Discussion:
Another "for the open-minded" article
Add Reply
Tony
2021-09-07 20:58:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
JohnO
2021-09-07 22:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone can put up a wiki page? They have no authority and are generally deemed to be unworthy as a cite. The swprs article does cite its extensive sources, including CDC, Euro CDC, Oxford, British Medical Journal, New England Medical Journal and so on. Hardly unknown.

I think their point about mask wearing is worth considering. Japan like many densely populated Asian countries has always favoured mask wearing. This has not stopped Delta from spreading rapidly there. Masks may be worthless if not the correct type and not fitted and handled correctly.

I see TVNZ instructing its reporters to do a massive virtue signaling exercise, making a show of leaving their masks on then taking them off to speak on camera. Only they often then hold the mask in their hands turning themselves into a spreader of whatever has accumulated in the mask. Pity the poor sound guy who then takes the microphone off their hands.
Tony
2021-09-07 23:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
Post by JohnO
They have no authority and are generally deemed to be unworthy as a cite.
The swprs article does cite its extensive sources, including CDC, Euro CDC,
Oxford, British Medical Journal, New England Medical Journal > and so on.
Hardly unknown.
Quite so,which, in turn, is why there's no good reason for the SPR authors to
behave like shrinking violets. In a world drowning in dis- and mis-information
it is full transparency that confers cred, and this particularly includes
identifying oneself when the originator of controversial material, however well
substantiated it may (be said to) be.
Post by JohnO
I think their point about mask wearing is worth considering. Japan like many
densely populated Asian countries has always favoured mask wearing. This has
not stopped Delta from spreading rapidly there. Masks may be worthless if not
the correct type and not fitted and handled correctly.
Goes without saying, surely?
Post by JohnO
I see TVNZ instructing its reporters to do a massive...
Massive? Bit over used these days, don't you think? "Gargantuan" might be
worth a shot - what d'you reckon, eh?
Post by JohnO
...virtue signaling exercise, making a show of leaving their masks on then
taking them off to speak on camera. Only they often then hold the mask in their
hands turning themselves into a spreader of whatever has accumulated in the
mask.
Instructed by the overpaid super-spreaders of New Zealand's Plague City, the
top smells of Hobson Street, no doubt. It goes something like, "Heighten the
drama, hype the panic, 'cuz the ad revenues tell us that's what really gets the
unsuspecting susceptibles gawping."
Frankly, with the entire mask thing the jury's still out and there's nothing
you, I or any other layman I can do to alter this. Which is why I don't much
trouble myself over such conflicted speculation.
Post by JohnO
Pity the poor sound guy who then takes the microphone off their hands.
On that diverting trifle, it's likely there won't be a scheduled sound guy in
these routine one-off single-to-camera situations.
James Christophers
2021-09-08 00:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
The piece is summed up thus:

"Conclusion:
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"

So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".

IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
James Christophers
2021-09-08 02:50:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful purpose, so I'm out.
Tony
2021-09-08 03:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful purpose, so I'm out.
As you should be.
James Christophers
2021-09-08 04:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful purpose, so I'm out.
As you should be.
Why such unwarranted and unprompted incivility?
John Bowes
2021-09-08 04:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy
Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful purpose,
so I'm out.
As you should be.
Why such unwarranted and unprompted incivility?
Probably because you're a long winded braggart adding absolutely nothing to the discussion Keith :)
Tony
2021-09-08 04:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 09:49:19 UTC+12,
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy
Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look
genuine
and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor
aerosols,
face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there
is
not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no
harm
and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful
purpose,
so I'm out.
As you should be.
Why such unwarranted and unprompted incivility?
Just because over the past three years, or is it centuries, you have earned it.
Or maybe, quite simply, because I tried to provide a way for others to view a
link that you posted. A link that had someohow become damaged. Simply because I
thought it was a link of value. Then you shat on it. An attempt at civility
pissed on by you.
Over to you.
James Christophers
2021-09-08 05:22:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 09:49:19 UTC+12,
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 08:58:22 UTC+12, undefined
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector
cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy
Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look
genuine
and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor
aerosols,
face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence
suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there
is
not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no
harm
and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful
purpose,
so I'm out.
As you should be.
Why such unwarranted and unprompted incivility?
Just because over the past three years, or is it centuries, you have earned it.
Or maybe, quite simply, because I tried to provide a way for others to view a
link that you posted. A link that had someohow become damaged. Simply because I
thought it was a link of value. Then you shat on it. An attempt at civility
pissed on by you.
Over to you.
Doesn't do to bear grudges. Never has, never will cuz nothing good can ever come of it.
Tony
2021-09-08 05:26:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 09:49:19 UTC+12,
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 08:58:22 UTC+12, undefined
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector
cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware
that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy
Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look
genuine
and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence
supporting
this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor
aerosols,
face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should
therefore
not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of
infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal
application
of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence
suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there
is
not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no
harm
and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this
study.
I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful
purpose,
so I'm out.
As you should be.
Why such unwarranted and unprompted incivility?
Just because over the past three years, or is it centuries, you have earned it.
Or maybe, quite simply, because I tried to provide a way for others to view a
link that you posted. A link that had someohow become damaged. Simply because I
thought it was a link of value. Then you shat on it. An attempt at civility
pissed on by you.
Over to you.
Doesn't do to bear grudges. Never has, never will cuz nothing good can ever come of it.
So why do you do that every single day in this newsgroup eh? Why? Because we
all know that you do - even you Keith, even you recognise that you do.
Now be a good little sociopathic inverted snob and have little lie down -you
know you need it.
James Christophers
2021-09-08 06:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 09:49:19 UTC+12,
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 08:58:22 UTC+12, undefined
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector
cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware
that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy
Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look
genuine
and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in
some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence
supporting
this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor
aerosols,
face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should
therefore
not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of
infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal
application
of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence
suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there
is
not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into
something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into
play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no
harm
and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this
study.
I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is
actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those
who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful
purpose,
so I'm out.
As you should be.
Why such unwarranted and unprompted incivility?
Just because over the past three years, or is it centuries, you have earned it.
Or maybe, quite simply, because I tried to provide a way for others to view a
link that you posted. A link that had someohow become damaged. Simply because I
thought it was a link of value. Then you shat on it. An attempt at civility
pissed on by you.
Over to you.
Doesn't do to bear grudges. Never has, never will cuz nothing good can ever
come of it.
You are manifestly wounded by my alluding to the the circularity of your efforts to keep a talked-out topic going at all costs - no different, then, from any starving street mongrel that will repeatedly and perversely dig up a long since dry bone for the umpteenth time, solely for the noisome, lingering whiff of it.

(snipped)

Over and out.
Tony
2021-09-08 07:05:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 09:49:19 UTC+12,
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 08:58:22 UTC+12,
undefined
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
The authors are not known. Swiss Policy Research as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will,
lector
cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you
aware
that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss
Policy
Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look
genuine
and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in
some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence
supporting
this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor
aerosols,
face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should
therefore
not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of
infection.
"
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal
application
of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive
evidence
suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there
is
not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into
something
safe.
Who shall conclusively say when the only certainty is that nothing about
Covid-19 is 100% certain? Hence the precautionary principle brought into
play.
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no
harm
and
might, just might, do some good.
Why not, indeed?
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this
study.
I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is
actually
some harm in masks.
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than
that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those
who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Ergo, all else in this thread is little but circularity to no useful
purpose,
so I'm out.
As you should be.
Why such unwarranted and unprompted incivility?
Just because over the past three years, or is it centuries, you have
earned
it.
Or maybe, quite simply, because I tried to provide a way for others to
view
a
link that you posted. A link that had someohow become damaged. Simply because I
thought it was a link of value. Then you shat on it. An attempt at civility
pissed on by you.
Over to you.
Doesn't do to bear grudges. Never has, never will cuz nothing good can ever
come of it.
You are manifestly wounded by my alluding to the the circularity of your
efforts to keep a talked-out topic going at all costs - no different, then,
from any starving street mongrel that will repeatedly and perversely dig up a
long since dry bone for the umpteenth time, solely for the noisome, lingering
whiff of it.
(snipped)
Over and out.
You have never wounded me and that will never change.
Your ambition to do so is lost in the abyss of your ancient inadequacy.
Well done Keith. Perverse and offensive 'til the last.
So fuck off old fart and please do keep taking the medication even if it is a
placebo.
Gordon
2021-09-08 07:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 2021-09-08, James Christophers <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by James Christophers
Doesn't do to bear grudges. Never has, never will cuz nothing good can ever come of it.
Not sure about that. It feeds egos and that helps the mental health status
of the "winner".
Rich80105
2021-09-08 07:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:39:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
And that conclusion sounds very genuine and authoritative too. Do you
find it surprising that the Ministry of Health appears not to have
read that web-site?
Post by James Christophers
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Have you made that recommendation to the government?
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Well, which is it to be, Tony? It is your suggestion - and John Bowes
may be holding his breath to get your expert view . . .
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
The harm in not wearing them is that you canot enter many shops . . .
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
John Bowes
2021-09-08 08:55:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:39:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
And that conclusion sounds very genuine and authoritative too. Do you
find it surprising that the Ministry of Health appears not to have
read that web-site?
Post by James Christophers
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Have you made that recommendation to the government?
Have you ever realised what a fucking imbecile you are Rich?
Post by Rich80105
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Well, which is it to be, Tony? It is your suggestion - and John Bowes
may be holding his breath to get your expert view . . .
Try stopping being a fucking imbecile.. oops sorry Rich impossible for you I know. Like you posting something sensible for a change!
Post by Rich80105
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
The harm in not wearing them is that you canot enter many shops . . .
Only because the government has decreed it Rich!
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Rich80105
2021-09-08 10:57:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 01:55:52 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:39:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
And that conclusion sounds very genuine and authoritative too. Do you
find it surprising that the Ministry of Health appears not to have
read that web-site?
Post by James Christophers
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Have you made that recommendation to the government?
Have you ever realised what a fucking imbecile you are Rich?
Post by Rich80105
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Well, which is it to be, Tony? It is your suggestion - and John Bowes
may be holding his breath to get your expert view . . .
Try stopping being a fucking imbecile.. oops sorry Rich impossible for you I know. Like you posting something sensible for a change!
So you don't believe the article Tony posted . . .
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
The harm in not wearing them is that you canot enter many shops . . .
Only because the government has decreed it Rich!
OK, another possible consequence is that you catch Delta Covid and die
. . .
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
John Bowes
2021-09-08 21:45:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 01:55:52 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:39:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that
anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy
Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
And that conclusion sounds very genuine and authoritative too. Do you
find it surprising that the Ministry of Health appears not to have
read that web-site?
Post by James Christophers
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Have you made that recommendation to the government?
Have you ever realised what a fucking imbecile you are Rich?
Post by Rich80105
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Well, which is it to be, Tony? It is your suggestion - and John Bowes
may be holding his breath to get your expert view . . .
Try stopping being a fucking imbecile.. oops sorry Rich impossible for you I know. Like you posting something sensible for a change!
So you don't believe the article Tony posted . . .
You just can't not be a fucking imbecilic Marx twat can you Rich. Only a closed minded fucking imbecile like you could come to that conclusion!
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
The harm in not wearing them is that you canot enter many shops . . .
Only because the government has decreed it Rich!
OK, another possible consequence is that you catch Delta Covid and die
. . .
Only in your fucking imbecilic dreams Rich! There's a greater chance of you continuing to receive no respect from posters to the ng than of that happening!
Tony
2021-09-08 20:10:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:39:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
And that conclusion sounds very genuine and authoritative too. Do you
find it surprising that the Ministry of Health appears not to have
read that web-site?
How do you know? Do answer.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Have you made that recommendation to the government?
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Well, which is it to be, Tony? It is your suggestion - and John Bowes
may be holding his breath to get your expert view . . .
You pathetic little runt, all you can do is throw barbs, tell lies and use far
too much sarcasm.
Post by Rich80105
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
The harm in not wearing them is that you canot enter many shops . . .
A rule made by government does not prove that masks work.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Tony
2021-09-09 23:09:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:39:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
And that conclusion sounds very genuine and authoritative too. Do you
find it surprising that the Ministry of Health appears not to have
read that web-site?
Post by James Christophers
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Have you made that recommendation to the government?
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Well, which is it to be, Tony? It is your suggestion - and John Bowes
may be holding his breath to get your expert view . . .
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
The harm in not wearing them is that you canot enter many shops . . .
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Well it seems that even our New Zealander of the Year believes that masks are
unnecessary, even at level 4. Also swimming and unnecessary travel are OK - At
least for some! Old news? Not really, recent and on point.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/09/09/new-zealander-of-the-year-siouxsie-wiles-unmasked/?fbclid=IwAR2ZRoWogfF5XmUx7_6UoPvf_eQdlgnU_NgqI2AA97MnH12jZKkPVX2WCrs
John Bowes
2021-09-10 01:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:39:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
"Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some
circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this
proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face
masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not
assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
"
And that conclusion sounds very genuine and authoritative too. Do you
find it surprising that the Ministry of Health appears not to have
read that web-site?
Post by James Christophers
So we're left with the present-day advice with its universal application of
the precautionary principle, unless and until 100% conclusive evidence suggests
we may safely cease doing so and "return to normal".
Ah, so in that case we should all be locked down at level 4 until there is not
a single case and then to level 2 until covid 19 has morphed into something
safe.
Have you made that recommendation to the government?
Or alternatively we should all face East at sunrise since it can do no harm and
might, just might, do some good.
Well, which is it to be, Tony? It is your suggestion - and John Bowes
may be holding his breath to get your expert view . . .
There appears to be little or no point in masks according to this study. I
think it gives some people a false sense of safety so maybe there is actually
some harm in masks.
The harm in not wearing them is that you canot enter many shops . . .
Post by James Christophers
IOW, articles or no, nothing has yet materially changed other than that
increasing cornucopia of advisories and information gained from those who
continue to toil 24/7 over our health and welfare - masks on.
Well it seems that even our New Zealander of the Year believes that masks are
unnecessary, even at level 4. Also swimming and unnecessary travel are OK - At
least for some! Old news? Not really, recent and on point.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/09/09/new-zealander-of-the-year-siouxsie-wiles-unmasked/?fbclid=IwAR2ZRoWogfF5XmUx7_6UoPvf_eQdlgnU_NgqI2AA97MnH12jZKkPVX2WCrs
Needed some bits and pieces and drugs so headed into Upper Hutt. Looked like a meeting of the Kelly gang :)
Gordon
2021-09-08 07:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR2WUCioTQ3X3u7G5OF-Gn-EqHezmOCRK6q2eEx2SiiPHPGlCZG87m-9hf0
Authoritative, well researched and science based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
Tread carefully and, as the genuinely open-minded will, lector cave.
Authors unknown? You have cited a Wikipedia page. Are you aware that anyone
can put up a wiki page?
Yup, and anyone can put up a page calling themselves "Swiss Policy Research".
And so it goes...forever and a day.
And conveniently ignoring the copious sources most of which look genuine and
authoritative.
So are they? If I was on the misinformation band wagon I would try and get
some sources which looked good, Selectively quote from them to make my
mis-information seem more real.

Still, we are keeping on open mind on this. Do some critical thinking and to
to hell with the AI pushing all this crap at us.
Willy Nilly
2021-09-08 04:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Masks may be worthless if not the correct type and not fitted and
handled correctly.
So true, but if they're going to enforce a mask rule, then I'd rather
is was of the "joke" variety, because that makes it so much easier to
"go along with the gag".
Post by JohnO
I see TVNZ instructing its reporters to do a massive virtue signaling
exercise, making a show of leaving their masks on then taking
them off to speak on camera.
Yes, I had to laugh the first few times I saw that, it's so
ostentatiously pretentious -- they pretend that they usually wear the
mask and are doffing it just for the telecast, when in truth they put
it on just before the telecast.
Loading...