Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see anything about cloth face masks here, bud.
Cloth masks have been shown to be USELESS against COVID, paper/surgical masks barely of value. Only N95 respirators are reasonably effective. So all this masking was just a show (IS still a show in Northampton as still required in schools (no cloth masks allowed))
Amherst even mandated the tortuous, hard-to-breathe-through KN95 devices in their schools a month ago... before the whole COVID narrative collapsed. Those poor kiddos!
Cloth masks have been shown to be USELESS against COVID, paper/surgical masks barely of value. Only N95 respirators are reasonably effective. So all this masking was just a show (IS still a show in Northampton as still required in schools (no cloth masks allowed))
You religiously belive everything that comes out of the CDC, with their ever-changing politically-driven recommendations? (plus that report is obsolete, see UK study below) CDC has long destroyed any credibility they had. A little critical thinking and skepticism used to be a virtue in this world.
You religiously belive everything that comes out of the CDC, with their ever-changing politically-driven recommendations? (plus that report is obsolete, see UK study below) CDC has long destroyed any credibility they had. A little critical thinking and skepticism used to be a virtue in this world.
Hahaha! Son, I've been a CDC skeptic since long before it became a "thing" for the cool kids to hate on. Probably way before you were "told you should" distrust it.
But it would be one thing if that was the only study, I simply ran a Duck Duck Go search on effectiveness of face masks in Covid infection control and the consensus among studies is overwhelming. For you to come up with the study that shows otherwise, points towards you cherry picking the "conclusion" that fits your narrative. And speaking of "conclusion", if you cared to read your cite you would see that it's inconclusive. So please care to share why that one study (of all), you have decided it's the be all, end all? And you want to talk about critical thinking?
But when all is said and done, I have always gone with plain common sense (put your hand in front of an aerosol can while spraying it, with and without a piece of cloth in between, and tell me you don't feel a difference). Now granted, with the more contagious OMICRON you could make a fair case that the game has changed and really only N95s do the trick. But even if that were, we really don't have sufficient data yet and I'm not going to fault a jurisdiction for erring on the side of caution even if current caseloads don't necessarily justify it. Looking at the usual culprits, I do suspect some level of virtue signalling. But it's a LONG way from virtue signalling to tyranny, a charge you seem to have abandoned anyway as you move the goalposts.
But when all is said and done, I have always gone with plain common sense (put your hand in front of an aerosol can while spraying it, with and without a piece of cloth in between, and tell me you don't feel a difference). Now granted, with the more contagious OMICRON you could make a fair case that the game has changed and really only N95s do the trick. But even if that were, we really don't have sufficient data yet and I'm not going to fault a jurisdiction for erring on the side of caution even if current caseloads don't necessarily justify it. Looking at the usual culprits, I do suspect some level of virtue signalling. But it's a LONG way from virtue signalling to tyranny, a charge you seem to have abandoned anyway as you move the goalposts.
This is the crux of the "TYRANNY!" silliness. The people who are/have been alleging tyranny/fascism/conspiracies to steal freedoms over the past two years see no possible middle ground scenario in which questionably effective measures could have been enacted for anything other than the most nefarious of reasons. That is, of course, ridiculous considering all that's taken place over the past two years. Especially so when you don't even need to put in the effort to crack a history book to witness what actual tyranny and oppression looks like.
It's pretty clear (especially with the benefit of hindsight) that while there were plenty of successful/effective efforts, a number of measures put in place failed to have the impact that they were intended to have. There are a multitude of reasons for that. The obvious is that this was a brand new virus and we were adapting and learning on the fly. Another is that what works in a vacuum (i.e. controlled study) doesn't always translate to real-world results (i.e. mask wearing - they're effective, but less so when worn under the nose, under the chin, pulled down to talk to people, etc.). Yet another is inconsistent implementation on even a local level. There certainly was plenty of theater involved in implementing and/or keeping some measures in place as long as they were. Just as there was plenty of theater involved in opposing any suggested measures. But there's a huge chasm between enacting/keeping some questionably effective measures in place out of an abundance of caution or even for political theater and "TYRANNY!" Any reasonable person understands that.
The irony of this crowd calling themselves "Free Thinkers" and calling for people to "think creatively" is that they've fully latched onto a massively popular, narrow, linear line of group thinking. It's just that it's not quite as popular as the so-called "mainstream" way of thinking. They're just as much "SHEEPLE!" as the people they're calling out. Maybe even more so, as they've actually convinced themselves they've formed their opinions free of outside influence.
This is the crux of the "TYRANNY!" silliness. The people who are/have been alleging tyranny/fascism/conspiracies to steal freedoms over the past two years see no possible middle ground scenario in which questionably effective measures could have been enacted for anything other than the most nefarious of reasons. That is, of course, ridiculous considering all that's taken place over the past two years. Especially so when you don't even need to put in the effort to crack a history book to witness what actual tyranny and oppression looks like.
It's pretty clear (especially with the benefit of hindsight) that while there were plenty of successful/effective efforts, a number of measures put in place failed to have the impact that they were intended to have. There are a multitude of reasons for that. The obvious is that this was a brand new virus and we were adapting and learning on the fly. Another is that what works in a vacuum (i.e. controlled study) doesn't always translate to real-world results (i.e. mask wearing - they're effective, but less so when worn under the nose, under the chin, pulled down to talk to people, etc.). Yet another is inconsistent implementation on even a local level. There certainly was plenty of theater involved in implementing and/or keeping some measures in place as long as they were. Just as there was plenty of theater involved in opposing any suggested measures. But there's a huge chasm between enacting/keeping some questionably effective measures in place out of an abundance of caution or even for political theater and "TYRANNY!" Any reasonable person understands that.
The irony of this crowd calling themselves "Free Thinkers" and calling for people to "think creatively" is that they've fully latched onto a massively popular, narrow, linear line of group thinking. It's just that it's not quite as popular as the so-called "mainstream" way of thinking. They're just as much "SHEEPLE!" as the people they're calling out. Maybe even more so, as they've actually convinced themselves they've formed their opinions free of outside influence.
There isn't, though. Making people live under an unreasonable and arbitrary decree for political theater is dictionary-definition tyranny. I get that the word "tyranny" ruffles feathers, but...just read the definition, and try to argue that these remaining mask mandates, such as they are, don't fit it. The other poster didn't want to make an attempt, so he prevaricated. Maybe you want to give it a shot?
. But it's a LONG way from virtue signalling to tyranny, a charge you seem to have abandoned anyway as you move the goalposts.
Goal posts have not moved, YOU brought up cloth masks. As I said "Petty Tyranny" exercised by (mostly) unelected Boards of Health was/is on full display.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
This is the crux of the "TYRANNY!" silliness. The people who are/have been alleging tyranny/fascism/conspiracies to steal freedoms over the past two years see no possible middle ground scenario in which questionably effective measures could have been enacted for anything other than the most nefarious of reasons. That is, of course, ridiculous considering all that's taken place over the past two years. Especially so when you don't even need to put in the effort to crack a history book to witness what actual tyranny and oppression looks like.
We have a government for a reason. It's unrealistic to think they won't take measures to respond to a crisis; be it a pandemic, war or any large scale catastrophe. Some of these measures will, of course, come at an inconvenience and in some cases cause harm. In some instances like public health, certain elected leaders (governors, etc.) are actually under direct oath/obligation to manage threats and protect the public. Doing nothing would be considered negligence of the position they hold. When on the watch for government overreach in a response (trust me I am), it's required to understand what we are responding "to". It became quite clear early on that there is nothing, no level of catastrophe or whatever; that these tyranny/facism/conspiracy people will accept ANY "loss of freedom" to address. These were the same people saying 2 years ago that it's "just the flue". You try to find middle ground with them "OK so a virus that kills 500k/year and puts hospitals out of commission for 1.5 months out of a year does not justify any mitigation efforts, well what if something kills 2 million a year and shuts down your local hospital for 6 months of the year? Then would you support a few mitigation efforts?". Of course the answer is no, and why I long stopped listening to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
It's pretty clear (especially with the benefit of hindsight) that while there were plenty of successful/effective efforts, a number of measures put in place failed to have the impact that they were intended to have. There are a multitude of reasons for that. The obvious is that this was a brand new virus and we were adapting and learning on the fly. Another is that what works in a vacuum (i.e. controlled study) doesn't always translate to real-world results (i.e. mask wearing - they're effective, but less so when worn under the nose, under the chin, pulled down to talk to people, etc.). Yet another is inconsistent implementation on even a local level. There certainly was plenty of theater involved in implementing and/or keeping some measures in place as long as they were. Just as there was plenty of theater involved in opposing any suggested measures. But there's a huge chasm between enacting/keeping some questionably effective measures in place out of an abundance of caution or even for political theater and "TYRANNY!" Any reasonable person understands that.
Yeah that's why I chose to focus on studies comparing ie. school systems with mandates in place vs. those that didn't, for a more real world application. What it seems to be looking like, is that these mandates were effective against Alpha, Beta and Delta but maybe not so much Omicron. Now that remains to be seen, of course there are other factors at play like the much lower masking in the outside community (what good does it do just to have it at schools, when nobody else is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Maybe even more so, as they've actually convinced themselves they've formed their opinions free of outside influence.
This is what cracks me up the most, especially when they shut right down once you force them away from the talking points they watched on Tucker the night before (or "somebody posted on FB").
Goal posts have not moved, YOU brought up cloth masks. As I said "Petty Tyranny" exercised by (mostly) unelected Boards of Health was/is on full display.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-C.S. Lewis
You're the one who said it dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmass
The last places to lift their mask mandates (at least partially) are- as would be expected- the most liberal places in Mass - Cambridge, Northampton, Amherst, Brookline. It's curious how politics and petty tyranny align.
There isn't, though. Making people live under an unreasonable and arbitrary decree for political theater is dictionary-definition tyranny. I get that the word "tyranny" ruffles feathers, but...just read the definition, and try to argue that these remaining mask mandates, such as they are, don't fit it. The other poster didn't want to make an attempt, so he prevaricated. Maybe you want to give it a shot?
Of course there is! The word "tyranny" ruffles feathers because it's laughably stupid when applied this way. It's just plain sad that actual adults who claim to be "reasonable" can look at actual examples of tyranny (both throughout history and in current events) and claim with a straight face that having to temporarily wear a fabric mask indoors in certain locations is the same thing. The problem with your whole nonsensical claim is that one first has to agree that mask wearing is somehow oppressive, as that's the operative word in most definitions. It isn't remotely oppressive. Just like having to wear a shirt or pants in public isn't oppressive. You many not like it, but that does not equate to oppression. And if we're to apply the definition of "tyranny" as loosely as the conspiracy nuts are, then any law or regulation we don't like would classify as "tyranny." I don't like wearing a seatbelt... TYRANNY! I don't like paying taxes... TYRANNY! My mom won't let me sleep over at a friend's house on a school night... TYRANNY!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
