addition) fail to show convincing evidence of benefit from masking >suggests that, if there is a benefit, it is a rather modest one, i.e.
masks may reduce the risk slightly but do not guarantee you wont get >infected.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
boishteen, boishteen...ish jewish, thish name? LOL
(mask) 04/14/23 Again, how to be perfect (i.e. not racist) ...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.christnet.christianlife/c/mSRSM9vI1VM/m/j9q0MqjiAgAJ
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
(mask) 04/14/23 Again greeting (Matt 5:47) Peeler here ...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/SgbSB5UVar4/m/bwzAGiroDAAJ
(mask) 04/14/23 Again greeting (Matt 5:47) Peeler here ...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/SgbSB5UVar4/m/bwzAGiroDAAJ
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://archive.ph/PFBXK
No evidence face masks protected vulnerable from Covid, health officials
admit
Critics say authorities are failing to prepare for any future pandemics
by not examining the effectiveness of masks
By
Joe Pinkstone,
SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT
12 April 2023 • 7:59pm
A rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that
masks were effective during lockdown
A rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that
masks were effective during lockdown CREDIT: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Europe >> There is not enough evidence to suggest medical-grade face masks protect
vulnerable people from Covid, health officials have admitted.
A rapid review report published by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)
investigated if high-quality masks, such as the N95, KN95 and FFP2
coverings, protect clinically vulnerable people in the community from
catching Covid.
However, the report was unable to find a single piece of scientific
research which had usable data.
“The review did not identify any studies for inclusion, and so could
provide no evidence to answer the research question,” the authors state. >> “No studies matching the inclusion criteria were found, so no evidence
could be presented.”
The rapid review looked at 4,371 studies specifically about Covid but
there were none that examined the effectiveness of N95 and equivalent
face masks as wearer protection against Covid-19 when used in the
community by people at higher risk of becoming seriously ill.
Government scientists collected data up until September 2022 and the
at-risk groups included people with Down’s Syndrome, some cancer
patients and people with immune system disorders.
Contentious debate
Throughout the pandemic there has been a contentious debate about the
pros and cons of wearing face coverings among scientists with little
decisive evidence either way.
Various studies have purportedly shown masks to reduce transmission and
disease, while others have shown them to be ineffective.
Some vocal academics entrenched in scientific politicking have
vociferously defended their own position for the last three years while
other scientists calling for more research have often been met with
criticism.
Now, health officials are struggling with a lack of data which experts
warn leaves us just as in the dark now as we were three years ago about
whether masks work or not.
Prof Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at the
University of Oxford, told The Telegraph it is “a significant failing” >> that there have not been high-quality trials done on the effectiveness
of masks.
“I do not understand why there's been a lack of will to do high-quality
trials in this area,” he said. “We have completely failed to address
this issue and I actually consider that to be an issue that the [Covid]
inquiry needs to look at.
“For those people at low risk, these questions don't necessarily matter
too much, but if you're at high risk, you really want this question to
be addressed. You want to know the answer.”
He added that the scientific field’s inability to conduct good clinical
trials that gather robust data leaves us exposed and at risk of making
the same mistakes in the next pandemic as we did in the last one.
“If there's another pandemic around the corner, we still haven't
addressed any of these issues. We've not learned anything,” Prof
Heneghan said.
A previous UKHSA which was wider in scope concluded that all types of
face coverings are effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to
some extent in both healthcare and community settings. In this review,
it was noted that N95 respirators are likely to be the most effective.
However, a Cochrane review published last month found insufficient
evidence to inform on the effectiveness of masks. It is impossible to
say if masks work or not because there is not enough good data, the
review found.
Information about the effectiveness of wearing mask needs to be clearer,
some scientists have said
Information about the effectiveness of wearing mask needs to be clearer,
some scientists have said CREDIT: SOPA Images
Prof Paul Hunter, Professor in Medicine at the Norwich School of
Medicine, led a study at the end of 2020 looking at how effective masks
were and used data on flu, as well as other viruses.
“Masks did reduce risk of transmission by about 20 per cent and in the
early days of the pandemic that was really important,” Prof Hunter told
The Telegraph. “But they were never the cast-iron guarantee that some
people seem to have been saying. However, since the appearance of
omicron masks no longer provide much if any value.
“The exception is people who remain particularly vulnerable to severe
disease as there is some evidence that if you catch Covid whilst wearing
a mask you generally get a less severe infection.
'No good evidence'
“In my view, there is no good evidence that N95 masks work any better
than surgical masks.”
Dr Aodhán Breathnach, a Consultant Global Health Microbiologist at UKHSA
and a Consultant Medical Microbiologist at St George’s University
Hospitals, recently published a study which found masks in hospitals had
little impact on Covid transmission in the omicron wave.
He told The Telegraph that conducting randomised clinical trials for
mask-wearing would be very difficult to do in practice.
“It is maybe surprising that there is no conclusive evidence one way or
another [as to whether masks work], given that SARS-CoV-2 is perhaps the
most studied virus ever, and masking was always a debated topic,” Dr
Breathnach said.
“Nonetheless, the fact that the studies that do exist (including our own >> late addition) fail to show convincing evidence of benefit from masking
suggests that, if there is a benefit, it is a rather modest one, i.e.
masks may reduce the risk slightly but do not guarantee you won’t get
infected.”
Only the "full armor of GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) is 100% protective which
we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's secret ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ). Though masking is less protective, it
helps us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne pathogens when there are people getting sick because of not being 100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evll" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
In the interim, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8) way to eradicate the COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by
rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to http://WDJW.great-site.net/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) for them to
call their doctor and self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of
stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the best while
preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations
and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu &
Delta lineage mutations combining via slip-RNA-replication to form
hybrids like http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current
COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
HeartQuack Andrew wrote:
NOT Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://archive.ph/PFBXK
No evidence face masks protected vulnerable from Covid, health officials >>> admit
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTestI am wonderfully hungry!
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:34:13 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:There is nothing inane about being wonderfully hungery.
HeartQuack Andrew wrote:
NOT Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://archive.ph/PFBXK
No evidence face masks protected vulnerable from Covid, health officials >>>> admit
<b'ris>
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTestI am wonderfully hungry!
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
For fuck's sake, how many MORE times do we got to see this inane gook conversation before you get raptured by the ICE 5-0, gook?
So how are YOU, gook?Mangina, I am better than you and wonderfully hungry.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://archive.ph/PFBXK
No evidence face masks protected vulnerable from Covid, health officials >>> admit
Critics say authorities are failing to prepare for any future pandemics
by not examining the effectiveness of masks
By
Joe Pinkstone,
SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT
12 April 2023 7:59pm
A rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that
masks were effective during lockdown
A rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that
masks were effective during lockdown CREDIT: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Europe
There is not enough evidence to suggest medical-grade face masks protect >>> vulnerable people from Covid, health officials have admitted.
A rapid review report published by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) >>> investigated if high-quality masks, such as the N95, KN95 and FFP2
coverings, protect clinically vulnerable people in the community from
catching Covid.
However, the report was unable to find a single piece of scientific
research which had usable data.
The review did not identify any studies for inclusion, and so could
provide no evidence to answer the research question, the authors state. >>> No studies matching the inclusion criteria were found, so no evidence
could be presented.
The rapid review looked at 4,371 studies specifically about Covid but
there were none that examined the effectiveness of N95 and equivalent
face masks as wearer protection against Covid-19 when used in the
community by people at higher risk of becoming seriously ill.
Government scientists collected data up until September 2022 and the
at-risk groups included people with Downs Syndrome, some cancer
patients and people with immune system disorders.
Contentious debate
Throughout the pandemic there has been a contentious debate about the
pros and cons of wearing face coverings among scientists with little
decisive evidence either way.
Various studies have purportedly shown masks to reduce transmission and
disease, while others have shown them to be ineffective.
Some vocal academics entrenched in scientific politicking have
vociferously defended their own position for the last three years while
other scientists calling for more research have often been met with
criticism.
Now, health officials are struggling with a lack of data which experts
warn leaves us just as in the dark now as we were three years ago about
whether masks work or not.
Prof Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at the
University of Oxford, told The Telegraph it is a significant failing
that there have not been high-quality trials done on the effectiveness
of masks.
I do not understand why there's been a lack of will to do high-quality
trials in this area, he said. We have completely failed to address
this issue and I actually consider that to be an issue that the [Covid]
inquiry needs to look at.
For those people at low risk, these questions don't necessarily matter
too much, but if you're at high risk, you really want this question to
be addressed. You want to know the answer.
He added that the scientific fields inability to conduct good clinical
trials that gather robust data leaves us exposed and at risk of making
the same mistakes in the next pandemic as we did in the last one.
If there's another pandemic around the corner, we still haven't
addressed any of these issues. We've not learned anything, Prof
Heneghan said.
A previous UKHSA which was wider in scope concluded that all types of
face coverings are effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to
some extent in both healthcare and community settings. In this review,
it was noted that N95 respirators are likely to be the most effective.
However, a Cochrane review published last month found insufficient
evidence to inform on the effectiveness of masks. It is impossible to
say if masks work or not because there is not enough good data, the
review found.
Information about the effectiveness of wearing mask needs to be clearer, >>> some scientists have said
Information about the effectiveness of wearing mask needs to be clearer, >>> some scientists have said CREDIT: SOPA Images
Prof Paul Hunter, Professor in Medicine at the Norwich School of
Medicine, led a study at the end of 2020 looking at how effective masks
were and used data on flu, as well as other viruses.
Masks did reduce risk of transmission by about 20 per cent and in the
early days of the pandemic that was really important, Prof Hunter told
The Telegraph. But they were never the cast-iron guarantee that some
people seem to have been saying. However, since the appearance of
omicron masks no longer provide much if any value.
The exception is people who remain particularly vulnerable to severe
disease as there is some evidence that if you catch Covid whilst wearing >>> a mask you generally get a less severe infection.
'No good evidence'
In my view, there is no good evidence that N95 masks work any better
than surgical masks.
Dr Aodhn Breathnach, a Consultant Global Health Microbiologist at UKHSA >>> and a Consultant Medical Microbiologist at St Georges University
Hospitals, recently published a study which found masks in hospitals had >>> little impact on Covid transmission in the omicron wave.
He told The Telegraph that conducting randomised clinical trials for
mask-wearing would be very difficult to do in practice.
It is maybe surprising that there is no conclusive evidence one way or
another [as to whether masks work], given that SARS-CoV-2 is perhaps the >>> most studied virus ever, and masking was always a debated topic, Dr
Breathnach said.
Nonetheless, the fact that the studies that do exist (including our own >>> late addition) fail to show convincing evidence of benefit from masking
suggests that, if there is a benefit, it is a rather modest one, i.e.
masks may reduce the risk slightly but do not guarantee you wont get
infected.
Only the "full armor of GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) is 100% protective which
we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's secret (
http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ). Though masking is less protective, it
helps us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens when there are people getting sick because of not being 100%
protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
In the interim, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by
rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
http://WDJW.great-site.net/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) for them to
call their doctor and self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of
stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the best while
preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations
and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu &
Delta lineage mutations combining via slip-RNA-replication to form
hybrids like http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current
COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
https://archive.ph/PFBXKNo evidence face masks protected vulnerable from Covid, health officials admitCritics say authorities are failing to prepare for any future pandemics by not examining the effectiveness of masksByJoe Pinkstone, SCIENCECORRESPONDENT12 April 2023 ? 7:59pmA rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that masks were effective during lockdownA rapid review of 4,371 studies failed to find conclusive evidence that masks were effective during lockdown
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 123:08:30 |
| Calls: | 6,769 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,299 |
| Messages: | 5,376,804 |
| Posted today: | 2 |