First of all, fuck off with that “science isn’t settled” bullshit. You’re not hiding your agenda at all.
Second, fuck you. People die from COVID. Wearing a mask was the absolute barest minimum of common courtesy, and your lot bitched and moaned like you were being forced to walk on Legos.
Third, go fuck yourself. There were no mask mandates. None. Hospitals, airports, and private businesses required them for obvious reasons but at no point was the government mandating masks. The CDC recommended wearing masks, and the anti-reality crowd flipped their collective shit.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to point our all the reasons your argument is bad and why you should feel bad for making them. You’re a piece of shit, and your stupidity contributed to countless deaths. Your ideas are a virus of stupidity, and the kindest thing anyone thinks about you is that you’re just a moron who has fallen for a grift. Everyone who isn’t a piece of shit hates you.
and your stupidity contributed to countless deaths
It’s pretty countable. 1,187,509 deaths at the time of this comment. You made valid points, but were all of the personal attacks necessary? If someone is gullible and duped, it seems to me that we’d have a better chance of reaching them if we communicate without insulting. I guess I get the hostility though, considering the consequences outlined numerically above.
I think our side would deny those deaths could possibly be attributed to covid (how would anyone check these stats?). Contrarily, many would point out the adverse effects from taking the “vax” as reported on VAERS
You seem like you enjoy research, you should go look up how causes of death are determined, and how vaccine efficacy is calculated. We’ve had this stuff figured out for over a hundred years now. Going backwards is not only unnecessary, it’s foolish, and destructive.
Have you done research on this? Sanitation was thought to do more to prevent disease than vaccines:
Vaccines get all the glory, but most plumbers will tell you that it was water infrastructure – sewage systems and clean water – that eradicated disease, and they’re right.
The questionable experimental “covid vax” fanned the flames of skepticism towards all vaccines
Prior to “covid”, it was reported the flu shot was the least effective in recent years
We could circle back to a lot of proven medical actions. A lot of deaths attributed to “covid” were with people who had additional issues like obesity, were smoking, or elderly, vitamin D deficient. So get people to lose weight and make sure they have vitamin D and quarantine the elderly. Many actionable items that were conveniently ignored, since they could make lots of money pushing a “vaccine” to swindle the population out of money. That is another thing, how the “vaccine” was paid for by tax dollars, rather than the people who wanted them. Problem after problem…
If you knew for certain that you were going to die, but hopping on one foot would give you a 60% chance to live, would you do it? Now what if rubbing your belly gave you a 30% chance to live, and patting your head gave you 10% chance? But if you do all 3 you have a 100% chance to live. Would you only hop on one foot since that’s the most effective? No, you would do all 3, combining the methods for maximum effectiveness. Your argument is no different, except you’re saying in this non-hypothetical situation you’re only going to do one thing.
I think it’s an equal opportunity, your side doesn’t hesitate to push its agenda. We disagree. Ok. So can we come to agreement on which view is correct? We are about as confident as you are that your view is incorrect. So we would need to do something to come to agreement on the topic.
people die from covid
Honestly neither I nor you can prove this to be the case, but I doubt it, or doubt that it was significant. And here’s why:
During “covid”, flu literally disappeared. Using Occam’s Razor, it seems much more easy to conclude that flu cases were misdiagnosed as “covid” cases. Add in the hysteria and fear and stress of conditions, that gives you the extra deaths (which I am not disputing, but am disputing the cause - at least it is open to debate).
You’re drawing the wrong conclusions from the article you linked. If you actually read it, you will see that they’re stating because masks are so effective at stopping the spread of airborne viruses, they also prevented most cases of the flu. Masks combined with the fact that there were less people going out overall led to a dramatic reduction in the number of flu cases. If you take anything away from that article, it should be that you should wear a mask when you have the flu or a cold too, just out of consideration for your fellow human beings.
Private businesses should be criticized for requiring basic safety measures during a global pandemic that have been widely proven to be effective for over a hundred years? Get off it, mate. All you’re basically saying is that you either wildly misinterpret data, you’ve been conned by people with a political agenda, you don’t care about other people at all, or any combination of those things.
Masks combined with the fact that there were less people going out overall led to a dramatic reduction in the number of flu cases
Is there any way to isolate these variables? Because I’d definitely agree not going out would probably drop flu or any disease cases. So we’d probably just argue that was what caused it rather than masking (if such a thing happened). Actually this is a point we could possibly agree on, that I’d just advocate for people being “remote” and quarantining. Skip the “danger” of going out with (in our view questionable) masks altogether?
Also it’s obviously not proven to be useful like it’s common sense or something. Because if it was, people could just adopt the measure without being forced to. Many safety measures are adopted voluntarily. The fact that they tried to mandate the masking was something of an admission their “science” was not proven or thought out much. They were really just trying to make people “feel safe”, but weren’t actually accomplishing that. If we had real problems they could have just advocated for stronger quarantining.
it’s obviously not proven to be useful like it’s common sense or something. Because if it was, people could just adopt the measure without being forced to.
Common sense doesn’t appear to be all that common. There’s no nefarious conspiracy to get you to wear a mask over your face. Its effectiveness has been documented and heavily researched. If you don’t understand the technical documentation outlining the results of those tests then you can and should just defer to the opinions of the experts. People dedicate their entire lives to this sort of stuff. It’s incredibly foolish to come along and think that with a few YouTube videos and some googling that you’re going to arrive at an accurate conclusion that disproves the educated work of thousands of people. What motivation would doctors have to wear a mask during surgery, or when dealing with deadly diseases, if they didn’t provide some measure of protection? Are they all being duped by the big mask lobby? Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Masks are a big deal, because at the same time they’re not that big of a deal. But it never stops there, once one thing is required, they add more things. I think it’s important to understand that compulsion with this concern of further compulsions was what was being opposed, not necessarily the “little mask requirement”. You can say it’s not a “conspiracy”; but the elites made trillions from lockdown measures while the working class lost trillions… it seems like basic math in trying to figure out what financial motives existed for creating all the drama of what “manufactured outrage” existed.
Also, no, we still don’t agree that these masks have been proven to be effective, or at least anywhere near the effectiveness some people act like they have. Certainly I can understand and concede your point about doctors wearing masks (or welders wearing masks to weld, or a bunch of professionals, yes!). I still maintain people who are really concerned should just stay home altogether. Appealing to experts will end a bit in circularity as there are experts who support our views; frequently the experts end up disagreeing on a lot of topics. So you could defer to our experts then instead of forming your views?
You might try to argue a majority of experts agree with your view; I’m sure you would then have supported slavery in the past when “experts” at the time assured us we must support slavery? Surely you know there are problems with these kinds of arguments. But I do want to thank you for actually having a discussion! I’m mostly going to let people wear masks if they want, so I don’t know if I’m really going to cause problems for you honestly. We’ll continue to think it’s ridiculous though privately. But it will also kind of work out because 10/10 masked people I see seem to refuse to interact with the non-masked anyway.
I feel like you’re the kind of person who’d argue against seat belts and airbags because they sometimes kill people instead of help. And against helmets when riding bicycles.
I’d be more willing to have that argument than this because those are mostly too protect oneself rather than others, like masks do.
I’ve never gotten in a crash, so wearing a seat belt has had a wasted opportunity cost. We have lost x amount of time wearing seatbelts that could have otherwise been ignored with no consequence. I think they’re fine for some speedy areas but probably able to be ignored in slower areas especially (shouldn’t be required for adults certainly by law). But again, if I never wore a seat belt throughout my entire life, it wouldn’t have affected me, but wearing one has wasted lots of time in my life.
Bicycle helmets you may be aware aren’t really used as much in countries like the Netherlands; the biggest danger is being hit by cars so if you can get away from cars that reduces your chances of injury the most. Also helmets only protect up to 15 mph, so they’re not really going to help in a lot of crashes. So actually there are some cyclists who advise it is “safest” to not wear the helmet, or negligible for safety. Another danger is motorists drive more dangerously around helmeted cyclists. Also there are many more head injuries driving, and there was a push for “motor car helmets” at one time, but it never caught on. The logic therefore goes that since people don’t wear helmets while driving a car, and they’re more at risk then, that cycling without a helmet isn’t really more dangerous and so it’s fine to cycle without a helmet. Cheers
I guess the point is the “science” isn’t settled so people should be free to not wear masks; certainly mask mandates are a ridiculous idea, right?
First of all, fuck off with that “science isn’t settled” bullshit. You’re not hiding your agenda at all.
Second, fuck you. People die from COVID. Wearing a mask was the absolute barest minimum of common courtesy, and your lot bitched and moaned like you were being forced to walk on Legos.
Third, go fuck yourself. There were no mask mandates. None. Hospitals, airports, and private businesses required them for obvious reasons but at no point was the government mandating masks. The CDC recommended wearing masks, and the anti-reality crowd flipped their collective shit.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to point our all the reasons your argument is bad and why you should feel bad for making them. You’re a piece of shit, and your stupidity contributed to countless deaths. Your ideas are a virus of stupidity, and the kindest thing anyone thinks about you is that you’re just a moron who has fallen for a grift. Everyone who isn’t a piece of shit hates you.
Go away.
It’s pretty countable. 1,187,509 deaths at the time of this comment. You made valid points, but were all of the personal attacks necessary? If someone is gullible and duped, it seems to me that we’d have a better chance of reaching them if we communicate without insulting. I guess I get the hostility though, considering the consequences outlined numerically above.
I think our side would deny those deaths could possibly be attributed to covid (how would anyone check these stats?). Contrarily, many would point out the adverse effects from taking the “vax” as reported on VAERS
You seem like you enjoy research, you should go look up how causes of death are determined, and how vaccine efficacy is calculated. We’ve had this stuff figured out for over a hundred years now. Going backwards is not only unnecessary, it’s foolish, and destructive.
Have you done research on this? Sanitation was thought to do more to prevent disease than vaccines:
http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/how-plumbing-not-vaccines-eradicated-disease
The questionable experimental “covid vax” fanned the flames of skepticism towards all vaccines
Prior to “covid”, it was reported the flu shot was the least effective in recent years
We could circle back to a lot of proven medical actions. A lot of deaths attributed to “covid” were with people who had additional issues like obesity, were smoking, or elderly, vitamin D deficient. So get people to lose weight and make sure they have vitamin D and quarantine the elderly. Many actionable items that were conveniently ignored, since they could make lots of money pushing a “vaccine” to swindle the population out of money. That is another thing, how the “vaccine” was paid for by tax dollars, rather than the people who wanted them. Problem after problem…
If you knew for certain that you were going to die, but hopping on one foot would give you a 60% chance to live, would you do it? Now what if rubbing your belly gave you a 30% chance to live, and patting your head gave you 10% chance? But if you do all 3 you have a 100% chance to live. Would you only hop on one foot since that’s the most effective? No, you would do all 3, combining the methods for maximum effectiveness. Your argument is no different, except you’re saying in this non-hypothetical situation you’re only going to do one thing.
I think it’s an equal opportunity, your side doesn’t hesitate to push its agenda. We disagree. Ok. So can we come to agreement on which view is correct? We are about as confident as you are that your view is incorrect. So we would need to do something to come to agreement on the topic.
Honestly neither I nor you can prove this to be the case, but I doubt it, or doubt that it was significant. And here’s why:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/
During “covid”, flu literally disappeared. Using Occam’s Razor, it seems much more easy to conclude that flu cases were misdiagnosed as “covid” cases. Add in the hysteria and fear and stress of conditions, that gives you the extra deaths (which I am not disputing, but am disputing the cause - at least it is open to debate).
There most certainly have been, at certain government facilities for example: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-department-imposes-employee-mask-mandate-2021-07-28/
Private businesses should also be criticized for their wrong and overzealous decision to require masks in our view.
You’re drawing the wrong conclusions from the article you linked. If you actually read it, you will see that they’re stating because masks are so effective at stopping the spread of airborne viruses, they also prevented most cases of the flu. Masks combined with the fact that there were less people going out overall led to a dramatic reduction in the number of flu cases. If you take anything away from that article, it should be that you should wear a mask when you have the flu or a cold too, just out of consideration for your fellow human beings.
Private businesses should be criticized for requiring basic safety measures during a global pandemic that have been widely proven to be effective for over a hundred years? Get off it, mate. All you’re basically saying is that you either wildly misinterpret data, you’ve been conned by people with a political agenda, you don’t care about other people at all, or any combination of those things.
Is there any way to isolate these variables? Because I’d definitely agree not going out would probably drop flu or any disease cases. So we’d probably just argue that was what caused it rather than masking (if such a thing happened). Actually this is a point we could possibly agree on, that I’d just advocate for people being “remote” and quarantining. Skip the “danger” of going out with (in our view questionable) masks altogether?
There was an anti-mask league during the Spanish flu: https://www.history.com/news/1918-spanish-flu-mask-wearing-resistance
Also it’s obviously not proven to be useful like it’s common sense or something. Because if it was, people could just adopt the measure without being forced to. Many safety measures are adopted voluntarily. The fact that they tried to mandate the masking was something of an admission their “science” was not proven or thought out much. They were really just trying to make people “feel safe”, but weren’t actually accomplishing that. If we had real problems they could have just advocated for stronger quarantining.
Common sense doesn’t appear to be all that common. There’s no nefarious conspiracy to get you to wear a mask over your face. Its effectiveness has been documented and heavily researched. If you don’t understand the technical documentation outlining the results of those tests then you can and should just defer to the opinions of the experts. People dedicate their entire lives to this sort of stuff. It’s incredibly foolish to come along and think that with a few YouTube videos and some googling that you’re going to arrive at an accurate conclusion that disproves the educated work of thousands of people. What motivation would doctors have to wear a mask during surgery, or when dealing with deadly diseases, if they didn’t provide some measure of protection? Are they all being duped by the big mask lobby? Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Masks are a big deal, because at the same time they’re not that big of a deal. But it never stops there, once one thing is required, they add more things. I think it’s important to understand that compulsion with this concern of further compulsions was what was being opposed, not necessarily the “little mask requirement”. You can say it’s not a “conspiracy”; but the elites made trillions from lockdown measures while the working class lost trillions… it seems like basic math in trying to figure out what financial motives existed for creating all the drama of what “manufactured outrage” existed.
Also, no, we still don’t agree that these masks have been proven to be effective, or at least anywhere near the effectiveness some people act like they have. Certainly I can understand and concede your point about doctors wearing masks (or welders wearing masks to weld, or a bunch of professionals, yes!). I still maintain people who are really concerned should just stay home altogether. Appealing to experts will end a bit in circularity as there are experts who support our views; frequently the experts end up disagreeing on a lot of topics. So you could defer to our experts then instead of forming your views?
You might try to argue a majority of experts agree with your view; I’m sure you would then have supported slavery in the past when “experts” at the time assured us we must support slavery? Surely you know there are problems with these kinds of arguments. But I do want to thank you for actually having a discussion! I’m mostly going to let people wear masks if they want, so I don’t know if I’m really going to cause problems for you honestly. We’ll continue to think it’s ridiculous though privately. But it will also kind of work out because 10/10 masked people I see seem to refuse to interact with the non-masked anyway.
I feel like you’re the kind of person who’d argue against seat belts and airbags because they sometimes kill people instead of help. And against helmets when riding bicycles.
I’d be more willing to have that argument than this because those are mostly too protect oneself rather than others, like masks do.
those are interesting examples to discuss!
I’ve never gotten in a crash, so wearing a seat belt has had a wasted opportunity cost. We have lost x amount of time wearing seatbelts that could have otherwise been ignored with no consequence. I think they’re fine for some speedy areas but probably able to be ignored in slower areas especially (shouldn’t be required for adults certainly by law). But again, if I never wore a seat belt throughout my entire life, it wouldn’t have affected me, but wearing one has wasted lots of time in my life.
Bicycle helmets you may be aware aren’t really used as much in countries like the Netherlands; the biggest danger is being hit by cars so if you can get away from cars that reduces your chances of injury the most. Also helmets only protect up to 15 mph, so they’re not really going to help in a lot of crashes. So actually there are some cyclists who advise it is “safest” to not wear the helmet, or negligible for safety. Another danger is motorists drive more dangerously around helmeted cyclists. Also there are many more head injuries driving, and there was a push for “motor car helmets” at one time, but it never caught on. The logic therefore goes that since people don’t wear helmets while driving a car, and they’re more at risk then, that cycling without a helmet isn’t really more dangerous and so it’s fine to cycle without a helmet. Cheers