I’ve worked in schools. This does not happen. They can take it off for lunch. They can take a breather in the bathroom. It takes only a few breaths to remove excess CO2.
Which is why you don’t die immediately when CO2 builds up in your system when you hold your breath while swimming and you immediately feel better when you come up for air.
I also have not known any school to force an N95 over some other mask.
You’re attempting to create a situation which doesn’t happen and claim that’s why we should be avoiding all masks. Anyone who is using that specific mask for that long without taking a five minute break every now and again has far bigger problems than a mask.
So... am I to conclude that you find breathing air while in a bathroom to be... dangerous? You hold your breath for the entirety of every bathroom visit? While eating lunch?
Let's not start making stuff up here. If you're worried about people breathing while eating and pooping, then you're in a far different area of concern than I'm talking about.
I am also curious, because it's entirely possible I'm missing it, but where are you getting the calculation that 3 MET can be translated directly into one hour of work? I see the CDC stuff on what it COULD mean, but not what it actually DOES mean in this study.
Also, the claim you made was very specific: that damage would set in after this amount of time. The study does not seem to indicate that these individuals were in any way damaged. Only that their blood content changed slightly. That isn't necessarily damaging, and the study doesn't indicate that it is. That's just you making that claim.
If you could support your claim that damage had occurred with a citation from this study, that would be appreciated.
Quelle, it's really frustrating how you interact with me, and I'm not certain you realize it.
You called me to this thread to address the original post. I agreed to show up and do so.
You then asked me to ignore her credentials and focus on addressing her words, even though I don't find her credible. I obliged.
You then decided to focus on an argument she didn't even make (O2 levels with a very specific type of mask), and I obliged on that as well.
You asked me to present science articles backing my position. I did the research and did so.
You then asked me to address an article which you think supported your position. I did so.
And now you're continuing to ignore the points I'm making and insisting on pushing this topic further and further away from the original point.
It doesn't feel like you're discussing this stuff in good faith. It feels like you're more interesting in winning than discussing, and I'm not interested in convincing you of anything.
Don't wear a mask if you don't want to. But I am not fooled by this constant escape trick you perform during our discussions. Whenever I point out that, say, your article doesn't even say what you claim it does, you ignore me and pretend that conversation didn't even happen.
Every conversation I have with you goes like this. And if you don't understand that I have nearly superhuman patience when it comes to discussing this stuff and dealing with this nonsense strategy you use, then of course it would be confusing that nobody is Waking Up to the Truth.
Because most people aren't going to put up with it. And you really need to understand that, because the world isn't scared of the Truth.
They just don't have the endurance to do all of the legwork while you lob question after question at them without doing your own research, miscite the research you DO find, and continually lead them down more convenient conversation topics than the one you're currently engaged in.
This isn't a debate. This isn't a conversation. This is just an example of why these conversations never go anywhere. Because no matter how faithfully I meet your expectations, I'm still the only one doing any real research here, and while I'm enough of a masochist to play along, most people aren't.
And you need to interpret why that is correctly, because otherwise, you'll end up with the mistaken impression that people are scared of the Truth, rather than just not having the patience to run in circles with you.
I would be interested in you doing a way deeper written research analysis of the article you cited and demonstrating exactly which part of it supports the claim you just made.
I’ve worked in schools. This does not happen. They can take it off for lunch. They can take a breather in the bathroom. It takes only a few breaths to remove excess CO2.
Which is why you don’t die immediately when CO2 builds up in your system when you hold your breath while swimming and you immediately feel better when you come up for air.
I also have not known any school to force an N95 over some other mask.
You’re attempting to create a situation which doesn’t happen and claim that’s why we should be avoiding all masks. Anyone who is using that specific mask for that long without taking a five minute break every now and again has far bigger problems than a mask.
So... am I to conclude that you find breathing air while in a bathroom to be... dangerous? You hold your breath for the entirety of every bathroom visit? While eating lunch?
Let's not start making stuff up here. If you're worried about people breathing while eating and pooping, then you're in a far different area of concern than I'm talking about.
I am also curious, because it's entirely possible I'm missing it, but where are you getting the calculation that 3 MET can be translated directly into one hour of work? I see the CDC stuff on what it COULD mean, but not what it actually DOES mean in this study.
Also, the claim you made was very specific: that damage would set in after this amount of time. The study does not seem to indicate that these individuals were in any way damaged. Only that their blood content changed slightly. That isn't necessarily damaging, and the study doesn't indicate that it is. That's just you making that claim.
If you could support your claim that damage had occurred with a citation from this study, that would be appreciated.
Quelle, it's really frustrating how you interact with me, and I'm not certain you realize it.
You called me to this thread to address the original post. I agreed to show up and do so.
You then asked me to ignore her credentials and focus on addressing her words, even though I don't find her credible. I obliged.
You then decided to focus on an argument she didn't even make (O2 levels with a very specific type of mask), and I obliged on that as well.
You asked me to present science articles backing my position. I did the research and did so.
You then asked me to address an article which you think supported your position. I did so.
And now you're continuing to ignore the points I'm making and insisting on pushing this topic further and further away from the original point.
It doesn't feel like you're discussing this stuff in good faith. It feels like you're more interesting in winning than discussing, and I'm not interested in convincing you of anything.
Don't wear a mask if you don't want to. But I am not fooled by this constant escape trick you perform during our discussions. Whenever I point out that, say, your article doesn't even say what you claim it does, you ignore me and pretend that conversation didn't even happen.
Every conversation I have with you goes like this. And if you don't understand that I have nearly superhuman patience when it comes to discussing this stuff and dealing with this nonsense strategy you use, then of course it would be confusing that nobody is Waking Up to the Truth.
Because most people aren't going to put up with it. And you really need to understand that, because the world isn't scared of the Truth.
They just don't have the endurance to do all of the legwork while you lob question after question at them without doing your own research, miscite the research you DO find, and continually lead them down more convenient conversation topics than the one you're currently engaged in.
This isn't a debate. This isn't a conversation. This is just an example of why these conversations never go anywhere. Because no matter how faithfully I meet your expectations, I'm still the only one doing any real research here, and while I'm enough of a masochist to play along, most people aren't.
And you need to interpret why that is correctly, because otherwise, you'll end up with the mistaken impression that people are scared of the Truth, rather than just not having the patience to run in circles with you.
I would be interested in you doing a way deeper written research analysis of the article you cited and demonstrating exactly which part of it supports the claim you just made.