All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

Dohnjoe

Just watched a news report regarding a study on the tiny droplets we produce when talking, droplets which can contain the virus when that person is infected. Using a high speed camera, a person with no mask produces these droplets. With a mask, almost no droplets are produced beyond the mask and any that are generally move at a lower speed.

Masks reduce transmission of this virus. It's amazing we still have assorted anti-maskers on this forum at this stage.

silliussoddius

Another thing is that the reason the government is being strict is that the hospitals/nursing homes are government run so they/tax payer has to pony up the resources to deal with covid cases. I would have no problem with certain people being part of an opt out group where they think covid is a hoax/overstated/Soros psych ops etc. and after submitting some kind of waiver they then forego any treatments and are told to f*** off if they end up getting infected. The only problem with this is that they could end up infecting other people, which is really the reason for these measures. But of course it's all about me.

runawaybishop

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You are making good points and that is why you are getting such an aggressive pushback.


It's like a form of cognitive dissonance. Point out glaring contradictions and the shills lose the plot. Provide them with a solution no matter how ridiculous it is and they'll trip over themselves to find a problem that that solution addresses.


Case in point. 30 people were allowed attend weddings yet only 10 were allowed attend funerals. Nevermind that funerals tend to be held outdoors while weddings tend to occur indoors. The party line gang tied themselves in knots trying to float some inane justification for this and then the numbers were adjusted to allow equal attendance for both sets of events. I didn't see the shills screaming that it was crazy to allow more than 10 at a funeral based on the reasons they pulled out of a hat.

I know you don't raise your head much above whatever questionable sites/sources you read but surely you didn't miss that the UK tried the cocoon the elderly strategy already. How did that work out for them? It's absolutely valid to question someone advocating what has been shown to be a failed strategy.

Being asked to answer simple questions, provide even a small bit of proof or back up statements isn't aggressive pushback. The only aggressive posts I see are yours. If you want to sabotage your fellow theorists posts then keep doing what you are doing.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Health passports already exist, they help people with difficult conditions to communicate what their medical preferences or needs are.

This other health passport idea, is just a proposal, by a company, to have a thing which can identify if someone has Covid, for e.g. employees in an office situation.

I have no idea why you are trying to spread hysteria over it.

But, as I explained previously, it's not just 'employees in an office situation' the creators of Health Passport Ireland envisage their app being used for. To quote again from the video:

"We can all use Health Passport Ireland in many ways, such as travel, hospitality, education, health care, construction, offices, visits and MUCH more."

That's 7 different ways in which they say Health Passport Ireland could be used, but you continue to insist for some reason that's it's just for office employees. It was trialled in a small Roscommon village. Not for office employees. It's set to be trialled at Tallaght Hospital and in a few other locations. We are probably looking at needing a green light to have a bit of freedom. It's not hysteria. It's a very real and likely possibility. It horrifies me, but other posters have said that they do not have a problem with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88ZKJhztiM

The bit about the 'many ways' in which Health Passport Ireland can be heard from 1:20 on.

Quiner

runawaybishop wrote: »

I know you don't raise your head much above whatever questionable sites/sources you read but surely you didn't miss that the UK tried the cocoon the elderly strategy already. How did that work out for them? It's absolutely valid to question someone advocating what has been shown to be a failed strategy.

Being asked to answer simple questions, provide even a small bit of proof or back up statements isn't aggressive pushback. The only aggressive posts I see are yours. If you want to sabotage your fellow theorists posts then keep doing what you are doing.

When did they try it? They briefly flirted with the idea of herd immunity before deciding to lockdown.

Quiner

silliussoddius wrote: »

Another thing is that the reason the government is being strict is that the hospitals/nursing homes are government run so they/tax payer has to pony up the resources to deal with covid cases. I would have no problem with certain people being part of an opt out group where they think covid is a hoax/overstated/Soros psych ops etc. and after submitting some kind of waiver they then forego any treatments and are told to f*** off if they end up getting infected. The only problem with this is that they could end up infecting other people, which is really the reason for these measures. But of course it's all about me.

I'd have no problem with that. All measures should be voluntary. People aren't stupid and shouldn't be treated as children. I'd gladly take the tiny risk, and would keep my distance from people. But to be forced to wear that thing is overreach, in my opinion.

When there were a couple of cases a day in the summer would you have noticed that there was a pandemic going on in Ireland were it not for the media?

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just watched a news report regarding a study on the tiny droplets we produce when talking, droplets which can contain the virus when that person is infected. Using a high speed camera, a person with no mask produces these droplets. With a mask, almost no droplets are produced beyond the mask and any that are generally move at a lower speed.

Masks reduce transmission of this virus. It's amazing we still have assorted anti-maskers on this forum at this stage.

Peru. Spain, Italy, France, the Philippines, the US. All countries where masks are required 24/7. All have huge case numbers and deaths. And 85% of Americans say they wear them all the time. There is a bit of pushback there, but it's not as much as they say it is.

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

But, as I explained previously, it's not just 'employees in an office situation' the creators of Health Passport Ireland envisage their app being used for. To quote again from the video:

"We can all use Health Passport Ireland in many ways, such as travel, hospitality, education, health care, construction, offices, visits and MUCH more."

Yup it has many individual potential uses, just like the example I gave. I didn't specify that was the only example, so you've clearly misunderstood my point.

Reality: It may or may not be used in certain cases
Conspiracy fantasy: People will be dying of starvation because they don't be allowed to buy food because of this app

You are veering towards the latter

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

Peru. Spain, Italy, France, the Philippines, the US. All countries where masks are required 24/7. All have huge case numbers and deaths. And 85% of Americans say they wear them all the time. There is a bit of pushback there, but it's not as much as they say it is.

Not true.

Simple question: Do masks reduce the spread of this virus, (keyword: reduce) yes or no?

No deflection, waffle or evasion, just a simple or yes or no will do thanks.

runawaybishop

Quiner wrote: »

When did they try it? They briefly flirted with the idea of herd immunity before deciding to lockdown.

Do you not do your own research?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/absolutely-wrong-how-uk-coronavirus-test-strategy-unravelled

It was an abject failure. They forgot completely that younger relatively healthy people can require hospitalisation and swamped their hospitals.

Timberrrrrrrr

Quiner wrote: »

Peru. Spain, Italy, France, the Philippines, the US. All countries where masks are required 24/7. All have huge case numbers and deaths. And 85% of Americans say they wear them all the time. There is a bit of pushback there, but it's not as much as they say it is.

No country requires this, you just don't understand what the term 24/7 means.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup it has many individual potential uses, just like the example I gave. I didn't specify that was the only example, so you've clearly misunderstood my point.

Reality: It may or may not be used in certain cases
Conspiracy fantasy: People will be dying of starvation because they don't be allowed to buy food because of this app

You are veering towards the latter

Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was for office employees only. My apologies.

I think it's inaccurate to say that what I fear is a fantasy. Health Passport Ireland has been trialled in a village community, is set to be trialled at Tallaght Hospital as well as in other locations. And the government is set to analyse the results. So there is a very real possibility that a green light could be required for everyday living.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not true.

Simple question: Do masks reduce the spread of this virus, (keyword: reduce) yes or no?

No deflection, waffle or evasion, just a simple or yes or no will do thanks.

No, based on the real world evidence of sky high case numbers in the countries where they are required almost everywhere (I won't say 24/7 because people think I mean in bed and at home when I say that).

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

No

Thanks for addressing the question, we're making progress. Just to confirm, you don't believe masks reduce the spread of the virus.

Next Q:

Is the virus spread on aerosols and droplets that are produced when we cough/talk/sing? yes or no.

runawaybishop

Quiner wrote: »

Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was for office employees only. My apologies.

I think it's inaccurate to say that what I fear is a fantasy. Health Passport Ireland has been trialled in a village community, is set to be trialled at Tallaght Hospital as well as in other locations. And the government is set to analyse the results. So there is a very real possibility that a green light could be required for everyday living.

Highly unlikely it will be mandated as it requires a paid test and is only a snapshot in time. It is far far more likely that a vaccination requirement will be included if we do anything at all.

TBH I think that health passport Ireland business is 6 months too late and will fail, take-up on it is miniscule.

Also, I'd take anything they say with a pinch of salt, they failed to supply good quality ventilators and were hauled before the dail if I remember right.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Thanks for addressing the question, we're making progress. Just to confirm, you don't believe masks reduce the spread of the virus.

Next Q:

Is the virus spread on aerosols and droplets that are produced when we cough/talk/sing? yes or no.

But you left the rest of my answer out. I said 'No, based on the real world evidence'. I don't believe they do based on the situation re covid in the countries I mentioned. I didn't say I don't believe they reduce the spread. I was careful to add 'based on the real world evidence' of those countries.

Quiner

runawaybishop wrote: »

Highly unlikely it will be mandated as it requires a paid test and is only a snapshot in time. It is far far more likely that a vaccination requirement will be included if we do anything at all.

TBH I think that health passport Ireland business is 6 months too late and will fail, take-up on it is miniscule.

Also, I'd take anything they say with a pinch of salt, they failed to supply good quality ventilators and were hauled before the dail if I remember right.

But why go to all the bother of trialling it all across the country if it's going to be left up to people to decide whether to bother with it or not? And it's set to be rolled out in several other countries as well. I hope you're right, but I fear we're looking at a future of green, orange, and red lights. I'd be much more in favour of a mandatory vaccine, although horrible, than that nightmarish health passport.

runawaybishop

Quiner wrote: »

But why go to all the bother of trialling it all across the country if it's going to be left up to people to decide whether to bother with it or not? And it's set to be rolled out in several other countries as well. I hope you're right, but I fear we're looking at a future of green, orange, and red lights. I'd be much more in favour of a mandatory vaccine, although horrible, than that nightmarish health passport.

They trial it so they can flog it, but it's far too late imo. AFAIK there is no roll out, merely more trials. They only recently updated their media to mention vaccines, previously it was all about negative tests which prove nothing, I can test negative and then go out and lick Paddy and Mary and swan into any restaurant? Non-runner, not with a vaccine being rolled out.

Quiner

runawaybishop wrote: »

They trial it so they can flog it, but it's far too late imo. AFAIK there is no roll out, merely more trials. They only recently updated their media to mention vaccines, previously it was all about negative tests which prove nothing, I can test negative and then go out and lick Paddy and Mary and swan into any restaurant? Non-runner, not with a vaccine being rolled out.

I hope you're right, but it makes me uneasy to think of the government analysing the results of the trials. And then there is the fact that there are other health passports being developed around the world. They're not being developed not to be used.

runawaybishop

Quiner wrote: »

I hope you're right, but it makes me uneasy to think of the government analysing the results of the trials. And then there is the fact that there are other health passports being developed around the world. They're not being developed not to be used.

It is highly likely that some businesses will require proof of a vaccine or an exemption, or will give advantageous service if you have proof.

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

But you left the rest of my answer out. I said 'No, based on the real world evidence'. I don't believe they do based on the situation re covid in the countries I mentioned. I didn't say I don't believe they reduce the spread. I was careful to add 'based on the real world evidence' of those countries.

Based on your interpretation. As pointed out that personal interpretation is highly questionable.

Which is why I asked the next question:

Is the virus spread on aerosols and droplets that are produced when we cough/talk/sing? yes or no.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Based on your interpretation. As pointed out that personal interpretation is highly questionable.

Which is why I asked the next question:

Is the virus spread on aerosols and droplets that are produced when we cough/talk/sing? yes or no.

How is it highly questionable? Is it true that in Nordic countries, where there are no masks, case and death numbers are lower than in the countries I listed that have harsh measures and mask wearing everywhere, excluding the home and in bed (let it be understood that I mean 'at home and in bed excluded' when I say 'everywhere'. Otherwise, I'll have to keep saying 'excluding at home and in bed').

Yes, but masks clearly have done nothing, or very little, to prevent that in those countries.

Quiner

runawaybishop wrote: »

It is highly likely that some businesses will require proof of a vaccine or an exemption, or will give advantageous service if you have proof.

What do you mean by advantageous service? And what kinds of businesses do you think would require proof of vaccination?

McGinniesta

To be honest I'm starting to agree with all of this.

I have no idea why we are going into lockdown for the third time when it has failed the first two times.

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

How is it highly questionable? Is it true that in Nordic countries, where there are no masks

This is false. People wear masks in all Nordic countries (including Sweden). The rules are less stringent than other countries.

Sweden's cases are rising at a rapid rate, and are higher per population than France, Portugal or UK currently
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

This is all a tangent.

Please answer the question, it's very straightforward

Is the virus spread on aerosols and droplets that are produced when we cough/talk/sing? yes or no.

Quiner

McGinniesta wrote: »

To be honest I'm starting to agree with all of this.

I have no idea why we are going into lockdown for the third time when it has failed the first two times.

It's so obvious at this stage. It's a controlled demolition of the economy. Hence 'build back better' (impossible to do unless the economy and society can be rebuilt) and reset (impossible to reset if not destroyed).

And then you've Health Passport Ireland and all the other China-style apps to worry about.

Dohnjoe

McGinniesta wrote: »

To be honest I'm starting to agree with all of this.

I have no idea why we are going into lockdown for the third time when it has failed the first two times.

We went into the first lockdown because the virus was increasing at such a rate that it was threatening national health systems, the lockdown reduced the cases of the virus and flattened the curve. As the lockdown was related and people became more complacent, the cases started to rise again. Ergo we have had to go into second lockdowns.

It's not hard to understand. Measures and lockdowns don't "magically" make the virus disappear, they reduce cases, they reduce the R number and they ease pressure on health systems.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is false. People wear masks in all Nordic countries (including Sweden). The rules are less stringent than other countries.

Sweden's cases are rising at a rapid rate, and are higher per population than France, Portugal or UK currently
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

This is all a tangent.

Please answer the question, it's very straightforward

Is the virus spread on aerosols and droplets that are produced when we cough/talk/sing? yes or no.

I answered the question, but I qualified my answer. Yes, I said, but ...

People may choose to wear them, but they're not mandatory. Hardly anyone wears them in Sweden.

But deaths are still low compared with the mandatory masks everywhere countries.

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

It's so obvious at this stage. It's a controlled demolition of the economy.

What's "obvious"? explain what's "really going on" according to you, explain the conspiracy?

Who is doing it and why exactly?

Have asked this question before.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What's "obvious"? explain what's "really going on" according to you, explain the conspiracy?

Who is doing it and why exactly?

Have asked this question before.

It's obvious that it's a controlled demolition of the economy. Rarely have governments mentioned 'protecting the economy' since this began. They appear to be indifferent to the economy being destroyed. That suggests to me that they are happy to let it be destroyed so that it can be built back better.

Who is doing it? Governments around the world. They are following orders. I can tell you who is pulling the strings. I just need to check because I forget the specific details. But I'll post again with details. Just have to check.