COVID IS AIRBORNE, it's not spread (mainly) through droplets. Normal masks don't work for airborne diseases. You're still breathing the air in the room that infectious people (masked or not) are filling up with viral particles.
Dude WTF?
When you breathe, you expel droplets of fluid, and these can contain virus particles. The big droplets tend to have limited range and drop to the floor - this is commonly called droplet transmission, and is definitely effective at transmitting infection. The smaller droplets (also called aerosols) can go a much longer distance and hang around in the air for a protracted period of time, and this is what's termed airborne transmission. These are infectious, whether as very small droplets of fluid, or if they dry up to leave virus particles floating around (in a manner similar to, say, dust).
Let's be absolutely clear about this: if you have a material barrier between your breathing passages and the atmosphere, that barrier is going to intercept a substantial number of small particles whether they are very small virus-containing droplets or very small bits of virus-containing dry matter.
Show me at least one mask study just as good as that vitamin d study in a nursing home in France.
Do you mean
this? Do you think it is a good study?
Secondly, as I repeatedly say, at the point you are trying to pick on individual papers to make your point, you are asking for trouble. Like with ivermectin, where the principal study that supported its use turns out to look very much like it is fraudulent, and without it there isn't even a shadow of an adequate case.
Cuz I haven't seen any mask study that shows data that's even close to that good
Yes, but (as above) some weird sort of single paper face-offs are an inappropriate way to consider the science; the simple fact you are trying to make such an argument indicates you have very low skills in scientific analysis. And if you do not have the requisite skills in scientific analysis, what you think the science shows is more than a little unpersuasive.
4) What studies show vitamin D levels aren't consistent with covid outcomes?
You are asking the wrong question. The correct question to ask is "What does the sum total of studies say about the link between vitamin D and covid outcomes?" The answer to that question is "Very little".
And by the way giving me some study where they gave people loads of D3 after infection shows nothing because it takes like a week for the body to convert that to the active form of vitamin D.
This, biologically, makes absolutely no sense at all. If you take a huge, single bolus of vitamin D3, once absorbed it will start being converted into the 25OHD and then the active form of vitamin D by liver enzymes immediately, and tissue delivery will occur rapidly. To use an analogy, codeine must also be converted into an active form (i.e. morphine) by liver enzymes before it works as an analgesic. And yet you pop a couple of codeine tablets, you'll feel pain relief in about 30 minutes: because 30 minutes is all it takes for enough codeine to be absorbed, converted to morphine, and that morphine to be transported to your central nervous system. You might argue that it takes a week for the
maximal concentration of a single Vit D bolus to develop (as conventionally measured by plasma 25OHD), but in fact the amount of available, active vitamin D will increase substantially within hours.
What you might more safely argue is that the theorised benefits of vitamin D require long-term biological changes (such as altering protein expression, or complex cell activity and proliferation) that takes days-weeks. An analogy here might be SSRIs for depression: they will increase levels of 5-HT (serotonin) within hours, but the anti-depressant effects do not emerge for about 2-3 weeks because it is theorised that the benefit of enhanced serotonergic signalling is that it causes long-term changes to neuronal activity which need that time to develop. Or taking iron for iron deficiency anaemia, because resolving the anaemia is dependent on the relatively slow process of red blood cell production.
So whilst there may be an element of possibility in what you say (in that a vitamin D bolus in hospital does not have sufficient time to exert protective effects to prevent illness worsening), you're also telling me you that don't know what you're talking about.
www.history.com
