apple ][ said: The state itself operates illegally, picking and choosing which laws to follow, such as their decision to be a sanctuary state, so I do not recognize their authority or legitimacy when it comes to certain laws. I also pick and choose what I follow.
"Sanctuary" city/state just means that they're not going to participate in immigration enforcement activity. Considering that the U.S. Constitution specifically says that immigration enforcement is entirely the responsibility of the federal government, there isn't really a legal issue to complain about there. The federal government can ask for help with immigration enforcement, but if cities and states say "no", that's perfectly legal.
Actually that was 1918, Science doesn’t agree on the issue now. Many experts have come out against the use of masks as cause serious risk and are ineffective protection anyway. Even in the hospital shields are better, hence Apple making them.
Actually that was 1918, Science doesn’t agree on the issue now. Many experts have come out against the use of masks as cause serious risk and are ineffective protection anyway. Even in the hospital shields are better, hence Apple making them.
This bolded section is completely and utterly untrue.
While Apple is in fact manufacturing "hospital shields," it is also providing masks as well, so I'm not sure how you logically got from point A to B here. The two pieces of PPE protect against different mechanisms of droplet exposure.
Some of these changes will be temporary. Others more permanent.
The Corona Virus has forever changed retail in ways that we have not yet begun to even think about. And, that will be particularly true once the nation abandons its denial and realizes that the Corona Virus has simply been one of many similar threats over the past decades and will become just one of a string of those yet to come.
Plus, there are other threats yet to come:
Right now viruses are the most feared because our medical systems never developed safe and effective treatments. Bacterial infections are another matter where anti-bacterial drugs have eliminated what used to be the leading cause of death: infection. That happened so long ago we have forgotten. But, our factory farms are not only busy breeding the next new virus but also the next new antibiotic resistant bacteria as they dump truckloads of antibiotics into their livestock. (the prescription of antibiotics is closely restricted in humans to prevent bacterial immunity to our drugs while the livestock industry buys and uses the exact same drugs by the truckload.)
We need to: -- Resurrect our once proud public health agencies to study, predict and prepare for new waves of never before seen virus, prion, parasitic and bacterial infections.
-- Modify how things are done places where people work, play, congregate and study to prevent unnecessary spread of those infections.
We really need to treat this as a learning experience for the next one.
Here in Pennsylvania most of the state has moved from Red level to Yellow -- which means that stores with outside entrances can open but enclosed shopping malls remain closed.
I wonder how many Apple Stores are in enclosed malls? "Mine" is one of two Pittsburgh stores that are in an enclosed mall and will not be open till the region shifts to Green -- but there is not even a prediction when that will happen. Fortunately, we have a third that has an open air entrance. It's not open now but, hopefully, it will be very soon.
Actually that was 1918, Science doesn’t agree on the issue now. Many experts have come out against the use of masks as cause serious risk and are ineffective protection anyway. Even in the hospital shields are better, hence Apple making them.
This bolded section is completely and utterly untrue.
While Apple is in fact manufacturing "hospital shields," it is also providing masks as well, so I'm not sure how you logically got from point A to B here. The two pieces of PPE protect against different mechanisms of droplet exposure.
Most likely he got it from early on when u.S. "experts" were debating whether masks should be used -- likely because, like all other PPE, it was in short supply and needed for healthcare workers. Even the surgeon general was questioning their use -- until it was suggested people make and use homemade stuff instead of real masks, then he changed his story completely.
It costs me nothing to wear a mask when entering a public place or an enclosed business where physical distancing guidelines cannot be assured. If the value here is a function of benefit divided by cost, a cost of zero means that even an infinitely small benefit results in infinite value. If others are offended by my mask, I apologize, but living in a society with more than one person in it always involves some compromises and accommodations.
I hope that the Apple stores by me open up soon. They've been closed for far too long already.
I actually need to go to an Apple store soon, because I need to pick up a few things, and I want to see a few different models in person, before I make my decision.
I have personally declared that masks are no longer essential for myself, because when I went outside today to pick up a food order, I decided to not wear a mask, for the first time in a while. I've also noticed that many people who were outside were not wearing masks either. It felt good to breathe in regular, fresh air again.
Stores still require a mask, so I'll just carry one in my pocket and put it on quickly, if I need to enter any stores. I'll take it off as soon as I leave the store. It'll basically function as a prop.
The weather is getting to be too nice and too warm. and soon, more and more people will not be bothering.
You decided that masks are no longer essential because you decided not to wear a mask?
Well as long as your decision is based on applying sound reasoning to facts, that's all that counts.
Actually that was 1918, Science doesn’t agree on the issue now. Many experts have come out against the use of masks as cause serious risk and are ineffective protection anyway. Even in the hospital shields are better, hence Apple making them.
Yet you can't even name one expert who says masks are a "serious risk and are ineffective."
You decided that masks are no longer essential because you decided not to wear a mask?
Well as long as your decision is based on applying sound reasoning to facts, that's all that counts.
I would say that my assessment of the situation is at least as good as that of the authorities. I would even claim that I would have done a better job than them, but that's not a very high bar to pass in my opinion.
You spelled "read here for some bullshit pseudoscience posted on a bullshit pseudoscience website by a known quack" wrong. At least your forum handle is apt:
"He had a wagon-full of junk science claims in his book regarding ‘excitotoxins’–a term he helped coin that is found in several homeopathic and alternative health snake oil sales sites. [1] Blaylock also promotes chemtrail conspiracies alleging cancer-causing nanoparticles as being purposefully released into the atmosphere in a government-corporate scheme.[2] Skeptic’s Dictionary and QuackWatch call him an anti-vaxxer [3] while selling his own line of “Brain Repair Formula” supplements. He has been called “quack of the day” by The Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist.[4]"
You spelled "read here for some bullshit pseudoscience posted on a bullshit pseudoscience website by a known quack" wrong. At least your forum handle is apt:
"He had a wagon-full of junk science claims in his book regarding ‘excitotoxins’–a term he helped coin that is found in several homeopathic and alternative health snake oil sales sites. [1] Blaylock also promotes chemtrail conspiracies alleging cancer-causing nanoparticles as being purposefully released into the atmosphere in a government-corporate scheme.[2] Skeptic’s Dictionary and QuackWatch call him an anti-vaxxer [3] while selling his own line of “Brain Repair Formula” supplements. He has been called “quack of the day” by The Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist.[4]"
Yeah, no thanks.
So, that’s your response to the articles he cited from professional journals? Call him names all you want, but that does not negate the information contained in his references.
You spelled "read here for some bullshit pseudoscience posted on a bullshit pseudoscience website by a known quack" wrong. At least your forum handle is apt:
"He had a wagon-full of junk science claims in his book regarding ‘excitotoxins’–a term he helped coin that is found in several homeopathic and alternative health snake oil sales sites. [1] Blaylock also promotes chemtrail conspiracies alleging cancer-causing nanoparticles as being purposefully released into the atmosphere in a government-corporate scheme.[2] Skeptic’s Dictionary and QuackWatch call him an anti-vaxxer [3] while selling his own line of “Brain Repair Formula” supplements. He has been called “quack of the day” by The Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist.[4]"
Yeah, no thanks.
So, that’s your response to the articles he cited from professional journals? Call him names all you want, but that does not negate the information contained in his references.
So, yeah, no thanks.
I refuse to take anyone perpetuating chemtrail and anti-vaxxer bullshit seriously. As is common with many of these types of sources, some of the information may be correct, but that doesn't mean the conclusions are. My first instinct was to look up the author, and it's pretty clear from his record that he's an unreliable source.
You spelled "read here for some bullshit pseudoscience posted on a bullshit pseudoscience website by a known quack" wrong. At least your forum handle is apt:
"He had a wagon-full of junk science claims in his book regarding ‘excitotoxins’–a term he helped coin that is found in several homeopathic and alternative health snake oil sales sites. [1] Blaylock also promotes chemtrail conspiracies alleging cancer-causing nanoparticles as being purposefully released into the atmosphere in a government-corporate scheme.[2] Skeptic’s Dictionary and QuackWatch call him an anti-vaxxer [3] while selling his own line of “Brain Repair Formula” supplements. He has been called “quack of the day” by The Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist.[4]"
Yeah, no thanks.
So, that’s your response to the articles he cited from professional journals? Call him names all you want, but that does not negate the information contained in his references.
So, yeah, no thanks.
I refuse to take anyone perpetuating chemtrail and anti-vaxxer bullshit seriously. As is common with many of these types of sources, some of the information may be correct, but that doesn't mean the conclusions are. My first instinct was to look up the author, and it's pretty clear from his record that he's an unreliable source.
You didn’t read the article, and you can read the references he cited and see the authors’ conclusions for yourself.
You spelled "read here for some bullshit pseudoscience posted on a bullshit pseudoscience website by a known quack" wrong. At least your forum handle is apt:
"He had a wagon-full of junk science claims in his book regarding ‘excitotoxins’–a term he helped coin that is found in several homeopathic and alternative health snake oil sales sites. [1] Blaylock also promotes chemtrail conspiracies alleging cancer-causing nanoparticles as being purposefully released into the atmosphere in a government-corporate scheme.[2] Skeptic’s Dictionary and QuackWatch call him an anti-vaxxer [3] while selling his own line of “Brain Repair Formula” supplements. He has been called “quack of the day” by The Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist.[4]"
Yeah, no thanks.
So, that’s your response to the articles he cited from professional journals? Call him names all you want, but that does not negate the information contained in his references.
So, yeah, no thanks.
I refuse to take anyone perpetuating chemtrail and anti-vaxxer bullshit seriously. As is common with many of these types of sources, some of the information may be correct, but that doesn't mean the conclusions are. My first instinct was to look up the author, and it's pretty clear from his record that he's an unreliable source.
You didn’t read the article, and you can read the references he cited and see the authors’ conclusions for yourself.
But you are keeping your mind closed instead.
I did read it, and saw his conclusions. I'm not interested in fact-checking a known conspiracy theorist's junk science post. It cracks me up that rejecting a known source of garbage and misinformation makes me close-minded. It's important to keep an open mind, but not so much that wind blows freely through it. Good luck with your internet "research".
Actually that was 1918, Science doesn’t agree on the issue now. Many experts have come out against the use of masks as cause serious risk and are ineffective protection anyway. Even in the hospital shields are better, hence Apple making them.
Yet you can't even name one expert who says masks are a "serious risk and are ineffective."
Today, only the crazies are saying masks should not be worn. But that was not always the case. Much of the confusion stems from the bad advice coming from the U.S. government early on.
How about the U.S. Surgeon General? Does he count as an expert? On February 29th he said about purchasing masks (which were the only ones considered at the time):
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk! http://bit.ly/37Ay6Cm
That was consistent with official U.S. advice at the time to not worry about the virus.
On April 3rd however, the U.S. health agencies and government official began to re-evaluate their bad advice as the virus began to do its deadly work and the word began to go out to the American people to start making their own masks -- but even that was highly debated.
From the Washington Post on April 3rd: "White House coronavirus task force officials had debated whether to recommend universal
use of face coverings such as cloth masks when people go out in public,
or target the guidance more narrowly to areas with high community
transmission of the virus that causes covid-19.
Some
senior administration officials pushed to limit the recommendation
because they argued that wide use of masks is unnecessary and might
cause panic. Some of the president’s political advisers also warned
against recommending masks for everyone, and had proposed to rewrite the
agency guidance more narrowly, according to two senior administration
officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the
guidance. The draft that went to the coronavirus task force on Friday
limited the recommendation to high-transmission areas, they said."
Like everything with this pandemic the U.S. response was politicized, ineffective, chaotic and, from a public health standpoint, just plain wrong.
Like testing and tracing, the administration denied masks were needed -- not because they weren't needed -- but because they had failed to make them available in sufficient quantities as well as how it would make them look if the practice became wide spread. Too bad we haven't developed homemade testing and tracing.
So, what does one do when facts, truth and science interfere with one's brand or agenda?
Start spreading doubt and confusion with contradictory "opinions of experts"....
This pretty much describes the pattern of spreading doubt and confusion that has become a standard tactic of any who are pushing their own agenda against scientific fact and truth. The tobacco industry started using it and our food and energy industries have continued it -- and now the Trump campaign is using it too: To spread doubt and confusion about precautions necessary for the health of the people of this country.
Specifically, what they are doing is recruiting physicians whose loyalty to Trump exceeds their loyalty to their Hypocratic Oath so they can spread doubt and confusion about the virus and reopening the country. From the AP:
"Trump allies lining up doctors to prescribe rapid reopening
Republican
political operatives are recruiting “extremely pro-Trump” doctors to go
on television to prescribe reviving the U.S. economy as quickly as
possible, without waiting to meet safety benchmarks proposed by the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to slow the spread of
the new coronavirus. The plan was discussed in a May 11 conference call with a senior staffer for the Trump reelection campaign.... Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign communications director, confirmed to
AP that an effort to recruit doctors to publicly support the president
is underway, but declined to say when the initiative would be rolled
out. [saying] all of our coalitions espouse policies and say things that are, of
course, exactly simpatico with what the president believes. ... The
president has been outspoken about the fact that he wants to get the
country back open as soon as possible."
It does not take a brain surgeon, no irony intended, to intuitively realize that wearing an obstructive device over one’s mouth and nose restricts airflow. Thus, more effort is required to both inhale and exhale.
And obviously, some of the exhaled air, containing higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, is trapped within the mask and inhaled. I hope this is clear to those demanding use of masks.
Comments
While Apple is in fact manufacturing "hospital shields," it is also providing masks as well, so I'm not sure how you logically got from point A to B here. The two pieces of PPE protect against different mechanisms of droplet exposure.
-- Resurrect our once proud public health agencies to study, predict and prepare for new waves of never before seen virus, prion, parasitic and bacterial infections.
Most likely he got it from early on when u.S. "experts" were debating whether masks should be used -- likely because, like all other PPE, it was in short supply and needed for healthcare workers. Even the surgeon general was questioning their use -- until it was suggested people make and use homemade stuff instead of real masks, then he changed his story completely.
You decided that masks are no longer essential because you decided not to wear a mask?
Yet you can't even name one expert who says masks are a "serious risk and are ineffective."
https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/
"He had a wagon-full of junk science claims in his book regarding ‘excitotoxins’–a term he helped coin that is found in several homeopathic and alternative health snake oil sales sites. [1] Blaylock also promotes chemtrail conspiracies alleging cancer-causing nanoparticles as being purposefully released into the atmosphere in a government-corporate scheme.[2] Skeptic’s Dictionary and QuackWatch call him an anti-vaxxer [3] while selling his own line of “Brain Repair Formula” supplements. He has been called “quack of the day” by The Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist.[4]"
Yeah, no thanks.
So, that’s your response to the articles he cited from professional journals? Call him names all you want, but that does not negate the information contained in his references.
So, yeah, no thanks.
You didn’t read the article, and you can read the references he cited and see the authors’ conclusions for yourself.
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
http://bit.ly/37Ay6Cm
"White House coronavirus task force officials had debated whether to recommend universal use of face coverings such as cloth masks when people go out in public, or target the guidance more narrowly to areas with high community transmission of the virus that causes covid-19.
Some senior administration officials pushed to limit the recommendation because they argued that wide use of masks is unnecessary and might cause panic. Some of the president’s political advisers also warned against recommending masks for everyone, and had proposed to rewrite the agency guidance more narrowly, according to two senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the guidance. The draft that went to the coronavirus task force on Friday limited the recommendation to high-transmission areas, they said."
Like everything with this pandemic the U.S. response was politicized, ineffective, chaotic and, from a public health standpoint, just plain wrong.
Like testing and tracing, the administration denied masks were needed -- not because they weren't needed -- but because they had failed to make them available in sufficient quantities as well as how it would make them look if the practice became wide spread. Too bad we haven't developed homemade testing and tracing.
"Trump allies lining up doctors to prescribe rapid reopening
Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign communications director, confirmed to AP that an effort to recruit doctors to publicly support the president is underway, but declined to say when the initiative would be rolled out. [saying] all of our coalitions espouse policies and say things that are, of course, exactly simpatico with what the president believes. ... The president has been outspoken about the fact that he wants to get the country back open as soon as possible."
And obviously, some of the exhaled air, containing higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, is trapped within the mask and inhaled. I hope this is clear to those demanding use of masks.