BandanaVTDavis4321

Well Naugs, hopefully the Tigers don't pack it in to soon. Defensively, you guys have given up a bunch of points, and this is where the work needs to be.

I think you are wrong on some of these calls and might be one of those officials that is dirty. I've seen a many of them with little character and will sway the game if necessary.

Arcane- "understood by few, mysterious, or secret. Did you mean "archaic"? As in, old fashioned? I felt obliged since you played grammar police on me yesterday. If "arcane" LMAO is fair, then we need to be "arcane".

Agree, but there are those on the left who WANT problems. The WANT chaos. It's part of what a guy like Marx taught. It's what Lenin preached. Common sense would tell us that unless you are outside of the country, or military, etc, no mail in ballots. You get to the polls physically or you do not vote. That would immediately stamper out 95% of corruption. Which party do you think has proposed that and which one had continuously not allowed it to get to vote out of its house committee? You guessed it. In order to have goodness and fairness, we can no longer assume that a certain group wants that. Years ago, we knew that. It's no longer the case. The Democratic Party has gone over the edge. They have been taken over my Marxists and fools. They hate America. They want the system to fail and or crush it, and to start it over in their image. When you get to this point, there is no reasoning with these people. Facts mean nothing. Fairness means nothing.

With the schedule the Beavers play, they are going to be battle tested come playoff time. With what Bluefield returns, the Beaver fans have to feel good about the chances of not just making a deep run, but finishing it. Graham's schedule will also be tough. I don't know the full schedule yet. I am talking about the fall, not this coming spring, but in the fall, I think Bluefield Researcher mentioned Graham picked up George Wythe and Blacksburg, and dropped Fort Chiswell and Princeton. So, for the fall, the GMen I know have Bluefield, Richlands, Blacksburg, George Wythe, Tazewell, and I am not sure if we play Union again. If we do, that's 6 very solid opponents. P.S. I think Tazewell's senior laden football team is seniors this year.......as in.....this spring. If I'm not mistaken, the Dogs lose a bunch with graduation this spring and they may not/should not be quite as good this coming fall.

If the Beavers were in Virginia, 2A they would be.

Now that is a good looking schedule. Graham, much improved Princeton, Pulaski and Dixon who is only going to have that program rolling in short time, Richlands, Tazewell, Ridgeview, and Mingo Central. There are 7 good schools on that schedule, assuming Beckley remains in the dumps. Way to much talent at Beckley to only have won about 5 games in three years. It's beyond belief to me.

I'm glad you agree with the point Hokiebird7. I notice you didn't disagree, and the post was directed at him. It was directed at the idiotic statement that anyone can clearly see. Not picking Union in the top 4 and saying the others were clearly a notch above, that's insanity.

This, we agree on.

Union and Graham can both play with Radford this year. Especially Union. Radford is very good, but a slight notch down from where they have been. Not saying they can't win a state title, but Union and Graham (Union especially), can play with Radford and maybe wins. It will not be a route. Union and Graham have a golden opportunity with John Marshall and Brunswick not playing. John Marshall is basically a glorified AAU team and would walk through the Virginia AA state title if playing Brunswick, a traditional basketball power returned 4 of 5 starters and would have been a problem. East Rock I know little about. The biggest threat for the Region D teams from Region C will likely be Dan River more than Radford. Dan River is loaded again as always and may be the team to cut the nets down over the rest. Also, Scotty V from Gate City may have had a good point last year with his remarks about John Marshall. They have apparently opted out of competition, BUT, they have basically formed a travel team and are playing out of state schools and STILL playing. They are functioning literally like an AAU team of which Scotty V kind of accused them of being. They have 3 more games lined up in the over the next 2 weeks with NC schools. Although Scotty V received a lot of slack at the time and his statement seemed like sour grapes after the GC loss to John Marshall, he was actually right. The VHSL needs to do something about this.

Wow. You know, based on this history of Union and what they have done to Richlands of recent, and not picking or even giving them consideration as being a top 4 team in the Region, I automatically deduct 30 IQ points from anyone making such a claim. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually watch Region D football. To actually make the statement as you did listed above may be the most asinine pick, or least the most asinine level of disrespect towards Union that I've read on the board this year.......and it's Dec 31st (that's a lot of year). Fact is, based on their history, based on having the upper hand with Richlands of recent, based on beating Graham as recent as last year, there is no way in hades a reasonable human being that watches and half way understands Region D football would make such a statement that not only leaves Union out of the top 4 in Region, but states the other 4 are a clear notch above.

Analogous to the Communist Chinese Government. An invasive species of which is crippling our system. I also, have no clue how to eliminate the Chinese Communist Government without nuking the Communist Party Headquarters in China.

I don't think GC is athletically better than Graham. Union will be and should be the favorites to win the Region. Graham's defense and speed alone will keep them well within 20 points of any team they play. We will have to wait and see.

With Graham, teams they face better have fantastic and superb ball handling skills because often, when the ball is on the floor, the G-Men will take it. With Xay Bradshaw, he is going to take the majority of the opponents point guard or two guard out of the game. Just complete lockdown. Union is fantastic I'm certain from what they return from last year and Virginia Preps had them preseason 4th for a reason, but based on what they return from last year and what Graham returns and has, I feel confident Union is not 20 points better than Graham. Graham has been very good the past few years and the difference with them and the great teams of Radford and Gate City wasn't anything close to 20 points, and Graham has another typical Graham type team.

As GMan wrote, you don't have to be Catholic to attend Notre Dame as a student, athlete or not. Notre Dame has always hovered about 15% non Catholic and when counting the graduate school, up to 20% non Catholic. You also do NOT have to attend Catholic Mass weekly. With around or just under 9,000 undergrads, Notre Dame is prestigious enough to be very selective and only admit a small percentage of non-Catholics like 5% or 1%. It's historically been this way around 85% due to missionary efforts/potential for gaining Catholic Church Members according to what Catholics have told me over the years. BYU is similar to Notre Dame in that you don't have to be LDS to attend BYU and if you attend BYU, you do NOT have to attend Church services weekly. You do have to comply with the honor code. BYU has been around 98 to 99% LDS largely not by choice. The amount of non-LDS applications is incredibly, incredibly low. The acceptance rate hovers in the mid 60's for LDS students, but hovers around 65% for non-LDS. I know there is a perception that African-Americans are largely not Mormons and statistically, I imagine that's true, but that perception often carries over to fans across the country seeing many black kids on the BYU football team and many thinking, those kids aren't Mormon. I have been told this. The fact is, they overwhelmingly are LDS Church Members who were not just converts, but were born and raised in the Church.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/20/swedish-expert-still-wont-budge-on-no-mask-approach-to-covid-19/ Sweden. A graphic chart of Mask Use Mandates versus C-19 cases in multiple countries shows Mask are not effective https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/ These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time. By Yinon Weiss OCTOBER 29, 2020 Masks have become a political tool and a talisman. When COVID-19 hit, governments panicked and created enormous fear. The Centers for Disease Control currently estimates a COVID-19 survival rate of 99.99 percent for people younger than 50, but the damage created by the panic was too great to undo. It is likely that some politicians eventually realized their mistake and needed a way to back-pedal without admitting their lockdowns were a policy disaster. Their solution was for people to put any old piece of cloth across their face and magically believe that it’s okay to go out shopping again. Masks are not merely a small inconvenience. They have inadvertently become a key impediment to returning to a more normal life, a desirable goal for those seeking to twist the pandemic for political and electoral purposes. Masks dehumanize us, and ironically serve as a constant reminder that we should be afraid. People can now be spotted wearing masks while camping by themselves in the woods or on a solo sailing trip. They have become a cruel device on young children everywhere, kindergarten students covered by masks and isolated by Plexiglas, struggling to understand the social expressions of their peers. Face coverings are causing real harm to the American psyche, provide little to no medical benefit, and distract us from more important health policy issues. The mask dogma had many cracks in it from the start. For one, the U.S. surgeon general and the Centers for Disease Control both previously said that “masks are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching coronavirus,” so they were already starting with a credibility deficit. Furthermore, many officials have been frequently caught without masks when they think the cameras are off them. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, has been caught doing this multiple times. Chicago’s mayor and local media were all caught taking off their masks and violating social distancing as soon as a press conference ended. This was caught in a now deleted YouTube video that was shared by a now deleted Twitter account after being retweeted more than 26,000 times. As of the date of this publication, it is still available to view in a crude video of a video that has yet to be deleted on YouTube. Clearly, some people do not want you to see what politicians do behind the scenes. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a strong advocate for mandatory masking, was caught off camera laughing about how wearing masks is an act of “political theater.” Faking ‘Science’ to Achieve Political Goals These same politicians and health officials are so desperate to make people believe in masks that they doctor charts to make their case, even when their own data actually undermines them. So what is the actual science behind masks? Let’s begin by reviewing the leading scientific studies. The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University summarized six international studies which “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.” Oxford went on to say that “that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” They prophetically warned that this has “left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence.” A study of health-care workers in more than 1,600 hospitals showed that cloth masks only filtered out 3 percent of particles. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated, “[W]earing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection” and that “[T]he desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” There are many other credible studies showing lack of mask efficacy, such as studies published in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Cambridge University Press, Oxford Clinical Infectious Diseases, and Influenza Journal, just to name a few. Studies do show masks can help in the case of direct respiratory droplets, which would matter if somebody is coughing, breathing, or sneezing directly on your face. That happens normally in a tight and highly confined space. But the plentiful evidence we have indicates masks would not meaningfully help with aerosol transmission, where two people are just in the same area, or even the same room. This is because the two people end up breathing the same air, with or without a mask, as visually demonstrated in this video. Now for Graphs about International Mask Mandates Historical scientific studies do not make a compelling case that universal masking would meaningfully help, so let’s explore real-world situations to see where data leads us. Austria was one of the first governments to require masks, and it did so about 10 days after its cases began to go down. The level of downtrend did not change or improve after masks were required. After the nation’s people wearing masks for an extended period, cases are currently four times where they were when Austria mandated masks, and cases continue to climb. Germany mandated masks about halfway down its original recovery. Their cases are now similarly climbing quickly. The French now have around 1,000 percent more daily cases they had when they mandated masks, despite having one of the highest mask compliance levels in the world. Spain was not far behind its French neighbor with a mandate. Spain required masks when cases were near zero and has the highest compliance with mask-wearing in all Europe. Now Spain is at around 1,500 percent the level of cases compared to when it mandated masks. After three months of requiring masks, the United Kingdom is at around 1,500 percent more cases despite having one of the highest mask compliance records in Europe. Belgium required masks shortly after the British did, and now possibly has the highest rate of cases in the world. Italy had extremely high levels of mask-wearing despite no national mandate. Recently skyrocketing cases finally compelled them to create one of the strictest mask laws in the world, but the results have predictably failed to slow the rise in coronavirus cases. In fact, cases skyrocketed immediately after the mask mandate went into effect. Similar results have been found in Ireland, Portugal, Israel, and many other countries. No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time. How about the United States? Americans have proven to be highly compliant with mask wearing, even higher than the Germans. It is therefore no surprise that the same trends found in Europe are also found in U.S. states. For example, California required masks in June but cases still went up by more than 300 percent and the state remains heavily locked down four months later with still higher cases. Hawaii suffered one of the most economically devastating lockdowns of all the U.S. states. It was also an early mover on mandating masks both indoors and outdoors, but cases still went up by almost 1,000 percent. With and without mask mandates, Texas and Georgia followed nearly identical case development. For those more interested in comparing deaths than cases, we again don’t see a pattern of masks meaningfully helping. Why Don’t Masks Work? Why don’t masks work on the general public? For one, if you read the fine print on most consumer masks you will see something along the line of “not intended for medical purposes and has not been tested to reduce the transmission of disease.” Masks can work well when they’re fully sealed, properly fitted, changed often, and have a filter designed for virus-sized particles. This represents none of the common masks available on the consumer market, making universal masking much more of a confidence trick than a medical solution. If we actually wanted effective masks, then manufacturers should be conducting scientific tests evaluating masks specifically for their ability to reduce the spread of coronavirus. The Food and Drug Administration and CDC should be making recommendations on which masks to use and approving masks based on their scientific efficacy rather than promoting the wrapping of any piece of miscellaneous cloth around your face. Many powerful institutions have too much political capital invested in the mask narrative at this point, so the dogma is perpetuated. Effective masks, if they exist, should then be distributed to highly vulnerable groups for use only in rare and extenuating circumstances. There would be little point for the population at large to wear masks all the time because while focused protection may be possible, it is not possible to eradicate the virus at this point or stop its spread. Our universal use of unscientific face coverings is therefore closer to medieval superstition than it is to science, but many powerful institutions have too much political capital invested in the mask narrative at this point, so the dogma is perpetuated. The narrative says that if cases go down it’s because masks succeeded. It says that if cases go up it’s because masks succeeded in preventing more cases. The narrative simply assumes rather than proves that masks work, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The narrative further ignores places like Sweden and Georgia, which never required masks in the first place, and it suppresses new scientific evidence if it doesn’t support desired political results, such as data from the world’s only randomized trial investigating if masks actually protect from COVID-19. Even a Nobel laureate has been canceled because his COVID charts and data were found to be undesirable. History does not bode well for times that politics meddles with science. Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a leader in disease surveillance methods and infectious disease outbreaks, describes the current COVID scientific environment this way: “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.” In the end, it will be the loss of credibility in our scientific institutions, and the unnecessary division they have sowed among us, for which masks will be remembered.

1. Harris Poll finds that in October, Facemask use in the USA is 90% https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-mask-americans-tops-poll.html 2. National Geographic Survey in October, 92% of Americans wear a facemask when leaving their home https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/10/poll-increasing-bipartisan-majority-americans-support-mask-wearing/ A. New England Journal of Medicine. "We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 B. California- OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health ..... "Cloth facemasks do not protect against Covid-19" https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 C. California Dept of Health (not exactly ultra conservative) "Face coverings may increase risk if users reduce their use of strong defenses." "There is limited evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Face-Coverings-Guidance.aspx D. The Surgeon General of the United States of America....."Masks are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus." https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 E. World Health Organization an Infection Disease Expert Dr. Mark Ryan https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html ”There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly. G. Facemask use in the USA. Reported by the CDC's very own surveys The proportion of U.S. adults reporting wearing face masks increased from 78% in April to 89% in June, according to the nationally representative survey released by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tuesday.

Tony is first class, a person and coach. All the best for him and the Bears. Tony moved up from the JV head coaching job to replace Coach Hankins who was another class act.

Denmark, not exactly a beacon of conservatism with an incredibly powerful study. Masks? Not looking good. https://fee.org/articles/new-danish-study-finds-masks-don-t-protect-wearers-from-covid-infection/ The study above concluded exactly this....."The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."

Common sense research here. This is not research of course, this is common sense. Did you know that the CDC in the month of October of this year, not last month and not this month, but in October, 90+ percent of the US population were wearing masks in public. Now think about that for minute and the wicked rise we have had in C-19 infections the past month in the US. Lets face it, the virus is absolutely raging and I hope to God we get the vaccine out quickly, and I hope the far right doesn't convince a huge chunk of the population to not take the Vaccine. Research speaks for itself. The Vaccine has been tried and true and it works with a greater than 90% effective rate from the research. But, what I am getting at is this, with greater than 90% of the US population now wearing masks, what has COVID done. It has absolutely skyrocketed. We have....until very recently, eased restrictions on social distancing, and with those ease in restrictions, we are believing in a false sense of security in the ability of a cloth mask to work and they don't. The virus is skyrocketing. With 90% of the population wearing masks, if masks worked, I feel the viral infection rates would have at least stabilized. One other thing that we haven't discussed. What percent of the population wears a cloth mask versus an N95, and if we get into N95, do you now the recommendations on when that mask should be changed. I would bet, just a guess, that maybe 1 in 20 people in the United States knows that, but guess what, N95's have an expiration. What percentage of the U.S population actually disinfects their cloth facemask after each use, daily, weekly, etc. I said this early and will say it again based on the research. stay way. 6 feet is absolutely critical and handwashing and not touching your face is equally important.

Just want to keep this kind of fresh so anyone reading can conclude what they wish from the data and not the red herrings 1. CDC, "not a right wing organization" admits the absolutely overhwelming majority of people who are getting COVID wore masks. https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/ 2. The CDC's statement on C-19 and masks in February. Again, why make this statement? It's based on years and years, decades of research that we have with other viruses like the common cold (two times larger than C-19) and so many other airborne viruses. Their statement was....These expert opinions were based on a meta-analysis of multiple studies about masks on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) website. It concluded, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility 3. In March, he U.S. surgeon general and the Centers for Disease Control both previously said that “masks are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching coronavirus" 4. Guess What, in February of this year, Anthony Fauci stated the same thing. Why did he do this? Because of the overwhelming data on influenza which is on average, the same size to slightly LARGER than Covid. Why the change with Fauci all of a sudden? Politics. Folks, we have decades of research on masks and influenza which is larger than C-19 and masks still do not stop the flu, so they aren't stopping C-19 which is slightly smaller. 5. The Oxford 6. Arguably, the top academic institution in the world did a meta analysis on 6 studies. Meta Analysis is the absolute best in research evidence. There are several different types of "weights" in medical research to include expert opinion, qualitative research, quantitative research, a single one time report, etc. Meta Analysis is an analysis of multiple studies. In short, it's a research study on a bunch of research studies. This is high powered stuff. This study was so powerful and well done that you basically need not read any further than this. It shuts the door on any misperception that masks work. Oxford is one of the best, arguable the best academic institution in the world. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ 6. Penetration of particles is 97% in cloth mask wearers compared to 44% with N95 wearers. By the way, 44% is not good. That's dangerous. 44% isn't stopping the virus from transmitting. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long 7. Face Masks to protect against the Common Cold, which is a virus, (commonly the Rhinovirus that is 2 to 2.5 times on average, larger than Covid-19) and being that large, surely a face mask would do the job and protect against it. Well, they don't. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/ 8. Again, best available evidence possible. The most absolute strongest, strictest, true scientific research that is possible is a meta analysis. Effectiveness of Surgical Face Masks in Reducing Acute Respiratory Infections in Non-Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Masks are not effective. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/ 9. Review of the Medical Literature Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness A. Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002 B. N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 C. None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein. bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” D. Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 E. “We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.” Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 In conclusion folks, I will write this again. There is no conclusive scientific data EVER, EVER, not one true scientific study with reliable and valid research methods which is truly a controlled study, a study with control groups. a study that is double or triple blinded, and one that is externally peer reviewed that scientifically proves that masks work that has a true statistically reliable effect sized and is adequately powered. ANY study you find stating so will not meet full scientific validity such as randomization, etc. Now, you will certainly find some that suggests masks works WHEN THEY ADD MORE VARIABLES such as handwashing, social distancing, etc. They add these variable to adjust for statistical significance, but if you single out masks only and do not add other variables such as social distancing and handwashing, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear. It's overwhelming clear and even agreed by the scientific community that masks alone do not work.

UVA, you are lying and you are made your team lost which kind of makes this a tough week for you. As I told you, statistically, masks don't work. I haven't said anything, the data says it. With statistical significance in a true scientific study that is double or triple blinded, has a large effect size and is largely powered, is reliable, valid, and controlled, the research can clearly say that masks do not work. This means...........when a study described above is performed, no statistical significance is found. This is what I've always said because it's what the research says. I am not sure if you know this, but maybe you don't have the lack of narcissism to understand it, but YOU have not done medical research. I have NOT done medical research on virus transmission or Covid. I can certainly read and interpret it unlike you, but even then, because YOU SAY something doesn't make it true. When you quote research, in order to not be laughed at by somebody who has done tons of it, you say "the research says...." You don't get to say anything narcissist. You haven't done any work in the area. You get to quote what the research says. Hopefully, you understand that concept.

Shifting the goal posts you are UVA. Richlandsalum, I am not saying a darn thing. I never have. The research is saying it. I am summating the research after working in this field for 20 plus years and UVA is now shifting the goals posts. He's now making the argument that masks aren't 100 percent foolproof. I am equally not making the argument that masks never work or prevent infection 100% of the time. I have never made that statement. What I have stated, and correctly so, with the research, with working in the field for 20 plus year is that Facemasks Alone do NOT adequately prevent the spread/infection of NOT JUST Coronavirus, ANY Virus that ever existed on earth and keywords here to the end of my statement, WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. So, when I right the words "they don't adequately prevent"......this could very well mean they work 3% of the time, but we know this, when we have a true scientific study that compares two groups..... A control group who wears masks and a group that does not wear mask, we can say that with statistical probably, (greater than 95% of the time with confidence) there is NO difference. These are not my words. The research is clear, and not just clear, it is overwhelming clear that they don't work. It says this. I have summated the research and I summated one other research FACT that we know and that is......Social Distancing of 6 feet or more DOES work. It's proven statistically, with significance. We have known that with virus's for decades. Based on the literature, I have stated in my opinion, we should not have a national/federal mandate requiring masks. I have stated we should have a federal mandate (not popular, but liberals don't care about this point so they don't argue), but that we SHOULD have a national mandate on social distancing because the research is clear it works. My statements have been without political persuasion and strictly by the science. The problem is exactly what you see across the nation right now and that is, the far left attempting to bully and scare those who do not align with their talking points REGARDLESS of what the data says. Do you really feel Sixcat, BigW and UVA really care about what the data says? They don't. They care about what the left tells them to think and if the left came out tomorrow and stated, EVERYONE stop wearing facemasks and social distancing, then CNN and MSNBC, their adjunct adequately pitched in, then you can bet these three would take that position in a heartbeat. They are far, far leftists who are towing the talking points line of the left and in doing so, attempt to bully. It doesn't work with me. In an attempt to disagree, just like the left always does, they attempt to bully, to make it personal, to attack the other person with a different viewpoint with some other fraudulent claim such as "intellectual dishonesty." I've also NEVER said to not wear a mask. Not one time on this board have I ever said that. I wear one all the time out of respect for people around me who may believe they work and that's their security. I do not go in public without one, but it is exactly that for them, it's a false sense of security because they do NOT work. The six feet of distance in the parking lot is far, far, far, far more valuable to decrease one's odds than being within 2 feet and wearing a mask.

False accusations my friend. Again, UVA, you are wrong on this and you don't know what you are talking about, and you are now trying to make it personal. Don't make it personal. Be better than that. Simplistic measures, as you say such as wearing masks absolutely DO NOT minimize the spread of the virus. That is 100% wrong. Period. It's not factually wrong, it's insanely-crazy wrong. I'm telling you dude, you are wrong on this. Read the articles and guarantee me the following. You are not an ideologue and if you are swayed by the evidence, you will admit it? I'm telling you, with all due respect and I mean that. You are wrong on this issue and the science. The data overwhelmingly supports the fact that masks do not protect in a statistically significant way compared to a control group to prevent the Coronavirus, and as I told you, ANY Airborne Virus in the history of mankind. Not just C-19. Literally, ANY Airborne Virus. As far as being swayed, the overwhelming proportion of the medical and scientific community agree that masks don't work. I don't know what world you live in. It's literally as if you live on Mars or something, and scientifically baseless fraudulent claims as you accuse? The data is there. The only fraud in the mix is someone who has no clue of how to read a research paper, much less write one, have no clue of actually what the data says, then make a claim that masks work because he hears it on MSNBC. That's fraud.

The study from Denmark I mentioned earlier. Very powerful study. https://fee.org/articles/new-danish-study-finds-masks-don-t-protect-wearers-from-covid-infection/ https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817