To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Seanergy

Europeans urged to wear masks for family Christmas by WHO Europe.

Gatherings should be held outside if possible, and participants should wear masks and maintain physical distancing. If held indoors, limiting group size and ensuring good ventilation to reduce exposure risk are key.

It may feel awkward to wear masks and practise physical distancing when around friends and family, but doing so contributes significantly to ensuring that everyone remains safe and healthy.

Do not underestimate the importance of your decisions and your power – as an individual, a family or a community – to influence what happens next in this pandemic.

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/12/minimizing-the-covid-19-risk-advice-to-individuals,-communities-and-governments-for-the-winter-holidays

Hector Savage

Seanergy wrote: »

Europeans urged to wear masks for family Christmas by WHO Europe.

Gatherings should be held outside if possible, and participants should wear masks and maintain physical distancing. If held indoors, limiting group size and ensuring good ventilation to reduce exposure risk are key.

It may feel awkward to wear masks and practise physical distancing when around friends and family, but doing so contributes significantly to ensuring that everyone remains safe and healthy.

Do not underestimate the importance of your decisions and your power – as an individual, a family or a community – to influence what happens next in this pandemic.

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/12/minimizing-the-covid-19-risk-advice-to-individuals,-communities-and-governments-for-the-winter-holidays

Christ, what a ****ing cult.

Cases rocketing in Spain again, and everyone wearing a mask on the street, I said months ago there next target will be mask wearing in the home ... whats next - masks to be worn in bed ???

robinph

Hector Savage wrote: »

Christ, what a ****ing cult.

Cases rocketing in Spain again, and everyone wearing a mask on the street, I said months ago there next target will be mask wearing in the home ... whats next - masks to be worn in bed ???

What is so unexpected?

Currently you wear masks when in enclosed public spaces with people that you don't live with. Over Christmas the rules are changing slightly in many countries to allow for some limited mixing of households in their homes ... because of that people are being reminded to wear masks because they are going to be hanging out in enclosed spaces with people who they don't live with.

xhomelezz

Hector Savage wrote: »

Christ, what a ****ing cult.

Cases rocketing in Spain again, and everyone wearing a mask on the street, I said months ago there next target will be mask wearing in the home ... whats next - masks to be worn in bed ???

Christ, what a ****ing post..

onlylogic

Interestingly my post go moved into this thread.. instead of creating a new thread. I will try to create another thread again as this one is clearly the wrong place.

- edit: I won't create another thread actually. This one seems to have been created to facilitate a pro/anti mask debate so I suppose that'll have to do. I apologise for the lack of valid links in my post as I am not yet allowed to include hyperlinks...

Having read and digested some of the posts in a similar thread (Mask exemptions and the law), I feel that the thread itself failed to properly cover some important points and instead of concentrating on some of the important points raised, it became an arena for personal attacks instead.

I would like to state that I have no particular horse in this race so to speak. Please do not attempt to character-assassinate the messenger as I find this disrupts from the topic at hand.

First, some facts about all kinds of masks (including faceshields):

1) It is understood and acknowledged by healthcare experts, and studies that wearing a mask:
a) does nothing to protect the wearer, but concentrates only on the safety of others regarding aeresols, and;
b) limits oxygen into the wearers blood stream (negatively affecting brain development in children also) and increases carbon-dioxide, and;
c) creates a build-up of germs and bacteria if not changed frequenty which can lead to negative health consequences for the wearer.
d) prevents effecient communication between those with a quiet disposition or those who rely on lip-reading

2) exemptions exist within the legistration to ensure people who shouldn't wear a mask need not. Interestingly there is no link between mental health or illness and distress in the legislation: either are valid and a person does not need to meet both criteria to enjoy this exemption.

see section 5 of the legislation: irishstatutebook /eli/2020/si/296/made/en/print

pay particular attention to the wording:

:: quote ::

the person cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering -
(i) because of any physical or mental illness, impairment or disability, or
(ii) without severe distress,

::end quote::

The 'or' at the end of bullet (i) is significant. I have seen this mis-represented even on the government's own website and in news media.

For the pro-maskers (no offence intended) this does mean that anyone that feels in distress.. for any reason.. does not need to wear a mask. It does not assume a mental health link. I would assume most anti-maskers (no offence intended) would experience a significant level of distress at having to obey laws which they consider to be against their freedoms; whether rightly or wrongly.

3) I saw a very concerning post on reddit: r/ireland/comments/icr3dh/self_declaration_of_face_mask_exemption/ which took an incredibly hostile position to a document which was intended to help educate and guide those business owners who are not familiar with the legislation and their responsibilities. This post shows an example of the document: r/ireland/comments/ia76ra/look_at_this_heap_of_****e_going_around/

It is interesting to note that, having digested the legislation, the document does seem to be valid insofar as it accurately represents the facts. Although I can find no evidence that the document itself is issued by an 'authority' (as was a common angle of attack for it), I don't believe this to be a problem as it simply uses legislation to educate the reader. I don't believe signatures are required however, but perhaps it makes it feel more 'genuine' for some.

We are not all children of philisophical teachings, but, for some, freedom and liberty are not easily challenged. I would ask that we all stay respectful in these trying times. People who wants to exercise their right to free movement unmolested should have that choice and shouldn't be obliged to stay home to avoid wearing a mask.

Analysing both sides of the argument, I have personally witnessed a much more hostile position from pro-maskers than anti-maskers. I would say that pro-maskers are treading dangerously close to demanding a socialist, communist system; at least based on the common arguments I see. I wonder whether this is the point of all of this?

weldoninhio

Hector Savage wrote: »

Christ, what a ****ing cult.

Cases rocketing in Spain again, and everyone wearing a mask on the street, I said months ago there next target will be mask wearing in the home ... whats next - masks to be worn in bed ???

I’m surprised every image of Santa hasn’t had a mask on this year, and the fecking reindeer.

Hector Savage

robinph wrote: »

What is so unexpected?

Currently you wear masks when in enclosed public spaces with people that you don't live with. Over Christmas the rules are changing slightly in many countries to allow for some limited mixing of households in their homes ... because of that people are being reminded to wear masks because they are going to be hanging out in enclosed spaces with people who they don't live with.

We'll be with inlaws this christmas, who are also in their own bubble.
wearing masks around the dinner table will be pointless, paranoia on another level.

Sconsey

Hector Savage wrote: »

Christ, what a ****ing cult.

Cases rocketing in Spain again, and everyone wearing a mask on the street, I said months ago there next target will be mask wearing in the home ... whats next - masks to be worn in bed ???

Yesterday you were begrudging health workers a moments celebration for vaccine delivery. Today you're losing it over some safety advice. Whats next?

Hector Savage

Sconsey wrote: »

Yesterday you were begrudging health workers a moments celebration for vaccine delivery. Today you're losing it over some safety advice. Whats next?

The point about yesterday was that it doesn;t send a good message, making that video would have taken a lot of time, it's not just a few minutes on their break, that takes time to practice choreograph etc...

Like the tik tok videos in wave 1, they are supposed to be busy - don;t send the message that you have enough spare time for this crap.

"Safety advice" give me a break, if anyone suggested this a few months ago they'd be called a conspiracy theorist -

Sconsey

Hector Savage wrote: »

The point about yesterday was that it doesn;t send a good message, making that video would have taken a lot of time, it's not just a few minutes on their break, that takes time to practice choreograph etc...

Like the tik tok videos in wave 1, they are supposed to be busy - don;t send the message that you have enough spare time for this crap.

"Safety advice" give me a break, if anyone suggested this a few months ago they'd be called a conspiracy theorist -

No I think the point is you have a very skewed view of things and I would not really take you too seriously.

onlylogic

onlylogic wrote: »

First, some facts about all kinds of masks (including faceshields):

1) It is understood and acknowledged by healthcare experts, and studies that wearing a mask:
a) does nothing to protect the wearer, but concentrates only on the safety of others regarding aeresols, and;
b) limits oxygen into the wearers blood stream (negatively affecting brain development in children also) and increases carbon-dioxide, and;
c) creates a build-up of germs and bacteria if not changed frequenty which can lead to negative health consequences for the wearer.
d) prevents effecient communication between those with a quiet disposition or those who rely on lip-reading

Analysing both sides of the argument, I have personally witnessed a much more hostile position from pro-maskers than anti-maskers. I would say that pro-maskers are treading dangerously close to demanding a socialist, communist system; at least based on the common arguments I see. I wonder whether this is the point of all of this.

I am interested in any and all mature, respectful thoughts.

Loading your argument with falsehoods and pre-suppositions is not conducive to respectability.

odyssey06

Hector Savage wrote: »

The point about yesterday was that it doesn;t send a good message, making that video would have taken a lot of time, it's not just a few minutes on their break, that takes time to practice choreograph etc...

Like the tik tok videos in wave 1, they are supposed to be busy - don;t send the message that you have enough spare time for this crap.
"Safety advice" give me a break, if anyone suggested this a few months ago they'd be called a conspiracy theorist -

Nonsense post. Of no substance.
Do you expect them to work 24x7 until they drop dead.

If you evidence staff were unavailable for their duties cos of these break videos present it.

Otherwise you are just coming out with utter begrudgery without merit or foundation.

Necro

Mod:

Threads merged

Mrs OBumble

Seanergy wrote: »

Most of these internal spaces are air tight.

Are you really unaware of the building regs requiring ventilation holes in houses? Take a walk around any new estate and look at the walls.

onlylogic

Deleted User wrote: »

Loading your argument with falsehoods and pre-suppositions is not conducive to respectability.

There are no known falsehoods, and without observed presuppositions do you expect us to start with nothing instead?

Tell me; did you learn anything about the legislation and legal rights and responsibilities from my quoted post or did you already know these points?

odyssey06

onlylogic wrote: »

1) It is understood and acknowledged by healthcare experts, and studies that wearing a mask:
b) limits oxygen into the wearers blood stream (negatively affecting brain development in children also) and increases carbon-dioxide, and;

No it isn't and it is a base falsehood to represent the information in this light.
It is dangerous nonsense.
It has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and discredited as without foundation.
Whatever your 'sources' are you need to find new ones that aren't peddling lies.

For the pro-maskers (no offence intended) this does mean that anyone that feels in distress.. for any reason.. does not need to wear a mask. It does not assume a mental health link. I would assume most anti-maskers (no offence intended) would experience a significant level of distress at having to obey laws which they consider to be against their freedoms; whether rightly or wrongly.

Why would you assume that?
So why would we consider that as an argument worth considering?

Analysing both sides of the argument, I have personally witnessed a much more hostile position from pro-maskers than anti-maskers. I would say that pro-maskers are treading dangerously close to demanding a socialist, communist system; at least based on the common arguments I see. I wonder whether this is the point of all of this?

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
And of course you can say that, and we can say you are making a ridiculous claim that is conspiracy theory nonsense. It is absolutely without foundation. There is a Great Reset thread if you want to go down that swamp hole.

Seanergy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you really unaware of the building regs requiring ventilation holes in houses? Take a walk around any new estate and look at the walls.

Someone else kindly corrected by poor use of words 'air tight' without discrediting my point, move on was the message.

robinph wrote: »

Just swap "air tight" to "not well ventilated" and move along.

You know perfectly well the point which was being made.

Are you ready to retract attributing a super spreading event to a masked Santa yet?

Seanergy

Masking For A Friend: The Science of How Wearing A Mask Helps Us And Our Neighbors

A really fun kid's podcast by @wowintheworld it's about aerosol transmission and masks, a beautiful mix of whacky kid humour and science, well worth a listen, even for big kids.

Masking For A Friend: The Science of How Wearing A Mask Helps Us And Our Neighbors

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/944972985/masking-for-a-friend-the-science-of-how-wearing-a-mask-helps-us-and-our-neighbor

onlylogic

odyssey06 wrote: »

No it isn't and it is a base falsehood to represent the information in this light.
It is dangerous nonsense.
It has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and discredited as without foundation.
Whatever your 'sources' are you need to find new ones that aren't peddling lies.

I would be obliged if you could point me in the direction of some independent, well-sourced studies which "debunk" and "discredit" that wearing a mask does decrease oxygen or increase carbon dioxide? I would be pleased to start quoting your sources if indeed they achieve this task.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would you assume that?
So why would we consider that as an argument worth considering?

Your use of 'we' is noted. Do I understand from this that you consider to speak on behalf of everyone else in this thread? I make this assumption having spoken to many people who are not comfortable with wearing masks. Do you consider this position is irrelevant? Do you need something more substantial to consider my "argument", as you call it, valid? Are we to discount personal observation and experience? What would make this "argument" "worthy" of your consideration? Did it need to be on the television?

odyssey06 wrote: »

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
And of course you can say that, and we can say you are making a ridiculous claim that is conspiracy theory nonsense. It is absolutely without foundation. There is a Great Reset thread if you want to go down that swamp hole.

I wouldn't say I "believe" my musings will come to pass, just that I believe them to be a valid possible outcome when looking at the common arguments "for" mask-wearing. Most arguments seem to be based on the assumption that those whom choose not to wear masks are inevitably going to cause harm to someone, somewhere. Basically making someone elses welfare, the concern of every individual. This line of thinking, when taken to it's natural absolute, will conclude in implementation of big-government and lack of personal autonomy. This is not a hypothesis; simply a logical conclusion based on historic observation and philisophical teachings. That's not to say that we will reach this outcome however. Perhaps that is where you were somewhat mislead by my musings?

This is large subject matter, and one which perhaps best highlights some other real meat of the current conflict. Although it sounds perfectly reasonable and righteous to "be in it together" and "think of each other", this fails to properly balance the conversation. Without defending and upholding the rights of individual liberty, free speech, and bodily autonomy, our children will grow up in a worse society.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored… the first thought forbidden… the first freedom denied – chains us all irrevocably" - Jean-Luc Picard (TNG / The DrumHead)

Seanergy

onlylogic wrote: »

Without defending and upholding the rights of individual liberty, free speech, and bodily autonomy, our children will grow up in a worse society.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored… the first thought forbidden… the first freedom denied – chains us all irrevocably"

Well then don't start with masks, start with water fluoridation cause that's the first link.

Your only about 70 years too late.....better late than never though...GLADYS RYAN Plaintiff v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant. (1962. No. 913 P.)

onlylogic

Seanergy wrote: »

Well then don't start with masks, start with water fluoridation cause that's the first link.

Your only about 70 years too late.....better late than never though...GLADYS RYAN Plaintiff v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant. (1962. No. 913 P.)

You make a valid point, but water flouridation is still well with the realm of personal choice. There are other water sources after all. Also, let us not fall down the trap of saying something like "well; since it's already ruined, we might as well sit by and hope for the best".

Things can get worse, and probably will unless we all try harder. I'm sure you'd agree?

odyssey06

onlylogic wrote: »

I would be obliged if you could point me in the direction of some independent, well-sourced studies which "debunk" and "discredit" that wearing a mask does decrease oxygen or increase carbon dioxide? I would be pleased to start quoting your sources if indeed they achieve this task.

You need to be pointed in that direction?
Maybe before you made your unsupported claim you should have done some preliminary googling to establish its merits?
There are numerous studies similar to the below.

Don't believe the myth - face masks don't lower oxygen levels:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201103/dont-believe-the-myth-face-masks-dont-lower-oxygen-levels

Your use of 'we' is noted. Do I understand from this that you consider to speak on behalf of everyone else in this thread? I make this assumption having spoken to many people who are not comfortable with wearing masks. Do you consider this position is irrelevant? Do you need something more substantial to consider my "argument", as you call it, valid? Are we to discount personal observation and experience? What would make this "argument" "worthy" of your consideration? Did it need to be on the television?

You address "pro-maskers" as a collective. Your choice of words.
Did it need to be on television you mean link the quote you just lifted from Star Trek below about the link being forged?
I have no idea what the rest of your post means but if you are making claim about what 'severe distress' means legally your personal observation is irrelevent.

I wouldn't say I "believe" my musings will come to pass, just that I believe them to be a valid possible outcome when looking at the common arguments "for" mask-wearing. Most arguments seem to be based on the assumption that those whom choose not to wear masks are inevitably going to cause harm to someone, somewhere. Basically making someone elses welfare, the concern of every individual. This line of thinking, when taken to it's natural absolute, will conclude in implementation of big-government and lack of personal autonomy. This is not a hypothesis; simply a logical conclusion based on historic observation and philisophical teachings. That's not to say that we will reach this outcome however. Perhaps that is where you were somewhat mislead by my musings?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored… the first thought forbidden… the first freedom denied – chains us all irrevocably"

Oh look there's the Star Trek quote.
In the interests of intellectual honesty, you could have at least attributed it?
In the context of this thread, I don't know what the hell it's doing here.

And it's easy to be mislead by vague meandering musings.
Your logical conclusions are no such thing.
You make claims with zero evidence or support and respond with these 'philosophical' phrasings that mean nothing.

There is absolutely nothing, zero to associate masks with some sort of communist plot. It's conspiracy theory nonsense utterly without foundation no matter what words you use to dress it up, "great reset" or whatever other crackpot theory.

We have already banned smoking in public places, drink driving, driving dangerous vehicles, speed limits etc
We already take many measures to protect innocent people from the careless or reckless actions of others.
Such restraints are as essential aspect of liberty. No one could have liberty where there could be subject to such injuries.
Masks clearly fall into that spectrum.

runawaybishop

Christ that was such a disingenuous post. 'I am not biased guys, but, ..... rabid anti mask nonsense'. At least own your opinion.

onlylogic

odyssey06 wrote: »

You need to be pointed in that direction?
Maybe before you made your unsupported claim you should have done some preliminary googling to establish its merits?
There are numerous studies similar to the below.

Don't believe the myth - face masks don't lower oxygen levels:

You have made the assumption that I didn't do some research before stating my claim? I cannot see that the article you linked is more valid than my sources so I will disregard it for now. I will, when I can find them, link you to the many studies which show categorically that masks cause health problems. Sadly due to internet censorship, this information is becoming harder to find; not to mention I don't believe I can include links yet in any case.

odyssey06 wrote: »

You address "pro-maskers" as a collective. Your choice of words.
Did it need to be on television you mean link the quote you just lifted from Star Trek below about the link being forged?
I have no idea what the rest of your post means but if you are making claim about what 'severe distress' means legally your personal observation is irrelevent.

I didn't realise you were subscribing to being a 'pro-masker', my apologies. Am I to assume you'll speak for all of them then?
You seem to be having some trouble with comprehension? Perhaps you could be more specific about where you're not understanding? I am making no claim about what severe distress means as everyone will have different thresholds I assume?

odyssey06 wrote: »

Oh look there's the Star Trek quote.
In the interests of intellectual honesty, you could have at least attributed it?
In the context of this thread, I don't know what the hell it's doing here.

I have updated my post so that you are less triggered. I wondered about attributing it, but decided that the words themselves are well said and have been said in similar ways before. I also didn't confirm whether this was the full and correct quote and didn't wish to commit to that for this reason, but I have updated it none the less. I'm glad you enjoy Star Trek too.
You don't know what it's doing here? In the context of mandatory mask-wearing and the trampling of an individuals liberty? Are you sure?

odyssey06 wrote: »

And it's easy to be mislead by vague meandering musings.
Your logical conclusions are no such thing.
You make claims with zero evidence or support and respond with these 'philosophical' phrasings that mean nothing.

There is absolutely nothing, zero to associate masks with some sort of communist plot. It's conspiracy theory nonsense utterly without foundation no matter what words you use to dress it up, "great reset" or whatever other crackpot theory.

You are wrong of course. You seem to be over simplifying and cherry-picking that information which suits you best. Also, you make false statements. I have plenty of evidence and support for my statements. My logic seems sound.
I didn't associate masks with a communist plot; I associated the responses and reactions of pro-maskers and the push for the collective versus the individual as key points which form the foundation of socialism and the like. I believe this to be a correct observation. I have not yet delved into anything I would consider to be theoretical.

odyssey06 wrote: »

We have already banned smoking in public places, drink driving, driving dangerous vehicles, speed limits etc
We already take many measures to protect innocent people from the careless or reckless actions of others.
Such restraints are as essential aspect of liberty. No one could have liberty where there could be subject to such injuries.
Masks clearly fall into that spectrum.

This paragraph perfectly demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of key principals. You have incorrectly associated protecting innocent people with removal of other people's individual liberty, and you have incorrectly associated liberty with not being injured by another person. Freedom and liberty are only tools which allow us to live; whether being hurt or otherwise.

Masks fall into neither camp on their own; the mandating without exception (which hasn't been done) would undermine individual liberties and freedoms. It is important to make this differentiation.

It is important again here to state very clearly: the wearing of face coverings is NOT mandatory yet. There are exemptions. And there had to be.

odyssey06

onlylogic wrote: »

You have made the assumption that I didn't do some research before stating my claim? I cannot see that the article you linked is more valid than my sources so I will disregard it for now. I will, when I can find them, link you to the many studies which show categorically that masks cause health problems. Sadly due to internet censorship, this information is becoming harder to find; not to mention I don't believe I can include links yet in any case.

You will disregard the sources you asked for demonstrating your claims on masks and oxygen are groundless, despite asking for them to be provided so that you could challenge them. If you did some research before stating your claim, you would at least be in a position to explain why you find study A more believable than study B.
Clearly you are unable or unwilling to substantiate your claims - even accepting you cannot post links.
And you accuse others of cherry picking? Ridiculous.

Your sources on masks will be utter garbage, taken out of context, peddled by shysters and those pushing poltical agendas or some more base agenda.
They are dangerous nonsense and when they surface on the internet must be challenged as such. They are fradulent lies.

I think your argument has just jumped over the fence.

I didn't associate masks with a communist plot;

This is what you wrote:
"I would say that pro-maskers are treading dangerously close to demanding a socialist, communist system"

I think I'll leave that remark hanging there as a sign post for other posters to make their own conclusions about the merits - or absolute lack - to your claims.
Which are fradulent, baseless and utterly without foundation or support. They have no foundation in science or politics. Zero.

onlylogic

odyssey06 wrote: »

You will disregard the sources you asked for demonstrating your claims on masks and oxygen are groundless, despite asking for them to be provided so that you could challenge them. If you did some research before stating your claim, you would at least be in a position to explain why you find study A more believable than study B.
Clearly you are unable or unwilling to substantiate your claims - even accepting you cannot post links.
And you accuse others of cherry picking? Ridiculous.

You source failed to meet my criteria and read like a news paper article. I must admit I only skimmed through it however. It certainly didn't seem to contain anything that resembled the kind of in-depth scientific studies I base my information on. Perhaps if, hidden deep within, there are links to said studies you'd be good enough to provide those instead?

odyssey06 wrote: »

Your sources on masks will be utter garbage, taken out of context, peddled by shysters and those pushing poltical agendas or some more base agenda.
They are dangerous nonsense and when they surface on the internet must be challenged as such. They are fradulent lies.

How without knowing my sources can you discount them? How will you know I will take them out of context? How do you presume to know they will be pushing political agendas where yours do not? Your words are colourful but they lack content and meaning. You make many unsubstantiated claims and assumptions and you seem happy to do this.

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think your argument has just jumped over the fence.

It seems more likely that you yourself have jumped over a fence. You have begun blithering mindless ramblings akin to a computer program set to randomise clichéd attacks. I must admit I'm beginning to think you are peddling an agenda yourself?

odyssey06 wrote: »

This is what you wrote:
"I would say that pro-maskers are treading dangerously close to demanding a socialist, communist system"

Correct. I said that. You have successfully restated my point which I expanded on just now? I reiterate:
"I didn't associate masks with a communist plot; I associated the responses and reactions of pro-maskers", ergo; "I would say that pro-maskers are treading dangerously close to demanding a socialist, communist system". I did NOT say, "The wearing of masks are clearly the orchestrated plannings of some socialist organisation" now did I? I trust you can tell the difference.

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think I'll leave that remark hanging there as a sign post for other posters to make their own conclusions about the merits - or absolute lack - to your claims.
Which are fradulent, baseless and utterly without foundation or support. They have no foundation in science or politics. Zero.

You have once again resorted to name-calling and classic shill techniques. I came onto this forum to discuss more detailed aspects of the current socioeconomic climate with logical thinkers, not to nit-pick with a buffoon like yourself, sir.

I will have to ignore further attacks from you as I cannot see that you are adding anything to the fundamental facts and perspectives that I have raised. Indeed; they've been neither proven nor disproved as being relevant and factual by your colourful ramblings.

I say again to everyone; Masks are NOT mandatory (read my previous posts) and people should keep that in mind. Use the legislation and uphold it. Don't be pressured into taking a position which makes you feel uncomfortable. Whether you'd like to wear them or not. One camp cannot force the other into complying.

Seanergy

onlylogic wrote: »

You make a valid point, but water flouridation is still well with the realm of personal choice.

If your going down this rabbit hole, start at the first link.

References to facemask already inserted into the FAQ'S on fluorides and health website for a reason.

A number of ethical principles are engaged, namely autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. While autonomy must generally be respected, there are situations where over-riding individual autonomy is justified for the greater good, e.g. we are required to wear safety belts when driving to prevent injury to ourselves or others and we are prevented from smoking in public places to help avoid smoking-associated illnesses in others.

Similarly, in the COVID-19 pandemic we were advised to limit our movements and to wear facemasks to protect both ourselves and others. CWF is an effective means of preventing dental decay, particularly in vulnerable groups such as those who cannot afford other sources of fluoride such as fluoridated toothpaste. A greater societal benefit in general is considered justifiable.

For healthcare interventions to be considered ethical, they must satisfy the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Beneficence means that the intervention must confer a benefit, and the evidence shows that CWF remains an effective means of preventing dental decay.

https://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/faqs/

There are other water sources after all.

A different thread and I'd engage with you on this, good luck sourcing a Guinness made in Ireland without fluoride.

odyssey06

onlylogic wrote: »

You have once again resorted to name-calling and classic shill techniques. I came onto this forum to discuss more detailed aspects of the current socioeconomic climate with logical thinkers, not to nit-pick with a buffoon like yourself, sir.

I'm not rising to that bait, either in response to your use of such a suspiciously archaic selection of insult... or your attempt to drag this thread down some Great Reset socioeconomic swamphole.

Your claims on oxygen deprivation have been shown to be false, without plausibility, substantiation and have been refuted in every proper study setup to examine the claim. I have already provided evidence against same and the thread is full of rebuttals of such dangerous baseless claims.

CalamariFritti

Finally looked up that Danish study. First actual real world study. 3000 people vs a control group of roughly the same size. One group wears a mask the other one doesn't. Both in the same medium covid affected area (whatever that means). Time frame was April May.

After one month test of both groups through either antibody or PCR or diagnosis by doctor (again, whatever that means).

42 tested positive in the mask group and 53 in the control group.

Make of that what you will but to me thats a best inconclusive and at worst.... Well, I've never made a secret of the fact I'm thinking masks are nonsense. The masses wanted masks "cos its not rocket science" so they were given masks. In any case its hardly proof of meaningful impact.

weldoninhio

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Finally looked up that Danish study. First actual real world study. 3000 people vs a control group of roughly the same size. One group wears a mask the other one doesn't. Both in the same medium covid affected area (whatever that means). Time frame was April May.

After one month test of both groups through either antibody or PCR or diagnosis by doctor (again, whatever that means).

42 tested positive in the mask group and 53 in the control group.

Make of that what you will but to me thats a best inconclusive and at worst.... Well, I've never made a secret of the fact I'm thinking masks are nonsense. The masses wanted masks "cos its not rocket science" so they were given masks. In any case its hardly proof of meaningful impact.

But did the Danish study group not see the cartoon about how masks work??