P
pnewton
Guest
The second is correct. That type of argument was a straw man, as no one said that or will say that.
- Status
E
EricF
Guest
I am encouraged by the poll results so far.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
What if my way of protecting myself from you is to shoot you? That’s a completely unacceptable solution, but it would fit your philosophy.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
There’s a guy at our church who wasn’t wearing a mask even though it was made very clear that everyone was supposed to wear one.
Forevermore, he’ll be “that guy who wouldn’t wear a mask.”
Forevermore, he’ll be “that guy who wouldn’t wear a mask.”
T
TC3033
Guest
I have and can. I’ve seen one post to a Fox News OPed.
I can prove that aliens exist and the earth is flat using google too.
That’s the key. I want to see the science. Not a report.
Uh, yes…yes you are. You took nothing that anyone has said (specifically in any of my posts) and turned it into a giant strawman diatribe.
Who is that and what does it have to do with providing peer reviewed studies?
T
TC3033
Guest
E
EXdrinker
Guest
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
www.cbsnews.com
Just some of what is out there.
Why do you need everyone who has been reading about this for months to go back and cite scientific studies? We do not want to get people around us sick any more than you do.
Many of us see this as a shell game and power grab. We did exactly what was asked in the beginning and got unending bureaucratic goal post moving from elected and unelected officials ever since then. Much of which was the exact opposite of what they said in the beginning. I am very sorry that the dots do not seem to connect for you. I am very sorry that understanding that healthy people do not spread this and asymptomatic people very likely spread very little of this, if any, is currently counter-cultural. Doing this math vs what we have to accept from the bureaucrats with never ending hoops to jump through, which are causing ruin to so many lives is easy for some of us. There is a deeper story being woven here other than people who do not wear masks are unchristian evil doers. Some of us see it and some of us don’t.
March 2020: Dr. Anthony Fauci talks with Dr Jon LaPook about COVID-19
In March, Fauci told 60 Minutes that masks should largely be reserved for healthcare providers. In April, the recommendations were broadened to include simple masks for the general public.
www.cbsnews.com
Just some of what is out there.
Why do you need everyone who has been reading about this for months to go back and cite scientific studies? We do not want to get people around us sick any more than you do.
Many of us see this as a shell game and power grab. We did exactly what was asked in the beginning and got unending bureaucratic goal post moving from elected and unelected officials ever since then. Much of which was the exact opposite of what they said in the beginning. I am very sorry that the dots do not seem to connect for you. I am very sorry that understanding that healthy people do not spread this and asymptomatic people very likely spread very little of this, if any, is currently counter-cultural. Doing this math vs what we have to accept from the bureaucrats with never ending hoops to jump through, which are causing ruin to so many lives is easy for some of us. There is a deeper story being woven here other than people who do not wear masks are unchristian evil doers. Some of us see it and some of us don’t.
P
Potter
Guest
I believe that wearing a mask is the prudent, compassionate, and considerate thing to do. If businesses ask their customers to wear masks, that is their right as proprietors. However! It is wholly inappropriate for the government to make it a universal requirement, , to intrude upon the choices of individuals and businesses. Even if the government makes this kind of prescriptivism legal, that does not make it right.
F
ForeverLearn
Guest
Are you OK with seat belt requirements? Public smoking restrictions?
P
Potter
Guest
My opinion on seatbelts is identical: I believe they’re the prudent course of action, but that the government is out of bounds in requiring them. Adults can make their own health decisions. As for smoking. it’'s an obnoxious, offensive habit, but if businesses choose to let their patrons smoke. that is their business. Those like myself who would rather not be around the smoke can simply go somewhere else. In an increasingly health-conscious society, I imagine few places would allow it for it – save for larger cities that can have niche clubs, the same kind that support cigar shops and their smoking rooms these days.
T
TC3033
Guest
Well, when one makes a claim…I’d like to see them back it up…
Noting: I don’t see a whole lot of studies above, but did you at least read the abstract of the first link??
Well, that’s too bad?
Please extrapolate
Please, feel free to lay them out. To say that wearing a face covering is some sort of “power grab” is…Idk…out there…
…no kidding. But even if you feel healthy it’s quite possible to spread it.
See above. Is this covered in one of your “studies” linked?
F
ForeverLearn
Guest
Thanks for your opinion. However, as I mentioned above courts have frequently upheld rules that limit constitutional rights if they are in the name of safety and are limited in scope. So it appears a waste of time.
Two thoughts. Seat belts statically save lives and lessen severe injuries. Think of the money saved and reducing of paramedics and hospitals having to deal with gruesome injuries and deaths.
Secondly, the refusal of wearing a mask, according to the evidence we have, has a potential to affect much more than just the wearer or non-wearer. If that was the case, I couldn’t image anyone would be pushing for it to be mandated. Besides, there are ways to avoid wearing it, like staying home.
P
Potter
Guest
I don’t dispute the efficacy of seatbelts and masks. 
My objection is a moral one. A policy can be factually based and legally permissible, but that doesn’t make it ethically right. For me, it comes down to nonviolence, which I believe Christ advocated. To support a law that tells an individual, you must do this or that, is to impose upon their being. For me, the means of a decision is just as important as the intended end. If a just cause is pursued through unjust means, the cause itself will be undermined – as the mask cause is now, by people’s very understandable indignation that they are being treated as children. While people can evade mask requirements by not leaving their homes, why should their rights as people cease to be respected as soon as they step outside? Those who choose to wear masks are protecting themselves against those who don’t, correct? In some places, the law is even reaching into people’s homes: according to my governor , effective as of 5 pm yesterday, if I invite a friend into my home we are to both be wearing masks if we are within 6 feet of one another.
My objection is a moral one. A policy can be factually based and legally permissible, but that doesn’t make it ethically right. For me, it comes down to nonviolence, which I believe Christ advocated. To support a law that tells an individual, you must do this or that, is to impose upon their being. For me, the means of a decision is just as important as the intended end. If a just cause is pursued through unjust means, the cause itself will be undermined – as the mask cause is now, by people’s very understandable indignation that they are being treated as children. While people can evade mask requirements by not leaving their homes, why should their rights as people cease to be respected as soon as they step outside? Those who choose to wear masks are protecting themselves against those who don’t, correct? In some places, the law is even reaching into people’s homes: according to my governor , effective as of 5 pm yesterday, if I invite a friend into my home we are to both be wearing masks if we are within 6 feet of one another.
F
ForeverLearn
Guest
Are there any laws that do not tell someone they must do this or that?
Good luck enforces that one.
P
Potter
Guest
Only the ones that tell us what we can’t do! Those can be similarly injust, once they go beyond the staples – thou shalt not steal, murder, etc. I think it was Tacitus who remarked, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government . And regarding enforcement on that order I mentioned, quite true. The governor admitted the same when she announced the rules, and said that her ‘order’ was being made mostly for education purposes.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
States have emergency powers well beyond the knowledge of the average citizen.
Whether and to what extent the governor, or a more local official has the power to demand the use of masks (and 6 feet or separation) will be answered ultimately by one or more courts, primarily state courst as the issue is not at this point a Federal issue.
And the extent of state emergency power may vary from state to state, so what can be done in one state may not apply to another.
Further, the fact that a governor said her “order” was made for educational purposes may imply that she does not have the authority. It may also imply that she does not have the money to fight a lawsuit brought by the Tin Foil Hat Brigade demanding their right to not wear masks. At this point most state governments are being hammered financially and most will likely pick and choose which hills they want their attorney general and staff to die on.
Whether and to what extent the governor, or a more local official has the power to demand the use of masks (and 6 feet or separation) will be answered ultimately by one or more courts, primarily state courst as the issue is not at this point a Federal issue.
And the extent of state emergency power may vary from state to state, so what can be done in one state may not apply to another.
Further, the fact that a governor said her “order” was made for educational purposes may imply that she does not have the authority. It may also imply that she does not have the money to fight a lawsuit brought by the Tin Foil Hat Brigade demanding their right to not wear masks. At this point most state governments are being hammered financially and most will likely pick and choose which hills they want their attorney general and staff to die on.
F
ForeverLearn
Guest
Freedom is ideal, but comes with responsibility. Society’s response to the disability of some to be able to handle this responsibility is to put restrictions on that freedom. Self-governance has been experimented with, but the result seems to have resulted in the status quo we have currently.
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps it is because all too many adults are acting like children - on both sides of the issue.
Epidemiologists as well as others who study issues such as transmissibility of a disease have been scrambling (with no thanks at all to the CCP for intentional opaqueness and the WHO for being suckered into it) to identify how Covid-19 is transmitted.
At first they held that it was primarily through coughs and sneezes, which expel larger amounts and sizes of fluid carrying the disease. Now there is more evidence that it is also transmitted by the vapor we emit while breathing normally (and more so for a heavy breather, such as one exercising).
Earlier this month, more than 200 scientists from dozens of countries sent an open letter to WHO urging the organization to update its guidance to reflect the fact that the virus also lives on aerosols—much smaller particles that remain airborne for far longer, elevating the risks of transmission.
COVID transmission via aerosols would explain a number of perplexing questions that have bedeviled us this summer about how the virus spreads, such as why it’s so much more contagious indoors than outside.
Two people six feet apart, no matter the setting, are largely safe from one another’s ballistic droplets. In addition to those droplets, however, each of them will also exhale a gradually growing and expanding cloud of aerosols, which given enough time in an unventilated room will spread throughout the space. If viruses can be carried by vapor that small, then the longer an infected person and uninfected people share the same space, the greater number of particles will be transmitted and the greater the infection risk grows. Give it enough time in a small enough space with enough other people around, and presto—you’ve got your superspreader event.
Outdoors, the slightest touch of a breeze will likely be enough to sweep those aerosols away, thinning the cloud until the particles are extremely unlikely to give anyone enough of a dose of the virus to make them sick.
As reported in Morning Dispatch.
Last edited:
E
EXdrinker
Guest
Yes! If people are not coughing there is very little respiratory virus spread in one of those studies. It won’t matter though. This is an emotional response for too many.EXdrinker:
See above. Is this covered in one of your “studies” linked?
And to insinuate that the goal posts have not been moved or that this concept needs to be extrapolated out is ludicrous.
T
TC3033
Guest
Which study?
100% false. I’ve asked for studies and have been replied to with…politics…power grab…etc…
- Status