So?
First of all masks aren't 100% protective, just like washing your hands isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't add up as a protective measure. Secondly, the amount of people, their proximity, and the amount of (international) transit is going to differ from state to state. Which is likely why New York is near the top and Texas is lower down - I'm no expert but I don't think Texas is too popular among tourists. Then there's the health care quality from state to state and how many people can actually afford it.
Nobody is making masks out to be the be all end all when it comes to preventing the spread of a pandemic, it's simply the easiest protective measure one can take. And when a pandemic is this aggressive it takes little effort to just put one on and help out in the easiest way one can.
Some people think masks are very effective when they are probably at the very best like 5% effective, which means that's 95% ineffective. People are wearing masks outside acting like they do anything there when we know they don't. And if you have people going out doing things because they think masks work well, that's not a good thing either. I'm merely asking for some actual proof that they work over a year into this and there isn't no such proof that I've seen.
Yes, you can have more than 4000 IUs a day: some of those people also develop hypercalcaemia (kidney stones, high blood pressure, etc.). This is what we in the field call "therapeutic range": the dosage range between the minimum amount to deliver a therapeutic benefit and maximum amount to avoid adverse effects, and hence the recommended dosages.
Who got hypercalceamia at say 5,000 IUs? Nobody. People have literally taken hundreds of thousands of vitamin d (by accident) and a few people got that.
I do not have the time and inclination to teach you pharmacokinetics on this discussion forum - it's a big topic. But you're making suggestions that don't necessarily make a lot of sense in the context of treatment.
I don't care how pharmacokinetics works, the fact that people with vitamin d deficiency don't just get one big dose and are back to normal levels means it doesn't do what you said it did.
Are you sure about that? You shouldn't be.
It's very likely some doctors do not give their patients weekly vitamin D tests throughout treatment, and many do not thoroughly scrutinise the literature. This is why much of why treatment guidelines and clinical meetings exist - to give information to physicians so they can spend their very expensive time treating people rather than all reading mounds of articles on how to treat people. Let's also remember some otherwise seemingly competent doctors also believe stuff that is unsupported, implausible, or even outrageous. Pierre Kory, for instance, might in many ways be a good pulmonary physician but his attachment to ivermectin was irrational, and he's just a figurehead of a much wider irrationality amongst many other medical doctors. As we said before, this is why we often don't let individual doctors do their own thing: they work as part of clinical teams for extra advice, feedback, support.
If 50,000 doses raised your levels so high, they would be through the roof after 2 months when the person came in for their follow-up vitamin d test. And we there's a couple doctors that took 2,000 - 3,000 / day and their levels weren't even where they wanted them to be.
No, that's not what you originally said.
But this is a complex issue, as the relative risk of individuals depends on circumstances and behaviours and better viewed in that context.
It's what I meant. If droplets were a main driver of infection, masks would work amazingly well.
You mean all the ones you've already been provided with and just ignored, and your simple reluctance to read recent scientific reviews?
I haven't seen any that didn't have tons of other variables that could explain the results. There's also inconsistencies in said studies as some studies show infections increased after masks because if you initiated a mandate when cases were dropping, it looks like masks helped but if a mandate was just before a rise in cases, then you can conclude masks caused more infections. The studies are complete shit. It's pretty funny how the longer period you look at, the worse and worse the mask data looks. If masks were a drug, you'd say there's no data to recommend it. Why can't you stay consistent in what you deem as proof? If you say there's no enough data for vitamin d, there's no fucking chance there's enough data for masks.
The Blue States? Those heavily urbanized states with larger population density? Those states?
That's the fucking point, there's so many contributing factors. Just like you say Somewhere-ville initiated a masked mandate and cases went down, and what about all the other restrictions in place? How do we know what actually contributed to cases going down when you're throwing paint at the wall and don't even know what is sticking? There's places that initiated mask mandates and had cases go up as well.
No you don't, or I wouldn't have had to correct you. Get the fuck over yourself.
How the fuck did you correct me? I don't give 2 shits about the mechanics of airborne nor did I ever claim to know. I care that if I'm in a room with someone infected, I can get it without droplet infection. I really couldn't care less exactly how that happens but the fact that it happens. Same thing working in IT, you don't need to know exactly what the problem is (from like programming code to machine language and whatnot) to figure out how to fix it.
Yes.
Another trick here is that you can manufacture a specific result by selecting the cut-off point for what you consider as the states "with the most deaths per capita". For instance, if you decided that this meant the states above the US average, then there are more red than blue in the list.
And let's face it, it's pretty laughable to connect this claim to masks given the top two states in per capita deaths were the places the pandemic hammered first, with much of the infection spread before masking was recommended.
And it's pretty fucking shitty right now blaming governors for doing a bad job on covid when their people haven't gotten vaccinated (unless the governor/government gave the public misinformation themselves). Also, on Feb 29th of last year, Fauci told a NYC news station that people can just go about like normal and there was no danger. What about blaming Fauci for bad messaging as to why those places blew up. I fucking know covid was around in February, it wasn't hard to deduce that. I thought twice about going places in February because I knew it was around. Marty Makary was trying to get the message out to do shit in January but you apparently don't like him even though he's right far more than Fauci is.
