Laurence Fox - New Political Party

[smn159]

Have a look at the list of reasonable excuses. I suspect that most of you anti-maskers are covered.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

smn159 said:

Have a look at the list of reasonable excuses. I suspect that most of you anti-maskers are covered.

There are. And I can write any one of them, or even just "Exempt" on a vaguely official looking card and wave it at security guards too if that helps.

It won't pacify the believers though because it's nothing to do with safety. There would have to be some evidence that masks worked for it to be about that. Anyway there's no way that such vitriol is to do with people merely risking the lives of others. It's far more serious. People are angry that non-maskers are not playing along. Not showing enough willing. Ignoring their big important crisis. It's like not taking part in a rain dance and not being surprised when it rains anyway. All the more irritating because the tribal leaders have long suspected the rain dance doesn't work anyway but they didn't let on in case the people lost heart and stopped doing it.

Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Monday 18th January 15:37

[smn159]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

smn159 said:

Have a look at the list of reasonable excuses. I suspect that most of you anti-maskers are covered.

There are. And I can write any one of them, or even just "Exempt" on a vaguely official looking card and wave it at security guards too if that helps.

It won't pacify the believers though because it's nothing to do with safety. There would have to be some evidence that masks worked for it to be about that. Anyway there's no way that such vitriol is to do with people merely risking the lives of others. It's far more serious. People are angry that non-maskers are not playing along. Not showing enough willing. Ignoring their big important crisis. It's like not taking part in a rain dance and not being surprised when it rains anyway. All the more irritating because the tribal leaders have long suspected the rain dance doesn't work anyway but they didn't let on in case the people lost heart and stopped doing it.

Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Monday 18th January 15:37

What do you imagine that the motive of SAGE is to ask you to wear a face mask when you're indoors mixing with others outside of your household, given that we're currently in a global pandemic, with a very high infection rate, with a virus that spreads mainly through airborne droplets?

'Ignoring their big important crisis' suggests that you don't think that the current situation is big or important. Is that right? If so, why do you think that most of the world is in lockdown?

The only people that would seem to agree with your position are conspiracy theorists and obvious idiots like Laurence Fox. Is this one of those situations where only a handful of 'special' people can see what's really going on?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

smn159 said:

What do you imagine that the motive of SAGE is to ask you to wear a face mask when you're indoors mixing with others outside of your household, given that we're currently in a global pandemic, with a very high infection rate, with a virus that spreads mainly through airborne droplets?

'Ignoring their big important crisis' suggests that you don't think that the current situation is big or important. Is that right? If so, why do you think that most of the world is in lockdown?

The only people that would seem to agree with your position are conspiracy theorists and obvious idiots like Laurence Fox. Is this one of those situations where only a handful of 'special' people can see what's really going on?

It is clear that their motive is not a body of critically reviewed evidence supporting the hypothesis that masks reduce transmission.

Guessing other people's motives is usually a waste of time, but I don't lose sleep over space lizards or the illuminati if that's what you're suggesting. Greed, vanity, conformism and fashion cover most things.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

As for how important covid is - it's a strong cold and I wouldn't encourage anyone to catch it on purpose. Old and already unwell people are clearly at a higher risk and extra precautions are probably wise.

It isn't an existential threat to humanity, and it doesn't warrant anything like the response it has got IMO. And short of it being a bid for world domination by a cabal of tyrants it certainly appears to be an excuse for heavy handed government and associated dramatics.

Again it wouldn't really be so annoying to the believers if people simply didn't care about the risks, it's the refusal to play along that really grates.

Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Monday 18th January 17:57

[smn159]

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Yeah, I've tried to be reasonably polite, but you're clearly either trolling or are an idiot. Possibly both.

[Vanden Saab]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

As for how important covid is - it's a strong cold and I wouldn't encourage anyone to catch it on purpose. Old and already unwell people are clearly at a higher risk and extra precautions are probably wise.

It isn't an existential threat to humanity, and it doesn't warrant anything like the response it has got IMO. And short of it being a bid for world domination by a cabal of tyrants it certainly appears to be an excuse for heavy handed government and associated dramatics.

Again it wouldn't really be so annoying to the believers if people simply didn't care about the risks, it's the refusal to play along that really grates.

Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Monday 18th January 17:57

This honours thesis explains it very well IMHO.

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/orgstudies-asset...

In fact it also explains the 'stay at homers' too. It is all about perceived fairness.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Vanden Saab said:

This honours thesis explains it very well IMHO.

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/orgstudies-asset...

In fact it also explains the 'stay at homers' too. It is all about perceived fairness.

Only skimmed but it does look interesting. The difficulty is that with such a new area of law that is as far reaching as our current covid restrictions the gulf between possible, even reasonable perceptions of the spirit of the law is vast. These laws were literally unimaginable to me a year ago, and my initial reaction has been to assume the laws were a bit over done to sound tough. I.e. don't have 30 people around for a house party. The idea that we would be encouraged to shop our neighbours for having a friend round for a coffee is ludicrous. Other people, who I will presume to be reasonable, seem to see the law as the bare minimum and that even stopping to talk with someone outside is wreckless and wrong.

So the only real meeting point becomes the letter of the law, which in the case of masks is comically wide open.

[andyeds1234]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

As for how important covid is - it's a strong cold and I wouldn't encourage anyone to catch it on purpose. Old and already unwell people are clearly at a higher risk and extra precautions are probably wise.

It isn't an existential threat to humanity, and it doesn't warrant anything like the response it has got IMO. And short of it being a bid for world domination by a cabal of tyrants it certainly appears to be an excuse for heavy handed government and associated dramatics.

Again it wouldn't really be so annoying to the believers if people simply didn't care about the risks, it's the refusal to play along that really grates.

Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Monday 18th January 17:57

It’s neither a “strong cold” or an “existential threat to humanity” it’s somewhere in between.

The somewhere in between, means that if left to run its course, without lockdown, or additional transmission blocking, would be that core services are overwhelmed.

If anyone believes that to be untrue, despite the simple hospital admission statistics available for all to see, then a Jack and Jill spelling book, and some colouring in pencils would be my first recommendation, rather than a grown up debate.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Monday 18th January 18:43

[JuanCarlosFandango]

andyeds1234 said:

It’s neither a “strong cold” or an “existential threat to humanity” it’s somewhere in between.

The somewhere in between, means that if left to run its course, without lockdown, would be that core services are overwhelmed.

If anyone believes that to be untrue, despite the simple hospital admission statistics available for all to see, then a Jack and Jill spelling book, and some colouring in pencils would be my first recommendation, rather than a grown up debate.

Very grown up.

How do you establish the link between lockdowns and reduced hospital admissions for covid?

[Electro1980]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

It is clear that their motive is not a body of critically reviewed evidence supporting the hypothesis that masks reduce transmission.

Guessing other people's motives is usually a waste of time, but I don't lose sleep over space lizards or the illuminati if that's what you're suggesting. Greed, vanity, conformism and fashion cover most things.

Since you are willing to guess at peoples motives I can only assume you have no answer as to why SAGE, WHO, BMJ, BMA, RCGPs and many other bodies disagree with you and you are simply lack self confidence and make up for that, like many conspiracy theorists and the like, by disagreeing with facts and being wilfully contrarian just to make yourself feel like you are better than other people, no matter the cost or damage. Reminds me of a well known, soon to be ex, world leader.

[andyeds1234]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Very grown up.

How do you establish the link between lockdowns and reduced hospital admissions for covid?

There is plenty of independent analysis, confirming a positive effect of lockdown on mortality depending on the level of containment. In short , many studies show that each day of delay in containment was associated with an increase in mortality.

Here is something to start with. Read it all, take your time, don’t come back until you are sure you understand the content...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/...

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Electro1980 said:

Since you are willing to guess at peoples motives I can only assume you have no answer as to why SAGE, WHO, BMJ, BMA, RCGPs and many other bodies disagree with you and you are simply lack self confidence and make up for that, like many conspiracy theorists and the like, by disagreeing with facts and being wilfully contrarian just to make yourself feel like you are better than other people, no matter the cost or damage. Reminds me of a well known, soon to be ex, world leader.

I'm a conspiracy theorists because I think that facts are more persuasive than the pronouncements of various organisations?

Assume what you like. I'll still just assume you're miffed that I won't play along with the game.

[Vanden Saab]

andyeds1234 said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Very grown up.

How do you establish the link between lockdowns and reduced hospital admissions for covid?

There is plenty of independent analysis, confirming a positive effect of lockdown on mortality depending on the level of containment. In short , many studies show that each day of delay in containment was associated with an increase in mortality.

Here is something to start with. Read it all, take your time, don’t come back until you are sure you understand the content...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/...

May be you should have read it...

your link said:

Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.

Awkward...

[Electro1980]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I'm a conspiracy theorists because I think that facts are more persuasive than the pronouncements of various organisations?

Assume what you like. I'll still just assume you're miffed that I won't play along with the game.

Because you think you can better interpret those facts than recognised experts and can come up with no reason as to why those experts are wrong.

[Heaveho]

Forgive me if I missed it in the linked article. I didn't see any statistics for the likelyhood of catching covid after having been admitted to hospital for an unrelated serious illness. My understanding is that, should a person be admitted in these circumstances, contract covid during their stay and subsequently die, the death is recorded as a covid death regardless of whether or not the person would have died of the original reason for their admission.

Don't go on the attack, it's just an observation. However, should that transpire to be accurate, it skews the numbers.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

andyeds1234 said:

There is plenty of independent analysis, confirming a positive effect of lockdown on mortality depending on the level of containment. In short , many studies show that each day of delay in containment was associated with an increase in mortality.

Here is something to start with. Read it all, take your time, don’t come back until you are sure you understand the content...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/...

I got half way down the overview of the findings with your scornful condescension still ringing in my ears when I was hit by a bolt of deja vu.

The Science said:

Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.

It says exactly the opposite of what the enthusiasts claim. Lockdowns and a high score on the Global Health Security Index were associated with faster recovery times. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that having a sufficient and robust health system, which will boost your GHSI score) probably aids faster recovery more than harassing dog walkers, but I'm no expert.

[anonymous-user]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I'm a conspiracy theorists because I think that facts are more persuasive than the pronouncements of various organisations?

Assume what you like. I'll still just assume you're miffed that I won't play along with the game.

Are you ok?

[andyeds1234]

Vanden Saab said:

Awkward...

Jeez.... you didn’t read it did you.
“This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates”

Also just after the very text you quoted it states “ However, full lockdowns ...... were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

Awkward is right.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Monday 18th January 19:57

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Electro1980 said:

Because you think you can better interpret those facts than recognised experts and can come up with no reason as to why those experts are wrong.

No I don't. I can read, and the mask study I delved into cited 10 RCTs spanning 60 years across various settings which found they made no difference at all. The recognised expert who came to the conclusion that masks are effective is a sociologist, Melinda Mills.

You have pretty comprehensively shown that you take "the facts" as what is reported and then get on your high horse about what the facts say and deride anyone who actually reads them as a conspiracy theorist! It's the rain dance again.