This is getting ridiculous...

Masks... University of Waterloo (2021) study found most masks only stopped 10% of covid aerosol drops. Even N95 masks only stopped 50% of those droplets. "According to a study out of the University of Waterloo in Canada, the popular blue surgical masks made from cloth that were used around the world to prevent the spread of COVID were only 10% effective in stopping the virus."

The DANMASK-19 study found "Primary outcome: SARS-CoV-2 infection – no significant difference
1.8% in the mask vs. 2.1% in the control group (Odds Ratio 0.82; 95% CI 0.54-1.23)"

"The difference in rates of infection between the control group (no masks) and medical mask wearers was 2.1% vs 1.8%, respectively.

Odds Ratio CI was 0.54 to 1.23, P=0.33.

No significant difference."

Incidentally, places like Facebook and the mainstream media sought to suppress these findings.

Vaccines.... "Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), admitted on Monday that the vaccines developed against COVID-19 were not effective at stopping infections and transmissions in the long run.

Testifying before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on Monday, Fauci insisted the vaccines helped protect against the worst aspects of the disease but were less effective in preventing infections."

"You claim German and UK intelligence "knew" it was a lab leak early on,"

No I said they reached that conclusion. We'll never 'know' because the Chinese are suppressing all evidence. Relying on that to hide from the truth is the opposite of fact-seeking.

" it would be global headline news. "

Even the New York times, which was at the forefront of protecting the Chinese on this, have now admitted they were wrong. Perhaps some day you'll catch up or catch on.

mhaze,

You cherry-pick bits of studies without ever engaging with what they mean in context. I don't think you've read any of them in full.

Masks:
You reference the University of Waterloo study, but you conveniently ignore that it also found that properly worn N95 masks reduced transmission by 50% or more. That’s not useless, and in real-world settings, even partial reduction in exposure matters.

As for DANMASK-19, the study itself warns against misinterpretation:

“The findings should not be used to conclude that masks do not work to reduce infection risk.”

It was not a study on community-wide mask mandates. It only looked at individual mask-wearing in low-transmission settings and didn't monitor proper mask use. Other studies (Bangladesh RCT, CDC reports, healthcare worker studies) did find significant reductions in transmission. Ignoring those while focusing on one study that had limitations is cherry-picking.

And no, these findings weren’t "suppressed," they were published in scientific journals and widely discussed. The fact that not every media outlet ran with them doesn’t mean a cover-up—it just means they weren’t as definitive as you want them to be.

Vaccines:
You’re taking Fauci’s quote out of context. He acknowledged what we already knew: early vaccines reduced infection and transmission of the original strain, but their effectiveness against infection declined with new variants.

That doesn’t mean they never worked, it means the virus evolved. Your argument is like saying “flu vaccines don’t work” because they don’t prevent every flu strain forever. The goal was never 100% infection prevention, it was reducing severe illness and deaths, which they did exceptionally well.

Lab Leak:
Now you’re saying intelligence agencies "reached a conclusion" rather than "knew," which is a shift from your earlier claim. If they conclusively knew, it wouldn’t be "leaked reports" and "we now learn" claims - it would be officially confirmed evidence. The fact remains: the intelligence community is still divided on this, which means we don’t know for certain.

And no, the New York Times didn’t make some grand confession. They reported on new intelligence, which still hasn’t proven a lab leak.

Try again.

Hi mhaze,
"Yet less than 15% are up-to-date with their own booster shots. Those two things don't gel."
- No, I don't really buy into that 57% number either tbh, but that's what the news is telling us to believe.

"It is now clear that the authorities knew from an early stage that the virus was a lab leak, not natural, but that those who had a part in funding said lab were desperate to hide that truth."

Oh, and I said from day one that I never believed the Chinese wet-market / bat story.
If one were to go back through my comments to that exact time, they see that's exactly what I said.

Sometimes it pays to have had a prior interest in conspiracy theories,
You don't buy into what the government tells you so easily.

And that's why I've never had a covid vaccine or booster
- But geez the government turned everyone into judgemental zealots at the time

John Daysh writes "but you conveniently ignore that it also found that properly worn N95 masks reduced transmission by 50% or more"

Earlier today I wrote " University of Waterloo (2021) study found most masks only stopped 10% of covid aerosol drops. Even N95 masks only stopped 50% of those droplets". Oh dear.

As I said, this is getting ridiculous. JD just wants to believe he wasn't lied to by the authorities. Unless a proposition can be proven 101% he declares it false.

Can we prove the virus was a lab leak? Well not to 101%. But the vast weight of evidence makes it highly likely to the extent of being the now working hypothesis of the various authorities and the research organisations working on combatting the virus. (As I understand it, research on the virus changes depending on whether it is natural or not). But JD will hold onto his beliefs until and unless the Chinese themselves own up - and probably even after that.

The vaccines, which were claimed to stop the virus, didn't, couldn't and weren't designed to do so. But JD so wants to believe the authorities who instituted the vaccine mandates to stop the spread that he demands proof at the 101% level to the contrary. JD is also deliberately misconstruing my point - the vaccines worked at the individual level and reduced the severity of the virus ONCE a patient was infected but didn't stop the patient being infected and didn't stop that patient from infecting others. I suspect JD understands this (otherwise I'm giving him too much credit) but just can't bring himself to admit it or that the authorities who pushed the vaccine mandates lied about it.

I'm sure those authorities would be touched at such unthinking loyalty.

mhaze,

You’re not even trying to argue in good faith anymore. Instead of addressing my points, you’re resorting to personal attacks and fabricating positions I never took. Let’s set the record straight...

Masks:
You act like you’ve caught me out by saying N95 masks stopped 50% of aerosol droplets. But reducing exposure by 50% is meaningful in a pandemic - yet you still call them "useless." Which is it? Either they work to some degree, or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

Lab Leak:
Now you’re claiming the "vast weight of evidence" makes a lab leak "highly likely." That’s not what intelligence reports say - they remain divided on the origin. Some lean toward lab leak, others still favor natural origins. That’s not proof. You keep insisting it’s "obvious" while ignoring that even the intelligence agencies themselves don’t agree.

And nothing, I’ve never said has even remotely suggested that I’d only believe it if the Chinese admitted it. That’s another strawman. My position is simple: if there were conclusive proof, we wouldn’t still be debating it. You’re free to believe whatever "feels right" to you, but that’s not the same as actual evidence.

Vaccines:
Again, you’re twisting my words. I’ve never said vaccines completely stopped infection - I’ve said they reduced infection and transmission early on, particularly before variants like Delta and Omicron emerged. And that’s exactly what the data showed at the time.

Yes, vaccines primarily protect individuals from severe illness, but early studies did show they reduced transmission by lowering viral load. That changed with later variants, which is why messaging shifted. That’s not lying - that’s how science works.

You keep acting like "the authorities lied," but your entire argument relies on selectively ignoring context and changing definitions when it suits you. If you want to debate honestly, engage with what I’m actually saying - not some cartoonish version of it.

I can see you're panicking now, though. You stop addressing your opponent directly when you know you're losing. So much for engaging in debates here to challenge your beliefs.