TOMapleLaughs
-
Posts
16,698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by TOMapleLaughs
-
-
2 minutes ago, The Lock said:
I did read and comment. It's not like you've really provided much here. Also, I don't really see people agreeing with you either.
You're literally hooked on opinion pieces, not even factual evidence.
Dude, if it's opinion based on fact then it's also fact.
But i guess we're just too entrenched in the lies we were told to believe in order to see this.
I'm wasting my time here, I know. But i enjoy pointing out massive scale fallacy.
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
I'm done with this dense masks don't work bs.
Show us the actual articles where they say masks are useless. Not some opinion piece of some jagoff doctor who links to an article that says in the abstract that mask wearing can improve public health. As in they are NOT USELESS.
The doctor cited the largest study available on the subject.
As cited, Cloth masks are useless. Surgical masks reduced spread among those over 50. By 11%. Under 50 they were found to present no benefit.
Bangladesh, home of the study in question, then installed no enforced mask mandate. Why enforce it when it presents little to no benefit? Why force it on the whole public when certainly the whole public didn't need it?
We have been haunting the populace over it for no viable reason, and have been instructed to tell ourselves and others lies about it or face penalties.
In the name of 'science'. Which is as we fully know is a fn crock.
It's not good.
-
40 minutes ago, The Lock said:
I would appreciate links. Like stuff outside of this thread that supports your argument. I want to form my own opinion.
Also, a single doctor in an opinion piece article isn't exactly "our media starting to out this". I just want to see more tangible evidence of things.
Other people in the thread have managed to read what was referred to. Pls. also read, then comment?
-
20 minutes ago, Alflives said:
What? You're actually advocating for it to be a person's choice to wear a mask in high risk settings, like hospitals and care homes?
Do you live in Alberta?
Read the article yet?
-
16 minutes ago, King Heffy said:
Let's put this into terms we can all understand. The cloth masks are the equivalent of Halak. The n95s are the equivalent of Demko. You don't go with six skaters the whole game when Demko needs a rest. While not as effective, Halak still stops enough to be an update over no goalie.
Years-old data stated cloth masks were akin to an empty net.
Not good. Esp. when people were prompted to bicker and fight over such uselessness for these years.
-
8 minutes ago, The Lock said:
Do you have any sources I can read/watch about this?
Yuh. It's what this comment chain was referring to.
-
5 minutes ago, The Lock said:
The only things people have really said is to "help stop the spread of the virus but wearing a mask". Nothing in that states it'll completely stop the spread; however, it does stop the spread in many cases since spit particles are moving from body to body less.
Anti-maskers are the only ones saying that officials are saying it's a solve all. It's a strawman argument.
Go back and watch Bonny Henry's reports and how she says "reduce the spread". Go back and look at the commericals. What you are doing now is lying through your teeth about what people have said just so that you can make a point that doesn't exist. Who knows. Maybe you can find a politican or 2 out there who doesn't know the difference between reduce the spread and completely prevents the spread, but the majority of everything we've heard says "reduces the spread".
And look, I get bring frustrated and wanting things to go back to normal. We'll get there, but the arguments I've seen you come up with to get there.... I wouldn't be surprised if you were related to the guy who didn't know how peeing works. That's me being honest here. lol This thread is not your finest hour.(or months in this case)
I think the Bangladesh case made it simple. It should have been an individual policy. For surgical masks or n95s.
Instead cloth masks were pushed. But they were useless. So the public was spreading it as if they were maskless.
We were being agitated about useless policy for years and then it was kept far too long even after omicron made it even more useless. So wtf?
At least our media is starting to out this.
-
12 minutes ago, JM_ said:
hindsight is so neat.
But the data is 2yrs old.
-
12 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
You mean the doctor who linked to this article that says this in the structured abstract. Kinda says the opposite of what you're claiming. Ooops
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
CONCLUSION
A randomized-trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the intervention increased mask usage and reduced symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, demonstrating that promoting community mask-wearing can improve public health.Smh.
As the article and data stated, age was the determining factor. They presented no benefit for anyone under 50. And for those over 50, cloth masks were useless and surgical masks reduced spread by 11%
Ooooh. That's worth a mandate. A mandate that yup, allowed totally useless cloth masks.
But more importantly the study was conducted well before omicron spread throughout the world.
It was astounding that we kept the mandates as long as we did considering the long proven data. It should have been put on individuals long ago.
The doctor's conclusions are sound.
Wear a mask in high risk settings or if you feel like they help. Like in the hospital. If you feel particularly sick then stay home.
The nanny state apparatus that failed us anyway wasn't needed. Probably not ever considering the data.
Ps. Bangladesh never installed an enforced mask use policy. Prob. because they knew it wasn't worth the bother.
-
1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:
If you say so....but the only ones causing fights were the ones who refused to wear them. The rest of us got along just fine....
Esp. the politicians not wearing them unless it was for a photo op.
-
6 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Do you have sources for this connection? Making this type of statement is what the urine drinking antivaxxers are known for.
First, Did you even read the article?
-
11 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:
Nobody said that.
Mask wearing was part of an overall strategy for mitigating the risk of contracting Covid-19. The strategy included social distancing, hand sanitizing, self-isolation when symptomatic and yes, wearing a mask in public. (among other things) None of these measures would have been effective in slowing the spread on their own.
Mask wearing was part of the solution. No-one said it was the solution....
Uh huh.
We also forgot that when literally fighting about it in public.
-
15 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
Two words
RISK MANAGEMENT
Even N95 masks are not 100%.
The fact you're still beating this dead horse shows us you don't get it or you're trolling. And really, the latter isn't an option because you need to at least indicate that it is an option. So in reality, it is the former. You just don't get it even though it has been demonstrated and explained numerous times since you started posting in this thread. Sad.
Tell that to the doctor citing the proven data i guess.
-
26 minutes ago, johngould21 said:
Only the anti maskers, that's the joke. My wife and I haven't had a cold, or flu in two plus years. Do you think there might be a coincidence?
Social distancing. Being scared of human contact. Etc.
But omicron has spread around the world regardless now.
So masking really is useless. That's why we ditched that mandate.
And as cited, they weren't ever all that effective anyway. People are just pretending otherwise.
-
3
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Masking reduces viral (and bacterial) spread. That's not arguable. It' only the idiodic horsey paste eaters who don't accept that fact.
Reduces, yes. Still spreads regardless, also yes.
The idiocy may have been in believing that masks were a solve all.
Nope. Not even close
And to think the public has been physically fighting over it for years.
What a joke.
-
20 hours ago, Alflives said:
To believe masking doesn't reduce viral transmission is beyond ignorant and not accepting common sense.
this is like telling your dentist their mask isn't needed, because the earth is flat and there's urine to drink. It's just beyond silly.
The effectiveness of ill-fitted cloth masks was always minimal. This much is proven and well-known at the outset.
N95's would have been better. But cost.
We were just told what fits what we were able to do.
-
1
-
-
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-strauss-im-a-doctor-heres-why-im-done-with-masking
Starting to get some reality about ineffective policy to be broadcast now.
-
1
-
-
Looks like China's still running with the futility of their zero covid policy even though it's impossible, and worse, detrimental given omicron reality.
I guess they'll continue this foolish errand until all their resources are exhausted? Or until their people will wake up and start rejecting this idea.
Hey maybe democracy will arrive there sooner rather than later. Yay.
-
30 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Still waiting for your initial opinion's evidence.
No evidence = craperolla. It has no value. It's worthless.
Correct.
You'll find that all of our provinces based omicron policy on that.
Whoops.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Alflives said:
You tend to make statements but never provide any science to support them. Where is the science that proves masks don't reduce viral spread? Present the science or your opinion is craperolla.
Speaking of which, where's the data indicating they worked to slow down omicron in particular?
Oh right. There is none. Just obsolete data about different, non respiratory, non airborne variants.
Hey maybe that's why omicron spread a lot easier?
But you go ahead and ask for data on that. (You might be disappointed.)
-
1
-
1
-
-
Going to take a bit to reverse how weird some people have gotten in public.
But you can see how relieved most have gotten after their useless masks were shedded. Sorry, not useless. Just apparently 'slowed down' omicron. Sure.
-
1
-
-
It's about time they woke up.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, The Lock said:
"Not sure" or "not want to believe it"? This is only "ridiculous" in your mind because, again, it's only what YOU want.
Public mandates should remain so long as covid remains a threat, which is currently still remains a through. You, yourself, just stated that omicron got away from the government months ago. That's reason to KEEP mandates, not remove them, as what you're suggesting would make things even worse. lol
So I 100% disagree with you here.
Mandates clearly don't work. But yuh let's keep em. Good luck convincing the public on this nonsense.
-
Just now, higgyfan said:
I have a good friend who has rheumatoid arthritis. She has to take a medication that depletes her immune system,
which in turn reduces the inflammation in her body. She has told me that she understands that the restrictions/mandates
will be gone soon and she is really anxious about it. She doesn't think that the general population should have to
continue with the restrictions, just because there is a small portion of the population that are compromised.
Once the restrictions are lifted, she will have to be far more careful and alert in her efforts to avoid infections. Her
life will become far more restricted.
I am only posting this so that peeps can be aware of the struggles that the vulnerable folks will have to deal with.
They will be the ones still wearing masks, slathering up with hand sanitizers and desperately trying to trying
to keep their distance from everyone.
Every at risk person has come to this point by now. My elderly relatives can't be cooped up in a perpetual state of fear. They won't be. It's not sustainable. It's not living.
The idea that these folks are somehow selfish is just as ridiculous as thinking the mandates are still needed.
I mean, we're all on the same page here, but tick tock... Time to call it already.
Coronavirus outbreak
in Off-Topic General
Posted
Smh. The article cites facts. Enough bunk arguments.