[Fired] Mark Donnelly

[-DLC-]

11 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Where's the line and where does it end?

Will there be a day where I wear a t-shirt that says, "I'm Pro-Opera and I Vote"... and that will get me fired from a job or banned from certain establishments?  Will my potential "offensiveness" against the deaf and non-citizens be justification for detrimental actions towards me?  

 

Sounds very extreme.... but if you told someone 10 years ago that you can get fired for attending a public rally, you will notice that the goalpost has drastically shifted.  

You forgot an important part:  A public rally denouncing Provincial Health orders in place during a deadly worldwide pandemic where rally goers were NOT following those guidelines.  

 

If this was a "pro opera" t shirt it would be different.  Stick to the facts.

[-DLC-]

7 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

For the ones who are crying to each other about what masks work and what masks don't work. Marketplace did a test on the masks check out the results.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marketplace-masks-test-1.5795481

I think the point being that, even masks that are not 100% "effective" are still...."effective".  Some particles is better than none.  We've also been instructed to buy masks that aren't single ply but have several layers, including a pocket to put an extra layer in (tissue, etc.).  The graphic shown in this demonstrates with a flimsy, glam mask.  Most I know aren't wearing those.

 

Quote

"Even fairly low-efficiency masks are actually quite effective at catching much larger particles. But, it takes a really good mask to catch the small ones as well. And we know that the virus will travel not only on the big ones but the small ones as well," said Scott

So wearing a mask is obviously better than not wearing a mask....which is the issue.  "Anti maskers" are trying to get people on board with not wearing masks.  We have enough proof to show that masks do help reduce the numbers.  

[-DLC-]

2 hours ago, peaches5 said:

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. 

 

 

It is misinformation...these words of yours  "cloth is useless" are untrue, so stop saying it.   That's your add in.    Almost 97% is not "useless".   "0%" is.

 

And "cloth masks" is too generic....there are different types of material, layers, etc. to factor in.  Plus, some have a pocket to put an additional layer of protection in.  As well, many I know are opting for the medical masks.

 

As I sad to someone...sneeze in front of a mirror.  Then put a cloth mask on and sneeze.  Tell me the mask doesn't "catch" anything?

 

 

 

 

 

[MeanSeanBean]

37 minutes ago, NaveJoseph said:

We are so close to having a vaccine and these idiots hold an anti-mask rally. Will they protest the vaccine too?

It's highly likely.

[-DLC-]

@peaches5

 

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.  

 

Quote

 

Editor's Note: This story was updated on July 11 to include information on why valved masks do not block exhaled droplets.

 

However, both Rutherford and Chin-Hong cautioned against N95 masks with valves (commonly used in construction to prevent the inhalation of dust) because they do not protect those around you. These one-way valves close when the wearer breathes in, but open when the wearer breathes out, allowing unfiltered air and droplets to escape. Chin-Hong said that anyone wearing a valved mask would need to wear a surgical or cloth mask over it. "Alternatively, just wear a non-valved mask," he said.

The bottom line is that any mask that covers the nose and mouth will be of benefit.

 

“The concept is risk reduction rather than absolute prevention,” said Chin-Hong. “You don’t throw up your hands if you think a mask is not 100 percent effective. That’s silly. Nobody’s taking a cholesterol medicine because they’re going to prevent a heart attack 100 percent of the time, but you’re reducing your risk substantially.”

 

 

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

 

As well, people in the workplace who have to wear a mask for long periods may struggle wearing N95 masks:

Quote

 

N95 respirators, for example, are famously good at blocking viral particles—but they can also reduce the amount of available oxygen by up to 20 percent.

 

“People who wear N95s for long periods of time either feel like they’re overheating [or] almost like they can’t breathe because the mask fits so tightly and occupies such a large surface area of the face,” says Yousi “Josey” Oquendo, a medical student at Stanford’s School of Medicine and a robotics engineer at the university’s Collaborative Haptics and Robotics in Medicine Lab. “While comfort may not seem like it’s as important for safety, it actually is—because the more times people touch the mask and try to take it off in order to breathe better, the higher risk that they’re going to cross-contaminate their mask.”

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-design-helps-n95-mask-wearers-breathe-easier/

 

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

10 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I think the point being that, even masks that are not 100% "effective" are still...."effective".  Some particles is better than none.  We've also been instructed to buy masks that aren't single ply but have several layers, including a pocket to put an extra layer in (tissue, etc.).  The graphic shown in this demonstrates with a flimsy, glam mask.  Most I know aren't wearing those.

 

So wearing a mask is obviously better than not wearing a mask....which is the issue.  "Anti maskers" are trying to get people on board with not wearing masks.  We have enough proof to show that masks do help reduce the numbers.  

What masks are 100%.... N95 is considered the best at 95% effective. 

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

5 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

@peaches5

 

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.  

 

 

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

That statement I bolded is actually wrong, but your message is right.

[-DLC-]

6 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

What masks are 100%.... N95 is considered the best at 95% effective. 

Read above re N95's. 

 

Quote

However, both Rutherford and Chin-Hong cautioned against N95 masks with valves (commonly used in construction to prevent the inhalation of dust) because they do not protect those around you.

 

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

Read above re N95's. 

Or just read the link I posted with the actual results 

[-DLC-]

7 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Or just read the link I posted with the actual results 

I will...I was replying to someone else first.

 

Thing is....it's about "who" you're protecting.  N95's are GREAT for protecting the wearer.  Not so much the people around the wearer, which is the goal here.

 

Anyhow, I'm no expert but I have N95's and stopped wearing them around my Dad in favour of a disposable medical type mask in understanding the principles behind them.

Quote

Ironically, if the aim is to divert breath to protect other people, a second argument against wearing face masks designed for PPE becomes relevant. Rather than diverting breath, FFP masks with valves direct the breath out in a specific direction through the valve. As a result, protecting the wearer could come at the expense of those standing in front of the valve.

This is the reason the California Bay Area has banned the wearing of masks with valves in public. The San Francisco fire department has made a video urging double masking to ensure both the wearer and those around them are protected. Others are suggesting covering valves with tape. It is also notable that these masks are almost always worn with a plastic face shield in clinical environments so that both the healthcare worker and the patient are protected.

They seem to work more like a barrier and bounce things back out rather than filter then release as I thought.

 

(Links scare me....which is why I generally post part of an article with a link so people don't have to but I did go to yours and quoted directly from it here:

Quote

"Even fairly low-efficiency masks are actually quite effective at catching much larger particles. But, it takes a really good mask to catch the small ones as well. And we know that the virus will travel not only on the big ones but the small ones as well," said Scott)

 

[JM_]

20 hours ago, Ms.Glitter said:

Thank you! 

 

You made such an excellent point, thank you for expressing it so well.  

You're right, he should not have made that public,  the Canucks organization can't have that type of thought or representation within their ranks as it undermines their operation.

 

Having said that,  Human Resources and Management departments exist for a reason in the professional sphere and they shouldn't be intermingled with social media in most cases. 

 

 

 

bang on there Ms G. Francesco could have handled the dismissal in a less splashy way, simply putting out a statement that MD was no longer with the Canucks and let HR do the rest. 

[JM_]

12 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Where's the line and where does it end?

Will there be a day where I wear a t-shirt that says, "I'm Pro-Opera and I Vote"... and that will get me fired from a job or banned from certain establishments?  Will my potential "offensiveness" against the deaf and non-citizens be justification for detrimental actions towards me?  

 

Sounds very extreme.... but if you told someone 10 years ago that you can get fired for attending a public rally, you will notice that the goalpost has drastically shifted.  

what goal post is that? 

 

the line is very bright and isn't new. Read your employment contract. 

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

14 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I will...I was replying to someone else first.

 

Thing is....it's about "who" you're protecting.  N95's are GREAT for protecting the wearer.  Not so much the people around the wearer, which is the goal here.

 

Anyhow, I'm no expert but I have N95's and stopped wearing them around my Dad in favour of a disposable medical type mask in understanding the principles behind them.

 

How does it not help the person who is infected from spreading it.... If the person is infected and not wearing a mask and they cough now that's 100% all airborne for anyone to catch, but if they were wearing a N95 mask and coughed 95% of it would be eliminated from the air from others to catch it.

 

N95 is still better then a medical type mask, because a N95 can shape around and seal much better then a medical mask. Now a medical mask is still better then some of the 2ply and 1ply masks, but the N95 is still the best one out there.

 

Oh btw not all N95 have valves, I'm talking about the regular N95 mask with no valve, don't use ones with valves for this virus. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by ChuckNORRIS4Cup

[c00kies]

Anti-abortion and anti-mask, those are two big stands to have, and an employer has a right to fire you if you go public with beliefs that go against their values.

[peaches5]

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. 

 

Quote

 

Abstract

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. 

 

 

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, peaches5 said:

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. 

 

 

That study concerned self protection, protecting health care workers from infected patients, as opposed to use to protect others from the wearer. Cloth masks are effective in reducing you spreading the virus but are far less effective protecting you from those not wearing masks. This always seems to be the part anti maskers ignore - protecting others. So wearing a cloth mask around those who aren't wearing masks is unlikely to protect you. But wearing a cloth mask around others wearing a cloth mask is likely to protect all of you from each other. Even the medical masks are considerably more effective at protecting others than protecting the wearer. Multilayer cloth masks are also far more effective than single layer. And I have to add, wearing any mask type on your chin is not effective at all.

[peaches5]

33 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

@peaches5

 

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.  

 

 

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

 

As well, people in the workplace who have to wear a mask for long periods may struggle wearing N95 masks:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-design-helps-n95-mask-wearers-breathe-easier/

 

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. 

[peaches5]

3 minutes ago, Baggins said:

That study concerned self protection, protecting health care workers from infected patients, as opposed to use to protect others from the wearer. Cloth masks are effective in reducing you spreading the virus but are far less effective protecting you from those not wearing masks. This always seems to be the part anti maskers ignore - protecting others. So wearing a cloth mask around those who aren't wearing masks is unlikely to protect you. But wearing a cloth mask around others wearing a cloth mask is likely to protect all of you from each other. Even the medical masks are considerably more effective at protecting others than protecting the wearer. Multilayer cloth masks are also far more effective than single layer. And I have to add, wearing any mask type on your chin is not effective at all.

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.

[Goal:thecup]

11 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Where's the line and where does it end?

Will there be a day where I wear a t-shirt that says, "I'm Pro-Opera and I Vote"... and that will get me fired from a job or banned from certain establishments?  Will my potential "offensiveness" against the deaf and non-citizens be justification for detrimental actions towards me?  

 

Sounds very extreme.... but if you told someone 10 years ago that you can get fired for attending a public rally, you will notice that the goalpost has drastically shifted.  

 

This is so stupid, I shouldn't even try; but ignorance and stupidity are two different things: stupid we can't fix, but education is enough to destroy ignorance.

 

One obvious difference from this crap you covidiots are spewing and reality, is that Donnelly did not get fired for attending a public rally.

He got fired for supporting and promoting, even singing as a herald, ignorant, stupid, and ultimately dangerous lies about how the general public should conduct themselves to help stem this deadly pandemic.

His 'employer' not only reacted correctly, but reacted swiftly enough to call him out for his abhorrent behavior and call on all of us to denounce their messages and misinformation before too much damage was (hopefully) done.

 

And he probably did not get fired "on Twitter"; Francesco knows to consult his lawyers and advisors before making public statements; and the statement was not to Donnelly, nor even telling him he was fired.

It was to the media to quit using "Canucks Anthem Singer" and consider "Former Canucks Anthem Singer" in their reporting as this was now his proper title; it was not firing Donnelly "on Twitter". 

So much crap out of these noisy fools; so little knowledgeable advice.

 

Democracy, free speech, other civil rights only enter this discussion as very important concerns that intelligent and informed people have previously fought and died to secure and defend.

Lest we forget.  Two world wars.  Thousands of people getting their heads cracked, imprisoned, abused, killed, ostracized, etc., for things like women's right to vote, unions right to strike,  and hundreds of other worthy causes that people sacrificed everything for because they are important and vital to proper growth of a modern enlightened society.

 

There is no inherent infringement of these rights for the government to insist that the general public wear masks to protect each other during a deadly global pandemic.

 

In Canada, we have actually suspended these cherished rights for the common good many times without losing any of our democratic rights and freedoms.

These rights were not so sorely won so that entitled covidiots could endanger the public, spreading their misinformation along with a virus capable of killing millions of people all over the globe by not wearing masks and not social-distancing properly.

In fact, we have strived to gain and protect these rights and freedoms so that megalomaniacs like Trump have greater difficulty succeeding in stirring up ignorant people with 'alternative facts' in order to allow them to behave like tyrannical dictators.

 

[Trump is on record as saying, when asked by reporters, before he ran for prez, if he was going to run, that he was not going to run, "but if I (he) was, I (he) would run under the Republican banner; because those people are so stupid, they will believe anything I say."] - I don't have time to get the quote for you, but it is out there and I can produce it if it would make any of you think twice and stop spreading this nonsense.

 

If you do not know these things, research them to ensure you are not guilty of this same spreading of misinformation, by coming on to this forum for example, and supporting other covidiots that are too lazy to learn the truth and think they are following some vanguard of protectors of the right to kill other people over a farting mask.

 

Don't be doing that here.  In fact, don't be doing that anywhere.

Get woke.  Or fart off and die (alone, preferably). 

But don't be trying to talk people into thwarting all our efforts to control the spread of this virus.

[Baratheon]

For those of you who are advocating the N95s (yes I'm aware that they are the best) how do you go about getting one?  We cannot get them for my workplace because they are being saved for higher priority places such as hospitals.  Maybe that's because we would need a bulk order of them though?  Not sure if you can just get one for yourself.

 

Even just a cloth mask (some are made better than others) is obviously better than nothing however.  Particles might get through (though still a lot less than if you had nothing) but they don't just fly around by themselves in mini little airplanes.  Your breath has been slowed down by the barrier and limits the spread of whatever got through.  Obviously not fool proof and you still need to maintain physical distancing but clearly better than just not wearing a mask.  

 

Weird that this has become a political thing for some people but as a husband and father I really just want to keep my family safe!  Simple as that!