@geobear40 said in Fauci: Removing masks on airplanes 'not something we should even be considering':

He should be fired and charged for lying to Congress.

You're entitled to your opinion there, but there's not much call for that from others... you're in a considerable (albeit loud) minority there...

He should be assigned a special prosecutor to look into all the Graft and corruption within the NIH. He should lose his pension and all his vaccine patents.

I thought we covered this earlier: Dr. Fauci does not run the NIH, just 1 department within the NIH. But what's your basis for GRAFT and corruption within NIH?

According to Federal Law, if he were found to have acted unprofessionally and convicted of a felony for doing so, he would lose his pension.... but it he were to have personally patented any vaccines (he has not - since at least 1984, he has worked as a Director in the NIH. As such, any work product - including vaccine patents - which might include his name, are owned by his employer: the US Government), I'm not aware of any basis in Law where you could just generally rescind his patents. But, again, there are no vaccine patents that Dr. Fauci owns.

FWIW: My name is on a few patents - having to do with modem technology dating from the 1990s - but my employers (from that time) actually OWN the patents, not me!

It is my right to way the risk to myself and those around me. They should go back to making recommendations instead of demands. It is not my responsibility to protect others. It is their responsibility to stay away from situation if they are concerned for their health.

That is, pardon the expression, and ASSHOLEISH opinion.... akin to, if you don't want to be shot, don't stand in front of my gun! Or, if you don't want to be run over, get out from in front of my car!

You can't infringe on my Freedoms to cover for the irresponsibility of others.

You are an idiot! You hyper-inflate the intrusion of wearing a mask as-if it were some life-altering requirement!

Do you wear pants (or a dress) and shoes when you go into a restaurant? Do restaurant workers HAVE to wear hair "restraints" (aka: hair nets or caps) while they prepare food? Are food handlers required (by law) to wash their hands after using the bathroom?

Do you really HAVE to stop at those red, octagonal signs on the side of the road? Is it really a problem if you cross over those double-yellow lines to pass that slow-ass tourist in front of you? What's so bad about going 80 in a school zone if you're running late for work?

Wearing clothes not only protects you from minor scrapes and cuts, and potentially from the cold - it also protects the rest of us from flying excrement from your filthy body (don't worry, we're all filthy! Look under a microscope sometime!) - much less the visual distress of seeing your aged and crumbling excuse for a body (don't worry, most of us have a body "built for radio"!)....

Obeying traffic laws doesn't just protect you, it also protects all of those around you...

We all share a responsibility to do SOME THINGS for the safety and protection of both ourselves, and those around us! It's not just masks, it's EVERYWHERE!

But that's why it's REQUIRED that you stop at the stop-signs, but only recommended that you wear sunscreen at the beach!

@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:

SARS-COV-2 is not new is has been around in one from or another for a very long time. It's the study of which caused the current pandemic.

Sorry, but you are mistaken (you are so often wrong, we should give you a sash and tiara: Miss Taken!):

• COVID-19 is new in the human population, ca. 2019 - thus, it's name.
• COVID-19 is a coronavirus, which may (being generous) be what you're referring to - which, like Influenze, and the "common" cold virus are also... so, yes coronaviruses have been around a very long time.
• COVID-19 has many unique characteristics: different from other coronaviruses - like it's rate of infection from even minor exposure (greatly exacerbated by this new Omicron strain), or its LACK of an ability to transfer/survive on surfaces, and thus its reliance on respiratory aeration as a vector of transmission... but also on its DEADLY effects on the human respiratory system - far more lethal than other coronaviruses.

Your statement that COVID-19 may have been released into the population as a result of studying coronaviruses - even this particular virus (or, at least the one that was going 'round the world in early 2020!) - is nothing but a theory. One that has been neither proven nor disproven. As such, it is a possible theory... but honestly, at this point, is that the point? Does it matter? 800,000+ lives in the US alone, and you mostly want to point fingers? Really? To what purpose or end? How will blame - properly OR improperly applied - save additional lives?

There are hundreds of studies around the world that provide us a wealth of knowledge. The currents edicts have no data to back them up.

Actually, by now, I'm pretty sure there have been THOUSANDS of studies done on COVID-19... some have turned up new "findings" (like its aerosol respriation vector of transmission), others have just disproved oddball theories (like hydroxychloroquine as a miracle treatment for the disease)... But, if you think we "know enough" after less than 2-years study - even if every Scientist on the planet had studied nothing else - you're hubris and naivete are on bold display.... there is MUCH we do not know yet, and with new variants coming like they have been, there are more new questions than new answers!

Where are the studies and data that Fauci and his cohorts are basing there claims on?

I'm not shocked that the CDC's data isn't being detailed in the media, but the studies and papers are being published - and peer reviewed!

But I think you, and your ilk, give (or attribute to) Dr. Fauci far more power than he actually has, and as a result you parse his every word and every opinion as-if it were one of these study results! In many of these interviews where you demand to see the data, he's being asked for his opinion, not for the data that backs that opinion!

Show the data don't just say it exists and that it supports their claims.

Again, you seem to think that when Dr. Fauci says something like "in my mind" that he's quoting from a study vs. stating an opinion... likewise, you conflate his opinions with official CDC, FDA, or even NIH policy!

And mostly you do this to "shoot the messenger"...

@geobear40 said in Open relationship?:

@bi4smooth
I have every right to comment on other peoples actions. It's called free speech

You are truly clueless.... on so many levels.

Free speech rights have to do with criticizing the Government, not about anything anywhere about anyone! Thus, there are laws on Copyright, Trademark, Patent, & Plagiarism (taking another's work and representing them as your own). There are also laws against saying things to incite others to violence (inciting a riot, for example).

You know, just because you (presumably) have one, doesn't mean you have to be a dick to everyone else!

@geobear40 said in Fauci: Removing masks on airplanes 'not something we should even be considering':

@bi4smooth
His thoughts become policy and mandates.

Have you read his email from early 2020?

Do you not see the lies he has told the American people?

He works for us and "We The People" have every right to challenge him and the FDA, CDC, NIH and WHO. It is a scary world we live in now that "We The People" have given up so many rights and Freedoms to these Authoritarian agencies.

You act like they're telling you what cereal to eat in the morning, how many times to wipe your ass when you get off the toilet, and how many cups of coffee you can drink in a day!

Wearing a mask is no more uncomfortable than wearing a bra (according to 2 of my daughters) or Army-issue boots (according to my Soldier son).... and since the goal of wearing a mask is to protect OTHERS, I don't see the harm in mandating their use in public places.

You can disagree, but to me this is more of a "seatbelt rule" than an affront to the 2nd Amendment!

I'd personally like to "forget Fauci" - IMHO, he's become a distraction. By being the "mouthpiece" for the President on health matters, and with his past - esp from the Trump Administration - he's become a lightning rod. Again, IMHO, the country would be better served if another scientist/researcher was the official advisor to the President (which entails being the mouthpiece)...

@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:

@bi4smooth
Read the book it may reinforce your views it may change them.

Government doesn't happen in vacuum. They coordinate their messaging.

I'm not suggesting that Dr Fauci is working in a vacuum, but I am saying that, as the Advisor to the President, he's often stating opinions that are his, and not necessarily those of the CDC or FDA (as I recall, Fauci was in favor of granting EUA for under 18 vaccinations long before the FDA actually granted such use... as a member of the NIH, he had no control or REAL influence on when the FDA finally granted that EUA extension!)

If you listen to Fauci's extended interviews, he's often candid about the early missteps he, Dr. Birx, the CDC, and the NIH took as COVID-19 first came on the scene. He does NOT claim to have always been right, but he does claim that he always spoke truthfully about what was known - at the time.

As a scientist myself (not in medical science), I can attest that "accepted facts" change as we learn more about things. (Remember: it was once "accepted fact" that the Sun & Planets revolved around the Earth!)... COVID-19 was (and still is, relatively speaking) NEW... which means there is a LOT of data yet to be analyzed... it would be downright stupid for us to think we've "figured this thing our" already! We know SOME about this disease, and certainly a LOT more than we knew in December, 2019! But there is a LOT we do NOT know yet... but we continue to test our assumptions, confirm (or disprove) our "accepted facts" (like the early "accepted fact" that COVID-19 was spread easily by shared contact on surfaces! That has been shown to be false: COVID-19 is now believed to be almost exclusively spread by aerosol respiration! BUT! If more facts - more data - comes to light that also disproves THAT, we'll need to rethink yet again! But, in the meantime, that's what we think of as fact, so that is what we base our plans, suggestions, and rules upon...)

@geobear40 said in Open relationship?:

@bi4smooth

If you have needs outside of your relationship then maybe you should rethink if that relationship is working for you. If I can't provide for my partners needs and wants and him for me then maybe the relationship is not working.

I feel that those types of relationships are selfish in a way. They don't want to settle and work toward a stable loving family they want to keep one toe in and keep their options open. They want to redefine what a relationship is to fit what they want to do. Call it something else and be happy in their chosen state. .

Those are your ideals - and just like your shoes, they won't fit everyone else... stick with the "I" statements and dispense with the "they" statements.... you have no right to speak for others, nor to judge (much less label) their relationships!

@geobear40 said in Fauci: Removing masks on airplanes 'not something we should even be considering':

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci said that taking masks off while on an airplane is "not something we should even be considering."

Fauci made the comments while on ABC's This Week on Sunday and was responding to a question from Jonathan Karl on a vaccine mandate for domestic air travel.

"We want to make sure people keep their masks on. I think the idea of taking masks off, in my mind, is really not something we should even be considering," Fauci said.

It is interesting that "in his mind" no data cited, no studies only in his mind and therefore we must comply for he is Science.

Actually, I think his remarks - and clarifying them as "in my mind" - were clearly stated as his opinions and not as "facts"...

I swear, between you and @raphjd - if Dr Fauci claimed the sun rose in the East, you'd claim he was lying or claiming someone else's research as his own!

@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:

@bi4smooth
Have you read any of the papers that Dr. Atlas has explained the data from all over the world that directly contradict what Fauci and the CDC are claiming that they know what studies are true and which ones are outliers. How about you read the book "The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health". Check out some of the 2000 footnotes which backup his premises.

It never hurts to expand your knowledge and see that what you are being spoon feed by the MSM and the CDC is not the only Science. Science is hypothesize, test write a paper and have your peers review and challenge the results. None of Fauci and the CDC edicts are allowed to be peer reviewed or challenged in anyway.

Neither Dr. Fauci nor Bill Gates speak for, or are voices of the CDC.

Yours is a common misconception...

• Dr Fauci is (since 1984) the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the NIH, not the CDC) and (since the post was established in 2019) the Chief Medical Advisor to the President.
• Dr. Fauci does not speak for, nor does he represent, nor is he employed by the CDC. He works for (but is not the head of) the NIH.
• To use an analogy, to claim that Dr Fauci speaks for the CDC is equivalent to claiming that Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North spoke for the US Army during Iran-Contra in the 1980's... to wit: neither Dr. Fauci nor Lt. Col. North are the heads of their agencies, and neither are actually affiliated with the agency to which you are attributing their authority.

I have not attributed the CDC's current mask policy (in favor of using even cloth masks to slow the spread of COVID-19) to Dr. Fauci... because the documents and guidelines come from the CDC, not the NIH.

For the record:

• The current head of the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is headed by Dr. Rochelle Walensky
• The current (acting) head of the US NIH (National Institutes of Health) is Dr. Lawrence Tabak (a Dentist, not an MD)
• Dr. Tabak is the "boss" of Dr. Fauci, as Dr. Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is a part of the NIH
• The US CDC and US NIH are separate and distinct agencies, 2 of the 11 separate agencies in the US Department of Health & Human Services:
  Operating Divisions:
  Administration for Children and Families
  Administration for Community Living
  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
  Food and Drug Administration
  Health Resources and Services Administration
  Indian Health Service
  National Institutes of Health
  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

So, long story short: demonize Dr Fauci all you like - he's not the CDC, and not affiliated with them in any way.
Demonize Bill Gates all you like - he's also not the CDC - just a rich guy using his considerable wealth to do things that HE THINKS will be good for humanity... you are free to disagree, but he has no more real influence on these things than Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, or the Koch brothers do! They're all just very VERY rich men, using their money they way they see fit... this is CAPITALISM - it comes with the territory!

@geobear40 said in Open relationship?:

@bi4smooth
You read a lot into my post.

It is my opinion. We still have that right to have different opinions in this country.

You may state your thoughts and I will respect them and I wish people would do the same for mine.

I'm sorry if you took offense, but while I certainly would not stand in judgement of you, should you declare that YOU couldn't be in an "open relationship"! When you're talking about yourself, I have no qualms about anything you believe about what's an acceptable relationship - FOR YOU!

But, when you make the blanket claim that all "open relationships" are just "friends with benefits" (or some other label that diminishes the value or importance of their relationship), I take offense.

Speak for yourself and we have no beef.
Attempt to re-label others based on your own beliefs, and we do, indeed have a beef.

With that said, if I misinterpreted your remarks (short as they were), I apologize.

I agree with the previous poster who indicated that it was a unique journey for each person... I share here in the hopes it helps someone out there who may find some similarities.

In my case, I had a really tough time when I was young... I knew I liked fucking girls, because I was fucking my neighbor... but then, I also started to fool around with some of the neighborhood GUYS! I mean, getting off was getting off! (And at that point, there was no anal sex! Just jerking and sucking and massaging...). I had heard the terms GAY and STRAIGHT (as well as many colorful, mostly derogatory, names for gays)... but none of those labels seemed to fit ME...

In HS, I was attacked once for being queer, but was "bailed out" when one of the girls I'd been fucking told the guy who was coming after me that I was a better lay than he was! (He was humiliated & beat the crap out of me anyway, but the queer "bashing" ended).

At the time (all thru HS), I was banging almost anyone who was willing to! Boy or girl, it all felt good! But I didn't "date" at all - it was all sex! (This was the 70's after all!)

To my parents, and anyone I wasn't having sex with, I was a model-geek! I got good grades, was in the Boy Scouts, sang in the church choir, you name it! I was a "good boy" - except to those "in the know" that I REALLY LIKED to FUCK!

In college, things changed: I had an actual GF as a freshman... but she cheated on me (broke my little heart!), and in "revenge" I fucked her brother... we kept fucking for over a year, but we never let her know.

I also joined a Frat - they didn't know anything, except I had been dating the one girl. However, I had also started a collection of gay porn magazines... and those got discovered... so I was force-ably "outed" to my fraternity - and they did NOT take it well: there was a vote on whether or not to allow me to remain a member... I barely won (though 2 years after, I was elected VP!)

Still, no one outside of the fraternity - ESPECIALLY my family - knew anything about my sexuality. Indeed, I had been "forced" to claim "bisexual" as a label by my Frat brothers, but it didn't feel right to me... I didn't "need" to be with both, it was more like I "could be" with EITHER!

When I graduated college and went to work in my first career job, I met a bartender at a hole-in-the-wall gay bar, and we became a couple - my first man-to-man love affair. We were in the process of breaking up - I was 25 by this time - when my younger brother got married in another state. I had originally planned to bring my BF as my guest to this thing, and come out to them then, but we were breaking up, so that fell through.... nonetheless, I was an emotional mess, so I wound up coming out to my mother... she could not understand how or why I couldn't just CHOOSE to be straight (I honestly think she STILL feels that today - and I'm 58 & she's 81!)

The rest of my family soon learned about me, and by the time I was 28 I was fully "out" - I made it a "requirement"(albeit, self-imposed) that I would never have sex with someone who wasn't aware that I had had sex with both men and women in my past.... I have kept that commitment to myself. I also finally found a label (I've been using since my late 20's) that I'm comfortable with: pansexual - defined (for me) as being physically attracted to either male or female bodies, and emotionally attracted to the person - irrespective of their body parts. (Or more succinctly: it's about the other person, not the toys they bring to the game!)

I have been accepted as "myself" by a huge majority of people who've learned about me... and rejected by a very few (which, I won't lie, hurt... sometimes, a lot)... my parents STILL keep hoping I'll "meet the right girl" - even when I'm dating (as I am now) a man. Some things will never change. But, how can I expect my parents to accept me "as-is" if I can't accept them "as-is" - even if all of us aren't fully comfortable with the others viewpoints!

Finally: my kids are all aware of my sexuality - it's come up when I have the "birds and the bees" discussion with them as teens.

@scummer60 said in How many times do you jerk off in a week?:

man, i get hard just looking at my cock sometimes! so, i jerk it whenever I'm horny ... and, for 61, that's about 3-5x week. If it still works I say pull it as many times as you can comfortably. (or sometimes uncomfortably!!!!)

Good job! 61 and still pounding the meat like that!

I'm 58 and still feel like I've done something wrong if I don't get off at least once a day!

I have a BF right now, so sometimes that's real sex instead of jerking off... but, as we don't live together, most days it's definitely still wanking!

@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:

@bi4smooth
You forgot to mention that the CDC like CNN is a politically motivated organization and they both favor the Liberal point of view. Both pick and choice science facts that follow their political narrative.

I disagree that the CDC is generally, innately, politically motivated.... indeed, until Trump tried to interfere with CDC published policies/findings in 2020, there were virtually NO claims of political agendas within that agency... NONE!

To be fair, Trump wasn't the first to apply politics to the CDC - prior congresses had prohibited, for example, the CDC to investigate tobacco, or guns, as a result of political lobbying... but those legislative "blocks" were far more transparent than Trump's lobbying within the CDC (through official WH channels) to "change the science" (in particular, about COVID)

That doesn't mean Biden hasn't followed Trump's lead and attempted to have an influence on them, either: Trump "broke the ice", and now that it's broken, it'll take a VERY LONG TIME for the CDC to truly regain its full credibility... and I agree that it's overall COVID-19 credibility is already damaged (but by the actions of the RIGHT, not of the LEFT).

BUT, that's why I suggested that the published (peer-reviewed) results from multiple countries health agencies be taken into accord... if most all of them agree (as they do about masks... at least until recently), then the science isn't likely tainted.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Not tainted does NOT mean unchanging! Our scientific understandings necessarily change over time, as we learn and discover more and new things!

Honestly, though - if you come back and claim that there is a world-wide conspiracy of liberals that control all of their health agencies, I will lose all faith that you can legitimately interpret scientific fact.

Not that my faith in you should be of any consequence to you, but.... just sayin'...

@geobear40 said in Open relationship?:

@edudorado
Or close friends who share expenses

I'm sorry, but insisting that non-monogamous relationships "are not real" is judgemental and pedantic... it's no different than straight people who once insisted that 2 men couldn't "actually love" one another the same way straight couples did!

Hogwash!

There are no simple rules that you can apply to all human relationships - some couples stop having sex in their 30's or 40s - when they want to stop having children; while others have sex well into their 80's (if not longer)!

No only are there perfectly healthy relationships that are non-monogamous, but some are "poly-amorous'" - that is, groups of 3 or more who all love each other and have sex with each other... some of these poly-amorous relationships are straight (men and women, with only heterosexual sex), some are gay (only men or only women), and some are bisexual (men and women, with sex occurring between ANY two being acceptable).

I happen to personally know a gay couple - now married - who have never had sex together (nor outside their relationship), and they are VERY happy together! (On a site dedicated to porn, I can understand if some of you are incredulous as to this claim, but they are real! I've known them for more than 15 years!)

I also had a relationship when i was younger, and we tried to make it an "open" relationship... we had a LOT of sex, both together, and with others... but it broke down when deceit crept in...

The discussion about child porn (including shota) is covered by the BANNED CONTENT link that's shown every time you upload content:

https://www.gaytorrent.ru/notallowed.php

Specifically banned (under types of porn banned):

• Child Exploitation or Underage Porn
• Shota (aka: shouta, shotacon, shotakon)

If the intent boils down to an existential choice between:

• a long, skinny dick, or
• a shorter, fat dick

I personally would choose the longer, skinny one... and I speak from experience, having been with a guy with a very thin, 9-inch+ cock; as well as a dude with a dick that looked like a crushed beer-can: about 4-5" in length, but much bigger around than I could accommodate!

But, I'm with the poster above: Give me a nice, average-dimensions cock any time! I want to feel him cum inside me, but I don't want my ass stretched, nor my intestines re-arranged to accommodate him!

@nomadtimm said in "The person below me" game.:

@andergarcia

Nope, never. Not really a sharing type of person.

TPBM is a virgin.

At 58? HELL NO, I'm not a virgin! I've had too many boys and girls in my bed!

TPBM has had sex in a public place (visible to others, even if they had to look closely!)

@nomadtimm said in THIS or THAT: the game:

@kgbagent Bears!! All day, every day!!!

Girth or Length?

Length! Too much of either is painful, but growth in girth hurts more, quicker!

Asses (specifically): smooth or hairy?

@emrebqr said in Hairy or smooth:

Smooth pube, Hairy body, is the best for me

For me, it's not the look so much as the smell... I TRIM (not shave) most of my body hair (what there is) - including public hair - because it flat SMELLS better!

I shave my face, my ass, and my balls - IMHO, those areas of skin "handle a blade" well enough - other areas, like armpits, legs, and chest tend to NOT handle shaving well - with "prickly" results, even if they stop getting ingrown hairs or cuts...

That's just my mileage... not saying its the same for anyone else...

... but I flat will not rim a hairy butt!!!

@eobox91103 said in Escorts:

... "I don't pay guys to have sex; I pay them to leave afterwards."

Literally ROFL! I love it!

I had a friend when I was younger who was a well-paid, well-sought-after escort (for men and women - he didn't care!)... he said it was like "renting a boat vs purchasing one" - a LOT less expensive overall, and you get the latest model each time you go back to the marina!

CNN is pushing an article HERE that attempts to change the "narrative" on masks.

It directly contradicts what the CDC has said (currently, still says) about the use of, efficacy of, and modality of wearing masks.

In summary, the CDC's guidance on mask-wearing is that it protects others more than it protects ourselves, as the mask "knocks down" our breath, and any respiratory "droplets" in the process. The mask reduces the "area" around us where our breath carries, while still allowing full oxygen and carbon-dioxide inhalation and exhalation (respectfully). To the CDC, it's about stopping the spread of those respiratory droplets, which is why cloth masks are just fine!

Now, here comes CNN - self-appointed lord and savior of all mankind - to say that no, cloth masks aren't good after all, despite what the CDC says. From the article:

Yet the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's most recent guidance on selecting, properly wearing, cleaning and storing face masks recommended people avoid N95 masks and instead choose masks with two or more layers of washable, breathable fabric -- which Wen called "a major mistake."

So now CNN - which has for many months been all "follow the science" has chosen to "pick and choose" the science they'll recommend - exactly what they claim the "other side" has been doing.

Some additional thoughts - admittedly unorganized...

• If the "goal" of the mask is to block nano-particles, then we need to start stocking up on military-style gas-masks!
• The CDC guidance is based on the idea that it's not about blocking particles so much as reducing their velocity... if they leave the mask and have no velocity, they fall to the ground (remember, the virus lives in these droplets, not "out on its own")...
• Since this virus is spread almost entirely by aerosol (respiratory), blocking the expiration of people's breath, along with keeping your distance - so those particles have a chance to fall - seems a reasonable approach!
• Even Drs and nurses will tell you: wearing a surgical mask all day is uncomfortable, but wearing an N95 mask (properly fitted) for hours on end is difficult, nearly unbearable!
• I'm all for requiring kids to wear masks in social places - including school - when those masks are simple, not overly restrictive, and meant to "block the spread."
• I'm totally against requiring kids to wear N95-style masks, esp if they're going to be required to "keep them fitted"... if medical professionals find this unbearable, what do you expect from our kids? They won't comply, and then you've lost all levels of protection!
• This kind of "editorial" change (vs. fact-based change) is going to confuse and anger a lot of people, and it will feed into the narrative of the anti-mask crowd... in other words, while wearing an N95 mask may be better after all, making this editorial change NOW is going to COST LIVES, not save them:
• People that have been iffy about masks all along, are going to stop wearing them... you're now telling them the mask they've been wearing is useless (the CDC says it is not!), and saying only an N95 mask - which is uncomfortable and expensive - is the ONLY way to go.... so they're STOP wearing the cloth or surgical masks (which HAVE been working, according to the CDC!) and give up...
• People who were already pro-mask were very likely already wearing N95 masks (well, KN95 is far more likely), so your editorial change won't be affecting their behavior at all!

I don't know yet what the background on this editorial change is - I don't see a political advantage for the Dems here - but there is something behind this -- and I do NOT believe it is pure benevolence on CNN's part... maybe a new sponsor makes KN95 masks?

For me, I'll continue to follow the CDC guidance and wear my rainbow-colored surgical mask when in public. I'm fully vaccinated, and while Omicron is scarily easily transmittable, I'm as protected as I can be (without adding natural immunity by getting COVID-19!)