Yare yare daze...
People who Don't Wear Masks in a Pandemic are Absolute Morons
Posts
Total:
152
-->
@BearMan
I mean come on bro. It doesn't restrict your breathing, it doesn't do anything.
This is utter nonsense. It does restrict breathing and people with breathing difficulties or phobia of wearing masks will experience genuine harm while wearing it. Additionally, someone who was just tested negative for Covid-19 has basically got no reason to wear it for the next few hours, assuming everyone else was wearing a mask and/or distant from them.
Deaf people often struggle severely to communicate during this era, it's really hampering their ability to go about daily life as they have mastered lip reading. Over 60% of sign language is in the lip movements and facial experessions.
@Rational
I mean for regular people without breathing conditions
-->
@BearMan
Or...maybe we should design something so even the people with breathing difficulties can do it. Complaining doesn't help. I complain but it does nothing.
-->
@BearMan
"regulations which are based on science." Again what science? I can show a litany of scientific reports from virologists, doctors and mask manufactures that show that masks not designed to stop viruses in fact do not. So wearing a mask that does nothing in the fist place and then taking it off and thinking that does something is preposterous on any scientific level.
-->
@sadolite
Clearly you haven't read it, not my problem fool.
-->
@BearMan
I skimmed thru all the links. I found nothing of any kind showing any kind of science. The CDC is not science.
-->
@sadolite
That depends on what you define science. Maybe your science is listening to some Youtube bozo tell you about the stonehenge.
-->
@BearMan
I don't think you know what you are saying.
And I think you mean the Dr doesn't know what he is saying . Those are his comments by all accounts not mine. I was simply pointing out his contradictions once government made mask wearing compulsory.
Interestingly only yesterday a scientist at Oxford university Professor Sunetra Gupta, epidemiologist that studies infections infectious disease in humans tells talkRADIO that wearing face masks "should be voluntary".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waNZOT2ItT0
You may also have heard of the ever so clever Professor Neil Ferguson British epidemiologist and professor of mathematical biology, who specialises in the patterns of spread of infectious disease in humans and animals at Imperial collage London
Professor Neil Ferguson - as you may well know- is the person that the British Government have been taking their advice from over the so called C19 pandemic and have been basing their C19 restrictions around.
Here are examples of Professor Neil Ferguson's previous predictions. I am also of the understanding that the American Dr Fauci had taken his findings directly from the studies of Ferguson.
You may find this interesting?
Q1.
In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. He told the Guardian that ‘around 40 million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak… There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.’ In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
How did he get this forecast so wrong?
Q2.
In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths.
In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected.
Why did the Imperial team overestimate the fatality of the disease? Or to borrow Robinson's words to Hancock this morning: 'that prediction wasn't just nonsense was it? It was dangerous nonsense.'
Q3.
In 2001 the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.
Does Ferguson acknowledge that his modelling in 2001 was flawed and if so, has he taken steps to avoid future mistakes?
Q4.
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.
Does Ferguson believe that his ‘worst-case scenario’ in this case was too high? If so, what lessons has he learnt when it comes to his modelling since?
Q5.
Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’
Has the Imperial team’s Covid-19 model been subject to outside scrutiny from other experts, and are the team questioning their own assumptions used? What safeguards are in place?
Q6.
On 22 March, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.
How many assumptions in the Imperial model are still based on influenza and is there any risk that the modelling is flawed because of these assumptions?
Wad'ya think!?
from the US
"“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”
Wad'ya think!?
-->
@Stephen
No, you haven't read a single thing bruh. I'm not gonna waste my time. The doctor is right, you are wrong. I'm not gonna act like a doctor here, I'm not.
-->
@BearMan
I'm not gonna act like a doctor here, I'm not.
And I am not asking you to.
From the USA
"“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”
Imperial College epidemiologist Neil Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
Wad'ya think!?
-->
@BearMan
"That depends on what you define science. " Two way street. Your science comes from a corrupt govt and mine comes from elsewhere, namely mask manufactures and non govt affiliated virologists and doctors.
-->
@sadolite
Mask manufacturers. You always say that and never provide a single link. Why the hell would a mask manufacturer question the ability of its own product?
-->
@BearMan
Let the conspiracy theorists have their theories.
If you have no significant health-based excuse to not wear a mask and are in an enclosed space like a shop, restaurant etc. You should absolutely wear it. Why not? Even if you believe it doesn't help stop the spread (which is false, as it does help stop the spread) what reason is there to not make others feel safe around you?
@Rational
It seems we agree. I'll let em have their theories.
-->
@sadolite
Over 6000 Scientists, Doctors Sign Anti-lockdown Petition.
" Over six thousand scientists and doctors have signed a petition against coronavirus lockdown measures, urging that those not in the at risk category should be able to get on with their lives as normal, and that lockdown rules in both the US and UK are causing ‘irreparable damage’.
Those who have signed include professors from the world’s leading universities. Oxford University professor Dr Sunetra Gupta was one of the authors of the open letter that was sent with the petition, along with Harvard University’s Dr Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya.
It declares that social distancing and mask mandates are causing ‘damaging physical and mental health impacts.’"
Those who have signed include professors from the world’s leading universities. Oxford University professor Dr Sunetra Gupta was one of the authors of the open letter that was sent with the petition, along with Harvard University’s Dr Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya.
It declares that social distancing and mask mandates are causing ‘damaging physical and mental health impacts.’"
-->
@Stephen
The current mentality about Covid 19 put forward by the CDC will not allow any kind of input that does not affirm the current indoctrinated beliefs put forward by the CDC. 98 % of all the people who wear a mask wear a mask because some govt jack wagon on TV told them to. They did zero research as to weather it would be effective. They believe masks that do nothing to filter Covid virus do because they are told that it does. That is the state of science today. The 98% will wear their masks until the same jack wagon that told them to wear it tells them they can stop wearing it. Which of course will be never. The 98% will wear them until the day they die. You will never be safe from Covid 19 or any other virus and govt will continue to say it forever. They cant say you would be safe not wearing a mask because the 98% would think if the govt did said they would be safe that would be a 100% guarantee. That is what the 98% think they are going to get, a 100% guarantee they will never get sick from a virus if the govt tells them they don't have to wear a mask. The 98% are compliant lemmings and care nothing about real science such as mask manufactures who would know better than anyone else on the planet weather or not their masks are effective or not against a virus. It literally doesn't matter what they say no matter how scientifically factual it is. The CDC says wearing a useless piece of cloth on your face prevents the spread of a virus so it does. That is the science the 98% think is science.
-->
@sadolite
UM none of these links show any scientific evidence that wearing a face mask and then taking it off in the same room reduces or prevents the spread of a virus. They are all just govt regulation suggestions. They show no scientific proof of anything.
100% THIS.
-->
@sadolite
The 98% will wear their masks until the same jack wagon that told them to wear it tells them they can stop wearing it. Which of course will be never.
NEW NORMAL = POLICE STATE
-->
@BearMan
Stop thinking you are smarter than guys who have actually researched for years,
The data on virus propagation is not NEW.
The data on virus propagation is AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
-->
@BearMan
No it doesn't violate your rights.
Don't forget to pin that pink triangle and yellow star to your jacket.
-->
@Lemming
Not sure I think people not on board yet are Absolute Morons, maybe just need to be convinced in the right manner,
Perhaps with a preponderance of historical scientific data?
...and need our government leading correctly.
Maintaining government credibility is a fools-errand after of a century of lies. [LINK]
-->
@Intelligence_06
But yes, wearing not a mask outside, where environment of contact will be prone to make you sick is real, would make you ignorant of the outdoor problems.
Is your mask airtight?
Do you touch your mask when you put it on and take it off?
Do you wash your hair and clothing every time you touch them?
-->
@MisterChris
Also, I agree that it's not unconstitutional to enforce masks in a crisis situation.
Which part of the constitution allows mask enforcement?
-->
@lady3keys
Wearing masks, saves others as well.
Based on what data?
-->
@lady3keys
Have we really become so stupid as a country, that we will take the word of any credentialed authority, doctors, scientists and experts that have spent their lives specializing in their fields?
Even when they start spouting "recommendations" that contradict volumes of historical data?
-->
@Vader
I personally agree. We should all wear masks no matter what, and that is on protecting people.
What scientific data are you basing this claim on?
-->
@3RU7AL
That is a really stupid constitutional outlook. The constitution was DELIBERATELY made to be vague enough to be successful in the long-term... to be able to adapt to all situations. The founding fathers did not attempt to list exhaustively what could or could not be done, they only gave a list of essential rights to be protected. Among which was the rights to life, which supersedes all others. And as I've said before, if me not wearing a mask violates another person's right to life, my right to "wear what I want" goes away in response.
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a state law requiring everyone to be vaccinated against smallpox. Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and was convicted. The court upheld the law and Jacobson’s conviction.
“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”
-->
@ebuc
Ghandi? And the list goes on and on and on.......
We will not give them our fingerprints. Not one of us. [LINK]
-->
@MisterChris
And as I've said before, if me not wearing a mask violates another person's right to life, my right to "wear what I want" goes away in response.
I'm sure you realize that nearly everything you do directly or indirectly endangers the life of someone.
650,000 people die from the flu every year. Why no lock-downs?