[Kushan]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But if a mask worn by an infected person, protects others, then that won't happen, ie the infected person has to NOT be wearing a mask for this alleged effect to take place. Then you also have spreading by contact.

Originally Posted by Paul

Exactly how does not being exposed to something grant you immunity from it

Unless they're surgical masks, masks don't prevent or filter 100% of the mucus from your breathing from spreading, it just cuts it down quite a bit. Likewise if you're wearing one. The idea is that a tiny portion of the virus might still make its way into your system and your body will be able to fight it off before it takes hold (Asymptomatic) - and thus you've got the antibodies. It also suggests that even if you do develop symptons, the'll be much lesser than if you'd had a lot more exposure.

I mean it makes sense really. It might also explain why numbers were so high in the beginning and have dropped considerably. It would also explain why hospitalisation/death rates haven't gone up as much as recent infection rates.

But still, it's completely unproven at this point. Science, innit.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have already pointed out that there is a school of thought that our late lockdown could have resulted in the peak of the virus being relatively unaffected by that lockdown.

So this late lockdown results in both the peak being unaffected, but also prevents a second lockdown? So...did it have an effect or not?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Interesting that evidence that is out there you ignore if it doesn't suit your agenda.

You're peddling this one, you could just cite one source instead of gesturing broadly towards sweden.

Originally Posted by Paul

Thank you Mr Doom & Gloom, you must be a real blast at parties.

Hey, the virus doesn't give a hoot if you're an optimist or a pessimist.