Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[Belligerent Savant]

.

BS, you and I aren't ever going to agree on this subject it seems, so I will forgo addressing most of what you said, but this is once again ridiculous.

should have been allowed to continue to go to work, go outside, interact, etc., while taking standard precautions during a heightened flu season;

No one has been prevented from going outside. Just like your railing against the imaginary mandate that people wear masks while outdoors in which you cited a link that clearly stated that the mask mandate DID NOT APPLY when outside and distanced, this is not a real thing.

I personally don't think your arguments in general stand up to any rational scrutiny, since your position seems to be that all data about covid is false except for the part about negative effects of lockdown that support your view.

But leaving that aside, I do not understand why you continue to use as examples things that are not happening, like "can't go outside" and "must wear mask outside." You've now claimed both, and they're clearly contradictory, and neither is accurate. I cannot take seriously anything you say when you continue to rely on demonstrably false claims as part of your argument.

Please.

Technically it may not be 'mandated' more broadly, though i've seen language otherwise.

But this misses the point: the strong fear-inducing recommendations are bullshit and should not be happening. How is this not clear?

Where I live, miles from NYC, when i took one of my daughters to a nearby park a couple months back -- A PARK --There WERE NUMEROUS signs informing visitors to WEAR MASKS per local ordinances. Outside. I took those damned signs down. They were later propped back up a couple days later. That aside, I ignored the notice, but other parents were wearing masks outside regardless of 'distance'.

Why?

Because they have allowed themselves to be conditioned.

Because of the nonstop misleading messaging (propaganda).

Again, how often have you been outside?

And, AGAIN: you are wholly missing my point. To reiterate, any scare tactics recommending masks outdoors is a form of propaganda/thought conditioning.

Technically, it appears they aren't, at this time, f'ing arresting you for not wearing a mask outside. But they've essentially taken EVERY other egregious action.

Is this what you're holding onto? This technicality? A golf clap to you.

See here:

https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-liv ... virus.html

What sort of 'technicality' are you trying to hold onto?
What are you suggesting? That because they're not apprehending non-maskers it's ok to have such messaging constantly pushed on the people?

And yet, in the UK, they have, actually, arrested non-maskers, FFS.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKCN24O2AJ

Posts shared online have claimed British police have no power to arrest or fine people for not wearing masks. This claim is misleading. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have rules that make face coverings mandatory by law in certain circumstances, and such a rule is to be introduced in Wales.

The posts were uploaded on July 14 and 15, and have text that reads: “UK Police Commissioner has just publicly stated that the POLICE have NO POWER to arrest or fine anyone refusing to wear a mask or face covering! So the ‘RULE’ is UNLAWFUL” .

There is no evidence that any UK police and crime commissioners have made a recent public statement of this nature.

This is egregious and UNACCEPTABLE, however it may be enforced (indoors, public transit, etc.) No such actions by police are acceptable. Period.

The more we passively permit now, the more they will try to take away NEXT TIME.





https://twitter.com/dockaurG/status/130 ... 09410?s=20


It matters not to me if you take my words seriously. Proceed as you deem fit.

Continue to keep your hands covering your eyes.


Carry on.

[mentalgongfu2]

Again, how often have you been outside?

And, AGAIN: you are wholly missing my point. To reiterate, any scare tactics recommending masks outdoors is a form of propaganda/thought conditioning.

Technically, it appears they aren't, at this time, f'ing arresting you for not wearing a mask outside. But they've essentially taken EVERY other egregious action.

Is this what you're holding onto? This technicality? A golf clap to you.

Shove the golf clap up your ... yeah.

Perhaps my experience is different than yours, living in a state that has mandated nothing and done practically nothing.
The fact remains that you keep citing things that aren't real to support your arguments. You did that, not me.
Fact is, you CAN go outside and you DON'T have to wear a mask outside.
And if anyone is being arrested for not wearing a mask in any situation, I am not aware of it. Unless you count assholes who deliberately enter stores where the store owners, not the government, require and enforce it for the sole purpose of creating a scene and disturbing the peace.

The only thing I'm holding onto is the concept of intellectual honesty that you have wholly abandoned in your anti-lockdown quest. Fact is, there are a lot of concerning things about it and how it has been implemented. There's no need to resort to misrepresenting the facts, and the fact that you feel the need to do so, as do many of the sources you cite, well, that says something.

I'm not defending anything, so no need to paint me as doing such. I'm criticizing a very specific thing. Facts matter. That you are unwilling, unable or incapable of keeping the hyperbole out of any argument of your POV is concerning.

[mentalgongfu2]

Oh, and to answer your questions, just so you can't say I didn't:

I have been outside nearly every day. Aside from a brief stretch from late March to the end of May 2020, I go 5 days a week to work, at a small office building. I drive there, so it's not like I'm taking a walk in the park, but I am not sequestered. I do not have the luxury. Curiously, when I was working from home, I actually did make a point to go on a 30 minute leisure walk every day. 1 in 10 people max were wearing masks while outside and away from other folks, at the high end. And then, as now, they did so because they wanted to, not because of an imaginary regulation.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

What you observe is not consistent with other states, or other countries, unfortunately.

I assure you what I type is not 'imaginary'.

In NYC -- as but one example -- a clear majority wear masks walking outside, regardless of 'distance'. In a nearby downtown close to where I live, in NJ, during a recent stroll the majority wore masks outside. I noticed the same in Portsmouth, NH, when i visited. And there were numerous SIGNS around Portsmouth informing visitors to wear masks per local ordinance. My wife and I didn't, but that's not the point.

Does the below look 'imaginary' to you, or does it still not meet your criteria? Note the word "OUTSIDE":



Oh, but they mention distancing as a criteria so it doesn't count, is that right? How much further do you plan to take this increasingly absurd position?


The news, the media, the signs in public places, all constantly remind people to wear masks outside: "mask up!".

See my prior commentary. Propaganda and conditioning has led many to believe "masking up" outdoors is necessary, which in many respects is arguably worse than a mask mandate --- but that aside, there are mask mandates for just about every other scenario besides outdoors.

Why was there a sign in a nearby park by me telling visitors to wear masks per local ordinance? Was this 'imaginary'?

How you can claim it's 'imaginary' is almost comical to me and continues to miss the larger picture.

There are many, many other aspects of this madness that are egregious, but you're zeroing your focus on this one point, which is largely moot, as if all the other wrongs wash away if you find yourself 'correct' on this technicality.

(It's also no coincidence that stronger mandates/enforcement occur largely in 'blue' states. This crisis has been politically-charged from the start, though the rhetoric has tamped down a bit now that the old stooge is president).

I never paid mind to 'blue' state/'red' state variances in earnest until 2020.

Last point: you type these words about my position as if i'm the only person expressing them. As if, by sticking to your position here in RI, that my argument just vanishes.

There are a growing number of people that have long-past realized much of this is, to put it simply, bullshit. Yes, a virus exists. But the handling of it was agenda-driven from the start, and 'caring for people's well-being' was never a consideration for the agendas carried out, at least not by those planning it.

[DrEvil]

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

......

Conclusion

Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).

.......

[conniption]

LIVE: COVID sceptics hold protest in Vienna despite ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fz-L-X ... =emb_title
212,447 views
•Streamed live 12 hours ago

Ruptly
1.71M subscribers
Demonstrators are taking to the streets of Vienna on Sunday, January 31, to protest against government measures to curb the spread of COVID-19 despite a ban.

Austria's third strict coronavirus lockdown, which includes the closure of all non-essential businesses and a restriction on movement, was recently extended until February 7.

The country, which has a population of 8.9 million, has reported approximately 7,500 deaths with COVID-19 since the outbreak of the pandemic.

[Elvis]

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

—John Kenneth Galbraith

[conniption]

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

—John Kenneth Galbraith

“Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.”

---Author...?

[PufPuf93]

.
Please.

Technically it may not be 'mandated' more broadly, though i've seen language otherwise.

But this misses the point: the strong fear-inducing recommendations are bullshit and should not be happening. How is this not clear?

Where I live, miles from NYC, when i took one of my daughters to a nearby park a couple months back -- A PARK --There WERE NUMEROUS signs informing visitors to WEAR MASKS per local ordinances. Outside. I took those damned signs down. They were later propped back up a couple days later. That aside, I ignored the notice, but other parents were wearing masks outside regardless of 'distance'.

Why?

Because they have allowed themselves to be conditioned.

Because of the nonstop misleading messaging (propaganda).

Carry on.

Belligerent Savant

You worry about losing freedom but what you did by taking down the signs is taking awareness and choice away from others; they own the choice to make the decision whether or not to wear a mask. Also if I interpret correctly, the outdoor masks were only called for when social distancing was a problem.

We actually agree on most things, I may even be more pessimistic. The pandemic is being used by various parties for their goals. Certainly there is a brand of "utopian" that sees depopulation as a plus, in fact what occurs now could lengthen the time until there is another pandemic or cause for human footprint on the Earth to be reduced. With the election and new POTUS there is hope by many but in my heart I do not believe things will end well, I expect continued social degradation and likely another, more brutal than ever, World War. But I do see the nation's poor response to the pandemic itself and external effects on the economy and society as (deliberate) structural problems that left us naked and exposed. I think this deliberate and some are getting an opportunity beyond their wildest dreams.

The chaos is an objective:

"Because they have allowed themselves to be conditioned.

Because of the nonstop misleading messaging (propaganda)."

You are their agent. You are projecting. This is you. Unfortunately based on FB, so is Jeff. The main source of my pessimism is that there are so many bought into the chaos that our social fabric has disintegrated and the nation has lost the ability to act in concert, even if it i a matter if survival. If nothing else, the pandemic is a trial we have failed.

I have other thoughts but lack energy. I mean no ill will.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

You are their agent. You are projecting

I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion, Puf. What is more pervasive, the propaganda blasted by virtually all media outlets, or the relative few that express their views within their own social media platforms/forums?

This claim that largely unknown online entities like myself or Jeff Wells are unwitting "agents" of the [whatever you want to call them: the oligarchs, the very few, etc] agenda is frankly, a bizarre premise to me. Whatever ruminations we may offer pales in comparison to the scale and reach of the overt propaganda mechanisms in place.

In any event, what's the alternative? Stay quiet? Keep ourselves muzzled (literally and figuratively)? No.

In my view, any and all efforts to rip off the figurative -- and literal -- masks in effort to expose agendas (be it this virus scare, manipulation of markets, manipulation of sentiment to pass restrictive/repressive laws, etc.) should be pursued, however imperfect they may be.

There will never be a utopia, there will never be an ideal environment for all. But there are lines that are crossed -- they've been crossed throughout history. Right now, the attempts are particularly egregious and should be called out at all times.

A few excerpts worth sharing in this thread:

Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2
Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr Stefano Scoglio & Konstantin Demeter

...

...

The “virus genome” is nothing but a computer model

The complete genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been sequenced and was instead was “pieced together” on the computer. The Californian physician Thomas Cowan called this a “scientific fraud.” And he is not the only one by far.

Cowan wrote on October 15, 2020 [our emphasis]:

This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research.

A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.

The article section with the subheading “Whole Genome Sequencing” showed that “rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end”, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence" (GenBank accession no. NC045512).

So, one may ask, how then did they sequence the virus, ie. analyse it genetically?

Well, they did not analyse the whole genome, but instead took some sequences found in the cultures, claimed without proof that they belonged to a new specific virus, and then made some sort of a genetic computer puzzle to fill up the rest. “They use the computer modelling to essentially just create a genome from scratch,” as the molecular biologist Andrew Kaufman says.

Maybe then it’s no surprise that one of the primers of the test developed by the Pasteur Institute corresponds exactly to a sequence of chromosome 8 of the human genome.

No proof that SARS-CoV-2 can fly

Supposedly to stop the spread of the alleged new virus, we are being forced to practice various forms of social distancing and to wear masks. Behind this approach is the idea that viruses and in particular SARS-CoV-2, believed to be responsible for the respiratory disease Covid-19, is transmitted by air or, as has been said more often, through the nebulized droplets in the air from those who cough or sneeze or, according to some, just speak.

But the truth is that all these theories on the transmission of the virus are only hypotheses that have never been proven.

Evidence for this was missing from the beginning. As reported by Nature in an article from April 2020, experts do not agree that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, and according to the WHO itself “the evidence is not convincing.”

Even from an orthodox point of view, the only studies in which the transmission of a coronavirus (not SARS-Cov2) by air has been preliminarily “proven” have been carried out in hospitals and nursing homes, in places that are said to produce all types of infections due to hygienic conditions.

But no study has ever proven that there is transmission of viruses in open environments, or in closed but well-ventilated ones. Even assuming that there is this transmission by air, it has been stressed that, for the “contagion” to occur, it is necessary that the people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at least 45 minutes.

Whatever the infectious dose, length of exposure is probably an important factor too, says Tang. Each breath might not produce much virus, he says, but “if you’re standing beside [someone who’s infected], sharing the same airspace with them for 45 minutes, you’re going to inhale enough virus to cause infection”.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w

In short, all the radical distancing measures have no scientific ground.

No asymptomatic “infection”

Since particle purification is the indispensable prerequisite for further steps, i.e. proof of causality and “calibration” of the tests, we have a diagnostically insignificant test and therefore the mantra “test, test, test” by the WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, mentioned in our article from June 27, has to be called unscientific and misleading.

This holds especially true for testing people without symptoms. In this context even a Chinese study from Wuhan published in Nature on November 20, 2020, in which nearly 10 million people were tested and all asymptomatic positive cases, re-positive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the PCR test resulted negative, found that:

All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Even the orthodox British Medical Journal recently joined in the criticism.

Shortly before Christmas, the science magazine published the article “COVID-19: Mass testing is inaccurate and gives false sense of security, minister admits” explaining how the testing being deployed in parts of the UK is simply not at all accurate for asymptomatic people and arguing that it cannot accurately determine if one is positive or negative, as Collective Evolution wrote. (The WHO themselves have since admitted as much. Twice. – ed.)

Already a few weeks before, you could read in The BMJ that:

Mass testing for COVID-19 is an unevaluated, underdesigned, and costly mess,

And:

Screening the healthy population for COVID-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced nationwide

And that [our emphasis]:

“the UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines."

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/pha ... ars-cov-2/

More at link, including embedded sources.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

You are their agent. You are projecting

I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion, Puf. What is more pervasive, the propaganda blasted by virtually all media outlets, or the relative few that express their views within their own social media platforms/forums?

This claim that largely unknown online entities like myself or Jeff Wells are unwitting "agents" of the [whatever you want to call them: the oligarchs, the very few, etc] agenda is frankly, a bizarre premise to me. Whatever ruminations we may offer pales in comparison to the scale and reach of the overt propaganda mechanisms in place.

In any event, what's the alternative? Stay quiet? Keep ourselves muzzled (literally and figuratively)? No.

In my view, any and all efforts to rip off the figurative -- and literal -- masks in effort to expose agendas (be it this virus scare, manipulation of markets, manipulation of sentiment to pass restrictive/repressive laws, etc.) should be pursued, however imperfect they may be.

There will never be a utopia, there will never be an ideal environment for all. But there are lines that are crossed -- they've been crossed throughout history. Right now, the attempts are particularly egregious and should be called out at all times.

A few excerpts worth sharing in this thread:

Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2
Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr Stefano Scoglio & Konstantin Demeter

...

...

The “virus genome” is nothing but a computer model

The complete genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been sequenced and was instead was “pieced together” on the computer. The Californian physician Thomas Cowan called this a “scientific fraud.” And he is not the only one by far.

Cowan wrote on October 15, 2020 [our emphasis]:

This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research.

A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.

The article section with the subheading “Whole Genome Sequencing” showed that “rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end”, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence" (GenBank accession no. NC045512).

So, one may ask, how then did they sequence the virus, ie. analyse it genetically?

Well, they did not analyse the whole genome, but instead took some sequences found in the cultures, claimed without proof that they belonged to a new specific virus, and then made some sort of a genetic computer puzzle to fill up the rest. “They use the computer modelling to essentially just create a genome from scratch,” as the molecular biologist Andrew Kaufman says.

Maybe then it’s no surprise that one of the primers of the test developed by the Pasteur Institute corresponds exactly to a sequence of chromosome 8 of the human genome.

No proof that SARS-CoV-2 can fly

Supposedly to stop the spread of the alleged new virus, we are being forced to practice various forms of social distancing and to wear masks. Behind this approach is the idea that viruses and in particular SARS-CoV-2, believed to be responsible for the respiratory disease Covid-19, is transmitted by air or, as has been said more often, through the nebulized droplets in the air from those who cough or sneeze or, according to some, just speak.

But the truth is that all these theories on the transmission of the virus are only hypotheses that have never been proven.

Evidence for this was missing from the beginning. As reported by Nature in an article from April 2020, experts do not agree that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, and according to the WHO itself “the evidence is not convincing.”

Even from an orthodox point of view, the only studies in which the transmission of a coronavirus (not SARS-Cov2) by air has been preliminarily “proven” have been carried out in hospitals and nursing homes, in places that are said to produce all types of infections due to hygienic conditions.

But no study has ever proven that there is transmission of viruses in open environments, or in closed but well-ventilated ones. Even assuming that there is this transmission by air, it has been stressed that, for the “contagion” to occur, it is necessary that the people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at least 45 minutes.

Whatever the infectious dose, length of exposure is probably an important factor too, says Tang. Each breath might not produce much virus, he says, but “if you’re standing beside [someone who’s infected], sharing the same airspace with them for 45 minutes, you’re going to inhale enough virus to cause infection”.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w

In short, all the radical distancing measures have no scientific ground.

No asymptomatic “infection”

Since particle purification is the indispensable prerequisite for further steps, i.e. proof of causality and “calibration” of the tests, we have a diagnostically insignificant test and therefore the mantra “test, test, test” by the WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, mentioned in our article from June 27, has to be called unscientific and misleading.

This holds especially true for testing people without symptoms. In this context even a Chinese study from Wuhan published in Nature on November 20, 2020, in which nearly 10 million people were tested and all asymptomatic positive cases, re-positive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the PCR test resulted negative, found that:

All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Even the orthodox British Medical Journal recently joined in the criticism.

Shortly before Christmas, the science magazine published the article “COVID-19: Mass testing is inaccurate and gives false sense of security, minister admits” explaining how the testing being deployed in parts of the UK is simply not at all accurate for asymptomatic people and arguing that it cannot accurately determine if one is positive or negative, as Collective Evolution wrote. (The WHO themselves have since admitted as much. Twice. – ed.)

Already a few weeks before, you could read in The BMJ that:

Mass testing for COVID-19 is an unevaluated, underdesigned, and costly mess,

And:

Screening the healthy population for COVID-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced nationwide

And that [our emphasis]:

“the UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines."

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/pha ... ars-cov-2/

More at link, including embedded sources.

This:

But no study has ever proven that there is transmission of viruses in open environments, or in closed but well-ventilated ones. Even assuming that there is this transmission by air, it has been stressed that, for the “contagion” to occur, it is necessary that the people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at least 45 minutes.

Does not equal this:

Whatever the infectious dose, length of exposure is probably an important factor too, says Tang. Each breath might not produce much virus, he says, but “if you’re standing beside [someone who’s infected], sharing the same airspace with them for 45 minutes, you’re going to inhale enough virus to cause infection”.

The "At least 45 minutes" bit is bullshit.

At no point does the quoted guy, Tang, say 45 minutes is the absolute minimum before you get infected at close contact.

If anything he says the opposite. He says 45 minutes of close contact will definitely cause infection.

[DrEvil]

And this:

No proof that SARS-CoV-2 can fly

If you follow the link:

Confusing definitions

When public health officials say there isn't sufficient evidence to say that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, they specifically mean transported in virus-laden aerosols smaller than 5 micrometres in diameter. Compared with droplets, which are heftier and thought to travel only short distances after someone coughs or sneezes before falling to the floor or onto other surfaces, aerosols can linger in the air for longer and travel further.

If you read to the bottom they also recommend masks.

The assumption should be that airborne transmission is possible unless experimental evidence rules it out, not the other way around, says Tang. That way people can take precautions to protect themselves, he says.

Increasing ventilation indoors and not recirculating air can go some way to ensuring that infectious aerosols are diluted and flushed out, says Morawska. Indoor meetings should be banned just in case, she says.

Meanwhile, Lan and others are calling for the public to wear masks to reduce transmission.

Also, Torsten Engelbrecht seems to believe that dangerous contagious viruses aren't real.

[PufPuf93]

Here are two simple exhibitions:

1) Go outside in the absolute dark and cold with a flashlight and pee, watch the pee fog swirl,

2) Alternatively inside turn out the lights and smoke your choice of a joint or cigarette, again in the dark play the flashlight and watch the smoke swirl.

Consider how exhaled breath from one's mouth or nose might be carrying cv19.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

As mentioned numerous times here and elsewhere, estimating how much covid19 may be in someone's breath is a useless metric on its own.

DOSE + TIME.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how one can increase their probability of catching a virus. There is practically ZERO chance of catching a virus when breathing in someone else's air in passing, ESPECIALLY outdoors.

Scroll up just a bit and you'll see this:

But no study has ever proven that there is transmission of viruses in open environments, or in closed but well-ventilated ones. Even assuming that there is this transmission by air, it has been stressed that, for the “contagion” to occur, it is necessary that the people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at least 45 minutes.

Come on, folks. Do your due diligence.

if you read to the bottom they also recommend masks.

Yes, they won't outright indicate masks are useless, of course. A cloth mask is quite useless in most circumstances, but one is welcome to wear them for psychological reasons (or, due to conditioning/programming measures currently in place), or for whatever marginal protection a cloth mask may offer.

Proceed as you deem fit. I avoid mask wearing as much as possible, unless explicitly informed to do otherwise (mostly in stores). I've traveled quite a bit to several states over the past ~year. I go outdoors regularly, daily. I've been in the homes of others. Somehow I'm still here typing. Others have taken similar measures as me. I get that everyone has different health profiles, but the point is this 'crisis' is not what they are telling you it is.

Broadly speaking, one's natural immunity can handle viruses, if one's immunity is properly maintained and not otherwise compromised due to other illness or factors.

If compromised, additional precautions may well be necessary, of course, but the needs of a few should have ZERO bearing on policies impacting the majority and/or those in relative good health.

Proportionality. I mentioned this term in a prior posting in a related thread, weeks ago.

There is a legal term, proportionality, which essentially encapsulates my position here: "The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42187&p=691609&hilit=proportionality#p691609


( But here I am, again, doing the thing where I'm repeating what I've already typed many times before.No bueno)

[DrEvil]

.

As mentioned numerous times here and elsewhere, estimating how much covid19 may be in someone's breath is a useless metric on its own.

DOSE + TIME.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how one can increase their probability of catching a virus. There is practically ZERO chance of catching a virus when breathing in someone else's air in passing, ESPECIALLY outdoors.

Scroll up just a bit and you'll see this:

But no study has ever proven that there is transmission of viruses in open environments, or in closed but well-ventilated ones. Even assuming that there is this transmission by air, it has been stressed that, for the “contagion” to occur, it is necessary that the people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at least 45 minutes.

Come on, folks. Do your due diligence.

See Joe's comment. It doesn't say what you think it says. Also, it's written by a guy who doesn't seem to believe in germ theory, and the paper he's misquoting is from April. Do your due diligence.

f you read to the bottom they also recommend masks.

Yes, they won't outright indicate masks are useless, of course. A cloth mask is quite useless in most circumstances, but one is welcome to wear them for psychological reasons (or, due to conditioning/programming measures currently in place).

Of course. They couldn't just come out and say that they're lying because *reasons* !
You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing everyone else of doing, twisting things around to fit your narrative.
Also, see upthread for a recent overview on masks. They work.

Proceed as you deem fit. I avoid mask wearing as much as possible, unless explicitly informed to do otherwise (mostly in stores). Somehow I'm still here typing.

Broadly speaking, one's natural immunity can handle viruses, if one's immunity is properly maintained and not otherwise compromised due to other illness or factors.

I have to ask: do you believe in germ theory?

If compromised, additional precautions may well be necessary, of course, but this has ZERO bearing on current policies impacting the majority and/or those in relative good health.

( But here I am, again, doing the thing where I'm repeating what I've already typed many times before.No bueno)

Yes you are, and people keep refuting what you say, but none of it seems to penetrate.