Coronavirus

[Section_31]

11 hours ago, mars said:

From that article: "Some 80% of pupils also said it made communication harder, but 70% said it made them feel safer."

So it's continued because it makes a majority of pupils feel safer - I'm sure you wouldn't want them feeling less safe.

 

I've actually wondered if that's the whole purpose of masks but that in a sense it made people less safe. During the start of the pandemic people socially distanced, you'd see people crossing the road to avoid you and groups of people standing outdoors would be visibly distant from one another, bus and train seats were taped up as were pubs seats, and supermarkets only let people in about ten at a time (which was bliss). 

 

When masks came in it basically became 'do what you want, as long as you're wearing a mask'. But as we know, they provide very limited protection, they may stop some particulates from landing on someone 20 feet away when you sneeze, but they're far from protective in the strictest sense, at least not the types most people wear. 

 

Like 'help out to eat out', I always suspected it was part of a social science campaign to get people out and about, without venues and shops having to lose money by limiting entry. The illusion of safety, like Tyler Durden's oxygen masks on a plane at 30,000 feet.

 

Consider for instance how we never get any instruction about what types of masks we should be wearing, and how no regulation goes into what they're made of. The idea that you can put a scarf over your gob while you walk through a shopping centre but then take it off when you sit down for a brew really is utterly ludicrous. 

 

 

[Spy Bee]

12 hours ago, mars said:

From that article: "Some 80% of pupils also said it made communication harder, but 70% said it made them feel safer."

So it's continued because it makes a majority of pupils feel safer - I'm sure you wouldn't want them feeling less safe.

So reassure them. They are safe. Omicron is so transmissable the idea that cloth masks will have any impact on preventing spread is ridiculous.

 

The whole messaging has been about protecting other people, because the truth is that so few people were at risk, but it's pretty obvious now that the vaccines are absolutely pants at preventing you getting infected or preventing you passing it on. Look at the Liverpool f***b*ll squad as a prime example. If you're not asking questions at this stage, I'm not sure why.

[TD_LFC]

Are you arguing that because 'fashion' masks don't provide the protection required all masks should be discarded?

 

What exactly is the point here?

[Denny Crane]

I know people on here have raised issues regarding Antigen rapid tests v PCR tests. This gets to the crux of it. They are testing two separate outcomes. The Rapid test goes negative when you are no longer infectious - the PCR test is more sensitive and can show a positive result sometime after you are no longer infectious. So because one is negative and the other is positive doesn't necessarily mean the test is unreliable.

 

 

 

 

 

[Spy Bee]

This is highly unethical.

 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

This is highly unethical.

 

Due to get mine on Saturday morning but no chance I’m going if I feel like I feel right now. 

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

This is highly unethical.

 

Actions (or in this case inactions) have consequences.  

[TD_LFC]

8 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

This is highly unethical.

 

Which bit?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

This is highly unethical.

 

The only ethical question is whether travel restrictions are effective at slowing the spread of the virus. If they are, then this measure is justified and sensible; if they're not, then it's pointless (and possibly counter-productive).

[Spy Bee]

6 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Due to get mine on Saturday morning but no chance I’m going if I feel like I feel right now. 

It's absolutely your choice, but you've been vaccinated and you've had Covid, right? You are relatively young and you're healthy, so you are not at any real risk (studies have shown that T-cell immunity is provided without the booster). The vaccines clearly don't stop you passing the virus on, so you have got to weigh up the value it adds. You then have to balance that against the risk of vaccine injury. 

 

Despite him being discredited left right and centre, I would have a listen to a very reasoned and informed Robert Malone. I'm not saying you have to take every word of his as gospel, but listen with an open mind and then have a look at the countyer arguments.

 

When you have Pfizer's directors sitting on the board of Reuters etc. you've got to question the narratives we're being supplied with.

 

Why are they even still pushing boosters on everybody when Omicron is going to infect everybody and the risk from Omicron is so much less than flu? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Spy Bee]

5 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Which bit?

Creating a two tier society. It doesn't achieve anything, as even if vaccinated and boosted an individual can catch it and pass it on. In fact, recent data shows the more vaccinated you are the more likely you arte to get infected (probably because you're behavious is less risk averse). 

 

At the very best, there may be a miniscule reduction in the possibility that you pass it on. 

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

It's absolutely your choice, but you've been vaccinated and you've had Covid, right? You are relatively young and you're healthy, so you are not at any real risk (studies have shown that T-cell immunity is provided without the booster). The vaccines clearly don't stop you passing the virus on, so you have got to weigh up the value it adds. You then have to balance that against the risk of vaccine injury. 

 

Despite him being discredited left right and centre, I would have a listen to a very reasoned and informed Robert Malone. I'm not saying you have to take every word of his as gospel, but listen with an open mind and then have a look at the countyer arguments.

 

When you have Pfizer's directors sitting on the board of Reuters etc. you've got to question the narratives we're being supplied with.

 

Why are they even still pushing boosters on everybody when Omicron is going to infect everybody and the risk from Omicron is so much less than flu? It doesn't make sense.

 

It was more I can’t be arsed with adding to this illness mate, I felt like shit after one of my jabs. I’ll get it when I feel better though. 

[mars]

23 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

So reassure them. They are safe. Omicron is so transmissable the idea that cloth masks will have any impact on preventing spread is ridiculous.

 

The whole messaging has been about protecting other people, because the truth is that so few people were at risk, but it's pretty obvious now that the vaccines are absolutely pants at preventing you getting infected or preventing you passing it on. Look at the Liverpool f***b*ll squad as a prime example. If you're not asking questions at this stage, I'm not sure why.

Are they all safe? Would you not accept that those with, for example, asthma, might be pleased to see their peers wearing masks? Then you might suggest that this feeling of security is an illusion but would you be willing to take on the responsibility of banning masks in classrooms? Are you that certain that masks are ineffective and there will be no preventable deaths? I have seen articles that suggest masks might be ineffective and ones that suggest they lessen the viral load emitted - what I have yet to see is something that is conclusive, ie peer reviewed and based on solid data.

 

Until then, it seems to me we have something like Pascal's Wager, with belief in God replaced by mask wearing, and God's existence replaced by mask effectiveness.

37 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I've actually wondered if that's the whole purpose of masks but that in a sense it made people less safe. During the start of the pandemic people socially distanced, you'd see people crossing the road to avoid you and groups of people standing outdoors would be visibly distant from one another, bus and train seats were taped up as were pubs seats, and supermarkets only let people in about ten at a time (which was bliss). 

 

When masks came in it basically became 'do what you want, as long as you're wearing a mask'. But as we know, they provide very limited protection, they may stop some particulates from landing on someone 20 feet away when you sneeze, but they're far from protective in the strictest sense, at least not the types most people wear. 

 

Like 'help out to eat out', I always suspected it was part of a social science campaign to get people out and about, without venues and shops having to lose money by limiting entry. The illusion of safety, like Tyler Durden's oxygen masks on a plane at 30,000 feet.

 

Consider for instance how we never get any instruction about what types of masks we should be wearing, and how no regulation goes into what they're made of. The idea that you can put a scarf over your gob while you walk through a shopping centre but then take it off when you sit down for a brew really is utterly ludicrous. 

 

 

I agree with much of this but will challenge the "But as we know they provide limited protection" - there is evidence they protect others by reducing the viral load transmitted (at present, evidence seems to support this, eg https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 ). If this is correct, mask wearing is more effective if there is greater compliance and fewer assholes wandering around supermarkets with masks on their chins - I have more respect for those who refuse to wear them. I agree completely with your last paragraph and have seen research that suggests buffs and scarves actually make matters worse.

[Spy Bee]

No point going around in circles, but I would suggest that real world data shows that marks are ineffective at preventing transmission. I concede that if everyone was wearing N95 masks and complying with all protocols for donning/doffing etc, there would obviously be some benefit.

[A Red]

41 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Creating a two tier society. It doesn't achieve anything, as even if vaccinated and boosted an individual can catch it and pass it on. In fact, recent data shows the more vaccinated you are the more likely you arte to get infected (probably because you're behavious is less risk averse). 

 

At the very best, there may be a miniscule reduction in the possibility that you pass it on. 

You're not being asked to get the booster to stop infections being passed on. Its to reduce the possibility that you take up a hospital bed.

 

On a separate issue, Djikovi...djokvi, Djokovic (I wish it was fucking Nadal) or any other traveller isn't being stopped from entering Australia because they are likely to pass it on but because they might take up a hospital bed.

[Captain Turdseye]

My head is throbbing like fuck if I do anything other than lie down flat. It’s actually taking the shine off the isolation period that I patiently waited my turn for. 
 

Just done the first three episodes of that MS Estonia documentary that was talked about on here a while back. The end of episode three… PLOT TWIST. 

[Spy Bee]

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

You're not being asked to get the booster to stop infections being passed on. Its to reduce the possibility that you take up a hospital bed.

 

On a separate issue, Djikovi...djokvi, Djokovic (I wish it was fucking Nadal) or any other traveller isn't being stopped from entering Australia because they are likely to pass it on but because they might take up a hospital bed.

So, we should force everyone to have an annual flu jab too?

[A Red]

Just now, Spy Bee said:

So, we should force everyone to have an annual flu jab too?

Is flu or has it ever been likely to overrun the NHS? Covid is the issue and nobody is forcing you to be vaccinated.

 

 

[Spy Bee]

4 minutes ago, A Red said:

Is flu or has it ever been likely to overrun the NHS? Covid is the issue and nobody is forcing you to be vaccinated.

 

 

Omicron will have run through the population in the next two weeks. After that there is no risk of it overwhelming the NHS. A booster takes 2 weeks before it becomes effective.

[A Red]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

Omicron will have run through the population in the next two weeks. After that there is no risk of it overwhelming the NHS. A booster takes 2 weeks before it becomes effective.

Not sure how you know this, what is Whitty telling us?

[Gnasher]

36 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

My head is throbbing like fuck if I do anything other than lie down flat. It’s actually taking the shine off the isolation period that I patiently waited my turn for. 
 

Just done the first three episodes of that MS Estonia documentary that was talked about on here a while back. The end of episode three… PLOT TWIST. 

Try seasons 3 to 6 of midsommer murders.

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

This is highly unethical.

 

 

Even the Nazi German Blood Certificate was valid for longer.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

27 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Even the Nazi German Blood Certificate was valid for longer.

Take it to the crank thread.

[TD_LFC]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Take it to the crank thread.

Got to keep them separated a little bit, if he links up with Iceman, Pureblood and RP they'll turn into some weird COVID Voltron. 

[Strontium]

29 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Take it to the crank thread.

 

The thing is though, eventually you are going to have to acknowledge that that feathered, waddling quacking thing might actually be a duck. Maybe it'll take until the fifth or sixth or seventh jab, but you'll get there. And then what? It'll be too late.