Minnesota Governor Enacts Most Draconian Lockdown Yet

[BTR1701]

https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/

Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.

Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.

In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.

Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.

Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.

It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.

They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

[Ian J. Ball]

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.

That is so unconstitutional that it's not even funny. I doubt even a
"progressive" judge would uphold this law.

Only a mewling Stalinist/Maoist/Pol Potist like Trotsky would think this is OK.

[number6]

As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that touted individual rights ... and would be the first to overturn such a ruling ... now it's 180 degrees turned around because these days ideology triumphs individual rights ... Like the free speech movement from Berkley has become the stifle speech we don't agree with movement ... and the ACLU now stands for the American Crazy Lunatics Union ...
Those liberal rights groups from the 60's won their battle but now became the enemy of their former selves ...

[Barry Margolin]

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?

Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?

The law cannot overrule nature. You're deluded.

If you encounter a superspreader and have the misfortune of being
proximate to him for too long, mask or no mask, you've become infected.
Whether you develop life-threatening symptos is a matter of luck at that
point. But the law is irrelevant.

Post by Barry Margolin
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

No superspreader actually knows that he's a superspreader. Even with a
true positive test result, by the time he learns the result, he's
probably past most or all of the superspreading period.

No crime has been committed.

The libertarian philosophy might be I might be in a superspreading
period and I don't have the right to infect others, and therefore, I'll
wear a mask.

But if you're a superspreader, mask or no mask, you're killing people
who have the misfortune of being too close to you for too long indoors.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.

While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.

I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

When I wear my surgical mask, I haven't once dripped snot or drool into
an open surgical cavity!

[Ian J. Ball]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

When I wear my surgical mask, I haven't once dripped snot or drool into
an open surgical cavity!

Then you're not trying hard enough!!

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 17:45:41 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by The Horny Goat
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

When I wear my surgical mask, I haven't once dripped snot or drool into
an open surgical cavity!

Hopefully your medical credentials go beyond that!

[BTR1701]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.

As The Spectator UK pointed out, "The results of the Danmask-19 trial
mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials
looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and
seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no
difference to whether you get influenza or not."

Those who say these results are because "my mask protects you, and your
mask protects me" need to take a long and hard look at the fact that
countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the
same patterns of COVID spread. "No matter how strictly mask laws are
enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases
all fall and rise around the same time," notes a recent Federalist
roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Dr.
Atlas's statements publicly, doesn't wear masks when the cameras aren't
on.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-
same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by trotsky
BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

At the time, the NBC reporter questioning Atlas was incredulous, and the exchange set off another round of media and bureaucrat attacks on Atlas, calling his promotion of herd immunity — a goal of any basic public health response to infectious diseases! — “unethical” and “unachievable.” Now that Joe Biden is presumed to soon be president, however, The New York Times saw fit to finally report on the research reinforcing Atlas’s explanation of T-cell, antibody, and other immune responses and protections against COVID.

“How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study … Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come,” the Nov. 17 Times article says.

It goes on to cite research on other coronaviruses showing similarly long-lasting protection for many people from the frightful hospital stays corporate media has hyped for eight months. It even cites the exact same study Atlas did on SARS, showing that the protective T-cell immune response lasted at least 17 years. He was attacked for it, and claims like this are flagged by “fact-checkers” for social media like Facebook. Not The New York Times, though, when it says exactly the same thing.

Leftist writers like Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times are also now trying to retcon the fact that it was Democrats and their media allies who demanded school shutdowns, due not only to their political need for coronavirus hysteria but also their ties to teachers unions.

“Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right,” Kristof wrote on Nov. 18. “Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children.”

Some of us pointed this out in April, back when much of this damage could have been prevented. We were throttled on Facebook and Twitter, and our children held hostage to these lies for nearly an entire school year now. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was heckled and cast as a would-be child murderer on grounds a single child might get COVID if kids went back to school. American children’s safety and futures has been sacrificed because too many adults have been cowards more concerned with protecting their egos than acting courageously and prudently.

As I’ve been saying for months, covid was simply a political weapon
for the Dems to use against Trump and damn the consequences to the
economy and kid’s educations and now that Biden may get in the White
House, all the bullshit will be rolled back.

[suzeeq]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by trotsky
BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

At the time, the NBC reporter questioning Atlas was incredulous, and the exchange set off another round of media and bureaucrat attacks on Atlas, calling his promotion of herd immunity — a goal of any basic public health response to infectious diseases! — “unethical” and “unachievable.” Now that Joe Biden is presumed to soon be president, however, The New York Times saw fit to finally report on the research reinforcing Atlas’s explanation of T-cell, antibody, and other immune responses and protections against COVID.
“How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study … Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come,” the Nov. 17 Times article says.
It goes on to cite research on other coronaviruses showing similarly long-lasting protection for many people from the frightful hospital stays corporate media has hyped for eight months. It even cites the exact same study Atlas did on SARS, showing that the protective T-cell immune response lasted at least 17 years. He was attacked for it, and claims like this are flagged by “fact-checkers” for social media like Facebook. Not The New York Times, though, when it says exactly the same thing.
Leftist writers like Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times are also now trying to retcon the fact that it was Democrats and their media allies who demanded school shutdowns, due not only to their political need for coronavirus hysteria but also their ties to teachers unions.
“Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right,” Kristof wrote on Nov. 18. “Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children.”
Some of us pointed this out in April, back when much of this damage could have been prevented. We were throttled on Facebook and Twitter, and our children held hostage to these lies for nearly an entire school year now. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was heckled and cast as a would-be child murderer on grounds a single child might get COVID if kids went back to school. American children’s safety and futures has been sacrificed because too many adults have been cowards more concerned with protecting their egos than acting courageously and prudently.
As I’ve been saying for months, covid was simply a political weapon
for the Dems to use against Trump and damn the consequences to the
economy and kid’s educations and now that Biden may get in the White
House, all the bullshit will be rolled back.

Kids may not be getting in schools, but they and teachers are getting it
in the outside world and exposing it to each other. BTW, more kids are
getting sick now.

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by trotsky
BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

At the time, the NBC reporter questioning Atlas was incredulous, and the exchange set off another round of media and bureaucrat attacks on Atlas, calling his promotion of herd immunity — a goal of any basic public health response to infectious diseases! — “unethical” and “unachievable.” Now that Joe Biden is presumed to soon be president, however, The New York Times saw fit to finally report on the research reinforcing Atlas’s explanation of T-cell, antibody, and other immune responses and protections against COVID.
“How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study … Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come,” the Nov. 17 Times article says.
It goes on to cite research on other coronaviruses showing similarly long-lasting protection for many people from the frightful hospital stays corporate media has hyped for eight months. It even cites the exact same study Atlas did on SARS, showing that the protective T-cell immune response lasted at least 17 years. He was attacked for it, and claims like this are flagged by “fact-checkers” for social media like Facebook. Not The New York Times, though, when it says exactly the same thing.
Leftist writers like Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times are also now trying to retcon the fact that it was Democrats and their media allies who demanded school shutdowns, due not only to their political need for coronavirus hysteria but also their ties to teachers unions.
“Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right,” Kristof wrote on Nov. 18. “Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children.”

Is that quote supposed to demonstrate a "retcon" ?

Post by Ed Stasiak
Some of us pointed this out in April, back when much of this damage could have been prevented. We were throttled on Facebook and Twitter, and our children held hostage to these lies for nearly an entire school year now. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was heckled and cast as a would-be child murderer on grounds a single child might get COVID if kids went back to school. American children’s safety and futures has been sacrificed because too many adults have been cowards more concerned with protecting their egos than acting courageously and prudently.
As I’ve been saying for months, covid was simply a political weapon
for the Dems to use against Trump and damn the consequences to the
economy and kid’s educations and now that Biden may get in the White
House, all the bullshit will be rolled back.

So, medically, we've learned *nothing* about Covid over the past months?
...and thus expect to learn nothing over the coming ones, either?

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by trotsky
BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

At the time, the NBC reporter questioning Atlas was incredulous, and the exchange set off another round of media and bureaucrat attacks on Atlas, calling his promotion of herd immunity — a goal of any basic public health response to infectious diseases! — “unethical” and “unachievable.” Now that Joe Biden is presumed to soon be president, however, The New York Times saw fit to finally report on the research reinforcing Atlas’s explanation of T-cell, antibody, and other immune responses and protections against COVID.
“How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study … Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come,” the Nov. 17 Times article says.
It goes on to cite research on other coronaviruses showing similarly long-lasting protection for many people from the frightful hospital stays corporate media has hyped for eight months. It even cites the exact same study Atlas did on SARS, showing that the protective T-cell immune response lasted at least 17 years. He was attacked for it, and claims like this are flagged by “fact-checkers” for social media like Facebook. Not The New York Times, though, when it says exactly the same thing.
Leftist writers like Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times are also now trying to retcon the fact that it was Democrats and their media allies who demanded school shutdowns, due not only to their political need for coronavirus hysteria but also their ties to teachers unions.
“Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right,” Kristof wrote on Nov. 18. “Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children.”
Some of us pointed this out in April, back when much of this damage could have been prevented. We were throttled on Facebook and Twitter, and our children held hostage to these lies for nearly an entire school year now. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was heckled and cast as a would-be child murderer on grounds a single child might get COVID if kids went back to school. American children’s safety and futures has been sacrificed because too many adults have been cowards more concerned with protecting their egos than acting courageously and prudently.
As I’ve been saying for months, covid was simply a political weapon
for the Dems to use against Trump and damn the consequences to the
economy and kid’s educations and now that Biden may get in the White
House, all the bullshit will be rolled back.

Nope. Complete and utter bullshit. Herd immunity would kill over
2,000,000 Americans, and a NATURAL immunity to Covid may only last a few
months.

Vaccines are presumed to last a lot longer - so herd immunity by
infection is nonsense.
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.
As The Spectator UK pointed out, "The results of the Danmask-19 trial
mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials
looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and
seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no
difference to whether you get influenza or not."
Those who say these results are because "my mask protects you, and your
mask protects me" need to take a long and hard look at the fact that
countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the
same patterns of COVID spread. "No matter how strictly mask laws are
enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases
all fall and rise around the same time," notes a recent Federalist
roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Dr.
Atlas's statements publicly, doesn't wear masks when the cameras aren't
on.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-
same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

The exact TYPE of mask has to make a significant difference in the
results. If the size of the gaps between the threads of the mask is LESS
than the size of the virus particles, it must make a difference to the
spread of the virus; that just stands to reason. I'm not sure if ANY
mask has small enough gaps ("pores") that it will keep the virus out.
Wearing the equivalent of scuba gear or a space suit, where you have a
solid mask and are breathing from your own separate air supply is
probably the only really sure way to make sure you don't inhale virus
particles floating in the air.

I'm not sure what the latest research shows about transmissibility via a
surface. For instance, if I have the virus but have no symptoms and then
sneeze on some bank notes and hand them to you, is there any significant
risk that you will get sick from the money?

I have the strong impression that the masks that people actually wear in
public are useless and protect neither the wearer nor the people they
come in contact with. I think the politicians know that but consider it
a powerful placebo: mask-wearing lets everyone feel that they are
"helping" by reducing the spread of the disease (much like recycling
let's us all feel virtuous, even if it doesn't do nearly as much good as
we'd like to imagine). We all want to help so letting people believe
that mask-wearing helps lets them feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, it can also lead to demonizing those who won't wear
masks. I still remember a video of an adult woman berating elementary
school age kids who weren't wearing masks in a store, even though they
had asthma and were exempt from wearing masks; that was pretty ugly.

It's high time that the governments admitted to their mistakes and
change course appropriately. There was a lot we didn't know at the start
of this that we now know more about. Let's have an honest discussion
about what we actually know - and admit what we don't know - and move on
from there. Unless there's some genuine science that proves the
effectiveness of masks, admit that they don't work and stop insisting on
them.

Politicians will mostly be forgiven if they admit to their mistakes now
but if they persist in making misguided policy when the evidence is
clear that the policies are based on faulty assumptions, then they
deserve all the pushback they get.

[BTR1701]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.
As The Spectator UK pointed out, "The results of the Danmask-19 trial
mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials
looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and
seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no
difference to whether you get influenza or not."
Those who say these results are because "my mask protects you, and your
mask protects me" need to take a long and hard look at the fact that
countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the
same patterns of COVID spread. "No matter how strictly mask laws are
enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases
all fall and rise around the same time," notes a recent Federalist
roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Dr.
Atlas's statements publicly, doesn't wear masks when the cameras aren't
on.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-
same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

The exact TYPE of mask has to make a significant difference in the
results. If the size of the gaps between the threads of the mask is LESS
than the size of the virus particles, it must make a difference to the
spread of the virus; that just stands to reason. I'm not sure if ANY
mask has small enough gaps ("pores") that it will keep the virus out.

There's no mask that'll filter the actual virus. Viruses are so small tha
they pass right between the fibers like grains of sand blowing through
chain-link fence. A mask can only stop droplets of saliva that come out o
your mouth when you talk or cough.

Post by Rhino
I have the strong impression that the masks that people actually wear in
public are useless and protect neither the wearer nor the people they
come in contact with.

They're largely a placebo to psychologically reassure people and a visibl
means of being able to force everyone to comply, at least superficially, wit
government mandates.

Effective mask-wearing is actually quite complicated. There's an entire cours
of instruction on it in medical school for doctors and nurses, so if you thin
the cashier at Walmart is doing it right (or that you're doing it righ
yourself), you're nuts. Like I said, it's more for show and psychological
reassurance than anything else.

Post by Rhino
I think the politicians know that but consider it
a powerful placebo: mask-wearing lets everyone feel that they are
"helping" by reducing the spread of the disease

Bingo! Give that man a gold star.

Post by Rhino
We all want to help so letting people believe
that mask-wearing helps lets them feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, it can also lead to demonizing those who won't wear
masks. I still remember a video of an adult woman berating elementary
school age kids who weren't wearing masks in a store, even though they
had asthma and were exempt from wearing masks; that was pretty ugly.

Yes, one thing is for sure, this whole mess has awoken the ugly control freaks
among and given them both a cause du jour and righteous sense of entitlement
to get right up in the business of complete strangers.

[moviePig]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.
As The Spectator UK pointed out, "The results of the Danmask-19 trial
mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials
looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and
seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no
difference to whether you get influenza or not."
Those who say these results are because "my mask protects you, and your
mask protects me" need to take a long and hard look at the fact that
countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the
same patterns of COVID spread. "No matter how strictly mask laws are
enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases
all fall and rise around the same time," notes a recent Federalist
roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Dr.
Atlas's statements publicly, doesn't wear masks when the cameras aren't
on.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-
same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

The exact TYPE of mask has to make a significant difference in the
results. If the size of the gaps between the threads of the mask is LESS
than the size of the virus particles, it must make a difference to the
spread of the virus; that just stands to reason. I'm not sure if ANY
mask has small enough gaps ("pores") that it will keep the virus out.

There's no mask that'll filter the actual virus. Viruses are so small that
they pass right between the fibers like grains of sand blowing through a
chain-link fence. A mask can only stop droplets of saliva that come out of
your mouth when you talk or cough.

Post by Rhino
I have the strong impression that the masks that people actually wear in
public are useless and protect neither the wearer nor the people they
come in contact with.

They're largely a placebo to psychologically reassure people and a visible
means of being able to force everyone to comply, at least superficially, with
government mandates.
Effective mask-wearing is actually quite complicated. There's an entire course
of instruction on it in medical school for doctors and nurses, so if you think
the cashier at Walmart is doing it right (or that you're doing it right
yourself), you're nuts. Like I said, it's more for show and psychological
reassurance than anything else.

Post by Rhino
I think the politicians know that but consider it
a powerful placebo: mask-wearing lets everyone feel that they are
"helping" by reducing the spread of the disease

Bingo! Give that man a gold star.

Post by Rhino
We all want to help so letting people believe
that mask-wearing helps lets them feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, it can also lead to demonizing those who won't wear
masks. I still remember a video of an adult woman berating elementary
school age kids who weren't wearing masks in a store, even though they
had asthma and were exempt from wearing masks; that was pretty ugly.

Yes, one thing is for sure, this whole mess has awoken the ugly control freaks
among and given them both a cause du jour and righteous sense of entitlement
to get right up in the business of complete strangers.

Do you cover your mouth when you sneeze or cough near people? Why?

[shawn]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.
As The Spectator UK pointed out, "The results of the Danmask-19 trial
mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials
looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and
seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no
difference to whether you get influenza or not."
Those who say these results are because "my mask protects you, and your
mask protects me" need to take a long and hard look at the fact that
countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the
same patterns of COVID spread. "No matter how strictly mask laws are
enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases
all fall and rise around the same time," notes a recent Federalist
roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Dr.
Atlas's statements publicly, doesn't wear masks when the cameras aren't
on.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-
same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

The exact TYPE of mask has to make a significant difference in the
results. If the size of the gaps between the threads of the mask is LESS
than the size of the virus particles, it must make a difference to the
spread of the virus; that just stands to reason. I'm not sure if ANY
mask has small enough gaps ("pores") that it will keep the virus out.

There's no mask that'll filter the actual virus. Viruses are so small that
they pass right between the fibers like grains of sand blowing through a
chain-link fence. A mask can only stop droplets of saliva that come out of
your mouth when you talk or cough.

Said droplets contain much of the virus so wearing any mask that
blocks the spread of such droplets is going to help limit the exposure
to other people that are around you.

Post by Rhino
I have the strong impression that the masks that people actually wear in
public are useless and protect neither the wearer nor the people they
come in contact with.

They're largely a placebo to psychologically reassure people and a visible
means of being able to force everyone to comply, at least superficially, with
government mandates.
Effective mask-wearing is actually quite complicated. There's an entire course
of instruction on it in medical school for doctors and nurses, so if you think
the cashier at Walmart is doing it right (or that you're doing it right
yourself), you're nuts. Like I said, it's more for show and psychological
reassurance than anything else.

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus. anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.

It's beyond useless.

[shawn]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:48:22 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders? Also why are you going
to spend tons of time in the proximity of a super spreader. The entire
point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the disease, not
to prevent it entirely. That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

[FPP]

Post by shawn
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:48:22 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders? Also why are you going
to spend tons of time in the proximity of a super spreader. The entire
point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the disease, not
to prevent it entirely. That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

You can buy a spray/drops used for ski goggles. They last for 5 or 6
hours, most days.
Expensive, though...
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.

A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.

The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.

It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.

I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.

Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.

The surgical mask sucks.

I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.

The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.

Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.

That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.

Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.

I don't know what clip you are talking about.

[suzeeq]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.
A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.
The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.
It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.
I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.
Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.
The surgical mask sucks.
I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.
The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.
Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.
That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.
Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.
I don't know what clip you are talking about.

He means the stiff band across the top.

Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

[shawn]

Post by suzeeq

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.
A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.
The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.
It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.
I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.
Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.
The surgical mask sucks.
I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.
The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.
Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.
That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.
Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.
I don't know what clip you are talking about.

He means the stiff band across the top.

Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

It doesn't have a fixed definition but the first one I saw was a
person that had Covid-19 with no symptoms and ended up carrying the
virus longer than normal. Other definitions seem to be someone who is
coughing and not using any sort of cover of their mouth so the virus
gets spread as wide as possible.

[suzeeq]

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.
A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.
The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.
It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.
I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.
Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.
The surgical mask sucks.
I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.
The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.
Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.
That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.
Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.
I don't know what clip you are talking about.

He means the stiff band across the top.

Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

It doesn't have a fixed definition but the first one I saw was a
person that had Covid-19 with no symptoms and ended up carrying the
virus longer than normal.

That could be anyone. So how would you know who that is?

Post by shawn
Other definitions seem to be someone who is
coughing and not using any sort of cover of their mouth so the virus
gets spread as wide as possible.

Yeah, that would be a more obvious person.

[shawn]

Post by suzeeq

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

It doesn't have a fixed definition but the first one I saw was a
person that had Covid-19 with no symptoms and ended up carrying the
virus longer than normal.

That could be anyone. So how would you know who that is?

You wouldn't. A doctor would after running tests which is why it was
considered a big deal because these people are running around in
society spreading the virus with no clue that they are doing so. It's
one reason why really should be more testing if they hope to catch
these people as there's really not a much better way to do so. Contact
tracing from people who do contract the disease might lead to the
super spreaders but we don't seem to be doing a good job of that.

Post by suzeeq

Post by shawn
Other definitions seem to be someone who is
coughing and not using any sort of cover of their mouth so the virus
gets spread as wide as possible.

Yeah, that would be a more obvious person.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

It doesn't have a fixed definition but the first one I saw was a
person that had Covid-19 with no symptoms and ended up carrying the
virus longer than normal.

That could be anyone. So how would you know who that is?

You wouldn't. A doctor would after running tests which is why it was
considered a big deal because these people are running around in
society spreading the virus with no clue that they are doing so. It's
one reason why really should be more testing if they hope to catch
these people as there's really not a much better way to do so. Contact
tracing from people who do contract the disease might lead to the
super spreaders but we don't seem to be doing a good job of that.

Wrong.

The test cannot be administered prior to Day 3 of the infection, the same
day the superspreading period begins. A patient will receive results
within a day or 2.

Maybe they'd isolate on Day 6.

Testing is therefore nearly useless to identify superspreaders who
should be i quarantine.

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq

Post by shawn
Other definitions seem to be someone who is
coughing and not using any sort of cover of their mouth so the virus
gets spread as wide as possible.

Yeah, that would be a more obvious person.

Not really. A person ith symptoms is probably past the superspreading
period.

This is insideous because it's the seemingly healthy people who are
spreading it.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.
A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.
The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.
It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.
I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.
Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.
The surgical mask sucks.
I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.
The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.
Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.
That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.
Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.
I don't know what clip you are talking about.

He means the stiff band across the top.

Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

. . .

The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks so
are they spreading the disease, or is it people who are wearing masks
but are in contact for long periods of time or is it some other cause
that is creating this increase in cases of Covid-19?

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.

The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.

All for a disease that's 99.7% survivable.

[suzeeq]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.

Because those are the demographics who probably have untreated medical
conditions, poor nutrition and other causitive factors. Not because of
mask wearing.

Post by BTR1701
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.
All for a disease that's 99.7% survivable.

[BTR1701]

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.

Because those are the demographics who probably have untreated medical
conditions, poor nutrition and other causitive factors. Not because of
mask wearing.

So if the masks make no difference, why the hysteria about them?

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.
All for a disease that's 99.7% survivable.

[suzeeq]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.

Because those are the demographics who probably have untreated medical
conditions, poor nutrition and other causitive factors. Not because of
mask wearing.

So if the masks make no difference, why the hysteria about them?

It can help somewhat.

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.
All for a disease that's 99.7% survivable.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.

Because those are the demographics who probably have untreated medical
conditions, poor nutrition and other causitive factors. Not because of
mask wearing.

So if the masks make no difference, why the hysteria about them?

It can help somewhat.

I'm protected! I'm wearnig a mask!

Tough luck, buddy. You stood too close to the superspreader. You're
infected.

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.
All for a disease that's 99.7% survivable.

[suzeeq]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.

Because those are the demographics who probably have untreated medical
conditions, poor nutrition and other causitive factors. Not because of
mask wearing.

So if the masks make no difference, why the hysteria about them?

I really meant to say that differently. Other causative factors being
the ones you mention - large family gatherings and parties, gang
meetings etc - they probably aren't wearing masks at these events. So
even if they wear them in public, but not privately, the mask wearing
isn't going to make a difference.

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.

So it's people ignoring the best advice given by infectious disease
experts to engage in social distancing. I expect that there are many
people at the family gatherings/etc that aren't wearing masks. Sadly,
as you say, there's not much that medical experts or the
local/state/federal government can do about it.

Post by BTR1701
All for a disease that's 99.7% survivable.

Imagine just how bad this would be if it was 70% survivable. I still
think people would end up engaging in behaviors that spread the
disease even if they knew there was a fair chance that they or someone
they know could end up dying.

[moviePig]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.

So it's people ignoring the best advice given by infectious disease
experts to engage in social distancing. I expect that there are many
people at the family gatherings/etc that aren't wearing masks. Sadly,
as you say, there's not much that medical experts or the
local/state/federal government can do about it.

Post by BTR1701
All for a disease that's 99.7% survivable.

Imagine just how bad this would be if it was 70% survivable. I still
think people would end up engaging in behaviors that spread the
disease even if they knew there was a fair chance that they or someone
they know could end up dying.

"Give me liberty AND give me death..."

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.

So it's people ignoring the best advice given by infectious disease
experts to engage in social distancing. I expect that there are many
people at the family gatherings/etc that aren't wearing masks.

It wouldn't matter if they were.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening. I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks

Such people are such a spectacularly tiny minority that there's no way
they're responsible for the spread. And I haven't seen a store or public
building yet where a bare-facer isn't immediately turned away until they
put on a mask. Plus, they're almost always entitled rich white West
Siders and the West Side is almost virus-free. It's the hispanic and
black areas of town where thousands and thousands of cases are exploding.
The health authorities have reluctantly admitted that it's cultural and
family activities in the minority communities that are responsible for
most of the spread. Family gatherings, birthday parties, quiceaneras--
even criminal gangs gathering at members' homes to party-- are what's
fueling the spread. And that's the sort of thing that's almost
impossible to stop short of an illegal and complete suspension of the
Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, and rolling in the
National Guard to enforce it.

So it's people ignoring the best advice given by infectious disease
experts to engage in social distancing. I expect that there are many
people at the family gatherings/etc that aren't wearing masks.

It wouldn't matter if they were.

According to who, again? Oh, yeah... the people who have let 260,000
people die in agony.
I forgot...

Guess the rest of the world is wrong. Funny how some countries followed
the advice, and managed to stay practically virus free, huh?
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

. . .

The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

The question would be why is that happening.

Lack of social distancing.

Post by shawn
I know I've seen lots of
videos in the past of people in California refusing to wear masks so
are they spreading the disease, or is it people who are wearing masks
but are in contact for long periods of time or is it some other cause
that is creating this increase in cases of Covid-19?

[suzeeq]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.
A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.
The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.
It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.
I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.
Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.
The surgical mask sucks.
I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.
The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.
Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.
That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.
Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.
I don't know what clip you are talking about.

He means the stiff band across the top.

Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease. L.A. County has had near universal masking in every
public place and building for months and our cases are ballooning same
as states and cities that have no mandates and whose people wear them
sporadically, if at all.

Then they're getting outside of public places and buildings. Like
backyard barbecues.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.
A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.
The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.
It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.
I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.
Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.
The surgical mask sucks.
I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.
The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.
Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.
That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.
Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.
I don't know what clip you are talking about.

He means the stiff band across the top.

Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

The fact is that on a macro level, masks do nothing to stop the spread
of the disease.

Why, yes! We shouldn't listen to all the medical experts - we should
listen to a nobody on Usenet.

Tell us again why people who treat these patients all wear them, then?
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

. . .

Yet there have been studies showing that the average mask does limit
the spread of the virus.

The studies are with people wearing masks correctly, not the way most of
us wear them. You're wrong here.

You are wrong in that most people wear masks wrong. At least that's
not what I'm seeing but you are welcome to present counter evidence.
That's not saying that all people wear them correctly as I pointed out
the example of local LEO at the Publix that I pointed out wearing the
mask below the nose.

I haven't seen a study, just my own eyeballs. I see people touching
faces constantly, adjusting the mask. I see people wearing the surgical
mask inside out. The band at the bridge of the nose isn't pinched tight.
THAT'S DOING IT WRONG.
A nurse had to explain to me that the blue side faces out and the
thicker band has to be up and pinched across the bridge of the nose.
The N95 mask, the less useless one than the surgical mask, performs its
function well ONLY when specially fitted to the wearer. Its function is
still not to prevent the spread of viruses.
It's not their fault. They aren't trained. A surgical nurse is trained
never ever to touch her face nor adjust the mask during procedure, else
she's broken scrub.
I find that the damn mask attracts fibers, so I am constantly having to
remove it to brush off fibers. Fibers make me cough and sneeze, which
means I'm more dangerous to other people than not wearing a mask.
Someone I was taught as a very young child NEVER to cough or sneeze on
others, and I figured out all by myself to sneeze into the crook of my
elbow and not my hand.
The surgical mask sucks.
I don't believe for a moment that your own experiences and what you have
observed are any different from what I've observed.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
None of this is relevant to a superspreader who is still breathing out
the same amount of air and if you are in his proximity for enough time,
you're infected. The mask cannot prevent that.

Sure, but how many people are super spreaders?

I have no fucking idea. We don't have tests that are useful to identify
them. It's the superspreaders who need to be in quarantine for the
days that they are superspreading, not the rest of us. That's days 3 to
6 after infection.

Post by shawn
Also why are you going to spend tons of time in the proximity of a
super spreader.

What do you think happens in a supermarket? You're near other people.
You could have the misfortune of being too close for too long to one of
them. You're not likely to get infected by an infected person in either
the first 2 days of infection or on day 7 or later after infection
unless you are already sick with something else and are highly
susceptible or a vulnerable patient already in care at hospital or a
nursing home.
The dangerous people are the superspreaders, day 3 to 6 of the
infection. I cannot repeat often enough: Even if they eventually show
symptoms, they won't even show mild symptoms till day 5 at the earliest.

Post by shawn
The entire point of mask wearing is to help limit the spread of the
disease, not to prevent it entirely.

You've ignored pretty much all the studies, haven't you. "Safe" means
risk of harm to the user has been minimized to negligible levels.
"Effective" means objective has been achieved with only a negligible
level of ineffectiveness.
Masks may minimize the risk but they are not effective at preventing
spread of any highly communicable disease. We have seen studies that mask
wearing by a superspreader DOES NOT reduce the risk of communication of
the disease to a minimal level. There is barely any reduction at all. They
even showed with the face shield that the exhaled air is simply directed
downward but can still be concentrated upon exist from the face shield
enough and linger long enough that there is likely to be a sufficiently
dense viral load remaining hovering in the air to infect someone else.

Post by shawn
That's why people are asked to social distance
and not gather in large numbers or together for long times because
ignoring that advice increases the chance of spreading the disease.

Duh.
That we must social distance would be because masks aren't effective.
Isn't it obvious to you yet? The only way NOT to spread the disease is not
to be around a superspreader. If you're around a masked superspreader for
too long, sorry dude, but you've been infected, and 2 to 3 days from now,
you'll enter your own superspreading period.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
anything other than full PPE isn't going to
stop the virus from spreading but it has been shown that for most
people limiting their exposure to the virus is enough to limit the
spread. That said I still see too many people walking around with the
masks under their noses. Even LEOs who you would hope were actually
shown the correct way to wear a mask.

Do you wear glasses? I constantly get them fogged up. That's why I have
to open the mask. When I remove the glasses, it still opens the mask for
a moment.
It's beyond useless.

I do wear glasses but I take them off when wearing a mask. Luckily my
vision is good enough that not wearing glasses is an option for a
short period. As for the glasses fogging up I thought the masks with
the clips at the top prevented that from happening (my masks don't
have that metal clip so they do fog up glasses.)

The air you exhale from your nose has to go somewhere.
I don't know what clip you are talking about.

He means the stiff band across the top.

Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

Please don't assign a straw man position to me.

I'm saying reasonable social distancing without is likely the same spread
as with, given the nature of the masks and the way people wear them.

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

It doesn't have a fixed definition but the first one I saw was a
person that had Covid-19 with no symptoms and ended up carrying the
virus longer than normal. Other definitions seem to be someone who is
coughing and not using any sort of cover of their mouth so the virus
gets spread as wide as possible.

The hell it doesn't.

A superspreader is an infected person, probably in days 3 to 6 of the
infection, whose body is producing a massive viral load and is therefore
exhaling enough virus that a person in proximity is highly likely to
become infected.

A person in days 1 and 2 of the infection isn't capable of
superspreading, and days 7 and beyond are likely past the superspreading
period.

The people who should be quarantined don't know they're sick as symptoms
don't appear till day 5, if they ever do.

I think they suspect that anyone is capable of superspreading during
days 3 to 6 of the infection.

[shawn]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:10:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

Please don't assign a straw man position to me.
I'm saying reasonable social distancing without is likely the same spread
as with, given the nature of the masks and the way people wear them.

That's your opinion but it isn't what I see the actual experts saying.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

It doesn't have a fixed definition but the first one I saw was a
person that had Covid-19 with no symptoms and ended up carrying the
virus longer than normal. Other definitions seem to be someone who is
coughing and not using any sort of cover of their mouth so the virus
gets spread as wide as possible.

The hell it doesn't.

Sorry, but I actually took the time to look on the web to verify my
definitions and there are different opinions on what is a
superspreader that work in the medical field. Yours is just one of
the definitions that I found. Your definition would seem to say that
everyone is a superspreader at some point in the infection while the
first time I heard the term used it was for specific people that seem
to be the center of a viral infection. As spelled out in this paper
from MIT they aren't sure what causes someone to go from a normal
infectious rate to a superspreader and can't easily identify them
other than through contact tracing.


https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/15/1003576/whats-a-coronavirus-superspreader/
Lots of outbreaks around the world have been linked to single events
where a superspreader likely infected dozens of people. For example, a
choir practice in Washington State infected about 52 people; a
megachurch in Seoul was linked to the majority of initial infections
in South Korea; and a wedding in Jordan with about 350 guests led to
76 confirmed infections.

What makes someone a superspreader? We don't yet know what it is about
the biology of some people that causes them to be superspreaders. It
might have something to do with increased viral loads and shedding
more virus than is normal, but we still don’t know what would trigger
this, let alone how to identify it through practical means.

What do we do about superspreaders? Though we can't medically diagnose
superspreaders, we can still limit their impact. Contact tracing is
still critical for identifying potential carriers and isolating them
and anyone they have been in contact with—which keeps superspreaders
from moving around and spreading the virus. Epidemiologists also point
to mitigating the “three Cs” of transmission: closed spaces with poor
ventilation, crowded settings, and close contact with others. That
means encouraging outdoor seating when possible and maximizing
ventilation in any indoor settings, limiting the number of people
inside rooms and buildings, and continuing to keep individuals spaced
apart by at least six feet.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Correct. I don't know why it feels like he is arguing for the perfect
to the be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. If someone is
wearing a mask, even if not perfect and it helps limit the spread of
the virus then that's a good thing.

Please don't assign a straw man position to me.
I'm saying reasonable social distancing without is likely the same spread
as with, given the nature of the masks and the way people wear them.

That's your opinion but it isn't what I see the actual experts saying.

You're wrong for arguing with me for I'm taking the more cautious
position. If I don't believe my mask offers me any protection
whatsoever, then I'll do the best I can to stay away from others when
I'm at the supermarket.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

It doesn't have a fixed definition but the first one I saw was a
person that had Covid-19 with no symptoms and ended up carrying the
virus longer than normal. Other definitions seem to be someone who is
coughing and not using any sort of cover of their mouth so the virus
gets spread as wide as possible.

The hell it doesn't.

Sorry, but I actually took the time to look on the web to verify my
definitions and there are different opinions on what is a
superspreader that work in the medical field. Yours is just one of
the definitions that I found. Your definition would seem to say that
everyone is a superspreader at some point in the infection while the
first time I heard the term used it was for specific people that seem
to be the center of a viral infection. As spelled out in this paper
from MIT they aren't sure what causes someone to go from a normal
infectious rate to a superspreader and can't easily identify them
other than through contact tracing.

I didn't say "everyone". I said "anyone could be a superspreader on days
3 to 6 of the infection". There's no way to prove that every infected
person went through the superspreading period as the tests are
administered uselessly late.

Post by shawn
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/15/1003576/whats-a-coronavirus-superspreader/
Lots of outbreaks around the world have been linked to single events
where a superspreader likely infected dozens of people.

Yes. And with contact tracing, they may be able to establish that the
superspreader was on Days 3 to 6 of the infection and not Day 7 or later.

Post by shawn
For example, a
choir practice in Washington State infected about 52 people; a
megachurch in Seoul was linked to the majority of initial infections
in South Korea; and a wedding in Jordan with about 350 guests led to
76 confirmed infections.

My guess is that both events had multiple superspreaders.

Post by shawn
What makes someone a superspreader? We don't yet know what it is about
the biology of some people that causes them to be superspreaders. It
might have something to do with increased viral loads and shedding
more virus than is normal, but we still don’t know what would trigger
this, let alone how to identify it through practical means.

Sigh.

It's not the individual. It's the nature of the virus. From what I've
read, the theory appears to be that the first thing the virus does is
force the body to cause it to replicate massively in order to force the
infectee to shed massive amounts of virus in order to spread.

At some point they may prove that certain infectees are better at doing
what the virus wants than others. My guess is the ones who were exposed
to a higher viral load than others upon infection are more likely to go
into superspreading, but maybe it's a HEALTHIER person is better at
superspreading. They may not have a good theory on this for a couple of
years.

Post by shawn
What do we do about superspreaders? Though we can't medically diagnose
superspreaders, we can still limit their impact. Contact tracing is
still critical for identifying potential carriers and isolating them
and anyone they have been in contact with—which keeps superspreaders
from moving around and spreading the virus.

Absolutely not. A contact tracer might find someone a week after the
superspreading event at the earliest. That's too late to convince that
person to self quarantine during his own superspreading period.
Beginning quarantine on Day 8 of the infection will not prevent
superspreading, which has already ended.

Post by shawn
Epidemiologists also point
to mitigating the “three Cs” of transmission: closed spaces with poor
ventilation, crowded settings, and close contact with others. That
means encouraging outdoor seating when possible and maximizing
ventilation in any indoor settings, limiting the number of people
inside rooms and buildings, and continuing to keep individuals spaced
apart by at least six feet.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by suzeeq
. . .
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

There has to be a superspreader present at the event for superspreading
to take place.

From what I've read, one is a superspreader on days 3 to 6 of the
infection. That means the virus is reproducing at such a massive load
inside your body that you exhale a massive viral load easily capable of
infecting ayone near you. That's why they keep saying one infected
person might infect 6 to 10 others.

My guess is that a superspreading event had multiple superspreaders.

[number6]

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

The first case study was Typhoid Mary ... asymptomatic and working around many people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by number6

Post by suzeeq
Okay so what is a superspreader *person*? I've thought a superspreader
event is a gathering of many people, close together, some not wearing
masks, for longer than 15-20 minutes.

The first case study was Typhoid Mary ... asymptomatic and working around many people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

Except, unlike COVID-19 superspreaders, she well understood that she was
a superspreader.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.
As The Spectator UK pointed out, "The results of the Danmask-19 trial
mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials
looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and
seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no
difference to whether you get influenza or not."
Those who say these results are because "my mask protects you, and your
mask protects me" need to take a long and hard look at the fact that
countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the
same patterns of COVID spread. "No matter how strictly mask laws are
enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases
all fall and rise around the same time," notes a recent Federalist
roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Dr.
Atlas's statements publicly, doesn't wear masks when the cameras aren't
on.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-
same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

The exact TYPE of mask has to make a significant difference in the
results. If the size of the gaps between the threads of the mask is LESS
than the size of the virus particles, it must make a difference to the
spread of the virus; that just stands to reason. I'm not sure if ANY
mask has small enough gaps ("pores") that it will keep the virus out.

There's no mask that'll filter the actual virus.

Fantastic strawman argument! The virus is airborne because of
particulates borne of breathing or coughing, but I'm sure you are too
stupid to know this. All of these posts end in the same conclusion:
like Trump you're extremely fucking stupid.

[shawn]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 20:55:54 -0500, Rhino

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.
As The Spectator UK pointed out, "The results of the Danmask-19 trial
mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials
looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and
seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no
difference to whether you get influenza or not."
Those who say these results are because "my mask protects you, and your
mask protects me" need to take a long and hard look at the fact that
countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the
same patterns of COVID spread. "No matter how strictly mask laws are
enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases
all fall and rise around the same time," notes a recent Federalist
roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Dr.
Atlas's statements publicly, doesn't wear masks when the cameras aren't
on.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/20/left-attacks-scott-atlas-for-saying-
same-things-about-covid-as-the-new-york-times-six-months-earlier/

The exact TYPE of mask has to make a significant difference in the
results. If the size of the gaps between the threads of the mask is LESS
than the size of the virus particles, it must make a difference to the
spread of the virus; that just stands to reason. I'm not sure if ANY
mask has small enough gaps ("pores") that it will keep the virus out.
Wearing the equivalent of scuba gear or a space suit, where you have a
solid mask and are breathing from your own separate air supply is
probably the only really sure way to make sure you don't inhale virus
particles floating in the air.
I'm not sure what the latest research shows about transmissibility via a
surface. For instance, if I have the virus but have no symptoms and then
sneeze on some bank notes and hand them to you, is there any significant
risk that you will get sick from the money?

In such a situation there is a possibility that the person receiving
the money could become sick, much like with the common cold virus.

Post by Rhino
I have the strong impression that the masks that people actually wear in
public are useless and protect neither the wearer nor the people they
come in contact with.

You and a lot of other people think this even though there have been a
number of studies that prove you wrong. I'm not sure what the medical
professionals can do to counter the average individual's ability to
convince themselves they know better.

Post by Rhino
I think the politicians know that but consider it
a powerful placebo: mask-wearing lets everyone feel that they are
"helping" by reducing the spread of the disease (much like recycling
let's us all feel virtuous, even if it doesn't do nearly as much good as
we'd like to imagine). We all want to help so letting people believe
that mask-wearing helps lets them feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, it can also lead to demonizing those who won't wear
masks. I still remember a video of an adult woman berating elementary
school age kids who weren't wearing masks in a store, even though they
had asthma and were exempt from wearing masks; that was pretty ugly.

The berating has happened on both sides. There are a number of Youtube
videos showing people berating others who are wearing masks. I still
remember this one video of a middle aged man walking into a Walmart
and yelling at everyone around him for wearing masks when finally his
two sons (late teens/early twenties) come up and force him to leave
the store while he is still yelling at the people.

Post by Rhino
It's high time that the governments admitted to their mistakes and
change course appropriately. There was a lot we didn't know at the start
of this that we now know more about. Let's have an honest discussion
about what we actually know - and admit what we don't know - and move on
from there. Unless there's some genuine science that proves the
effectiveness of masks, admit that they don't work and stop insisting on
them.

So even though there have been numerous studies showing the
effectiveness of masks you still aren't satisfied. They aren't a
perfect solution but then there isn't one that allows you to be near
other people because there's always a potential for the spread to
happen. Choosing to eat in a restaurant even while kept at least six
feet from other patrons and with everyone wearing masks when not
eating/drinking still allows for the spread to happen. It's just
cutting down on the possibility of the virus to spread, much like
wearing a mask clearly cuts down on the amount of virus you can spread
which, in turn, limits the amount of virus that anyone around you
might intake and, which in turn limits their likelihood of becoming
infected. All because the virus load someone is exposed to has been
shown to impact the likelihood of someone coming down with the virus.

Post by Rhino
Politicians will mostly be forgiven if they admit to their mistakes now
but if they persist in making misguided policy when the evidence is
clear that the policies are based on faulty assumptions, then they
deserve all the pushback they get.

Indeed. That appears to have been at least part of the reason that
Trump lost this election. If he had taken the virus seriously from the
beginning there's a good chance he could have won this past election.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This
randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study
available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less
likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.

Wow! Really? Now, why am I skeptical, then?
Oh... maybe it's because you're a fucking liar, as the ACTUAL AUTHORS OF
THE STUDY SAY OTHERWISE.

"Some have claimed that a new study proves masks aren't effective. But
its authors say otherwise, within the study's very text.

A study from Denmark released to the public this week is being shared as
evidence that masks aren’t effective in slowing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Detractors point to the study’s conclusions that masks are less
effective in protecting the person wearing them than conventional wisdom
assumed. But that doesn’t mean masks are useless in curbing the
coronavirus’ spread. In fact, the researchers said that within the
study’s text.

In fact, the researchers specifically wrote in their paper that it’s
wrong to conclude you shouldn’t wear a mask based on their findings. In
fact, the researchers specifically wrote in their paper that it’s wrong
to conclude you shouldn’t wear a mask based on their findings."

https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/verify-danish-study-masks-still-work/507-b591ff5d-1d23-451b-977c-83521ec69566

Another Thanny lie/half-truth debunked in 10 seconds flat!
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

Just this week, a large-scale Danish study was finally released.

Were any other breakfast pastries included?

[FPP]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.

What you're reading is pretty ignorant, then. Current scientific
evidence now indicates masks work both ways.

"Wearing a mask protects the wearer, and not just other people, from the
coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emphasized
in an updated scientific brief issued Tuesday. And the protective
benefits of masks are stronger the more people wear masks consistently
and correctly, the agency says.

When the CDC first recommended that Americans wear cloth face coverings
back in April, it cited evidence that the coronavirus could be
transmitted by asymptomatic people who might not be aware of their
infectiousness – a group estimated to account for more than 50% of
transmissions. The agency said masks were intended to block virus-laden
particles that might be emitted by an infected person.

In a report updated Tuesday, the CDC says that is still the primary
intention of wearing masks. But it also cites growing evidence that even
cloth masks can also reduce the amount of infectious droplets inhaled by
the wearer."

Jesus when will you morons STOP trying to kill people? What do you get
out of disseminating misinformation?

I trust the CDC... not what you're 'reading'. Nov. 11:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/11/933903848/wear-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-the-coronavirus-not-only-others-cdc-stresses
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[Barry Margolin]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

No one is claiming that it's a magic shield that completely protects you
and others. But if you have to be in close proximity to other people,
it's the most effective way we know to reduce the spread of the virus.

The key word is "reduce" -- no one expects it to "prevent" spread.

What else can we do until we have effective vaccines and treatments?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:44:05 -0500, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

That comment would make sense if it was demonstrated masking actually
was effective in preventing spread. The evidence I've read suggests
it's highly effective as a form of virtue signaling and far less so in
ACTUALLY protecting each other and that putting it as strongly as you
have is quite over the top.
While I do mask, I'd be in trouble if I went to a mass event where
there were plenty of 'spreaders' so tend to be extra careful since I
don't think my mask protects me (or anybody else) in that situation.
I'd be a LOT happier about masking if I thought they were truly
effective in doing what they are for.

No one is claiming that it's a magic shield that completely protects you
and others. But if you have to be in close proximity to other people,
it's the most effective way we know to reduce the spread of the virus.

That's not wa "effective" means in a medical context.

Post by Barry Margolin
The key word is "reduce" -- no one expects it to "prevent" spread.

Nice backpedal. "Reduce"? Barely. Effective? Not i the least.

Post by Barry Margolin
What else can we do until we have effective vaccines and treatments?

Social distance and assume one's own mask is useless.

[BTR1701]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

FYI: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

FYI: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778

Any media article whose headline says "here's how to think about"
something is an instant pass.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

FYI: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778

Any media article whose headline says "here's how to think about"
something is an instant pass.

Except, of course, that it CAN be a harmless phrase ...one, in fact.
that I bet most of us have used, say, when explaining a concept from a
field far outside the listener's expertise. Not necessarily very
different in content or intent from, "Think about it like this..."

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

FYI: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778

Any media article whose headline says "here's how to think about"
something is an instant pass.

Cuz it would mean you'd have to think? We already got that.
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive
judges"
that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

FYI:  https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778

Any media article whose headline says "here's how to think about"
something is an instant pass.

Cuz it would mean you'd have to think?  We already got that.

Hey! So what if his personal preference is "Here's how to be a whiny
bitch about it" articles.

[Ian J. Ball]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

Hey! Look!! Margolin is another Fascist! (Is anyone surprised?...)

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

And even when it doesn't, apparently.

I assume you are too fucking stupid to understand what "better safe than
sorry" means, right?

[number6]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???
What about 1 in a thousand being carriers ... still need masks for all ??? What about 1 in
100,000 still need them ??? The fact that someone else has the disease doesn't take away my rights ...

[BTR1701]

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???

And why don't we do this for other deadly diseases?

HIV is a killer but we don't require all citizens to wear condoms during
sex under penalty of jail time.

[Ian J. Ball]

Post by BTR1701

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive
judges" that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???

And why don't we do this for other deadly diseases?
HIV is a killer but we don't require all citizens to wear condoms during
sex under penalty of jail time.

Hell, California now pretty much *encourages* sex without condoms for
people with HIV!!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???

And why don't we do this for other deadly diseases?

A good friend just died of influenza. My governor, while expressing
grief and sadness on behalf of all the people of my state with respect
to those who lost loved ones to COVID-19, really didn't give a toss
about my friend's death. Apparently death from any other highly
communicable disease isn't tragic.

He thought he was exposed while standing in line for early voting. This
is exactly why I did vote by mail, and had my mother vote that way too.

Post by BTR1701
HIV is a killer but we don't require all citizens to wear condoms during
sex under penalty of jail time.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???

And why don't we do this for other deadly diseases?
HIV is a killer but we don't require all citizens to wear condoms during
sex under penalty of jail time.

The correct answer is take your whataboutism and shove it back up your
anus whence it came.

[FPP]

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose
their rights ???

And why don't we do this for other deadly diseases?
HIV is a killer but we don't require all citizens to wear condoms during
sex under penalty of jail time.

The correct answer is take your whataboutism and shove it back up your
anus whence it came.

You can't get HIV from breathing someone else's air. Everybody has to
breathe.
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[trotsky]

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose
their rights ???

And why don't we do this for other deadly diseases?
HIV is a killer but we don't require all citizens to wear condoms during
sex under penalty of jail time.

The correct answer is take your whataboutism and shove it back up your
anus whence it came.

You can't get HIV from breathing someone else's air.  Everybody has to
breathe.

But in Thanny's environs they believe everyone has to have unprotected
anal sex.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by BTR1701

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose
their rights ???

And why don't we do this for other deadly diseases?
HIV is a killer but we don't require all citizens to wear condoms during
sex under penalty of jail time.

There's no other disease that's both spreading as quickly and is as
dangerous as this one. This is a once-in-a-century situation.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???

We've been in this pandemic for nine months, and you've paid no
attention whatsoever.

It's not enough to have been exposed to the virus. I've been out in
public. I've been grocery shopping. I've been exposed to it.

So have you.

You have to have been infected AND you need to be in the superspreading
period, which is 3 to 6 days after infection. From 7 to 14 days, without
symptoms, you're unlikely to infect anyone else and may the mask helps.

With symptoms, you damn well know you should be isolating for maybe 21
days after infection. Regardless, even though people were probably
symptomless superspreaders, given the lack of symptoms till Day 5.

The people who are superspreaders DON'T KNOW they are superspreaders
and, quite frankly, masking doesn't help enough to call it effective. As
they don't know they're superspreading, they aren't demanding anything.

Post by number6
What about 1 in a thousand being carriers ... still need masks for all ??? What about 1 in
100,000 still need them ??? The fact that someone else has the disease doesn't take away my rights ...

Since you personally have no idea if you were ever infected and had
become a superspreader, you don't know what you did, do you.

[suzeeq]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges"
that touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???

We've been in this pandemic for nine months, and you've paid no
attention whatsoever.
It's not enough to have been exposed to the virus. I've been out in
public. I've been grocery shopping. I've been exposed to it.
So have you.
You have to have been infected AND you need to be in the superspreading
period, which is 3 to 6 days after infection. From 7 to 14 days, without
symptoms, you're unlikely to infect anyone else and may the mask helps.
With symptoms, you damn well know you should be isolating for maybe 21
days after infection. Regardless, even though people were probably
symptomless superspreaders, given the lack of symptoms till Day 5.
The people who are superspreaders DON'T KNOW they are superspreaders
and, quite frankly, masking doesn't help enough to call it effective. As
they don't know they're superspreading, they aren't demanding anything.

Post by number6
What about 1 in a thousand being carriers ... still need masks for all ??? What about 1 in
100,000 still need them ??? The fact that someone else has the disease doesn't take away my rights ...

Since you personally have no idea if you were ever infected and had
become a superspreader, you don't know what you did, do you.

This is like the guy protesting the regional health district's new
regulations on wearing masks. He doesn't think he should be obliged to
wear one because he has less chance of dying than being hit by
lightning. Probably slightly more, but it's not about him dying, but
possibly giving it to his 80+ year old parents or neighbors, or even
getting the virus and needs to be hospitalized then recovers to have
heart and/or lung damage in the future. The health district did this to
slow the rate of infection because ALL regional hospitals are at or near
capacity and burning out doctors and nurses.

[trotsky]

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus

Some states have positivity numbers higher than 50% currently. You
fucking moron.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by number6

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by number6
As Alan Dershowitz points out ... It used to be the "progressive judges" that
touted individual rights ...

Like the right not to die from COVID-19?
Your right to go out in public without a mask ends when it endangers
others.

So the one in a hundred that carries the virus demands the other 99 lose their rights ???
What about 1 in a thousand being carriers ... still need masks for all ??? What about 1 in
100,000 still need them ??? The fact that someone else has the disease
doesn't take away my rights ...

Yes, it's called "better safe than sorry".

It's not like this is some extremely onerous requirement, it's just a
piece of cloth. You're not being tied up and gagged. It's less of an
imposition than requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

The only reason anyone has a problem with this is because of the extreme
political divisiveness in the country -- Republicans hate that it's
Democrats pushing it. There's no other country where the people are
rebelling against these mandates.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.

Whose interpretation is that? Was it Tucker's... or Sean's... or maybe
Rush's?
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[trotsky]

On 11/20/20 9:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

It sounds like you don't know what Draconian means. Draconian is the
"downplaying" of the coronavirus that Trump admitted to Woodward. Any
questions?

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

I'm picturing a lot of Minnesotans suddenly having home-based religious
services with a special emphasis on memorial services and wakes for
long-lost family members - or even their Thanksgiving turkey....

Let's see police and prosecutors try to press charges that the courts
will soon throw out!

[BTR1701]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-ga
therings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

I'm picturing a lot of Minnesotans suddenly having home-based religious
services with a special emphasis on memorial services and wakes for
long-lost family members - or even their Thanksgiving turkey....

All they have to do is hang a sign on their front door that says CHAZ
and the cops can't touch them for at least a month.

Post by Rhino
Let's see police and prosecutors try to press charges that the courts
will soon throw out!

Loading Image...

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino
Let's see police and prosecutors try to press charges that the courts
will soon throw out!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cfbctp720pjkxax/20202Thanksgiving.jpg?dl=0

If only the right wing could've won the election then you motherfucking
assholes could have all the superspreader events you want.

[FPP]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

I'm picturing a lot of Minnesotans suddenly having home-based religious
services with a special emphasis on memorial services and wakes for
long-lost family members - or even their Thanksgiving turkey....
Let's see police and prosecutors try to press charges that the courts
will soon throw out!

Sure. Let the morons exterminate themselves. It's nature's way...
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

It's not "his philosophy", you blithering idiot. There is a legal
principle that even you have heard of, the castle doctrine. The home
owner or legal resident decides whom to associate with (which also has
First Amendment protection) and whom to invite into one's own home.

The governor might direct the quartering of troops for police power of
enforcing his executive order, literally putting big brother on site.

[Ian J. Ball]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

It's not "his philosophy", you blithering idiot. There is a legal
principle that even you have heard of, the castle doctrine. The home
owner or legal resident decides whom to associate with (which also has
First Amendment protection) and whom to invite into one's own home.
The governor might direct the quartering of troops for police power of
enforcing his executive order, literally putting big brother on site.

Which of course would run afoul of that pesky (and forgotten) Third
Amendment...

[moviePig]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

It's not "his philosophy", you blithering idiot. ...

Seek help ...and hope it doesn't hear you coming.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-ga
therings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-ga
therings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Umm, okay, if you declare those to be identical. So, which absolute
principle of the U.S. Constitution is violated?

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-
ga
therings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most
draconian coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country
since the coronavirus pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting
with one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities
and march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Umm, okay, if you declare those to be identical.

No, I didn't declare them identical. I said if *you* equate them.

Post by moviePig
So, which absolute principle of the U.S. Constitution is violated?

The 1st Amendment - the right to free assembly and association

The Privileges and Immunities Clause - the right to freedom of travel
(Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, United States v. Harris)

(And if the state doesn't enforce the law against protesters and
Democrat celebrators the same as they do everyone else, the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.)

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-
ga
therings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most
draconian coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country
since the coronavirus pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting
with one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities
and march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Umm, okay, if you declare those to be identical.

No, I didn't declare them identical. I said if *you* equate them.

I asked about YOUR philosophy, whereupon YOU -- for some reason, I
assume -- referred me to the Constitution.

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
So, which absolute principle of the U.S. Constitution is violated?

The 1st Amendment - the right to free assembly and association
The Privileges and Immunities Clause - the right to freedom of travel
(Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, United States v. Harris)
(And if the state doesn't enforce the law against protesters and
Democrat celebrators the same as they do everyone else, the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.)

And do you say that no exceptions are ever to be brooked? ...i.e., that
these rights are as absolute as, say, freedom of thought?

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most
draconian coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country
since the coronavirus pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's
residents to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting
with one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans
of religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted
by the order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities
and march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Umm, okay, if you declare those to be identical.

No, I didn't declare them identical. I said if *you* equate them.

I asked about YOUR philosophy, whereupon YOU -- for some reason, I
assume -- referred me to the Constitution.

Because philosophy is irrelevant. What the fundamental law of the land
has to say about it is.

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
So, which absolute principle of the U.S. Constitution is violated?

The 1st Amendment - the right to free assembly and association
The Privileges and Immunities Clause - the right to freedom of travel
(Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, United States v. Harris)
(And if the state doesn't enforce the law against protesters and
Democrat celebrators the same as they do everyone else, the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.)

And do you say that no exceptions are ever to be brooked? ...i.e., that
these rights are as absolute as, say, freedom of thought?

My right to liberty doesn't end where your fear begins.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most
draconian coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country
since the coronavirus pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's
residents to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting
with one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans
of religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted
by the order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities
and march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Umm, okay, if you declare those to be identical.

No, I didn't declare them identical. I said if *you* equate them.

I asked about YOUR philosophy, whereupon YOU -- for some reason, I
assume -- referred me to the Constitution.

Because philosophy is irrelevant. What the fundamental law of the land
has to say about it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_law

Why the warning-flares? It seemed a straightforward question...

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
So, which absolute principle of the U.S. Constitution is violated?

The 1st Amendment - the right to free assembly and association
The Privileges and Immunities Clause - the right to freedom of travel
(Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, United States v. Harris)
(And if the state doesn't enforce the law against protesters and
Democrat celebrators the same as they do everyone else, the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.)

And do you say that no exceptions are ever to be brooked? ...i.e., that
these rights are as absolute as, say, freedom of thought?

My right to liberty doesn't end where your fear begins.

In a context of fears and real danger, where DOES it end? ...anywhere?

[A Friend]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most
draconian coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country
since the coronavirus pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's
residents to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting
with one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans
of religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted
by the order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities
and march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Umm, okay, if you declare those to be identical.

No, I didn't declare them identical. I said if *you* equate them.

I asked about YOUR philosophy, whereupon YOU -- for some reason, I
assume -- referred me to the Constitution.

Because philosophy is irrelevant. What the fundamental law of the land
has to say about it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_law
Why the warning-flares? It seemed a straightforward question...

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
So, which absolute principle of the U.S. Constitution is violated?

The 1st Amendment - the right to free assembly and association
The Privileges and Immunities Clause - the right to freedom of travel
(Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, United States v. Harris)
(And if the state doesn't enforce the law against protesters and
Democrat celebrators the same as they do everyone else, the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.)

And do you say that no exceptions are ever to be brooked? ...i.e., that
these rights are as absolute as, say, freedom of thought?

My right to liberty doesn't end where your fear begins.

In a context of fears and real danger, where DOES it end? ...anywhere?

If someone insists on exercising an imaginary right to infect everyone
around them, then it ends with a shotgun.

[BTR1701]

Post by A Friend

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most
draconian coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country
since the coronavirus pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's
residents to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own
homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting
with one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not
live
in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans
of religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted
by the order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved
ones,
as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church
even
as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities
and march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from
mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Umm, okay, if you declare those to be identical.

No, I didn't declare them identical. I said if *you* equate them.

I asked about YOUR philosophy, whereupon YOU -- for some reason, I
assume -- referred me to the Constitution.

Because philosophy is irrelevant. What the fundamental law of the land
has to say about it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_law
Why the warning-flares? It seemed a straightforward question...

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
So, which absolute principle of the U.S. Constitution is violated?

The 1st Amendment - the right to free assembly and association
The Privileges and Immunities Clause - the right to freedom of travel
(Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, United States v. Harris)
(And if the state doesn't enforce the law against protesters and
Democrat celebrators the same as they do everyone else, the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.)

And do you say that no exceptions are ever to be brooked? ...i.e., that
these rights are as absolute as, say, freedom of thought?

My right to liberty doesn't end where your fear begins.

In a context of fears and real danger, where DOES it end? ...anywhere?

If someone insists on exercising an imaginary right to infect everyone
around them, then it ends with a shotgun.

If you do that, then you better be sure I'm actually infecting you, or
it'll end with you strapped to a table with a needle in your arm.

[A Friend]

Post by BTR1701

Post by A Friend
If someone insists on exercising an imaginary right to infect everyone
around them, then it ends with a shotgun.

If you do that, then you better be sure I'm actually infecting you, or
it'll end with you strapped to a table with a needle in your arm.

All I'd have to be sure of is that I was afraid you might infect me,
that you'd been behaving in ways that I thought might lead to infecting
me, and that you'd ignored me when I'd asked you to back up and
maintain distance. I'm not saying that they'd give me an award for
improving the breed, but they might. I'm in my late 60s and have at
least two pre-existing conditions. Hell, maybe they *would* give me
that award.

[BTR1701]

Post by A Friend

Post by BTR1701

Post by A Friend
If someone insists on exercising an imaginary right to infect
everyone around them, then it ends with a shotgun.

If you do that, then you better be sure I'm actually infecting
you, or it'll end with you strapped to a table with a needle in
your arm.

All I'd have to be sure of is that I was afraid you might infect me

No, you'd have to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious
bodily injury. Saying you're afraid of a disease that 98% of people
don't have, and of those that do, 99.7% survive with no problem, is not
objectively reasonable and won't save you from riding that needle.

Post by A Friend
I'm not saying that they'd give me an award for
improving the breed, but they might.

Yeah, sure, go out and shotgun murder everyone you see who isn't wearing
a mask and see where that gets you. Lunatic.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by A Friend

Post by BTR1701

Post by A Friend
If someone insists on exercising an imaginary right to infect
everyone around them, then it ends with a shotgun.

If you do that, then you better be sure I'm actually infecting
you, or it'll end with you strapped to a table with a needle in
your arm.

All I'd have to be sure of is that I was afraid you might infect me

No, you'd have to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious
bodily injury. Saying you're afraid of a disease that 98% of people
don't have, and of those that do, 99.7% survive with no problem, is not
objectively reasonable and won't save you from riding that needle.

Post by A Friend
I'm not saying that they'd give me an award for
improving the breed, but they might.

Yeah, sure, go out and shotgun murder everyone you see who isn't wearing
a mask and see where that gets you. Lunatic.

And, yet... a quarter of a million of us are dead, and hospitals are at
capacity, such that people without Covid will die because they can't get
care.

Yeah, counselor... you're the go-to guy I listen to. Any fucking idiot
listening to people like you pretty are why so many are dead, and dying.

It's why we are the WORST country in the world. Congrats!
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by A Friend
If someone insists on exercising an imaginary right to infect everyone
around them, then it ends with a shotgun.

If you do that, then you better be sure I'm actually infecting you, or
it'll end with you strapped to a table with a needle in your arm.

Would that be after the pillow magnate bails you out? LOL.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-ga
therings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in
their home, even in outdoor settings.
Walz apparently learned a lesson from the backlash to Democrats' bans of
religious services and funerals, as those activities are exempted by the
order.
It's not likely even the most mild-mannered people at this point would
tolerate being told they can't worship or say goodbye to loved ones, as
they were earlier this year.
They were, of course, told it was too dangerous to go to church even as
they watched leftists destroy portions of Minneapolis and other cities and
march against perceived racial injustice with impunity from mandates.

Which absolute principles of your philosophy does Walz violate here?

If by 'philosophy', you mean the written document that forms the entire
basis of American government, the answer would be the U.S. Constitution.

Funny... it hasn't bothered you for the last 4 years, has it.
--
"Good night wall, good night cages, good night endless Midnight rages."
"Good night thief, good night grief, good night cruel and callous Chief."
"Good night 'Fake News', and Fox and Friends. - this is how the
nightmare ends."
"Good night at last, it’s time to go... the American people have told
you so."

The Million MAGA March is mostly men... probably because the men aren't
very good at getting their women to come. Or so I've heard...

November 7, 2020 - Happy V-T Day!

[RichA]

Post by BTR1701
https://www.westernjournal.com/worst-covid-lockdown-yet-dem-governor-bans-gatherings-inside-homes/
Minnesota's Democrat governor has issued what is perhaps the most draconian
coronavirus lockdown order in any area of the country since the coronavirus
pandemic began in March.
Gov. Tim Walz announced Wednesday a four-week ban on social gatherings
that, if it is being interpreted correctly, ordered his state's residents
to refrain from entertaining guests inside of their own homes.
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.
Even worse, the Democrat, using the threat of 90 days in jail, told his
state's residents they are not to mingle with people who do not live in

Well, the guy is a Kraut. it's genetic. BTW, you think this is bad? Wait for Biden.

[Roger Blake]

Post by BTR1701
In a massive 23-page executive order issued a week before Thanksgiving,
Walz told Minnesotans they are essentially prohibited from interacting with
one another in any form not exempted by the state.

Executive orders are not laws, and are only binding on those who are
members of the executive branch of government.

--