@Rich Where to start with your post.... Hmmm.
Rich wrote:Normally viruses tend to become less lethal, less sick making over time. The reason for this is that people who get sick tend to isolate, while those that have no symptoms or mild symptoms continue with their normal social interactions. This gives viral variants that cause mild or no sickness an evolutionary advantage.
False, of course. Given time and more infections they can mutate, becoming more dangerous. The more infections, and the more chance for the virus to mutate.
The virus has only become more dangerous in places where the infection rates were already high. That's scientific fact, incidentally.
Rich wrote:This is why the China virus is become worse over time not better.
False. The virus has gotten worse because of all the infections in Western nations, where they did not quarantine properly, social distance and have mask mandates. Where it has NOT been allowed to infect everyone, like in SE Asia, it's been less lethal. The Delta variant isn't common except in the places with the highest infection rates. Your argument is nonsense based on very non-medical information, and indeed, is very "made up". It's not the China virus, either, fool.
Testing doesn't make infections worse.
You have made sure that everything you have said is wrong on every possible level. It's astonishing how unscientific you can make your rubbish.
Rich wrote:Masks are similar in their effect to testing. Masks, at least when they effective, mean that the virus requires a much higher viral load in order to spread. Masks give evolutionary advantage to variants that produce high viral loads, again these variants tend to make people sicker.
False. It means that the virus cannot travel easily to another person. In places where mask use was very high, the infection rates were lower. Scientific fact that shoots your bullshit out out of the air, like the pathetic weakass conspiracy theory balloon that it is. You're making up bullshit to push a really stupid narrative.
Your "theory" would only work in a preschool, @Rich, where children hadn't yet learned to critically think, and aren't smart enough to recognize abject stupidity.
An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.
The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).
Models suggest that public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high (39). We recommend that mask use requirements are implemented by governments, or, when governments do not, by organizations that provide public-facing services. Such mandates must be accompanied by measures to ensure access to masks, possibly including distribution and rationing mechanisms so that they do not become discriminatory. Given the value of the source control principle, especially for presymptomatic people, it is not sufficient for only employees to wear masks; customers must wear masks as well.https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118But hey, @Rich, don't let reality get in the way of your idiotic beliefs.
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
- By Pants-of-dog
- By Rugoz