Run away from no-mask people

[Steve]

Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths.

Come on, man. You really believe this?

 

[Jaeimseu]

Come on, man. You really believe this?

Of course they do. And Covid will disappear completely on November 4th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths, and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.

You have evidence of them being bribed, or are you just parroting the talking heads claiming it must happen because it's possible?

As for the cutoff point, you do realize it has to happen SOMEWHERE, right? Or are you thinking they can write mandates that cover all possible situations with flexibility?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Of course they do. And Covid will disappear completely on November 4th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In Europe and Asia, too!

 

[jobo]

You have evidence of them being bribed, or are you just parroting the talking heads claiming it must happen because it's possible?

As for the cutoff point, you do realize it has to happen SOMEWHERE, right? Or are you thinking they can write mandates that cover all possible situations with flexibility?

well yes it has to happen some where, or does it ? if they wont tell us why 6 is the scientific thresh hold, why not 16 or 26 or 6000 all of those count as '' somewhere''

 

[Steve]

well yes it has to happen some where, or does it ? if they wont tell us why 6 is the scientific thresh hold, why not 16 or 26 or 6000 all of those count as '' somewhere''

I think you're confusing a policy decision with a scientific recommendation. At some point, someone will make what they consider to be a reasonable policy decision. Disagreeing with a policy cab be a matter of opinion.

For example, we can disagree on the specific threshold, and still agree that there should be some threshold. The actual number is based on available information, the decision maker's risk tolerance, the stakes involved, legality, or a number of other factors.

Point is, is you think 6 is too cautious, I get it. But as Gerry says, it has to be somewhere.

 

[jobo]

I think you're confusing a policy decision with a scientific recommendation. At some point, someone will make what they consider to be a reasonable policy decision. Disagreeing with a policy cab be a matter of opinion.

For example, we can disagree on the specific threshold, and still agree that there should be some threshold. The actual number is based on available information, the decision maker's risk tolerance, the stakes involved, legality, or a number of other factors.

Point is, is you think 6 is too cautious, I get it. But as Gerry says, it has to be somewhere.

well yes its a political decision , that was far than made,clear by gerry, in fact as its politics he,shouldnt have mentioned it at all

 

[dvcochran]

View attachment 23231

One my favorite sayings. Pretty much lives large no matter where I am.

 

[Graywalker]

My sister in-law works at a hospital. She sees it everyday and states it is definitely real.

My wife manages a grocery store, and is strict about wearing a mask. She will have your butt arrested if you are not wearing one and refuse to leave. Not one positive case at the store, the other stores were laxed and didn't care, every other store had cases.

Besides, we have been dealing with what to wear in stores as long as I can remember.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service"

Never understood what the big deal is about wearing a mask. Sure I have heard the "Freedom" crowd...but Freedom does not Grant you the right to risk another's life.

 

[Ivan]

Sure I have heard the "Freedom" crowd...but Freedom does not Grant you the right to risk another's life.

 

[Ivan]

Come on, man. You really believe this?

Absolutely.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Absolutely.

I begin to understand why your mommy worries about you.

 

[jobo]

My sister in-law works at a hospital. She sees it everyday and states it is definitely real.

My wife manages a grocery store, and is strict about wearing a mask. She will have your butt arrested if you are not wearing one and refuse to leave. Not one positive case at the store, the other stores were laxed and didn't care, every other store had cases.

Besides, we have been dealing with what to wear in stores as long as I can remember.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service"

Never understood what the big deal is about wearing a mask. Sure I have heard the "Freedom" crowd...but Freedom does not Grant you the right to risk another's life.

freedom generally does give you the right to risk another life, they only legislates to the effect of how much risk you can place another in, it cant reduce all risk to others to zero even if it wanted to, even if that was desirable, with out removing ALL freedom and even then there would still be residual risk

in the UK they have removed not only our constitutional freedoms, which are somewhat woolly, but a number of our inalienable human rights, which clear are not as inalienable as we thought

Americans of course dont have inalienable human rights so they have less to complain about

 

[_Simon_]

did you know gullible isnt in the dictionary ?

REALLY! Is it really not in there wow...

 

[_Simon_]

, and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.

well yes it has to happen some where, or does it ? if they wont tell us why 6 is the scientific thresh hold, why not 16 or 26 or 6000 all of those count as '' somewhere''

Lol.. the specific numbers they use is NOT some magical figure. It's part of a "package" of measures as a collective of public health advice. You can't look at and isolate one specific thing separate from the rest and criticise it.

Eg. People keep constantly keep asking our state premier why in the city people can't travel more than 5km, what is it about the figure "5km". It's not something you can look at in isolation, but in conjunction with the whole. It's a measure to prevent movement. They've gotta draw the line SOMEwhere, what else could they possibly do, be wishy washy about it or just cut it off at a certain number, applied to everyone equally?

I'm seeing incredible immaturity in this thread. It's rather intriguing to see the exact intention and position people are operating out of. Makes getting through this whole darn thing united and together that much more difficult huh...

 

[jobo]

Lol.. the specific numbers they use is NOT some magical figure. It's part of a "package" of measures as a collective of public health advice. You can't look at and isolate one specific thing separate from the rest and criticise it.

Eg. People keep constantly keep asking our state premier why in the city people can't travel more than 5km, what is it about the figure "5km". It's not something you can look at in isolation, but in conjunction with the whole. It's a measure to prevent movement. They've gotta draw the line SOMEwhere, what else could they possibly do, be wishy washy about it or just cut it off at a certain number, applied to everyone equally?

I'm seeing incredible immaturity in this thread. It's rather intriguing to see the exact intention and position people are operating out of. Makes getting through this whole darn thing united and together that much more difficult huh...

yes you are correct, it is a ''package'' its a whole package of arbitrary numbers that have no science behind them , which is some what worse

i dont me wrong, if someone could explain the package to the point i found it convincing id go along with it, but as yet no one has, which leaves me to conclude they are just making things up

as a general rule do you always believe what politicians are telling is true, i dont, they have been known to make things up, i cant see why this would be different, can you ?

specifically ask, '' how many lives would it cost, if the group size was increased to 10 and the distance to 20, they wont answer coz they dont know'' its more than feasible the answer could be non

then ask , if reducing groups and distance is effective why havent they reduced the group size to 3 and the distance to 2

they wont answer that either. because they have just plucked number out of a hat

 

[_Simon_]

yes you are correct, it is a ''package'' its a whole package of arbitrary numbers that have no science behind them , which is some what worse

i dont me wrong, if someone could explain the package to the point i found it convincing id go along with it, but as yet no one has, which leaves me to conclude they are just making things up

as a general rule do you always believe what politicians are telling is true, i dont, they have been known to make things up, i cant see why this would be different, can you ?

No science behind them... okay. Just some fiction stuff someone wrote to control people. Riiiiiight.

That's quite a conclusion to end up at, that they're clearly making it up if the thousands upon thousands of collective research hours hasn't been explained to you.

If the FBI swarm into the place you're in yelling: "Everyone leave right now, there's a bomb!", would you go to them "Hmm, now a bomb you say. Can you explain to me the scientific reasoning of how a bomb explodes, why that's dangerous, with proof that it is indeed of such a dangerous nature, and also how running away could possibly prevent the danger factor to me? Can you prove it won't have a blast radius larger than the distance I would be able to escape to? What if there is a bomb over there too? Probably should just stay put, it's most likely making me MORE at risk by running away... you must be lying if you can't provide this. "

Seems an odd way of approaching quite a deadly pandemic..

The thing is, you've just jumped to the opposite conclusion, which is that because there's no proof of all the specific measures they're undertaking that they can show YOU, they MUST be making it up.

No I don't always believe what politicians say, but do you ever trust anyone with any expertise? Ever? Serious question. Or do you need them to go through the 4-10 years or so of study, research papers, intense examination, thesis' etc. Feels a bit like spitting on peoples' hard work and credentials. There is alot out there explaining this stuff, it seems not good enough for you, and others. The sheer amount of work people are putting into understanding the virus and keeping people safe is unprecedented and beyond exhausting.

To me it's about actually accepting what is going on, and actually being cooperative with society as a whole to work together, help each other out in getting out of this. Looking out for each other. The virus takes 'freedom' away, not the government.

You can't see why this would be different? The fact that the whole world is literally being affected by this virus? You can't see how this could be different? I'm not saying that it's impossible there isn't any political nonsense going on, but come on dude.

 

[jobo]

No science behind them... okay. Just some fiction stuff someone wrote to control people. Riiiiiight.

That's quite a conclusion to end up at, that they're clearly making it up if the thousands upon thousands of collective research hours hasn't been explained to you.

If the FBI swarm into the place you're in yelling: "Everyone leave right now, there's a bomb!", would you go to them "Hmm, now a bomb you say. Can you explain to me the scientific reasoning of how a bomb explodes, why that's dangerous, with proof that it is indeed of such a dangerous nature, and also how running away could possibly prevent the danger factor to me? Can you prove it won't have a blast radius larger than the distance I would be able to escape to? What if there is a bomb over there too? Probably should just stay put, it's most likely making me MORE at risk by running away... you must be lying if you can't provide this. "

Seems an odd way of approaching quite a deadly pandemic..

The thing is, you've just jumped to the opposite conclusion, which is that because there's no proof of all the specific measures they're undertaking that they can show YOU, they MUST be making it up.

No I don't always believe what politicians say, but do you ever trust anyone with any expertise? Ever? Serious question. Or do you need them to go through the 4-10 years or so of study, research papers, intense examination, thesis' etc. Feels a bit like spitting on peoples' hard work and credentials. There is alot out there explaining this stuff, it seems not good enough for you, and others. The sheer amount of work people are putting into understanding the virus and keeping people safe is unprecedented and beyond exhausting.

To me it's about actually accepting what is going on, and actually being cooperative with society as a whole to work together, help each other out in getting out of this. Looking out for each other. The virus takes 'freedom' away, not the government.

You can't see why this would be different? The fact that the whole world is literally being affected by this virus? You can't see how this could be different? I'm not saying that it's impossible there isn't any political nonsense going on, but come on dude.

ok then you answer those questions that you havent bothered to ask

ive asked on here and then people rather than admit they dont know start making personal remarks

there has indeed been a lot of research,, and they still cant answer simple questions, do you perhaps think that they haven't got the answer yet

ive seen the above be asked of UK politicians and government scientists and they wont answer

you wont answer , no one will answer , strange eer

 

[Steve]

In 2015, Rush Limbaugh said the same stuff about smoking, @jobo. He hadn't seen proof, it's not really hurting anyone, etc. He probably convinced a few folks like some notable characters on this forum that warnings about the risks of smoking are overblown and taking away people's liberty etc.

Now he's dying from stage four lung cancer.

 

[Hanzou]

In 2015, Rush Limbaugh said the same stuff about smoking, @jobo. He hadn't seen proof, it's not really hurting anyone, etc. He probably convinced a few folks like some notable characters on this forum that warnings about the risks of smoking are overblown and taking away people's liberty etc.

Now he's dying from stage four lung cancer.

Cancer kills a cancer. Irony can be absolutely beautiful sometimes.