Only 31 deaths of children under age 15 involving COVID-19. Common flu-related child deaths from 37 to 187 during regular flu season. Should Governors

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I have not seen credible and definitive studies showing masks as worn on a daily basis are of any value in controlling a virus. Where is the science? There is none.

If you or a member of your family needs an operation, tell the surgeon and the rest of the op staff that there’s no need to wear a mask. It serves no purpose…

If those surgical masks were treated like the masks worn by the general public - taking them off repeatedly and for who knows how many days - I would, indeed, ask the surgeon to leave it off.

That is to say nothing of the fact that surgical masks are different in quality to those sold to consumers, i.e., cheap Chinese made knock-offs which clearly state on the packaging that they are not effective in blocking bacteria or viruses.

Furthermore, at least half of the masks worn by the public are cloth masks absent any filtration except the weave of the synthetic or cotton fibres. I wouldn’t think cloth masks are allowed in surgical suites. Does your surgeon wear them?

Try peddling your propaganda elsewhere.

As usual, the elites are treated far differently from the hoi polloi both in the recommendations for personal protection and in how rules are followed.

Perhaps this lady’s desperation will filter through your mask and into your brain? Why is Newsom shutting down business owners to put them out of business but permitting film production crews wide leeway?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1335244515221762050

 

[HarryStotle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Why should the state be the ultimate authority over what individuals consider to be unnecessary risks?

Because the risks in question affect others in society. It is like saying I want to drive after drinking alcohol because why should the government be in charge of what I as an individual consider an unnecessary risk?

CanI ask you, Harry, if you.wear a seatbelt or avoid driving after drinking?

Not the same thing. Seatbelts are proven effective. Cloth masks and cheap Chinese made masks are more likely to spread germs and bacteria than contain them.

Show me a replicable study on typical use of these masks to prove them effective and you might have a convert. The anecdotal evidence and statistical wide spread data following implementation of mask mandates show they do little or nothing to stop outbreaks.

These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID

Even CDC studies from September showed a large majority (80+%) of new cases were of individuals who wore masks “always or almost always.” And very few (3-4%) never wore masks.

Your comparables are superficial and unconvincing.

 

[HarryStotle]

Masks control spread. When you sneeze or cough (and, yes, breath) it is more difficult for the molecules to project. It is simple physics. Again, something we all (should have) learned in elementary school science classes.

We can call that what it is, “simplistic physics.”

HarryStotle:

Why should the state be the ultimate authority over what individuals consider to be unnecessary risks?

Because the risks in question affect others in society. It is like saying I want to drive after drinking alcohol because why should the government be in charge of what I as an individual consider an unnecessary risk?

Again, a faulty comparison.

After an individual drinks beyond a certain level, their capacity to make decisions is compromised. Ergo, governments can legitimately step in and interfere with the decisions of less than fully competent and autonomous individuals. Rational decision making is undermined by alcohol beyond a certain level.

Driving while being drunk is not anything like a rational “consideration.” It is entirely irrational, because the person’s rational capacity has been undermined by the alcohol. The government has warrant for intervening.

The government causing widespread financial and psychological damage to large swaths of people under the pretext of saving them from a virus with a 99.9% chance of recovery is, itself, akin to driving the reins of governance while intoxicated by the exercise of power. These people are the ones who ought to be arrested for driving under the influence.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Why should the state be the ultimate authority over what individuals consider to be unnecessary risks?

Because the risks in question affect others in society. It is like saying I want to drive after drinking alcohol because why should the government be in charge of what I as an individual consider an unnecessary risk?

CanI ask you, Harry, if you.wear a seatbelt or avoid driving after drinking?

Not the same thing. Seatbelts are proven effective. Cloth masks and cheap Chinese made masks are more likely to spread germs and bacteria than contain them.

Show me a replicable study on typical use of these masks to prove them effective and you might have a convert.

Just type in ‘are masks effective?’ into Google and you’ll have a barrel load of info from the CDC, the WHO, the Mayo clinic, Nature, John Hopkins and others all saying that they are effective. Can you think of a reason why they would say that if they weren’t. Is it some conspiracy to control the masses?

 

[Freddy]

The government causing widespread financial and psychological damage to large swaths of people…

By suggesting they wear a mask? Good grief…you do think it’s a conspiracy.

 

[HarryStotle]

Harry, some members here are shining examples of . . . left wing misguidedness. . . .

And, look what I found! Australia has criminal conspiracy laws! They must all be paranoid down under!

@Freddy is from Australia. Perhaps the government there knows something we don’t?

I suspect that criminals up to some kind of conspiracy would be the first to push the notion that only lunatics engage in conspiracy theorizing.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The government causing widespread financial and psychological damage to large swaths of people…

By suggesting they wear a mask? Good grief…you do think it’s a conspiracy.

Lockdowns. Masks are merely symbols of compliance proving to others around you by wearing them that you are no threat to the power of the state.

The state is no longer given its mandate by We the People.

The masks indicate that We the People are subservient to the state, and not the other way around.

The authorities in jurisdictions that permit and trust people to make prudential decisions for themselves are the ones that understand why they exist - to serve the reasonable will of the people.

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

 

[Freddy]

‘A person who conspires with another to commit an offence is guilty of conspiracy.’ Criminal code 11.5.

It’s not to prevent people suggesting that government requests to wear masks is a psychological ruse for ulterior means. You’d be free to do that down here. The worst you’d suffer is ridicule

 

[po18guy]

You may be on to something there, Harry!

 

[HarryStotle]

‘A person who conspires with another to commit an offence is guilty of conspiracy.’ Criminal code 11.5.

When state bureaucracies and political elites conspire against the people and against God, is that codified somewhere in the criminal code?

I suppose we have to consult a higher authority…

Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.” (Psalm 2:1-3)

It appears that God, too, is a “conspiracy theorist.”

It’s not to prevent people suggesting that government requests to wear masks

These are not “requests.” Requests are what reasonable people do when referring to equals. These are mandates accompanied by fines in the hundreds and thousands of dollars. That is how superiors treat those they consider inferior.

Even mandates would be acceptable to reasonable people if they had the backing of credible evidential research. Masks (of the kind that pass as “masks” (i.e., any face covering) in mandated areas do not.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So your argument is … ostensibly to label Trump as racist.

That is other people’s argument. Not mine. I do think Trump is a racist, but not because of the naming of this virus. Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the list of past diseases, since you did say “to name a disease after its place of origin”, implying the name accurately described the origin. But if the main point was about this proving Trump is a racist, I’m with you on that. It does not prove it at all.

So you agree that placing a college professor on leave merely for using the term “China virus” is vicious nonsense?

Campus Reform the #1 Source for College News

 

[JMMJ]

Huh? He got placed on leave for discriminating against a student with regards to a medical condition.

The article doesn’t give the details. If that is what he did, though, then his suspension was most appropriate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Try peddling your propaganda elsewhere.

It is not propaganda. It is the recommendations of the CDC.

Show me a replicable study on typical use of these masks to prove them effective and you might have a convert.

This sounds like an invitation to discuss the science, but actually it is an appeal to arrogance. It invites the reader to have the arrogance to believe that their amateur perusal of the scientific literature is sufficient to determine for themselves what is scientific truth. This is a field for experts. I am not an expert in epidemiology. The epidemiologists at the CDC are. It is arrogant to believe that my understanding of the field is equal to theirs. Dear readers: Do not fall for the appeal to arrogance. Anytime you see an argument that invites you to put yourself on the same level as an expert, resist the temptation and trust your doctor, your hospital, and your CDC - which is the gold standard for the world.

Even CDC studies from September showed a large majority (80+%) of new cases were of individuals who wore masks “always or almost always.” And very few (3-4%) never wore masks.

This is an example of the use of statistics to mislead. What conclusion can we draw from the fact that a majority of new cases are from individuals who wore masks? Certainly not that masks don’t work. Not at all. They do work. So how can that be compatible with this statistic? Easy. The statistic does does say anything about how many who did not get sick wore masks. Also, the implied conclusion ignores the fact that the main purpose of a mask it to prevent an infected person from infecting others. It also serves to protect the wearer from infection, but much less effectively. So the real question ought to be, of all the new cases, how many were of people who were around others sometimes didn’t wear a masks? The statistic quoted does not address that at all.

 

[Dan123]

Even CDC studies from September showed a large majority (80+%) of new cases were of individuals who wore masks “always or almost always.” And very few (3-4%) never wore masks.

This is an example of the use of statistics to mislead. What conclusion can we draw from the fact that a majority of new cases are from individuals who wore masks? Certainly not that masks don’t work. Not at all. They do work. So how can that be compatible with this statistic? Easy. The statistic does does say anything about how many who did not get sick wore masks.

The vast majority of new cases watched television within the 2 week period prior to showing symptoms. Why is this infection vector not being explored?

 

[HarryStotle]

This sounds like an invitation to discuss the science, but actually it is an appeal to arrogance

So you have no evidence. I thought you would find some pretext to deflect and you have.

 

[HarryStotle]

LeafByNiggle:

Even CDC studies from September showed a large majority (80+%) of new cases were of individuals who wore masks “always or almost always.” And very few (3-4%) never wore masks.

This is an example of the use of statistics to mislead. What conclusion can we draw from the fact that a majority of new cases are from individuals who wore masks? Certainly not that masks don’t work. Not at all. They do work. So how can that be compatible with this statistic? Easy. The statistic does does say anything about how many who did not get sick wore masks.

The vast majority of new cases watched television within the 2 week period prior to showing symptoms. Why is this infection vector not being explored?

That sword cuts in both directions, which is why solid evidential and replicable evidence should be the standard especially when such grave and serious measures are being implemented. But no such evidence is being offered by those in power to inflict the injurious measures.

 

[Dan123]

Seven studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system,38 a German city,39 a U.S. state,40 a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.,41,42 as well as both Canada43 and the U.S.44 nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies42,44 and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S.45 also demonstrated reductions in mortality. An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.42

Referenced provided in link below.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

 

[HarryStotle]

Huh? He got placed on leave for discriminating against a student with regards to a medical condition.

The article doesn’t give the details. If that is what he did, though, then his suspension was most appropriate.

Uh huh. Using a term the student doesn’t approve of is considered discrimination? That, my friend, is silly.

An argumentum (or reductio) ad absurdum is the logical corollary of your post. If a student is “offended by” a course mark assigned by the professor, the professor is likewise “discriminating?” That is bizarre.

Even @LeafByNiggle agreed that merely naming or referring to a virus by its place of origin is not racism or discriminatory.

So the professor cannot be guilty of discrimination merely for referring to the virus as the Chinese virus. To allege that is, frankly, distopian.

 

[JMMJ]

Uh huh. Using a term the student doesn’t approve of is considered discrimination? That, my friend, is silly.

Not my impression. I doubt that was the "discrimination ". That is my point. I suspect he didn’t provide appropriate accommodations for a student with covid or affected by covid, and that is what he got dinged for.

There is more to this story, obviously, than what was reported.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That sword cuts in both directions, which is why solid evidential and replicable evidence should be the standard especially when such grave and serious measures are being implemented. But no such evidence is being offered by those in power to inflict the injurious measures.

Yes, evidence is offered, just not to you personally. The CDC is convinced of the evidence. That’s good enough for me, because I am not arrogant enough to think that my understanding of epidemiology is better than theirs.