Villain
Member
This about sums it up
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Anyone else about sick to fucking death of the term "social distancing"?
- Thread starter Demondosage
- Start date
Skard
Well-known Member
An Italian study revealed that most of the patients who have died from the coronavirus previously had some type of illness or pre-existing condition.
The average age of those who have died from the Chinese virus in Italy is 79.5, according to a study by Italian health authorities, who have been examining the medical records involving the nation’s surging coronavirus death toll.
The study adds that more than 99 percent of Italy’s coronavirus deaths have been people who were previously ill or had some type of pre-existing medical condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes.
Among those who have died from the Wuhan virus in Italy, more than 76 percent of them had high blood pressure, more than 35 percent had diabetes, 33 percent had heart disease, and more than 24 percent had atrial fibrillation, or “AFib,” according to Italy’s national health authority.
So far, 17 people under the age of 50 have died from the disease in Italy, all of whom have had some type of previous illness, the study finds.
COVID-19: YOU ALL BEEN PLAYED
The average age of those who have died from the Chinese virus in Italy is 79.5, according to a study by Italian health authorities, who have been examining the medical records involving the nation’s surging coronavirus death toll.
The study adds that more than 99 percent of Italy’s coronavirus deaths have been people who were previously ill or had some type of pre-existing medical condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes.
Among those who have died from the Wuhan virus in Italy, more than 76 percent of them had high blood pressure, more than 35 percent had diabetes, 33 percent had heart disease, and more than 24 percent had atrial fibrillation, or “AFib,” according to Italy’s national health authority.
So far, 17 people under the age of 50 have died from the disease in Italy, all of whom have had some type of previous illness, the study finds.
COVID-19: YOU ALL BEEN PLAYED
It's laughable that people think this is overblown. At what point in life does common sense escape people? Birth? Benchmark with drug use? Serious hit to the head?
Covid is a legit as anything else to grace the earths crust. It's a fast spreading, hard hitting problem and is killing perverse amounts of people, who happen to be certain demographics (for the most part, illness complications withheld for obvious reasons). That doesn't mean this is fake, not worth the attention or otherwise something to take lightly.
Reintroducing people back into life has to be a measured approach depending on location. Make no mistake about it. But it can and should be done.
Covid is a legit as anything else to grace the earths crust. It's a fast spreading, hard hitting problem and is killing perverse amounts of people, who happen to be certain demographics (for the most part, illness complications withheld for obvious reasons). That doesn't mean this is fake, not worth the attention or otherwise something to take lightly.
Reintroducing people back into life has to be a measured approach depending on location. Make no mistake about it. But it can and should be done.
Skard
Well-known Member
2
6
13
Conversation
Sheeple of The New Normal
@NewNormSheeple
The "new normal" will provide us with everything* *Except freedom but who needs freedom it's so overrated
7:16 AM · May 26, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
8
Retweets
13
Likes
Skye Phillips
@spillihPeykS
·
May 27
Replying to
@NewNormSheeple
Hey, I found this on Instagram and had to reverse image search. I understand most of it, and will fact check myself, but what's the removed gender thing about? I wouldn't even know what to search to find out
1
Sheeple of The New Normal
·
1h
They are turning men into woman and woman into men, this whole gender equal crap Turing us all into neural sheeple
Show more replies
movingiron88
Member
Personal responsibility.... enough said.
Up until Covid it was my responsibility to keep myself healthy. After Covid its my responsibility to keep you healthy. Wtf?
Up until Covid it was my responsibility to keep myself healthy. After Covid its my responsibility to keep you healthy. Wtf?
Villain
Member
I heard some asshole say “your freedom ends where mine begins.” I was like, “WTF are you talking about?”
I’m ready to attend a rally protesting further sequestering.
social distancing has proven to be effective. All nations on the planet say this, so I’m not even contemplating conspiracy theories
however we get it and clearly those at risk will stay home. Good. The rest of us get it and we need to be allowed to get back to life.
I now feel that any politician that contemplated opening up things is viewed as a Nazi trump sympathizer. That’s unfortunate. I fucking hate trump, and he’s been a complete self serving idiot, but that’s a separate issue now.
just because someone wants out of this sequester doesn’t mean they’re a trump supporter.
social distancing has proven to be effective. All nations on the planet say this, so I’m not even contemplating conspiracy theories
however we get it and clearly those at risk will stay home. Good. The rest of us get it and we need to be allowed to get back to life.
I now feel that any politician that contemplated opening up things is viewed as a Nazi trump sympathizer. That’s unfortunate. I fucking hate trump, and he’s been a complete self serving idiot, but that’s a separate issue now.
just because someone wants out of this sequester doesn’t mean they’re a trump supporter.
There are reasons for this phrase, such as someone disturbing the peace. If you've ever had a noisy neighbor fucking with you you'll understand.
The virus concern is mostly a question of private property, if you're on someones property you pretty much stuck with their rules.
Villain
Member
This was some liberal cuck debating this very issue of Covid and masks
It's actually from a common libertarian phrase, "your rights end where mine begin" which is sometimes used to explain the non aggression principle and the meaning of negative rights. But it's been co-opted by the (mostly) left to justify all sorts of rights violations.
It's a phrase that could be interpreted a thousand different ways so it's mostly useless.
Although we've all seen the videos of people living in neighborhoods full of yuppies that think they can gang up on the lone person not wearing a mask. I can't imagine doing this myself, it's like people are incapable of critical thought anymore, they just follow orders and do as they are told. It's depressing how people never question authority anymore.
You seem like a level headed person so I have a challenge for you, look up Farr’s law and the bell shaped infection model. Then take a look at Germany’s infection and death curve on Worldometers. Then finally look up the date Germany locked down and the day they lifted the lockdown restrictions. If the “experts” are right you should see a spike in infections after lifting of the lockdown. If Farr is right you will continue to see a drop in the infection rate. Let me know what you find out tell me what you think.
Whenever he says, "Americans [are] unwilling", he's talking about me.
What the Failed 55-MPH Speed Limit Law Tells Us about COVID Lockdowns
05/27/2020
Ryan McMaken
During the oil crises of the 1970s, Congress attempted to lower gasoline consumption by mandating a lowered speed limit for vehicles on all highways. But the efforts quickly evolved into a national campaign to increase traffic safety through lowered speed limits. Government data showed that thousands of lives could be saved per year by enforcing lower speed limits.
Millions of American motorists, however, were unimpressed. Widespread noncompliance resulted as many Americans concluded it was better to accept higher risk of death on highways—for themselves and for those around them—than to travel at reduced speeds. Government propaganda efforts such as the "55 Saves Lives" slogan proved ineffective, and the national speed limit was repealed in 1995.
The experience may be instructive today as many American policymakers insist that Americans must accept ongoing mass lockdowns and stay-at-home orders in the name of reducing deaths from COVID-19. Yet given that Americans have proven to be unwilling to reduce highway speeds—even in the face of the threat of traffic citations and deadly accidents—it is likely that they will soon be generally ignoring the lectures from "experts" and policymakers about the righteousness of destroying businesses and livelihoods in the name of safety.
A National Speed Limit
In 1974, Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL). The bill mandated that states lower maximum allowable highway speeds to 55 miles per hour in order to receive federal highway funds. Most states up to that time had speed limits ranging from 60 mph to 70 mph.
The law was passed in the hope that lower speeds would lead to lower gasoline consumption in the midst of the oil crisis at the time.
Yet when the oil crises ebbed and the price of oil crashed in the early 1980s, the national speed limit law remained.
By then, supporters of the law were claiming that a 55-mph speed limit was necessary as a safety measure and that it saved thousands of lives each year. One 1977 public service announcement claimed that "since 1974, 55 has been the single biggest factor in reducing highway deaths, by 36,000 people. One of them may be you." A 1978 announcement concluded, "55 mph. It's a law we can live with." The narrator reminded viewers: "by 1975, highway deaths were down by over 9,000 since 1973.…all of us, by slowing down, helped save more than 9,000 people."
The goal was laudable. Nowadays, more than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on US roadways. An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention, and auto accidents are the leading cause of death in the US for people aged 1–54.
Fatalities were even more common in the past. In the early days of mass automobile use—i.e., the 1920s—auto fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were many times higher than they are now. In 1925, for instance, fatalities totaled 16.9 per 100 million VMT. Twenty fifteen's rate was 1.2. In 1974, when the NMSL was passed, fatalities per 100 million VMT were nearly triple what they are today, totaling 3.5.
On a per capita basis, fatalities were significantly higher in the past as well. In 1974, accident fatalities totaled 21.1 per 100,000 but were only 11.6 by 2015.
Source: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2017 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2018). Fatalities per capita reached a postwar peak during the 1960s, although road fatalities have been generally declining for decades now.
Supporters of the "55 Saves Lives" campaign were happy to take credit for the decline in auto fatalities during the 1970s and 1980s. A 1984 report from the National Research Council claimed that when traffic fatalities fell by 9,100 from 1973 to 1974, the new speed limits could be credited with as many as 5,000 lives saved. A 1980 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 41,951 lives were saved by lower speed limits from 1974 to 1979.
These claims likely overstate the role of speed reduction in declining fatalities. A downward trend was already in place before 1974, and the trend continued after the law's repeal. Nevertheless, many researchers claimed—rather plausibly—that (all else being equal) lowered speeds resulted in fewer fatalities. As the World Health Organization (WHO) https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf, "Studies suggest that a 1 km/h decrease in traveling speed would lead to a 2–3% reduction in road crashes." Moreover, when auto accidents do occur, they're more likely to be fatal at higher speeds. This all makes sense, of course. The faster the speed at which one is traveling, the less time one has to react an unexpected event up ahead. Impact at 80 miles per hour is more deadly than impact at 60 miles per hour.
The National Speed Limit Is Repealed
In spite of all this, however, political opposition to the NMSL grew and noncompliance was widespread.
After all, the safety measures were not without cost, and ordinary people knew it. For those who commuted long distances, time in the car could be significantly reduced by driving faster than 55 mph. Given that long commute times have been shown to impact the health and quality of life of commuters, speeding up one's commute is no mere luxury. The effects of reduced speed limits on the cost of living could also be significant. The reduced speeds applied to all commercial drivers as well, increasing the cost of shipping goods while raising prices and reducing employment in services that involved driving a large number of highway miles. As with COVID-19-inspired regulations, regulations designed to achieve a smaller death toll on highways impose costs elsewhere. People make calculations based on these realities.
Not surprisingly, then, American motorists overwhelmingly traveled at illegal speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour. Many states with large rural areas—where speedy road travel was most economically valuable—found ways to minimize enforcement through measures such as reducing fines and not counting speeding tickets against driver's license "points."1
By 1995, political opposition was sufficient to lead to the total repeal of the National Maximum Speed Law. At that point, most states went back to speed limit laws similar to what had existed before the adoption of the NMSL. Americans were happy to drive at higher—and potentially more deadly—speeds with lessened risk of speeding tickets.2 As repeal drew near, a pro-repeal 1995 column in the Los Angeles Times compared the national speed limit to national alcohol prohibition and called the speed limit mandate the "most-violated law in American history."
Americans Accepted Higher Risk for Higher Speed
Through it all, in spite of repeated efforts by government officials and safety activists to harangue motorists into slowing down, American motorists showed they were willing to accept higher risk of death in order to travel more quickly on highways. This was especially true when it became that clear safety could be enhanced in other ways. These included better safety features on the cars themselves and constructing safer highways. Nonetheless, as fatality rates increased rapidly during the 1960s, Americans bought more cars and drove more miles.
But, overall, from the very beginning of the days of automobile driving, Americans had simply come to terms with the fact that driving fast is a fairly risky activity. But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Americans die in auto accidents every decade. Decade after decade.
It is likely that this will prove instructive in the age of COVID-19 lockdowns as Americans are told to abandon in-person activities such as schooling, put off important medical treatments, and close their businesses because all these things might save lives.
Americans weren't willing to slow down to reduce traffic deaths. Will they be willing to live in isolation in the hope that they might help reduce COVID-19 deaths? Experience suggests many will not.
If We Treated Traffic Deaths Like We Do COVID Deaths
On the other hand, Americans might be more cautious about driving were government agencies and media to take an approach similar to what they have done with COVID-19 deaths.
Imagine a world where the media reports daily with above-the-fold headlines on total nationwide traffic deaths while framing those deaths as a problem to be solved through nationwide collective action and draconian government policies. Imagine if the New York Times every year published a huge front-page article along the lines of this week's headline: "US Deaths Near 100,000, An Incalculable Loss." This would mean an annual headline like "Traffic Deaths Near 40,000, an Incalculable Loss." The Times would then go on to list the tens of thousands of people killed each year in auto accidents because irresponsible people refused to slow down or just stay home rather than burdening the highways with unsafe amounts of traffic. Dead mothers and children and grandfathers would be profiled and listed in large national publications illustrating the grievous burden of death imposed on daily life by unnecessary driving. Fearmongering clickbait websites like The Drudge Report would post daily articles about the gruesome details of heinous deaths that had occurred on our nation's roads the week before.
It's possible that in the face of all that, many Americans might think twice about making "nonessential" road trips or errands. After all, by staying out of your car and off the roads, "the life you save may be your own."
Or, as is now happening, the daily drumbeat of death may recede into the background and people will simply accept that we must daily assess the amount of risk we are willing to accept as a result of our activities.
In the days of "55 Saves Lives" countless Americans were willing to flout the speed limit laws in order to take on greater risk of both traffic accidents and legal penalties. The sanctimonious hectoring from safety officials and activists didn't stop them. Stay-at-home orders are likely to experience a similar fate.
What the Failed 55-MPH Speed Limit Law Tells Us about COVID Lockdowns
05/27/2020
Ryan McMaken
During the oil crises of the 1970s, Congress attempted to lower gasoline consumption by mandating a lowered speed limit for vehicles on all highways. But the efforts quickly evolved into a national campaign to increase traffic safety through lowered speed limits. Government data showed that thousands of lives could be saved per year by enforcing lower speed limits.
Millions of American motorists, however, were unimpressed. Widespread noncompliance resulted as many Americans concluded it was better to accept higher risk of death on highways—for themselves and for those around them—than to travel at reduced speeds. Government propaganda efforts such as the "55 Saves Lives" slogan proved ineffective, and the national speed limit was repealed in 1995.
The experience may be instructive today as many American policymakers insist that Americans must accept ongoing mass lockdowns and stay-at-home orders in the name of reducing deaths from COVID-19. Yet given that Americans have proven to be unwilling to reduce highway speeds—even in the face of the threat of traffic citations and deadly accidents—it is likely that they will soon be generally ignoring the lectures from "experts" and policymakers about the righteousness of destroying businesses and livelihoods in the name of safety.
A National Speed Limit
In 1974, Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL). The bill mandated that states lower maximum allowable highway speeds to 55 miles per hour in order to receive federal highway funds. Most states up to that time had speed limits ranging from 60 mph to 70 mph.
The law was passed in the hope that lower speeds would lead to lower gasoline consumption in the midst of the oil crisis at the time.
Yet when the oil crises ebbed and the price of oil crashed in the early 1980s, the national speed limit law remained.
By then, supporters of the law were claiming that a 55-mph speed limit was necessary as a safety measure and that it saved thousands of lives each year. One 1977 public service announcement claimed that "since 1974, 55 has been the single biggest factor in reducing highway deaths, by 36,000 people. One of them may be you." A 1978 announcement concluded, "55 mph. It's a law we can live with." The narrator reminded viewers: "by 1975, highway deaths were down by over 9,000 since 1973.…all of us, by slowing down, helped save more than 9,000 people."
The goal was laudable. Nowadays, more than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on US roadways. An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention, and auto accidents are the leading cause of death in the US for people aged 1–54.
Fatalities were even more common in the past. In the early days of mass automobile use—i.e., the 1920s—auto fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were many times higher than they are now. In 1925, for instance, fatalities totaled 16.9 per 100 million VMT. Twenty fifteen's rate was 1.2. In 1974, when the NMSL was passed, fatalities per 100 million VMT were nearly triple what they are today, totaling 3.5.
On a per capita basis, fatalities were significantly higher in the past as well. In 1974, accident fatalities totaled 21.1 per 100,000 but were only 11.6 by 2015.
Source: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2017 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2018). Fatalities per capita reached a postwar peak during the 1960s, although road fatalities have been generally declining for decades now.
Supporters of the "55 Saves Lives" campaign were happy to take credit for the decline in auto fatalities during the 1970s and 1980s. A 1984 report from the National Research Council claimed that when traffic fatalities fell by 9,100 from 1973 to 1974, the new speed limits could be credited with as many as 5,000 lives saved. A 1980 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 41,951 lives were saved by lower speed limits from 1974 to 1979.
These claims likely overstate the role of speed reduction in declining fatalities. A downward trend was already in place before 1974, and the trend continued after the law's repeal. Nevertheless, many researchers claimed—rather plausibly—that (all else being equal) lowered speeds resulted in fewer fatalities. As the World Health Organization (WHO) https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf, "Studies suggest that a 1 km/h decrease in traveling speed would lead to a 2–3% reduction in road crashes." Moreover, when auto accidents do occur, they're more likely to be fatal at higher speeds. This all makes sense, of course. The faster the speed at which one is traveling, the less time one has to react an unexpected event up ahead. Impact at 80 miles per hour is more deadly than impact at 60 miles per hour.
The National Speed Limit Is Repealed
In spite of all this, however, political opposition to the NMSL grew and noncompliance was widespread.
After all, the safety measures were not without cost, and ordinary people knew it. For those who commuted long distances, time in the car could be significantly reduced by driving faster than 55 mph. Given that long commute times have been shown to impact the health and quality of life of commuters, speeding up one's commute is no mere luxury. The effects of reduced speed limits on the cost of living could also be significant. The reduced speeds applied to all commercial drivers as well, increasing the cost of shipping goods while raising prices and reducing employment in services that involved driving a large number of highway miles. As with COVID-19-inspired regulations, regulations designed to achieve a smaller death toll on highways impose costs elsewhere. People make calculations based on these realities.
Not surprisingly, then, American motorists overwhelmingly traveled at illegal speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour. Many states with large rural areas—where speedy road travel was most economically valuable—found ways to minimize enforcement through measures such as reducing fines and not counting speeding tickets against driver's license "points."1
By 1995, political opposition was sufficient to lead to the total repeal of the National Maximum Speed Law. At that point, most states went back to speed limit laws similar to what had existed before the adoption of the NMSL. Americans were happy to drive at higher—and potentially more deadly—speeds with lessened risk of speeding tickets.2 As repeal drew near, a pro-repeal 1995 column in the Los Angeles Times compared the national speed limit to national alcohol prohibition and called the speed limit mandate the "most-violated law in American history."
Americans Accepted Higher Risk for Higher Speed
Through it all, in spite of repeated efforts by government officials and safety activists to harangue motorists into slowing down, American motorists showed they were willing to accept higher risk of death in order to travel more quickly on highways. This was especially true when it became that clear safety could be enhanced in other ways. These included better safety features on the cars themselves and constructing safer highways. Nonetheless, as fatality rates increased rapidly during the 1960s, Americans bought more cars and drove more miles.
But, overall, from the very beginning of the days of automobile driving, Americans had simply come to terms with the fact that driving fast is a fairly risky activity. But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Americans die in auto accidents every decade. Decade after decade.
It is likely that this will prove instructive in the age of COVID-19 lockdowns as Americans are told to abandon in-person activities such as schooling, put off important medical treatments, and close their businesses because all these things might save lives.
Americans weren't willing to slow down to reduce traffic deaths. Will they be willing to live in isolation in the hope that they might help reduce COVID-19 deaths? Experience suggests many will not.
If We Treated Traffic Deaths Like We Do COVID Deaths
On the other hand, Americans might be more cautious about driving were government agencies and media to take an approach similar to what they have done with COVID-19 deaths.
Imagine a world where the media reports daily with above-the-fold headlines on total nationwide traffic deaths while framing those deaths as a problem to be solved through nationwide collective action and draconian government policies. Imagine if the New York Times every year published a huge front-page article along the lines of this week's headline: "US Deaths Near 100,000, An Incalculable Loss." This would mean an annual headline like "Traffic Deaths Near 40,000, an Incalculable Loss." The Times would then go on to list the tens of thousands of people killed each year in auto accidents because irresponsible people refused to slow down or just stay home rather than burdening the highways with unsafe amounts of traffic. Dead mothers and children and grandfathers would be profiled and listed in large national publications illustrating the grievous burden of death imposed on daily life by unnecessary driving. Fearmongering clickbait websites like The Drudge Report would post daily articles about the gruesome details of heinous deaths that had occurred on our nation's roads the week before.
It's possible that in the face of all that, many Americans might think twice about making "nonessential" road trips or errands. After all, by staying out of your car and off the roads, "the life you save may be your own."
Or, as is now happening, the daily drumbeat of death may recede into the background and people will simply accept that we must daily assess the amount of risk we are willing to accept as a result of our activities.
In the days of "55 Saves Lives" countless Americans were willing to flout the speed limit laws in order to take on greater risk of both traffic accidents and legal penalties. The sanctimonious hectoring from safety officials and activists didn't stop them. Stay-at-home orders are likely to experience a similar fate.
Villain
Member
Take the pic and save it and go to like vistaprint.com and have a shirt made. Super simple and not very expensive
Oldschool
Member
I think you have it backwards. I think the "yuppies" are the fags crying about their freedoms being taken away because they are asked to wear a mask to keep their germs to themselves.
master.on
New Member
Not for nothing this virus is called the Boomer-Remover.
Somehow Gates looks desperate.
He doesn't look anything like someone who's grabbed the world by the balls.
He looks like he's actually begging people to accept vaccines.
Skard
Well-known Member
Thus, the argument is over. Anyone who advocates universal masking is merely engaging in virtue signaling, not public health.
Masks Are Symbolic,’ say Dr Fauci and The New England Journal of Medicine
By Jim Hoft
Published May 28, 2020 at 12:13pm
256 Comments
Share(5.6k)TweetEmail
Guest post by Bill Hennessey
In the past week, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine have admitted that masks are little more than symbols. Virtue signaling.
For those of you who shout “science” like it’s a Tourette tick, this is from the New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2020:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
TRENDING: "What They Are Doing Is Tantamount to Monopoly" - BREAKING: President Trump Signs Executive Order on Social Media Censorship with Warning to Far Left Tech Giants ...UPDATE: Full Transcript
So, why are we ordered to wear masks? Symbolism. From the same article in NEJM:
It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.
he Surgeon General was widely mocked and ridiculed for suggesting in March that masks might even increase the spread of the virus. Yet, here, the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine provides the same warning to mask-wearers:
What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.
Thus, the argument is over. Anyone who advocates universal masking is merely engaging in virtue signaling, not public health.
It’s time to unmask. I, for one, don’t have enough virtue to signal.
Reposted with permission from Hennessey’s View
Masks Are Symbolic,’ say Dr Fauci and The New England Journal of Medicine
By Jim Hoft
Published May 28, 2020 at 12:13pm
256 Comments
Share(5.6k)TweetEmail
Guest post by Bill Hennessey
In the past week, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine have admitted that masks are little more than symbols. Virtue signaling.
For those of you who shout “science” like it’s a Tourette tick, this is from the New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2020:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
TRENDING: "What They Are Doing Is Tantamount to Monopoly" - BREAKING: President Trump Signs Executive Order on Social Media Censorship with Warning to Far Left Tech Giants ...UPDATE: Full Transcript
So, why are we ordered to wear masks? Symbolism. From the same article in NEJM:
It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.
he Surgeon General was widely mocked and ridiculed for suggesting in March that masks might even increase the spread of the virus. Yet, here, the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine provides the same warning to mask-wearers:
What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.
Thus, the argument is over. Anyone who advocates universal masking is merely engaging in virtue signaling, not public health.
It’s time to unmask. I, for one, don’t have enough virtue to signal.
Reposted with permission from Hennessey’s View
i think the grey area is being missed here, repeatedly. Thinking in absolutes with this issue is bad business, if that's the intention.
Bell curves come and go. What would Farr say about his modeling if it happened to be Ebola tearing through the countryside? So much for that model. The front end would look like the east side of Trango Tower and the back end would be a long, drawn out ramp. But with respect to covid and what we saw as an exit from the first wave in China and subsequently other countries it seems as if both ends of the bell curve are similar. Very much like the Spanish flu or our seasonal flu.
Now, on to our experts...
They predict a 2nd wave that could be more aggressive than the first. I disagree that it will be worse, but in the face of relaxed social distancing and ppe it will happen.
I'm not sure how the piles of medical history regarding issues like this haven't been heeded by all, but much like Farr and his curve, Binet invented a curve as well. To not heed the issue is to take shelter on the left side of the latter curve.
The current issue isn't "is covid real" or "have we been played" or "it was invented by man" or whatever else is trending at this particular moment. The issue at hand that is on the front burner is the economy. It's delicate, beyond imagination actually. The delicateness is predicated on how large of a 2nd wave we get and who is being effected by the wave. The deaths are perceived the wrench in the gearbox while sickness is just a speed bump as long as it's not everyone at the same time. We've been given an uppercut by a young Mike Tyson, avoid the next barrage of hits.
My rambling here is basically saying re-entry is needed but in a calculated manner.
My belief, based on what has happened thus far in conjunction with what we know medically from past experience along with other factors that change as we proceed throughout a basic yearly timeline, would be a decent 2nd wave that will shut down a handful of certain areas again. I lean towards about 50% as impactful as the first wave but I also do not think it will have the same back end curve Farr has modeled. I think what you are going to see is an amplified tail end because of seasonal change. Streaming sunlight and elevated temps obviously work in humanities favor. The opposite is true for cold and cloudy months. This can not be discounted.
If I had to draw a line in the sand and declared a more true statement (Farr or experts) I'm not sure I could, because of all the grey areas. I can theorize more points for and against each way of thinking but admittedly can't be certain because we just don't know yet.
Official belief? It will drop overall but continue to infect long into 2021. I think we have about 2 full years of this before we start to trend into herd immunity and a viable vaccine has a decent chance at not being a reality for quite some time.
Now, a small opinion on money, the countries economics and why some of us are still solvent as individual humans while other are sunk... SAVE YOUR FUCKING MONEY, YOU CHUMPS! Prior to covid hitting how many people had 6 months reserve cash on hand? 3 months? 1 month? How many of you without the reserves smoke? Drink? Eat excess calories to make gains? Drive what you want? Take steroids? Take ancillaries to accommodate the steroids? Should I continue? Sin taxes. You simply have no solid ground to stand on when whining about money if you're broke and pay sin taxes. Smarten up people.
marco11
Alternate account for vendor
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/sorry-no-mask-allowed-some-businesses-pledge-to-keep-out-customers-who-cover-their-faces/ar-BB14HBkv
Similar threads
- Sticky
