peaches5
-
Posts
5,001 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by peaches5
-
-
33 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
Lastly: Your N95 is protecting YOU, not others. Our goal is to prevent the spread by...not exhaling the virus. This is about what we can do, collectively, to get the numbers down.
As well, people in the workplace who have to wear a mask for long periods may struggle wearing N95 masks:
The N95 does it all and it does it's stat significantly better when compared to cloth. I have said repeatedly cloth just prevents larger droplets from coughing, sneezing and talking.
-
28 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:
You're stumbling over the word "may". "May" is common language used in the medical community. Even when researchers are quite certain, they add that little caveat. The world of science likes to be very precise, never using definitive language. And you realize that article you're citing isnt written by the CDC, right? It's a single article from a contributor.
Would you like to see that the CDCs website has evidence of cloth mask efficacy?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
Here's a linked study that finds they can block 51% of cough aerosols.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.05.20207241v3
Here's another noting their usefulness in containing droplet dispersal
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/
Here's another, noting that medical masks and n95 are better, as we know, but that cloth masks help
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33087517/
Here's a visual study from the NEJM where they measure droplet exposure through face cloth material. Pretty effective.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
For now, the science is saying that a well designed cloth mask (see what Dr. Tam is recommending) is effective. Nobody is saying that they are as good as medical masks. If the science begins to show they are useless, I'll change course. But for you to cherry pick one study where cloth masks were used in a hospital setting, for a month, with infected patients... and claim that they are useless in preventing community exposure, because the staff in that study got sick...
...when the leading public health doctors have made it so easy for you to find additional evidence that these measures are indeed effective...
Just be honest, man. Just say you dont want to wear one. Dont pretend the science is on your side.
I am not stumbling over the word may. There are not any controlled studies that show cloth works. I didn't say Lisa Brosseau was written by the CDC? I said CDC's own website says there are no controlled studies that show cloth efficacy and the one study they did and link to says cloth was statistically insignificant.
SARS doesn't spread anywhere near as easily as COVID.
How is SARS spread?
The primary way that SARS appears to spread is by close person-to-person contact. SARS-CoV is thought to be transmitted most readily by respiratory droplets (droplet spread) produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Droplet spread can happen when droplets from the cough or sneeze of an infected person are propelled a short distance (generally up to 3 feet) through the air and deposited on the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, or eyes of persons who are nearby. The virus also can spread when a person touches a surface or object contaminated with infectious droplets and then touches his or her mouth, nose, or eye(s). In addition, it is possible that SARS-CoV might be spread more broadly through the air (airborne spread) or by other ways that are not now known.
Most of your studies use SARS, in fact all do except the last one that is relating to droplets produce when speaking.
QuoteAbstract
Face masks are recommended to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. One of the primary benefits of face masks and other coverings is as source control devices to reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols during coughing, breathing, and speaking. Face shields and neck gaiters have been proposed as an alternative to face masks, but information about face shields and neck gaiters as source control devices is limited. We used a cough aerosol simulator with a pliable skin headform to propel small aerosol particles (0 to 7 µm) into different face coverings. An N95 respirator blocked 99% of the cough aerosol, a medical grade procedure mask blocked 59%, a 3-ply cotton cloth face mask blocked 51%, and a polyester neck gaiter blocked 47% as a single layer and 60% when folded into a double layer. In contrast, the face shield blocked 2% of the cough aerosol. Our results suggest that face masks and neck gaiters are preferable to face shields as source control devices for cough aerosols.
Abstract
The use of face masks in public settings has been widely recommended by public health officials during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The masks help mitigate the risk of cross-infection via respiratory droplets; however, there are no specific guidelines on mask materials and designs that are most effective in minimizing droplet dispersal. While there have been prior studies on the performance of medical-grade masks, there are insufficient data on cloth-based coverings, which are being used by a vast majority of the general public. We use qualitative visualizations of emulated coughs and sneezes to examine how material- and design-choices impact the extent to which droplet-laden respiratory jets are blocked. Loosely folded face masks and bandana-style coverings provide minimal stopping-capability for the smallest aerosolized respiratory droplets. Well-fitted homemade masks with multiple layers of quilting fabric, and off-the-shelf cone style masks, proved to be the most effective in reducing droplet dispersal. These masks were able to curtail the speed and range of the respiratory jets significantly, albeit with some leakage through the mask material and from small gaps along the edges. Importantly, uncovered emulated coughs were able to travel notably farther than the currently recommended 6-ft distancing guideline. We outline the procedure for setting up simple visualization experiments using easily available materials, which may help healthcare professionals, medical researchers, and manufacturers in assessing the effectiveness of face masks and other personal protective equipment qualitatively.
These studies are using cough simulators. Obviously, coughing into something is going to prevent particles from getting through. I said all cloth is good for is to prevent larger droplets from getting through from coughing, sneezing or talking. This isn't showing any efficacy at preventing you from inhaling any airborne droplets. If you're sick and coughing and sneezing you shouldn't be out in public. If someone is asymptomatic near you.. what is the efficacy of your cloth mask?
The most interesting study is the last one but it says damp washcloth and then damp face covering.. what is that? What material are they using? How thick is it? For all we know it could be a towel in front of the person's face. If we disregard what actual is being used we are still talking about coughing, sneezing and talking... as the article refers to itself it doesn't take into account how many virus particles are in these particles produced from talking.
The article are also showing that the droplets are still in the air just they aren't being spread out as far. If you're social distancing those droplets won't hit you but they're still in the air around the person. You can still then walk where that person was an inhale them..
N95+,or better, is how you protect yourself and the public not cloth.
You also have Dr. Fauci recommending people to wear goggles.
And FYI I have yet to see anyone(I mean the majority of the shoppers) social distance at a grocery store. I have yet to see anyone obey the rules of a grocery store when they have aisles that are supposed to be one way traffic only. They all feel these cloth masks make them immune which it doesn't.
-
It will be interesting to see how Markstrom does without Ian Clark. When he wasn't working with Ian his game suffered. Is he going to be able to pull himself out of a rut? I have a feeling that Markstrom is going to be mediocre in Calgary. Calgary has had terrible goalies so he will be far better than what they have had but I don't think he will be a top 10 goalie in Calgary.
-
11 minutes ago, shayster007 said:
You posted one paper, and didn't even interpret its findings right. Then you attempt to belittle someone as an argument point. You are a dangerous person in todays climate and I sincerely hope you don't come into my clinic.
I am not surprised I have to repeat myself to you. I posted an infectious disease expert. I posted a controlled study. I posted the CDC own statement on masks. I am also not surprised you can't understand scientific data. You're also suggesting that if people bought n95 masks then there wouldn't be enough for healthcare workers.. which would then make cloth masks political. I've yet to see someone post one study on cloth masks that shows efficacy. You know why? because no study exists that shows the efficacy of a cloth mask.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, shayster007 said:
This is wrong. Yes n95s are far superior in every way. Do you know how difficult they are to get ahold of. Do you know how few we even have at the average hospital in BC? I do. You posted a paper that compared apples and oranges and tried to pass it of as fact. That article you posted by no means said cloth masks are useless. That paper you posted is comparing cloth to medical, and yes medical is better. But if people don't have access to fresh medial masks each time they go out, a cloth is far better then nothing.
As someone who works in healthcare, and has experience and training and medical research I feel 100% comfertable saying you don't know what your talking about and you are spreading dangerous miss information during a pandemic.
I posted an infectious disease expert. I posted a controlled study. I posted the CDC statement on masks. You made a post where you can't even spell and expect me to believe you are a health care worker? Where? I would like to avoid this place.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, IBatch said:
Of course they are affective. And of course it matters how one uses them and how they clean them, touch their faces, hand hygiene etc. Point is n95 masks area PPe required for our front line folks and perhaps the high risk ones too. And disposable. I’m not going to quote on the science on it other then the aerosol isn’t the issue - it’s the droplets - and it’s more about sick or asymptomatic folks from spreading it around. Most of that would stay in their cloth masks.
cloth prevents large droplets from sneezing, coughing or even talking that's it. That is what cloth prevents. I posted an interview with an expert on infectious disease who went over this and nothing has changed since then despite what people here are saying. This is all political to make people think they are being safe and to give a false sense of security.
-
3
-
-
8 minutes ago, IBatch said:
If everyone was wearing n95’s there wouldn’t be enough for healthcare workers who really need them. It’s droplets that we are trying to avoid, and most would stay inside the mask if an asymptotic (or symptomatic) sneezed or coughed nearby. Add to the social distancing it’s a practical strategy. n95’s are also disposable’s sure you can wash them a few times but their effectiveness goes down. Sure it’s safer (to wear both), but not sure how responsible it is. If the supply chain would support it maybe I would feel differently. And IF a sick person sneezed on you, doubt it would make much difference, when you go and take it off and clean up your touching your face with the leftovers anyways.
I agree with people would be hoarding n95 and I also think it’s the cost... government mandates masks well n95 aren’t cheap... it’s political.
If cloth was effective in some way it would have to be combined with social distancing, proper usage, proper cleaning, proper design and material there will be all these factors that have to be perfect and the vast majority of people wouldn’t do them all and that’s if they were shown to be effective, a big if.
-
7 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:
She is talking about people wearing t shirt fabric over their faces and acting like they dont have to social distance anymore. Of course that's ridiculous.
This is one persons opinion piece from April. It doesnt take into account the numerous studies done on various types of mask efficacy since then.
Fabric masks dont do as good of a job as an n95. However it's well documented that they have an effect, especially when of heavier material, double layered with a filter pouch in between, which is what is recommended for public use.
Shes certainly correct in saying that the mask wont solve this problem alone. We need many more precautions in place.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly.
Notice may provide... CDC’s own site has no scientific proof that cloth masks do anything.
However, most studies of cloth masks were conducted in vivo and during the first half of the 20th century, before medical masks were developed. To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial has been conducted to determine the efficacy of cloth masks (4).one study which I posted before this that shows cloth is useless. But I’m being told the science says otherwise. No, it doesn’t. There is no evidence that shows cloth masks are effective on the contrary there is evidence of them being useless.
I’m not arguing a cloth mask doesn’t stop some droplets but n95 are statistically significantly better 44% vs 97%... cloth really isn’t doing anything. CDC is trying to say the cloth masks might not have done so well because of the washing..well everyone is washing their cloth masks at home..
97% smh lol come on.-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:
These statements are untrue.
We've already posted about this....I'm not going to dig it out but you should. Please don't post misinformation. While cloth masks aren't AS effective as N95's or medical masks, they still aren't "useless". And, depending on how many layers and the material they're made from, they can be quite effective.
They're not intended to replace other measures or give a false sense of security....we still should keep distance from others and wash hands. But wearing any kind of face covering is useful and better than none.
Actually it’s not misinformation.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.statistical significants difference between the two. 97%... and you’re trying to say they’re not useless.... smh. Cloth is useless and telling people to use one over an n95 is the real misinformation.
-
10 hours ago, Dazzle said:
So what's your stance on this then? You're not wearing a mask then?
Nope I wear an n95 with a clothe design one over it.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:
That's from April.
And she was right. At the time, there was little scientific evidence to show that cloth masks did anything. Nobody had really studied it before. There wasnt much need. Since April we have learned a lot. The medical community has since come out in favour of cloth masks in the community. Obviously thread count and material makes a huge difference. But they are still recognized as inferior to medical grade masks, of course. But they offer some protection.
If you choose to look into her work, shes saying we cant rely on homemade masks alone. We cant think we are invincible because we tied a bandana around our faces. I 100% agree. She advocates for more social distancing, better air filtration, keeping your social circle to your household, avoiding interaction... these are great points! We definitely shouldnt be hugging on our friends in the grocery store because we have a mask on.
Cloth masks stop large droplets that’s pretty much where their usefulness stops which she mentions in the interview and the paper she wrote.
If you’re going to wear a mask wear an n95 or you’re not really any better than someone with no mask.
I find it so hypocritical when people complain about people not wearing masks when they’re wearing a piece of cloth... like that cloth is useless. It’s common sense. If you want to protect yourself and others get a proper mask that designed to protect you and others.
-
5 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:
For the sake of discussion, can you post where you've read that they are useless?
Everything I've read says they are significantly more effective than doing nothing... which makes sense to me. The masks are usually pretty wet after some length of use... which tells us they are catching lots of the droplets and moistness that we would otherwise be projecting into the air.
I am curious what you're reading though.
When the virus first came out the CDC's own website said they weren't very effective at all. Then backpedaled.
Here's an article for discussions sake as I think it is common sense that an N95 mask is light years better than any cloth mask which are virtually useless.
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/cloth-masks-are-useless-against-covid-19
Quotesa Brosseau, ScD, is a nationally recognized expert on infectious diseases. Brousseau taught for many years at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She may be retired from the university, but she’s not retired from teaching. She recently cowrote an opinion piecethat drew a lot of notice: In it Brousseau argues that cloth masks offer no protection from COVID-19. As one might imagine, it drew a lot of attention and caused a fair amount of controversy. She recently sat down with Infection Control Today®to talk about her strong feelings about cloth masks and that data she used to reach her conclusions.
Infection Control Today®: What made you decide to write the piece?
Lisa Brosseau: The article started out with the goal of trying to look at the literature related to cloth masks in healthcare. And then it got expanded way beyond that to cloth masks and surgical masks and respirators for healthcare and for the community. It was much more comprehensive than I expected it to be. Took me a little longer to write but at the end of the day, I was looking at cloth masks and surgical masks and respirators from several points of view. First of all, for healthcare and community, but also do they work as source control? Or do they work as personal protective equipment? Or both? And at the end of the day, cloth masks in my opinion don’t work in any form. They aren’t very good at source control, except for maybe very large particles. And they should not be used in healthcare settings for a number of reasons. Surgical masks, I decided, based on the literature, might have a role as source control for people who have symptoms. Say if they’re staying home and they have some symptoms. They shouldn’t be something you’d wear if you have symptoms going out into the public because you shouldn’t be going out into the public service. But it’s a good option for patients to wear in healthcare settings where they-especially for those who are experiencing symptoms-to what I would call diminish the viral load. Basically, decrease the amount of particles, infectious particles in the air in a healthcare setting. So, at the end of the day, the only thing that provides personal protection for the person wearing the mask is a respirator. And that is the thing that healthcare workers should be wearing. Particularly if we’re worried about the small aerosols, small particles that people will generate when they’re infectious. And in fact, people generate particles, whether they’re infectious or not. But particularly when they’re infected and infectious, that will be present in the vicinity of a patient. The best protection in that case is for the healthcare worker to wear a respirator. And I’ve got asked a little bit to think about respirators for the community. You know, if we had a lot of respirators, that might be a good idea, but we don’t have very many of them. And so, for the purposes of saving those respirators for the people who really need them, I recommended that the public not be wearing respirators and not be buying respirators. And if they had them, please donate them even to healthcare workers. That’s a good summary.
ICT®: You did a deep dive into the literature. I saw you had many, many references. So, the mystery to me is why did the CDC say to people go out and wear cloth masks if you want to?
Brosseau: What’s interesting to me is if you look at the references that were listed on under their recommendation, none of them have anything to do with masks or the performance of masks or the performance of their filters or any of that. They’re all references related to pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic transmission. I didn’t get the message there entirely, but I was glad to see is that they recognized that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission are happening. My message would have been if those were the references I was looking at, is maybe we should actually be encouraging people to stay home more. My biggest problem with telling people they can wear masks is it gives you this false sense of security. And it might even encourage you to think that now you’re protected and you’re protecting people around you. My husband and I try to take a walk every afternoon, just to get out, get a little bit of fresh air and exercise. And I’m seeing more and more people now wearing cloth masks on the streets. And I don’t go to stores anymore, but my understanding is they’re wearing them there as well. I don’t have a problem with people wearing them. I just want them to understand that they aren’t very much more protective than if they weren’t wearing them. And they’re really not doing a whole lot of good for the people around them. So, we should continue to do social distancing as much as we possibly can. I have places that are saying that you actually have to wear them. New York where you’re supposed to wear them anytime you’re in contact with people. I don’t know. I just think it’s not recognizing that the mode of transmission for this organism is likely small aerosols and close range and wearing a cloth mask shouldn’t give you any feeling of safety for being close to people. It shouldn’t make you feel that you’re not generating small particles because you still are. And since we none of us know if we’re infected or infectious, many of us probably are and aren’t going to have symptoms because we know that that’s the case for at least some fraction of the population that we’re putting everyone around us at risk. And especially the people I most care about are the workers. Our essential workers are really key to our success in flattening the curve. And they’re the ones who make it possible for us to stay home and be isolated those of us who are privileged enough to have that opportunity. But we go out and think that we are doing something good for the public and the workers, and we’re actually not. I think we put them at more risk. So, I don’t understand the CDC’s recommendations for this. My guess is that there’s a lot of political pressure. And no government agency is entirely immune from political pressure. There’s pressure to open, right? There’s pressure to restart the economy. I understand that entirely. And so I think the feeling was, probably if we give everybody a mask, we can just reopen and everything’s going to be fine. I think we’re going to be shocked to find that that’s not going to work. And I mean, I won’t be shocked, but there will be lots of people who will be shocked. And in fact, I read an article recently about a funeral. A number of people who attended the funeral. They were all wearing masks. They were taking photos next to each other. They were talking and a number of people got infected. So, it’s very clear these things do no good.
ICT®: Have you gotten much feedback from healthcare workers or healthcare experts themselves?
Brosseau: Oh, yeah. There are a number who don’t agree, but there are a lot of people who didn’t agree with my first article about aerosol transmission either. I’m sort of used to it. The important thing is to say, here’s what the science tells us. My conversations with people these days, I often point out that what we’re seeing is a lot of magical thinking. A lot of wishful thinking. Cloth masks are wishful thinking. And people saying, well, they worked in Asia. There’s no evidence that they worked in Asia. In fact, it’s very clear that the healthcare workers in China, they may have been wearing cloth masks to start with, but when you look at pictures of what they were wearing later, they were wearing respirators. They were wearing full face gear and body gear and gloves. It was clear that even surgical masks weren’t working in healthcare settings or controlling COVID-19. I don’t understand it. The Asian countries wear masks for societal and cultural reasons, not because they actually think they’re protecting. I’m not an expert in epidemiology. So, I will leave the modeling to the to those who know more about how this is going to work, but I do know my history. And if you read about the 1918 influenza and the pandemic, it took almost two years for that to be completely done with. They did a lot of similar things. They closed down. They opened again. Then they had to close down and then they had to open again. Now, granted, they didn’t have a lot of what we have today. But in some ways, we’re not all that different from 1918. We don’t have any testing. We don’t have any contact tracing. They didn’t either. They didn’t even really know about that. They didn’t know much about viruses. So, we have huge amounts of scientific information. But we have almost no infrastructure anymore in public health. Without our infrastructure in public health and our resources to do contact tracing and testing…. And testing, I mean with tests that really work that are both highly specific and highly sensitive. And we don’t have any of those yet. In many ways we’re being forced to make many of the same decisions that were made during the 1918 influenza pandemic. And the results are going to be similar. We are trying to decide when to open it back up. No one really knows the perfect answer to that. The models, they’re not perfect, right? I know infection preventionists are often pulled in two directions. One is they have to worry about patients. The other is they have to worry about workers. And sometimes the things you do for patients don’t work for workers and sometimes the other way around. That’s why I recommend including your health and safety people, industrial hygienists, and others, because they can give you that perspective about workers that will help you make good decisions for both. And really, it should be a hand-in-hand decision making that goes on.
ICT®: Any final words about cloth masks?
Brosseau: I would really strongly encourage hospitals to stop asking people to send them cloth masks and instead asked for respirators. I don’t necessarily discourage the public from wearing them if it makes them feel comfortable, but I hope they don’t think that they’re protecting themselves.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
-
2
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:
Is he fired for that? His job is to sing the anthem. I don't give an F what he thinks about masks or anything else. And did he say he wants people to not wear them or he just wants people to have a choice?
Fauci told everyone to not wear a mask at the start. I figure he ought to be held to a higher standard if indeed opinions about masks are relevant to employment and there is no discussion to be had about it.
How can someone be fired who isn't even paid?
I think people should wear masks but they should be N95 or N95 with the faceshield because those are the only masks that actually do anything. 80% of people I see are just wearing cloth masks.. which are kinda useless. People literally think that wearing a cloth mask is going to prevent them from inhaling an airborne virus...
Companies should be allowed to set policies for mandatory masks requirements.. it's their business and they should have the right to do that and escort you out if you refuse.
What I am against is closing down business and these CERB payments being thrown out like free candy. When we didn't know what we were dealing with I understood it. But now we know and for most of us it's not deadly at all. We can't be shutting down society ruining small businesses and putting ourselves in massive debt for a virus that has a high survivability rate and if you are against that then fine you can choose to stay home and receive sort of benefits, If you are at high risk - until there's a vaccine. You should have a choice, this is democracy. What we are seeing is there is no choice.. businesses are just being forced to shut down.. for what? Our taxes are going to go through the roof...It's not right.
-
1
-
2
-
-
It's pretty meh... reminds me more of sweatshirt than jersey.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Schmidt is criminally underrated. He is light years better than Tanev. Markstrom was consistent for us but he was no Luongo. I think Demko will be fine as long as he can stay healthy. I don't think any canadian team really got that much better with the exception of Montreal but they were god awful and everything rides on Price if he goes down they are a bottom feeder. We will be right near the top if healthy.
-
2
-
3
-
2
-
Very Tron like..
-
22 minutes ago, Canuckfanforlife82 said:
Who are these multiple players and when did you talk to them?
Khudobin, Dillon, OEL, Holtby.
-
On 10/12/2020 at 11:02 AM, Canuckfanforlife82 said:
I know we are strapped by the cap but it always seems as though we are never in on big deals or big free agents and when we are we overpay or give up too much. Las Vegas for example seems to have no problem at all making trades or signing big name players. It just gets frustrating to hear excuse after excuse we have no money. That tells me Benning doesn’t know how to manage the cap. Remember when Benning said this “We are in a good position, where free agents want to come here.” Well where are they? Lol. He got one free agent to come here. One more thing, I have heard how we can trade but honestly what assets do we have to trade? We really don’t have an abundance of prospects or assets like Tampa Bay has to be trading. So I don’t see that avenue unless I am missing something. I don’t want them to give up Rathbone for an older player. I just think they are screwed because they have spent the most in the league on their bottom two lines 23 million. It’s insane and it has put us in a spot where their hands are tied but that is on the GM. It’s 6 years with Benning at the helm and we took a big step forward but now are going to take a step back. It doesn’t make sense. How many more years does Benning get? That’s a long time for a GM. They are honestly talking about Virtanen and Baertchi that’s how bad it is. I just don’t think there is a quick fix for this year so that’s what makes it disappointing. Thoughts anyone? As I wrote this Toffoli is gone. You can’t sign your own free agents and you have assets for nothing. 17 games. Wow!
We literally just had a top dman list us as one of two teams he would accept a trade to. Then had multiple players during this off season say they wanted to be part of our team.. like what are you on?
-
1
-
-
He has to be qualified at 7.5m next year. I doubt he has much value cause he is definitely not a 7.5m player especially with COVID.
-
1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:
Again, you have this completely backwards....
The FN fishermen are doing what they have the legal right to do. It's the Commercial fishermen who are engaging in illegal activity and "bypassing Canadian law" as you put it, because they think the First Nations fishers are "taking too much".
It's actually kind of impressive how badly you've managed to misrepresent this.
I didn’t misrepresent anything.
-
2 hours ago, Warhippy said:
You won't see any either.
It's remarkable how ignorant some people are of first nations rights yet how vocal they seem to be about claiming they know about them. Great find with Rv Marshall!!
Being native american doesn't give you a right to take as much lobster as you want out of the ocean and bypass canadian law and then blame white settlers for being the ones who take too much. That is a complete joke.
-
3 hours ago, PistolPete13 said:
The 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case R v Marshall, also known as the Marshall decision affirmed a treaty right to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a moderate liviihood arising out of the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760 and 1761. These Treaties affected 34 Mi’lmaq and Maliaeet First Nations in NB, PEI, NS, and the Gaspe region of Quebec.
Once you finish reading about the Treaties you didn’t know about in B.C.
you can check out:
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/fisheries-peaches/Marshall-1999-eng.html or www.rcaanc-cirnacc.gc.ca
I didn’t see any prohibition against selling the lobsters that you caught “ out of season” as you put it.
I didn't say there was, not once. I said we have regulations now and no one should be exempt from them and the courts need to specify if natives are exempt from them and I have voiced my opinion that I am against that.
-
Pretty terrible leader for those spoiled kids.
-
40 minutes ago, chon derry said:
so only commercial fishermans familys ,with a 200 year history get to stake claim? the Mi'mak and acadians fought the british for 75 years in the early 1700s ,and held them off . the 2 groups formally complained to the French commander at fort louisborg only to have france stake claim to the entire east coast . the 2 groups NEVER conceded ANY land ever nor were they included in the initial treatys .since all of these raw deals way back when they have signed 'peace and friendship' treatys one of which allows the harvesting of cod, capelin, lobster ,crab ,shrimp ,shellfish. Being half Haida myself and knowing how long they have inhabitated Haida Gwai (14,000) years that they know of...the length of time spent in the area is exactly how it works . when this lobster fiasco goes back to court which it will . all the clouded memories will be cleared up. something like this would never happen on the west coast since the commercial sector ,fisheries, the processing and the enhancement , the majority would be Native input. the east coast fisheries has always been a greedy MESS!
Not what I was saying at all. I was saying the treaty is broad and needs clarification cause lots of wildlife related things are regulated now. These regulations should have to be abided by everyone unless the natives are using them to live off or they're doing traditional things.
Otherwise I can go up to a native and say hey get me 300lbs of lobster and then flip it to a distributor or you could have a native set up as a distributor and sell the lobsters directly to restaurants or whomever when no one else can.. I don't agree with that. Everyone should have to abide by the regulations that are in place with the exceptions that I alluded to above.
you can check out:
[Fired] Mark Donnelly
in Canucks Talk
Posted
And people who wear cloth masks think they can now walk up to people and talk to them or netflix and chill and everything is okay because they have a cloth mask on. Cloth masks give a fake sense of security. At least with N95 there is some security there.