Vaccine vs. Mask

[auroraave]

Ironically if you two met you would probably end up being friends.

Can assure you that wouldn't happen.

I don't consort with lib bitches in a friend capacity because they're not capable of it.

They will stab you in the back as soon as they find out your leanings. You've seen it here personally ten times once they realize you're independent and not a lib bitch like them.

You're just kind enough to move past it.

If you did meet yup, I'd really like to know what the mask situation would be.

In my experience, if you put a lib, a moderate and a conservative in a room, the conservative and moderate will listen to all points of view, they're generally willing to have a discussion - even if they disagree with another's point of view. Liberals will not listen to any POV except their own. That is not 100%, of course, but that is what I have seen to be true - and I live in hard core lib central. There can only be their way, or else you're a racist. That behavior generally stems from their inability to support their own positions with reasonable dialogue and logical points.

I was having a discussion with a crazy lib friend regarding federal covid policy, and I said I leaned into Jeffersonian ideology - you know - putting the emphasis on states taking control of their own destiny. He literally told me that I was a racist - because Jefferson owned slaves and that made him a racist. I pointed out that it was perfectly legal to have slaves back then, and he got all pissed off. I asked him to explain how it was racist - nothing but rage and nonsense - and he said because they were black. I pointed out that - the slave trade was started in the middle east and fed by black slave traders in Africa, and that all races have endured slavery - all of them. It had nothing to do with being black. I asked why he was singling out blacks when whites, asians, everyone has been enslaved. The usual rage and fury - but no answers.

Again, what would the mask situation be?

[bpj]

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

They live in the deep blue echo chambers and think they're the norm when Florida and Texas aren't bothering with the charades at all anymore.

We have like 3 locked down states, a bunch of others that are still tolerating the masks by keeping it under their nose anyways, and then you've got the libs that make kids wear masks outside.

[auroraave]

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

They live in the deep blue echo chambers and think they're the norm when Florida and Texas aren't bothering with the charades at all anymore.

We have like 3 locked down states, a bunch of others that are still tolerating the masks by keeping it under their nose anyways, and then you've got the libs that make kids wear masks outside.

I don't believe the mask mandates are a liberal thing. Maybe politically, because the worst areas are generally run by the dems, but I don't agree that people wearing masks are doing it because they are liberal or leftists. I think it's more fear based and a conscious effort to be politically correct less they get cancelled or shamed within their community. However, I think cancel culture and the mask shaming stuff is about to swing the other direction.

[bpj]

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

They live in the deep blue echo chambers and think they're the norm when Florida and Texas aren't bothering with the charades at all anymore.

We have like 3 locked down states, a bunch of others that are still tolerating the masks by keeping it under their nose anyways, and then you've got the libs that make kids wear masks outside.

I don't believe the mask mandates are a liberal thing. Maybe politically, because the worst areas are generally run by the dems, but I don't agree that people wearing masks are doing it because they are liberal or leftists. I think it's more fear based and a conscious effort to be politically correct less they get cancelled. However, I think cancel culture and the mask shaming stuff is about to swing the other direction.

I agree, good points.

What it boils down to is most people believe what the liberal media pushes on them.

[D-train]

Tide shall turn. Most don't like the extremes. The pendulum shall swing with furious vengeance.

[D-train]

Oh my I have the Sox broadcast. Awesome.

[auroraave]

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

They live in the deep blue echo chambers and think they're the norm when Florida and Texas aren't bothering with the charades at all anymore.

We have like 3 locked down states, a bunch of others that are still tolerating the masks by keeping it under their nose anyways, and then you've got the libs that make kids wear masks outside.

I don't believe the mask mandates are a liberal thing. Maybe politically, because the worst areas are generally run by the dems, but I don't agree that people wearing masks are doing it because they are liberal or leftists. I think it's more fear based and a conscious effort to be politically correct less they get cancelled. However, I think cancel culture and the mask shaming stuff is about to swing the other direction.

I agree, good points.

What it boils down to is most people believe what the liberal media pushes on them.

The problem is different than people realize. The news is a consumable, like an apple, an iphone, a movie, a taco, a seahawks game. You consume it, digest it, it's part of you now. The news is all fear and rage - probably emotionally equivalent to a violent horror movie. Ever get behind that person that's had waaaayyy too much garlic? Now switch out garlic, for the news. Think about the news that way. Do you want to consume fear mongering, hate, rage, over and over and over? NO! It overwhelms people with fear and rage and anxiety - and what they don't understand that you can literally just turn it off. I did. years ago. Now, I'm not all mad or sad or scared based on what I'm consuming - I consume other shit instead.

If people looked into like that - that's the greater truth than the judgement of the media. Ultimately - it's your choice not to consume it, and feel better. The media, social media too, are artificially inducing us with these fear and rage and hate triggers. Turn it off.

[Grandma Lynn]

I read one person's version of the
vaccine and he said that he'd rather
take the vaccine and take a chance
of not getting it.
I'd rather not get the vaccine and
take a chance of not getting it.
Nothing is black or white here.
No-one know's much about this
virus.
Hope is the it will wear itself out.

[bpj]

Unless you're robbing someone...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg-gu ... sks-behind

[gil]

A newly released study in the academic journal Annals of Internal Medicine casts more doubt on policies that force healthy individuals to wear face coverings in hopes of limiting the spread of COVID-19.

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” the New York Times reports.

The study is perhaps the best scientific evidence to date on the efficacy of masks.

To conduct the study, which ran from early April to early June, scientists at the University of Copenhagen recruited more than 6,000 participants who had tested negative for COVID-19 immediately prior to the experiment.

https://fee.org/articles/new-danish-stu ... infection/

Masks and respirators do not work.

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/mas ... ial-policy

Masks for the general population as they are currently used (surgical masks and the cloth masks), are ineffective (particularly when used without other mitigation) and the body of evidence (see AIER) is clear. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post spoke to mask wearing by everyone during the 1918 flu pandemic, with the conclusion that masks were useless. We embrace fully the contention by Klompas in the NEJM that “what is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone could, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.” We are particularly alarmed by the harms of masking and the failure by top US agencies and leadership (as well as the media and ‘media’ medical experts) to discuss or highlight harms in any discourse on masking.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-cdcs-m ... -debunked/

Here's some more research, Gil. Masks have been so politicized that people are damn fed up with it.

Thanks for those. The AIER article in particular strikes me as well thought out, and I wish they would put it out for peer review so that people who are experts could give me more confidence in that initial reaction. I think we all wish that there was a settled "truth" out there, but it seems that it's more complicated than that.

In particular, I see a lot of studies that question whether masks protect the user. That is a different question from whether masks help limit the spread in a population. From an epidemiological perspective, if ***I*** get the virus does not matter much, but it does matter whether I spread it.