Continued vagaries, moral posturing, and complete lack of evidence for any of your dumb claims.

Which experts are you referring to? I would like you to be specific.

The CDC and the WHO didn’t recommend masks for the general public until mid-to-late May. Prior to then, politicians and these very “experts” from the CDC, WHO, the US Surgeon General, and the UK’s NHS were recommending against masks, saying the evidence was quite weak in support of their efficacy. Pepperidge Farms remembers.

It wasn’t until the mythical curve was already significantly flattening that the use of masks was made mandatory. The argument can only be mounted that masks accelerated the slope of the curve as it was already trending in that direction. Additional measures not just related to private businesses were instituted in June when the death toll was further flatlining which it has continued to do up to today. But back when they did make masks mandatory, they didn’t mandate any standard of mask. This isn’t insignificant. We’ll return to this later.

It wasn’t until the beginning of July until the WHO started to revise their official position. The science still isn’t exactly clear. But what is clear is that they resisted the findings until they could no longer do so.

(Yes, I’m aware the article recommends masks.)

In short, over the past 3+ months we’ve seen about face both in fundamental assumptions about the virus and recommended treatment, i.e. including but not limited to, endorsement of masks from the experts. This, at minimum is evidence that there is really no scientific consensus like you so confidently and idiotically claim.

Furthermore since then the death totals have gone to a crawl and we’ve seen many false positives with testing, misattributed deaths (see: Birx’s policies to mark all deaths as Corona deaths if the deceased tests positive), an insubstantial increase in post-winter all-cause mortalities which undermines the overall credibility of both the virus and the idea of the virus as a pandemic, the decrease in reported annual post-winter disease mortalities which partially explains some misreported COVID deaths, and a deliberate misrepresentation of all aspects of the virus from various parties in the media and government for political purposes. But you know… “science”.

Show me one scientific journal which clearly mentions the efficacy of masks. One.

They all make an "aww shucks, gee golly you should use them" admission and sidestep the fact that they have no evidence.

The most intellectual ones will cite a minor benefit of x<6%.

If you would like to blame the Trump administration go ahead. For the record, I think the guy is ineffectual and unqualified for his position and I think Hillary and Trump’s predecessors are warmongering psychopaths who all deserve to be in prison. But if you want to blame Trump and politics costing American lives, be sure to include state governors of the Democratic party in New York, California, and Michigan in your calculation as their policies intermixed COVID-positive patients with negative patients in senior citizen and assisted living homes leading to an inflation of cases and deaths. They topped this genius move by releasing violent criminals from prison, back out onto the street which reoffended in the worst ways possible, most recently a murder-suicide of the murderers rape victim which put him in prison in the first place. And then they put the cherry on top of the proverbial sundae when they admonished people to go protest in the streets. If the virus were a serious existential threat, these politicians would be tacitly recommending their constituency risk certain infection and death. lulz.

But to the broader point of politicization of the situation, here’s one article of many.

You can look up additional studies and infographs of countries that stopped and resumed use of hydroxychloroquine.

Maybe one day you can apply your MENSA-tier intellect and mount an argument consisting of something more than name calling, false equivalence, drawing conclusions that isn’t supported by data, and a consistent supply of straw men, but well, it’s not today.

Ok, now onto masks.

The support for masks, even through so-called evidence, will be a weak correlative effect at best. For example, to say masks are effective because one area has a more authoritarian government and greater mask adherence is irrelevant. The virus could be simply be more prevalent here or there. It doesn’t explain the data and the burden of proof to prove even correlation let alone direct causation lies on those making said claims. (By the way, the Chinese also wear masks because of air pollution which kills a million plus per year so they have a reason to wear masks religiously). A given population could also be significantly more physically fit, less unhealthy, more educated or more intelligent than a non-mask wearing population, too. Again, one variable doesn’t explain the data. Epidemiologists like to make broad recommendations whether or not it’s supported by the data because it merely sounds good and gives them something to do. They’re inverting the Precautionary Principle to justify their wages. Same with politicians and soccer moms. It creates the illusion of control and keeps the sheeple from panicking or starting to ask too many questions. You’ll see this in the journals but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Furthermore, whether they admit it or not, all these studies are flawed if you just want to study the efficacy of masks because you have a replicability error. You have no control group. You can’t measure the potency of the virus from one area to another. You don’t have the health data of each geographical area to analyze and draw any meaningful conclusions. And so on.

You yourself admit:

You unwittingly undermine your entire argument. Most people who have the virus are asymptomatic. They don’t need the masks. They could’ve had the virus for months and the shedding period could be long gone. They could’ve picked it up while wearing masks during a trip to the grocery store or they could’ve picked it up getting the mail without wearing their precious face-muzzle. They don’t know, we don’t know.

What we do know is that unless you’re 60+, obese, have pre-existing medical conditions, and/or a weakened immune or respiratory system, you’re probably going to be fine. These are the only people who potentially need masks and if symptomatic, the only ones needing of isolation. A person may experience very mild symptoms, again, you don’t know the cause. It could be a common cold. If symptoms worsen, the common sense thing would be to tested immediately and take the preventative and super cheap hydroxycloroquine and/or roll the dice and pay at most $200 for an asthma steroid and antibiotics. It’s low risk, high reward, and will save you thousands of dollars circumventing our joke of a healthcare system.

If we go off the understanding that the virus is airborne and could be because of the air we expel or the air we inhale, which is the latest accepted position, not only do the 0.3 micron perforations of the better KN95s (vs. cloth or Alyssa Milano’s adorable granny knit homemade mask) are still too large to filter a 0.1 micron airborne virus. It’d prevent much larger 5.0 to 10.0 micron droplets (previous W.H.O. party line) but not air particles or air expelled via breathing. So unless you have a study from July onward, it’s likely to be operating off this same false premise. With air particles, the mask would be merely directing the expelled virus where to go. Furthermore, masks work both ways. If you argue it’s partially helping on the inhale you could easily argue the inverse that it’s also partially hurting via the exhale because you’re recirculating the air right in front of your nose and mouth and masks could cause leakage out the sides of the mask. Many journals touch on this ideas.

But you want the studies? Okay. Here are the studies.

Prior to 2020, masks were viewed as ineffectual in general and for other respiratory issues. I’ll drive down from the general to the specific as it relates to covid.

There are numerous studies which view masks as ineffectual in varying degrees for other respiratory issues, notably influenza:
“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” (1)
“Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis” (2)
“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant” (3)

Cloth masks are significantly worse:
“The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm… Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.” (1)

Here’s something that was written for the dental industry which was removed for Orwellian reasons such as “not being fit for the current climate” even though it clearly applies to the coronavirus / covid-19. If it truly doesn’t apply, the author and/or could’ve simply proven it instead of a claim without evidence and a cheap appeal to authority.

Here's the truth from the horses mouth, arguably the most respected medical journal in the US.

AKA, the entire justification and rationalization for the mandate of “protecting other people” in public spaces is invalidated.

The evidence isn’t there. It never was. It’s all one big post-hoc rationalization.

I could cite so many more studies but it's clear by your string of stupid, brief sentences you've never read any of them in the first place and I'm merely wasting my time.

Instead of examining the science, Americans let politicians take their civil liberties to a paper shredder, let the power hungry not only abuse their power but seize more of it, let corporations astroturf small businesses, and let douchebags like Steve Mnuchin and Lindsay Graham lecture them about making more money than the minimum wage during a so-called pandemic.

You're not wrong generally but wrong specifically.

The other acts you mention have both more albums, more live performances, and more years of activity. Guns N' Roses has 1987-1994 and you could mount an argument that the year span is even further narrowed because they've always operated like a dysfunctional mom and pop operation. Some were recorded but not professionally or psuedo-professionally. They can sweeten them but there's only so much you can do.

We already know of a good chunk of B-Sides, recording sessions, etc. for the 1987-1994 era. They're not going to be pulling very many rabbits out of hats. And in the case of Metallica, they're still an active band. They put out documentaries, new albums, live releases, etc. Hetfield isn't nixing YouTube freebies or Grammy appearances because he doesn't like his gut or his double chin.

The above is the reason for: (1) the slow trickle (2) the AFD box set pricing and (3) the soon-to-be re-released Greatest Hits.

In reverse order, the reason Greatest Hits is the 2004 release plus "Shadow of Your Love" is because to release either a new single CD Greatest Hits CD with a reworked track listing or a double CD Very Best of would cannibalize future releases, i.e. the UYI box set you mentioned. To call "Shadow" a hit is such a piece of odious propaganda it cannot be taken seriously on it's face, even if you curve for the modern era of streams over radio plays, etc.

The AFD box set is and was their only significant card to play (not including finished post '94-pre '97 material). Everything is diminishing returns from there. They were perfectly happy to let the market set the price because most people don't give a fuck about listening to alternative versions of a near flawless album, so pack it with stupid reprint flyers and get what you can out of it. I can't say that I love all of Pink Floyd's legacy releases but between the band's artistic effort in their glory days and the work they did remix and remastering, to a good chunk of that specific fanbase, they're worth the investment. And they're significantly cheaper than the Locked N' Loaded abomination.

And who is minding the store? The guy who thought Caram Costanzo was better at his job than Andy Wallace and the guy who thought a no-prenup deal with a former pimp was a good idea. And again, not to beat a dead horse even though sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, even if this rogues gallery got off their ass and had the business savvy to get an operation off the ground, they'd be subject to their corporate masters' beck and call, i.e., they don't have the latitude to operate independently and get things to market quickly.

TL;DR:

Waggy out

Same but the ship has sailed.

And the dysfunction will always spring from the top. Functional and effective people generally make functional and effective decisions.

It would've have been easy to drop both this boring yawnfest and Live Era or any live show at the same time. People would be happy to drop another $20-30. These are the people that buy Funko Pop toys and other plastic nonsense after all.

But instead we get the slow drip because of the incompetent management and probably the weird idea that there's somehow a more profitable future market than maximizing earning potential in the present.

This is all you are to the system.

Stay busy fighting. Never question. Just argue.

Can you see your strings?

Go back to sleep.

lol

Two old guys that fit risk factors. Dark irony there for sure.

But sure, cite "science", which in all likelihood you haven't read.

MSM are parrots. These people have no brains and their whole job consists of the manufacture of drama, consent, outrage.

I've read 15+ journals in full and several abstracts. All with flawed premise, flawed methodology, and even the most pro-mask abstracts admit they're ineffectual and only a psychological reaction. Several scientific experts have even come out in criticism of the politicization of the virus and the perversion of real science.

But go off kings.

Stay scared.