The Wuhan virus—how are we doing? - Page 53 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15129137
maz wrote:
Social media is now censoring anyone who goes against covid-19's Sacred Doctrines even more so than they were before.

Twitter removed Scott Atlas' tweet about the mask bullshit.

Twitter Removes Face Mask Tweet From Trump’s Covid-19 Coronavirus Advisor Scott Atlas



Bill Gates doesn’t specialize in infectious disease or epidemiology either, but we take his ever word as if it had been handed down to Gates from YAHWEH himself.

I found this Off-Guardian article from a tweet from someone. When I clicked on it, I had to first be warned by Twitter that visiting this link was dangerous and that I had to click a tab way down below in small letters to acknowledge the risks of visiting a dangerous website. It's the same warning you find from Twitter when you click on a Bitchute link that someone has posted.

Facebook labels 2+2=4 “misinformation



Yea, I recall reading about the 10% thing from the WHO. It didn't get much attention for some really odd reason (Everyone points to the WHO, and then when they say something they don't like, they call the WHO a fraud, lol). I also posted it in this thread and people seemed to ignore it.

By the way, when I say the media, I'm including social media, because many many people get 100% of their news from social media. Social media is certainly complicit in stomping out voices of descent.

As I've said, descent (reasonable descent, which there is reasonable descent in this whole COVID stuff, its not all Trump conspiracy theorists types) needs to be heard. It's the only way science gets better.
#15129139
Drlee wrote:Enough of your hypothetical discussion about rights. What is the right thing to do in a real situation?

My boss at the sweatshop told us that our "right" to go to the bathroom more than once a day would seriously endanger the right of other workers to get a production-bonus at the end of the month.

So I can see what you mean about "human rights" being dangerous.
#15129160
And the Resistance continues with some success, this time in Colorado:

Judge bars Colorado governor from enforcing mask, capacity rules against two churches
A federal judge has blocked Gov. Jared Polis from enforcing capacity and mask rules at two Colorado churches, ruling that the novel coronavirus restrictions were more onerous for houses of worship than for secular institutions.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on behalf of Denver Bible Church pastor Bob Enyart and pastor Joey Rhoads of the Community Baptist Church in Brighton, which had challenged in August the state’s Safer at Home public-health order.

“[T]he Constitution does not allow the State to tell a congregation how large it can be when comparable secular gatherings are not so limited, or to tell a congregation that its reason for wishing to remove facial coverings is less important than a restaurant’s or spa’s,” said Judge Domenico in his 44-page order.

As a result, “Plaintiffs have thus made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their as-applied free exercise claim,” he said.

Attorney Rebecca Messall, who represented the churches and their pastors on behalf of the Thomas More Society, praised the judge’s Oct. 15 order.

“The lawsuit calls both the federal government and Colorado leaders into account for their violations of the right to free exercise of religion, among other abuses of power, primarily resulting from Governor Jared Polis’ COVID-19 related Executive Orders,” she said in a statement.

The governor’s Public Health Order 20-35 designated churches as “critical,” but in practice “treats them differently from other ‘critical’ businesses and activities,” said the judge’s decision.

The COVID-19 order created a three-level system for the pandemic, allowing churches to operate at 50% of posted occupancy capacity not to exceed 175 people at Level 1, and 25% capacity not to exceed 50 people at Level 3.

At the same time, the order allowed exemptions for many secular institutions, including meat-packing plants, K-12 schools, grocery stories and marijuana dispensaries, but not houses of worship.

“In other words, the JBS meat-packing plant in Greeley, the Amazon warehouses in Colorado Springs and Thornton, and your local Home Depot, Walmart, King Soopers, and marijuana shop are not under any additional occupancy limitation other than the six-foot distancing requirement,” said the ruling.

However, “Denver Bible Church and Community Baptist Church, by contrast, must comply with numerical occupancy caps, no matter how many people their sanctuaries might accommodate while maintaining six feet of distance between non-household members,” the judge said.

Judge Domenico rejected the argument that it was easier for churches to comply with the capacity restrictions than for other institutions.

“That may be true for many religious individuals and institutions, but it is not for Plaintiffs,” he said. “And with due respect for both the State and the Seventh Circuit, this court does not believe government officials in any branch have the power to tell churches and congregants what is necessary to feed their spiritual needs.”

Mr. Polis issued a statewide mask order on July 16 for those age 11 and older when in public indoor spaces. He extended it on Oct. 12 for 30 days.

The Washington Times has reached out to the attorney general’s office for comment.
#15129196
Pants-of-dog wrote:For those who are opposed to wearing masks, do you understand why you are being asked to wear one?


I'm not really opposed to wearing masks but if it's mandated then I'm not fucking doing it. I'm not giving these shitty little control freaks one bitty inch because I know if I do they'll take a whole fucking mile. There is no ground for reasonable compromise with control freaks, I will watch the world burn before I give in to those fuckers.
#15129268
Masks are not about YOU, you stupid, inconsiderate, selfish pricks! It's about protecting other people. A minor inconvenience that only dumbass Americans could turn into a debate about their so-called "freedom". :knife:
#15129272
Sivad wrote:
I'm not really opposed to wearing masks but if it's mandated then I'm not fucking doing it. I'm not giving these shitty little control freaks one bitty inch because I know if I do they'll take a whole fucking mile. There is no ground for reasonable compromise with control freaks, I will watch the world burn before I give in to those fuckers.


I don't get it though. Do you think the government would require masks once we're mostly back to normal? My point is, what exactly are we giving up here?

I mean, we are required to get drivers licenses rather than just drive freely. Why aren't we against drivers license?
#15129273
There's limited rules here regarding wearing masks etc. But stores, wanting to protect their staff want folks to. This works well. No mask, no shopping. And everyone wants to use the disinfectant sprays. Our numbers are up, but it's almost tolerable.
#15129287
Pants-of-dog wrote:For those who are opposed to wearing masks, do you understand why you are being asked to wear one?

For the same reasons that we are asked to give blood, or wear a bike helmet: to save lives.
Meanwhile, we kill people by driving, by making wars all over the world, by getting fat, by sitting in front of screens, by polluting the atmosphere, by smoking too much, by drinking too much.

So this "save lives" is very unusual, compared to all the poison that our leaders usually sell us. And thus, very suspicious. We all know "the reasons that are given," but for those with more than a superficial understanding of our current political and economic crises, the official reasons simply aren't credible. So if there IS a credible reason to wear masks, it hasn't been revealed to the public yet.
...
And the Docility is more dangerous than a virus.

Docility leaves people with no options but eternal surrender to the powerful, and eternal abuse of their own class.
#15129358
Godstud wrote:Masks are not about YOU, you stupid, inconsiderate, selfish pricks! It's about protecting other people. A minor inconvenience that only dumbass Americans could turn into a debate about their so-called "freedom". :knife:

Me choosing to wear a mask, you’re right, that’s about protecting other people. The government mandating mask wearing when its level of effectiveness isn’t proven, that’s about me.

And here’s some bad news from the New York Times for the teachers’ unions fighting to keep schools closed, good news for everyone else. But the headline lies, it’s only a surprise to those that haven’t been paying attention. And as usual, the numbers are all about positive tests, nothing about how sick those testing positive got, if they got sick at all:

Surprising Results in Initial Virus Testing in N.Y.C. Schools
For months, as New York City struggled to start part-time, in-person classes, fear grew that its 1,800 public schools would become vectors of coronavirus infection, a citywide archipelago of super-spreader sites.

But nearly three weeks into the in-person school year, early data from the city’s first effort at targeted testing has shown the opposite: a surprisingly small number of positive cases.

Out of 16,348 staff members and students tested randomly by the school system in the first week of its testing regimen, the city has gotten back results for 16,298. There were only 28 positives: 20 staff members and eight students.

And when officials put mobile testing units at schools near Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods that have had new outbreaks, only four positive cases turned up — out of more than 3,300 tests conducted since the last week of September.

New York City is facing fears of a second wave of the virus brought on by localized spikes in Brooklyn and Queens, which have required new shutdown restrictions that included the closure of more than 120 public schools as a precaution, even though few people in them have tested positive.

But for now, at least, the sprawling system of public schools, the nation’s largest, is an unexpected bright spot as the city tries to recover from a pandemic that has killed more than 20,000 people and severely weakened its economy.

If students can continue to return to class, and parents have more confidence that they can go back to work, that could provide a boost to New York City’s halting recovery.

The absence of early outbreaks, if it holds, suggests that the city’s efforts for its 1.1 million public school students could serve as an influential model for school districts across the nation.

In September, New York became the first big urban district to reopen schools for in-person learning.

Roughly half of the city’s students have opted for hybrid learning, where they are in the building some days, but not others. The approach has enabled the city to keep class sizes small and create more space between desks.

Since then, large school districts across Florida have opened for in-person learning, too. Some wealthier districts in the New York suburbs declined to take this step, worried that it was too risky and logistically challenging.

The city’s success so far could put much more pressure on other districts that have opted for only remote instruction to start considering plans to bring their children back as well.

“That data is encouraging,” said Paula White, executive director of Educators for Excellence, a teachers group. “It reinforces what we have heard about schools not being super spreaders.”

So far, it is also good news for Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has staked much of his second-term legacy on reopening schools for in-person learning during the pandemic.

While public health experts said the data was encouraging, they also cautioned that it was still early.

In general, maintaining low levels of infection at schools would depend on how well New York City does in holding off a broader spread in the population.

Also, some experts have called for much more frequent random testing in all schools — something that city officials are considering — in order to increase the odds of discovering an outbreak early.

So far, most coronavirus testing for school workers has taken place at city-run sites outside the purview of the education department.

Out of 37,000 tests of staff members at city sites, 180 were positive, a city official said.

According to separate data reported to the state by local school districts, 198 public school students in New York City have tested positive since Sept. 8. (Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in early September ordered those conducting coronavirus tests to collect school information on children, but so far compliance has been spotty, state officials said.)

The city’s new schools testing regimen, which began Oct. 9, calls for 10 to 20 percent of the school population to be tested once a month, depending on the size of the school. The city is applying this testing to its 1,600 traditional public schools; the city’s 260 charter schools are not included.

Some researchers have questioned the efficacy of that approach, saying it could miss a large outbreak.

“It’s great that New York City is doing some level of random testing,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. “It’s not at the level that would be ideal.”

One study recommended testing half the students twice a month.

Michael Mulgrew, president of the teachers union, said the city is looking to increase testing to as much as three times a month citywide. Such frequency, he said, would be “much more valuable” in terms of keeping the virus in check.

A spokeswoman for the city’s education department cast the discussions to increase testing as merely exploratory.

A positive test of a student or teacher causes the city to spring into action. Under the rules, one case can cause the closure of a classroom. Two or more cases in separate parts of the same school can prompt a temporary schoolwide closure. At least 25 schools have temporarily closed since classes began. But only three were closed as of Friday.

Mr. Cuomo also ordered an increase in testing in schools around hot spots — from once a month to once a week. And on Thursday, he announced that the state would send 200,000 rapid antigen tests to New York City to help in the effort.

“This is a tremendously tricky balancing act,” Dr. Jay Varma, senior adviser for health to Mr. de Blasio, said in an interview. “We really chose the most conservative approach possible.”

The city’s school testing program depends on parents consenting to having their children tested. If officials find that a given school does not have enough approved students to collect an adequate sample, students who are randomly selected for testing but whose parents refuse consent could be forced to study remotely.

So far, only about 72,000 parents have returned consent forms, the school’s chancellor, Richard A. Carranza, said at a City Council hearing on Friday. That is out of about 500,000 children who are attending in-person classes at least one day a week.

As a result, more teachers and staff are represented in the early test results, even though they make up a far smaller portion of any school’s population.

“If the 20 percent is truly random it should be more students,” said Mark Cannizzaro, president of the principal’s union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators.

City officials expect more students to soon consent to the testing. But the overrepresentation of adults in school-based testing was not necessarily an issue, Dr. Varma said.

“One of the lessons that has come out of analyses in the U.K., Germany and Australia,” he said, “is that adults are at higher risk of potentially introducing infection into a school.”

The emerging scientific consensus is that younger children do not spread the virus as easily as older children and adults.

The closure of some classrooms and schools was expected, a built-in component of the city’s exceedingly cautious approach to positive cases, officials said.

But it has led to confusion and a feeling among some parents of being in the dark about what is happening inside their children’s schools.

In Brooklyn, Public School 116, an elementary school, closed for three days after three teachers and a student tested positive.

“They did not say why, they just said that it was contained and that the investigation was closed,” said Marlene Rossi, president of the P.T.A. at the school.

Parents were not informed of the closure by email until late the night before, said Assemblywoman Maritza Davila, who represents the area. “Some of them do not even have internet,” she added.

City officials said contact tracing and case investigations had determined that the three teacher cases in P.S. 116 were connected, and that the one student had been learning remotely and therefore became infected outside of the school. That allowed them to isolate the infected staff members, quarantine their contacts and reopen the school.

The process is meant to be rapid, head off outbreaks and, if possible, avoid lengthy closures. While more than two dozen schools have been closed because of positive tests, most reopened relatively quickly.

The city learns of positive tests either during the random testing or, more commonly for the moment, when a staff member or student alerts the school.

Positive test results are funneled to city employees from the Education Department and other agencies, and a team is assigned to work with the school, to get rosters of students and staff if needed and to begin contact tracing.

Joanna Smulakowski, whose son goes to in-person classes two to three times a week at Public School 24 in the Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx, said she was impressed with the school’s safety precautions.

One day, she saw officials turn away two students running fevers, before they even entered the building.

“I feel safe,” Ms. Smulakowski said. “And my friends who are sending their kids to school, they also feel safe.”
#15129378
Doug64 wrote:Me choosing to wear a mask, you’re right, that’s about protecting other people. The government mandating mask wearing when its level of effectiveness isn’t proven, that’s about me.


How do you know the effectiveness of wearing a mask to protect others is not supported by evidence?
#15129384
Doctors have only been wearing masks, so their patients don't get infections/diseases, for the last 100 years. Nothing new there, except to the few idiots who can't see the obvious. :knife:
#15129410
Godstud wrote:Doctors have only been wearing masks, so their patients don't get infections/diseases, for the last 100 years. Nothing new there, except to the few idiots who can't see the obvious. :knife:

Yes, they do help, in a particular set of circumstances, for those trained to use them. But for the general population? They’re probably not even as effective as those beak things worn during the Black Death. Articles on the effectiveness of masks have all sorts of caveats, like this recent one from the CDC:

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. (emphasis added)

And you get reports like this:

A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.

A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

“In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants’ efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at “gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” they still contracted the virus.

While the study notes that some of these people may have contracted the virus from the few moments that they removed their mask to eat or drink at “places that offer on-site eating or drinking,” the CDC concedes that there is no successful way to evaluate if that was the exact moment someone became exposed and contracted the virus.

“Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities,” the report states.

In fact, the report suggests that “direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance.”

Despite this new scientific information, the CDC, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, and many political authorities are still encouraging people to wear masks. Many states and cities have even mandated masks, citing them as one of the main tools to “slow the spread” of coronavirus and keep case numbers in their area down.

As I’ve said, I have no problem with wearing a mask when I’m in businesses—if for no other reason than Paul’s comments on eating meat sacrificed to idols—though I leave the mask in the car when I eat my take-out in the park. Likewise, I have no problem with businesses insisting their customers/patients/clients/whatever wear masks, they need to present a secure front to the people they wish to serve and in some cases (especially patients) masks are an excellent idea. I have a problem with the government mandating that everyone wear masks on such sketchy evidence—it feels like the politicians are using masks as a figleaf, to give the impression that they are “doing something,” and interfering in our lives to do so. We aren’t children, and the governments aren’t our parents.
#15129417
Doug64 wrote:Yes, they do help, in a particular set of circumstances, for those trained to use them. But for the general population? They’re probably not even as effective as those beak things worn during the Black Death. Articles on the effectiveness of masks have all sorts of caveats, like this recent one from the CDC:


So cloth masks are effective when used properly.

And you get reports like this:


Non-medical masks only offer a modicum of protection to the wearer. They do, however, provide a very good level of protection for everyone else when the infected person wears the mask, as far as I know.

As I’ve said, I have no problem with wearing a mask when I’m in businesses—if for no other reason than Paul’s comments on eating meat sacrificed to idols—though I leave the mask in the car when I eat my take-out in the park. Likewise, I have no problem with businesses insisting their customers/patients/clients/whatever wear masks, they need to present a secure front to the people they wish to serve and in some cases (especially patients) masks are an excellent idea. I have a problem with the government mandating that everyone wear masks on such sketchy evidence—it feels like the politicians are using masks as a figleaf, to give the impression that they are “doing something,” and interfering in our lives to do so. We aren’t children, and the governments aren’t our parents.


Again, how is the evidence “sketchy” for the claim that wearing masks significantly reduces the risk of infecting others?
#15129422
Godstud wrote:Doctors have only been wearing masks, so their patients don't get infections/diseases, for the last 100 years.

No they haven't. I can't remember a single occasion in my entire life where the Doctor, the Nurse, other Medical Staff or non medical axillaries were wearing a mask. Even when I had quite severe burns and infection was obviously a serous concern.

In Britain and from what I hear in Spain, a lot of people a lot of the time were their mask beneath their nose or even just over their chin. A lot of the times masks have absolutely nothing to do with decease suppression its all about signalling obedience to Liberal authority, in the same way that a lot of non believers in the past would wear crucifixes and other religious insignia to signal obedience to religious authorities.
#15129430
Godstud wrote:Masks are not about YOU, you stupid, inconsiderate, selfish pricks! It's about protecting other people. A minor inconvenience that only dumbass Americans could turn into a debate about their so-called "freedom". :knife:


Forcing everyone to wear is mask is fucking retarded because it starts with the presumption that EVERYONE is infected with the virus!

Everyone is a covid suspect!
#15129470
In some countries they don't have to tell people or make laws to force people to be considerate, conscientious and compassionate to their fellow citizens. That they have to make laws because of selfish idiots tells you a lot about a country. :knife:

Masks are an inconvenience, and people making a big fuss about it are just assholes.
#15129512
Godstud wrote:In some countries they don't have to tell people or make laws to force people to be considerate, conscientious and compassionate to their fellow citizens. That they have to make laws because of selfish idiots tells you a lot about a country. :knife:

Masks are an inconvenience, and people making a big fuss about it are just assholes.


Image
"Still lov'in the cone!"
#15129518
Godstud wrote:Masks are an inconvenience, and people making a big fuss about it are just assholes.


Masks are dumb. If American science proved that masks protected from the coronawhatever, why weren't masks implemented at the very beginning?

I just watched the presidential debate and the moderator claimed that American science said that we were going to have to be wearing masks until at least 2022!!!

Pretty much every state/major city has a mask mandate still in place. I saw people walking around in 100% heat this summer, sweating all over the place with these stupid things over their face.

People driving in cars by themselves with these things on; collecting sweat, dust, allergens and god knows what else.

It was disgusting to think about. All the germs being collected in their masks after handling them, wearing them on their chin, touching their phone and then touching their mask. Putting them on restaurant tables. Wearing them as they went in to the bathrooms. Just disgusting.

People have been required to wear a mask in every place of business since at least May.

If masks work and the majority of Americans have been wearing them for months now, why are there still "cases?"

Why did the debate moderator claim that American science says that masks will be necessary until 2022? And what is supposed to happen in 2022 where masks will all of the sudden no longer be necessary to wear?
  • 1
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 69

Believe me, Europe is very corrupt too. Though […]

Election 2020

a town hall for morons It looks like Biden may t[…]

Too much personal insulting going on in this thre[…]

Were The Crusades Justified?

The Arab world was advanced until it adopted Isla[…]