AP: The super spreaders behind top COVID-19 conspiracy theories

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
At least you didn't call me a Russian spy. Progress. :D
Snowflaking about something I have never said. Wow you sound a lot like all those troll accounts that pushed their nonsense.

But shit between MBS, Netanyahu, Xi, and all those other dictators (even would be American ones) using propaganda to spread their lies to divide us and push people into becoming radicalized against (insert whatever shit they ended up at when they went down the rabbit hole), there is really no way to predict who any particular troll is working for unless you decide to put endless hours of fruitless effort/skill into trying to predict it.

So really IMO it is always just good to remember, when you are getting paid by someone online, you really don't have any clue who is paying you, and you could easily be getting paid to spam dangerous shit.

I truly do hope you are just some normal all American nut living in the wild with the redwoods man, I truly do. But for real, I have no clue who you are, so I really can't say one way or another.

-Still don't get the mask thing, eh? That mask is not going to protect you. Not sure what is so hard to comprehend that a mask is going to help slow infections of covid by reducing the spread of respiratory particles. Just because you do not care about your community enough to do the bare fucking minimum does not make it a superstition.
I would double check (did below), but masks still do benefit people when they are the only one wearing it.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/covid-masks-protection-stats.html
Screen Shot 2022-12-17 at 1.14.33 PM.png
If I’m the only person wearing a mask on a plane or subway train, in a store or at another indoor location, am I really protected from infection?

It’s true that masks work best when everyone around you is wearing one. That’s because when an infected person wears a mask, a large percentage of the infectious particles they exhale are trapped, stopping viral spread at the source. And when fewer viral particles are floating around the room, the masks others are wearing are likely to block those particles that have escaped.

But there is also plenty of evidence showing that masks protect the wearer, even when others around them are mask-free.

The amount of protection depends on the quality of the mask and how well it fits. Health experts recommend using an N95, KN95 or KF94 to protect yourself against the Omicron subvariant BA.2, which is now the dominant version of the coronavirus and is far more infectious than previous strains.

Other variables, such as how much time you are exposed to an infected person and how well a space is ventilated also will affect your risk.

On most planes, for example, the cabin air is frequently pumped through high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that are pretty good at reducing virus transmission. But that doesn’t completely eliminate your risk. In a modeling study published in December 2021, researchers found that passengers sitting in the same row or one row away from someone who had Covid-19 still had a high risk of being infected through direct respiratory droplets. Wearing a mask reduced the risk of infection by 54 percent.

In closed settings like a plane, it can be hard to avoid a mixed group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, symptomatic or asymptomatic people, all of whom may transmit the coronavirus at varying levels. And the flight may not even be the riskiest part of a trip.

Air circulation may be running at low strength or completely turned off during boarding and deplaning, so those periods, as well as the time you spend at the airport, may be when you are at most risk of exposure and may benefit from wearing a mask.

Other settings may be even more worrisome.

“I know everyone talks about planes, but I would say buses are probably the riskiest, then trains and then planes, in order of highest to lowest,” said Linsey Marr of Virginia Tech, an expert in airborne transmission of viruses.

“People talk about planes having great ventilation filtration, and they do and that greatly helps reduce the risk of transmission,” she added. “But the virus is going to be in the air, no question in my mind, because there’s still large numbers of cases.”

There is also real-world data supporting the protective effects of masking in other indoor locations. A 2020 investigation of a hotel outbreak in Switzerland, for instance, found that several employees and a guest who tested positive for the coronavirus were wearing only face shields (with no masks); those who wore masks were not infected.

And a Tennessee study found that communities with mask mandates had lower hospitalization rates than areas where masks weren’t required.

A number of laboratory studies, too, have documented that a mask protects the person who is wearing it, though the level of that protection can vary depending on the type of mask, the material it’s made from, the experimental setup and how particle exposure was measured.

But the bottom line of all the studies is that a mask reduces the potential exposure of the person wearing it. Here are some of the findings:

  • One study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a standard surgical mask protected the wearer only from about 7.5 percent of the particles generated by a simulated cough. But knotting the loops and tucking in the sides of the medical mask reduced exposure by nearly 65 percent. (Watch this video to see the “knot and tuck” method.) Covering the surgical mask with a cloth mask, a technique known as double masking, reduced exposure to the simulated cough particles by 83 percent.
  • A Virginia Tech study looked at how well homemade masks, surgical masks and face shields protected the wearer, based on virus particle size. The research showed that most masks could block very large particles, like those from a sneeze. But when the researchers looked at smaller aerosolized particles that are hardest to block, protection ranged from near zero with a face shield to about 30 percent protection with a surgical mask. (The percentages in the study can’t be directly compared to the C.D.C. knot-and-tuck study because the testing methods were different.)
    Based on the findings, Dr. Marr and her colleagues concluded that a two-layer cloth mask made of flexible, tightly woven fabric, combined with a filter material (like a coffee filter or surgical mask), could offer good protection, reducing 70 percent of the most penetrating particles and trapping 90 percent or more of the larger particles. They also found that head straps or ties created a better fit than ear loops.
  • A study from Tokyo tested how well different types of masks protected the wearer from actual coronavirus particles. The study showed that even a simple cotton mask offered some protection (17 percent to 27 percent) to the wearer. Medical masks performed better, including a surgical mask (47 percent to 50 percent protection), a loosefitting N95 (57 percent to 86 percent protection) and a tightly sealed N95 (79 percent to 90 percent protection).
  • While many lab studies test masks using mannequin heads, a 2008 study used real people to measure how well masks could protect the wearer against a respiratory virus. The study subjects wore different kinds of masks fitted with special receptors that could measure particle concentration on both sides of the masks. In this study, cloth masks reduced exposure by 60 percent, surgical masks by 76 percent and N95 masks by 99 percent.

While the lab studies all show a mask can protect the wearer, how well the masks perform in the real world depends on a number of variables, including how consistently people use them, whether a person is in high-risk situations and the rate of infection in the community.

The laboratory studies showed that a high-quality medical mask, like an N95, KN95 or KF94, works best. While vaccination and a booster shot is the best protection against infection with the coronavirus, even vaccinated people should be cautious around crowds or large groups indoors when the vaccination status of others isn’t known.

Dr. Marr recommends wearing the highest-quality mask possible when you can’t keep your distance or be outdoors — or when nobody around you is masking up. That means an N95 or equivalent.
 
Last edited:

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
This goes back to the stupid Russian bullshit propaganda 'both sides' nonsense man.

Two people pushed a old lady and she broke her arm, one because he was just a jackass, and the other to push her out of the way of a oncoming bus. Even though the result might be the same (in your example not saying something exactly right, but generally makes the correct point, like Biden did with the vaccines being helpful in keeping people out of the hospital if they were to catch Covid), they are very different.
Perfectly explained so that anyone with an IQ greater than a pineapple would understand.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
She had a lot to do with it. I'm not saying she flat out lied, but she literally had fauci on her show, like they were buddies. Then told everyone that "WE" figured out that that getting the jab will stop the virus in its tracks. How many people do you think were convinced by her? Not just getting the jab, which i'm sure many went and did, but the thought that it was completely effective. They figured they could just get it one and done like her, and go back to normal. In other words, she created a massive army of spreaders, according to your logic.

Who is the con artist again? The people still looking for amnesty and pushing the propaganda if you ask me..

The thing is, I still believe in free speech. She can say whatever she wants on TV for all I care. Like the left wing version of AJ or something, people want to watch. If people want to believe, let them ;)
You mean a actual news tv show had on the dude who for decades has been on the front lines after we all started dropping like flies to help our society figure out what is going on and how to fight it, when once again we were getting slammed by a new virus? A guy who has worked harder to gain more knowledge in this field over a lifetime to make him one of the foremost minds in how to combat it?

Why do you suppose Rachel Maddow and Joe Biden made claims about "the vaccine" that were inaccurate ?

What is a covid 19 conspiracy theory super spreader?

Do you know if the "official definition" of vaccine has been changed recently by any "authorities" ? Ever wonder why somebody would do that? Do you think it's to protect anyone ?

I won't wear a mask if I don't want to. It's not a superstition I believe in.

You should be free to wear one anytime you need one to quell any concerns or fears, real or imagined you have.

View attachment 5238819
lmao showing a box with words on it that has no actual description of what it is, and pretending like that means shit.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
get your head out of your ass, it's never too late to start doing the right thing.
It is if you got myocarditis and kicked the bucket because Fauci, Biden or Maddow convinced you "the vax" was going to save you from something so deadly people had to take a flawed test to see if they even had it.

The question is should those people pay reparations to the family of the deceased, the incapacitated or the injured? What do you think?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
any particular troll is working
I haven't seen any trolls but if I do, I'll be sure and let you know.

I'm working for peace, liberty and self-determination.
Also, I enjoy the cozy atmosphere and comraderie!

So anyhow, what do you think, are Biden and Maddow super spreaders of covid misinformation ?
 

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
It is if you got myocarditis and kicked the bucket because Fauci, Biden or Maddow convinced you "the vax" was going to save you from something so deadly people had to take a flawed test to see if they even had it.

The question is should those people pay reparations to the family of the deceased, the incapacitated or the injured? What do you think?
Show me a single case of wearing a mask causing myocarditis. Wearing a mask is the bare minimum you could do to help your community and something you still refuse to do.

And I would be okay if the government paid families of people that had the exceptionally rare adverse reaction if that would convince all the hold outs to be vaccinated. It would be far cheaper and prevent a lot more death and illness.
 
Last edited:

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Show me a single case of wearing a mask causing myocarditis. Wearing a mask is the bare minimum you could do to help your community and something you still refuse to do.

And I would be okay if the government paid families of people that had the exceptionally rare adverse reaction if that would convince all the hold outs to be vaccinated. It would be far cheaper and prevent a lot more death and illness.
you’re arguing with someone who sees achieving new lows of intellectual dishonesty as a personal challenge. Just so long as you know what you are feeding.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
Show me a single case of wearing a mask causing myocarditis. Wearing a mask is the bare minimum you could do to help your community and something you still refuse to do.

And I would be okay if the government paid families of people that had the exceptionally rare adverse reaction if that would convince all the hold outs to be vaccinated. It would be far cheaper and prevent a lot more death and illness.
Wear one if you want, but don't force me to. My body my choice right?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Show me a single case of wearing a mask causing myocarditis.
Your question makes me think you may be hearing voices. Can you breathe? Are you okay? Lol.

Show me a single post where I said masks cause myocarditis.
 
Last edited:

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Why do you hijack a women’s rights slogan to defend a false premise?
Delicious irony is delicious.

There's no such thing as "women's rights" in the sense that women have any more or any less rights than other people concerning ownership of their own body. Everyone has those equal rights. Therefore, not a hijack, it's more a proper use and serves to point out an irony too.

Why do you "hijack" and contort language to describe an aspect of a right as if it's a distinctly separate right only for women, rather than a possible way for any person to exercise that right? Everyone has the right to control their own body, but not the body of others is probably the best way to apply, "my body, my choice", not as a slogan just for women.

I hijack use the term "my body my choice" because it's applicable and falls under a kind of property right ALL people, not just women, have in their own body.

My body, my choice, is a good slogan to apply to wearing masks and getting jabbed. Women own themselves and their justly acquired property, just like everyone else, but they don't own me and they don't own who can say what.
 
Last edited:

sunni

Administrator
Staff member
Remember healthy debates

were straying from that, were just arguing name calling, provoking etc. please stop
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/08/25/that-anti-vaccination-message-may-be-from-a-russian-bot-or-troll/?sh=78efa6c6ff77
Screen Shot 2022-12-18 at 9.25.17 AM.png
Don't ever say that no one cares about your health. Apparently Russian bots and trolls do care a lot. But caring about your health doesn't necessarily mean wanting you to be healthy.

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that Russian bots and trolls seem to be quite active in sending both anti-vaccination and pro-vaccination messages through Twitter. A team researchers from George Washington University (David A. Broniatowski PhD, SiHua Qi SM, and Lulwah AlKulaib SM), the University of Maryland (Sandra C. Quinn PhD and Amelia M. Jamison MAA, MPH), and Johns Hopkins University (Tao Chen PhD, Adrian Benton MS, , and Mark Dredze PhD) collected tweets from July 2014 through September 2017 and reviewed over 250 vaccination-related tweets sent by accounts connected to the Internet Research Agency. The Internet research Agency ain't just about research because it is backed by the Russian government and been indicted by a U.S. grand jury for attempting to meddle with the 2016 U.S. elections. My fellow Forbes contributor Arlene Weintraub covered this study nicely so you can read her article for more details.

So why would Russian bots and trolls send both anti-vaccination and pro-vaccination messages? Because they are indecisive, wishy-washy, or wondering to bot or not to bot? Nah, there's a good chance that they realize that our country is susceptible to being influenced, being divided, and overlooking established science. Routine childhood vaccination was a settled issue two decades ago. Vaccines have been among the greatest of public health triumphs. Without vaccines, many people would not be surviving long enough to get on Twitter or Facebook. Vaccines helped effectively eliminate measles from the U.S. back in 2000.

But now there is a "vaccination debate" when there shouldn't even be a debate. The "vaccination debate" would be like a "toilet debate": should you poop in the toilet or on your roommate's pillow? Or a "clothes debate": should you wear clothes to work or not? Until someone comes up with a clear, scientifically-supported alternative to vaccines to prevent and control diseases such as measles, mumps, pertussis, hepatitis, etc., arguing against vaccinating kids is plain irresponsible. Sure, everyone should keep tabs on safety. Expecting vaccines to be 100% safe is unrealistic. Heck, there are more ways and times a toilet can hurt you than a vaccine. But opting out of vaccinations has helped disease such as measles return to the U.S.

Further stoking what shouldn't be a debate creates further uncertainty and chaos, as well as suspicion of everything, including well-established scientific principles . As one of the study authors Dr. Quinn, who is Professor and Chair of Family Science at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, warned:

This study is really a call to action for multiple groups: for the social media platforms themselves, Twitter and Facebook, to determine how they can manage this onslaught of content that is meant to divide us, not just on vaccination but as a society; for public health agencies, to explore both innovative and traditional avenues to communicate about the value and critical importance of vaccines; to health care providers, who have the opportunity to bypass social media to be a powerful influence on vaccine behavior; and finally, those agencies who fund research.
This study shows that a lot of other people may care about your health, but not necessarily in a good way. Health is the most important thing, because without it you would be dead and not be able to do anything such as go to parties, wear wool knit sweaters, and watch YouTube videos. Thus, be very, very careful when getting a health message. There may be ulterior motives behind the message. Make sure you check the following:

  • Are they trying to sell you something like a "health"-related product or service? Is an anti-vaccination campaign trying to push you away from known medical practices and towards alternatives that they happen to be selling? For example, twisting your body in different ways or taking supplements will not prevent you from catching an infectious disease and does not replace vaccination. Could a body twister or a supplement salesperson be behind an anti-vaccination message?
  • Do they have an axe to grind? Not a real axe, because that would be scary. But some type of resentment towards the health professions or scientists and are using an anti-vaccination stance as an outlet?
  • Are they just trying to get attention? Believe it or not, people sometimes just do things or take contrary opinions just to get noticed.
  • Are they bored? You know what they say about idle minds and idle hands.
  • Are they trying to create chaos or distraction? Chaos and uncertainty can create distractions, making it easier for others to take over
The first part of the study's title, "Weaponized Health Communication," offers an important warning. Health communications can serve as very powerful weapons in many ways. Like with any weapon, you have to learn how health communications can and shouldn't be used, what precautions to employ, and how to recognize when certain health communications become a threat. Many schools, colleges, universities, and work settings don't routinely teach health communications and how to digest messages and information, when they probably should. As Quinn emphasized, "We will continue to need interdisciplinary teams to understand how social media affects attitudes and behaviors. I believe that literally, both the health of our democracy and our ability to prevent disease and death depend on it."

Fortunately, there are people who do care about your health and not in the way that Russian bots and trolls and others with ulterior motives do.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Perfectly explained so that anyone with an IQ greater than a pineapple would understand.
Pineapple is an excellent source of vitamin c. I don't know how to measure the IQ of a pineapple, but I do know Biden and Maddow made inaccurate statements on television about the efficacy of "covid vaccines".

I'm curious if you think those statements rise to the level of "super spreader" or not ?

So we can further our discourse, could you help me understand what you think makes a person a "super spreader" and give an example of who might be one based on what they said etc. ?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Pineapple is an excellent source of vitamin c. I don't know how to measure the IQ of a pineapple, but I do know Biden and Maddow made inaccurate statements on television about the efficacy of "covid vaccines".

I'm curious if you think those statements rise to the level of "super spreader" or not ?

So we can further our discourse, could you help me understand what you think makes a person a "super spreader" and give an example of who might be one based on what they said etc. ?
You want people to just believe that you are not just making this up about Biden and Maddow?

If so, it would be a lot easier to post the actual video of them saying it, and not just some troll edited clip that tends to be very cherry picked and void of any context. That way people can actually weigh the information and draw their own conclusion.

As for 'Super Spreading' disinformation, I would mainly draw a line at people paying/getting paid to spread the lies. Profiting on the suffering of others due to greed or whatever other hate is causing them to willingly push the dangerous anti-vaccine/science lies is truly a shitty thing to do.
 
Top