Apple considers dropping face mask mandate for Apple Store staff

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    LeoMC said:
    LeoMC said:
    Without masks, there will be no store policy to physically distance. 'If' I go into a store, I will wear a mask and treat those without masks like I do people with bad breath by politely backing away from them. No doubt some will be offended but my health is more important than their feelings.
    Maybe you should consider a Hazmat suit...

    No, a mask, especially a good one, is fine.
    I'm sure it is, but a Hazmat suit would be safer - don't you wanna be safe?

    my point.
    You have no point, dude; there are plenty of studies that show masks are pretty much useless and none that show they have any effect on containing the spread of viruses (have you heard about Sweden? that country was hardly affected by sars-cov-2 even though practically nobody wore a face covering).
    Have you heard about Sweden?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-23/swedish-prime-minister-admits-strategy-to-stop-virus-fell-short
    I know Sweden like the back of my hand.
    Sweden had one of the best strategies in the WORLD: since feb 2021 its mortality has fallen to its regular values and remained there. They manage to do that with no masks, no mandates (prof of vaccination), no mandatory measures with school opened, with shops, restaurants, parks opened, with freedom of speech and movement unaltered.
    There were definitely masks being used in Sweden, even if it was lacklustre and there was no mandate, and there were definitely  widespread closures even if there were no formal lockdowns.  And even so, Sweden's results have been very questionable (including by their own prime minister and their monarch), certainly not the best, even if not the worst either.  But over twice* the deaths per capita as either Norway or Denmark, which are the closest geographical and demographic comparisons.  And the failure to protect people was particularly felt in the elderly population**.

    You're letting your ideology rule your analysis.


    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
    ** https://ltccovid.org/2020/12/16/report-of-the-swedish-corona-commission-on-care-of-older-people-during-the-pandemic/
    There were hardly any mask use in Sweden - I know, I've been there when the cases peaked; I have seen just as many people wearing mask as they were wearing Balenciaga or Gucci (you have to know the Swedish people in order to get the comparison).
    Nothing was ever restricted (maybe alcohol access, which in Sweden has always been restricted) - they had a limited no of people in closed spaces and that was about the only mandatory measure; they respected some recommendations but nobody was offended by those who ignored them (even their state epidemiologist was seen in public ignoring some of them).
    In 2021 Sweden had a 75% increase of covid related deaths while Denmark had +147% and Norway +199% and in the last 12 mo SW had +35%, DK +98% and NO +167%.
    Most deaths in elderly occurred in institutions (which is where old people go in SW and are very rare in both DK and NO).
    The king spoke (in 2021) about what happened at the beginning of the pandemic (in 2020), following an investigation.

    The pandemic is about to end and we start to see the effects: SW has one of the biggest economic growths in EU, behind only to Ireland (where all tech companies are) and some of the poorest countries in CE like HU or RO.

    How's that for "ideology"?
    Nothing was ever restricted (except for all the restrictions) :smiley: 
    There were no masks (except for the masks that I saw) :smiley: 
    Older people dying is ok because it was in institutions :smiley: 
    And here's some unsourced numbers :smiley: 

    Yep, ideology shining bright.


    I know Sweden quite well, and I know that there are opinions in Sweden that the approach taken was reckless and cost a lot of lives.  It certainly isn't true that the "country was hardly affected by sars-cov-2"
    I repeat: nothing was restricted in Sweden, except the things that Swedish people have always restricted.
    In this pandemic I've seen people wilfully wearing Darth Vader like helms - does that means it was mandatory to wear a DV like helm?
    I never said it was ok, I said Sweden had a surge of deaths in the first 2-3 months of the pandemic because the virus spread through elderly people institutionalised; after they realised what was happening and protected those people, the went back to normal. Norway didn't had that problem, because there are hardly any care centres.
    Don't you have access to the internet? Go fact-check those numbers, you lazy mo... :smiley: 
    Nope.  You make the claim, you do the work.  I sourced all my metrics.

    In any case, you're clearly backtracking from your initial silly claim that Sweden was "hardly affected" (to wit, overall: 2.45m cases, 17,355 deaths, 1,687 deaths per million people, significantly more deaths, both absolutely and per capita, than either Norway or Denmark), so my work here is done.
    spheric
  • Reply 42 of 53

    No the mask prevent pathogens from spreading from the surgical teams mouth and nose.   They wear it When in surgery.  Whether it’s a 10 min procedure or a 4 hour one.  I worked in an OR for several years.  Masks were off until they walked into the OR suite. 

    So again. Next time you in for surgery. Let the mds know that they can take the mask off.  

    Some people here are just…………..
    LeoMC said:
    For all you anti maskers.  Next time you have a surgical procedure.  Please tell the surgical team to remove their masks as they don’t do anything. 

    I’m willing to bet not one person would do that.  Lol

    some people are incredibly dumb. 
    Surgeons wear masks to protect the patient from bacterias (which are a totally different pathogen than the viruses) and they wear it when they spend lots of hours indoors.
    Please tell me you've just started the school and you don't have the right to vote :)!

  • Reply 43 of 53
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 84member
    lonestar1 said:
    LeoMC said:
    I know Sweden like the back of my hand.
    That may be true, but what you “know” about Sweden does not accord with reality. 

    “Sweden currently has the highest per-capita death of any European country, making it difficult to imagine their policies will be remembered as anything short of disastrous.”


    As Will Roger’s said, it’s not what you don’t know that hurts you, it’s all the things you do know that ain’t so.

    You want the “right” to do whatever you like, regardless of how much damage you do to other people. So, do I have to punch you in the nose? To break your leg? To dump garbage on your property? To put poison into your water supply? 

    I remember when Covid deniers used to say, “We don’t object to voluntary measures. We’re just against government mandates.” Now, we see that isn’t true, You aren’t just against government mandates. You’re against companies voluntarily doing anything to protect their customers and employees. 

    But at the same time, if you get sick, you’ll suddenly want the doctors who you scoffed at and ignored to do everything they can to save your life and restore you to health. In Texas, Governor Abbott told hospitals to stop performing “unnecessary procedures” to preserve scarce resources for Covid patients — primarily vaccine deniers. That affected cataract removal, cancer surgeries, and children awaiting reconstructive surgery, among others. They were told to go to the back of the line, because Abbott’s core constituency, with its self-inflicted condition was more important. Hypocrites like you never protested *that* mandate. You didn’t care about *their* medical freedom. All that matters is you, and if anyone else is damaged by your actions, so what, it’s their own fault for getting in your way.  
     
    Chicago_whatever is simply wrong; Sweden is on 30th place (out of 48 polities) în Europe when it comes to deaths per capita for people who died WITH sars-cov-2 infection.
    Yes, anyone has the right to do whatever one wants just like you or society have the right to punish one, if one violates your/its rights; you are free to punch me in the nose as long as you don't break my nose or provoke a civil damage (damage my image, you scare me etc); you are free to put whatever poison you want in whatever water supply, as long as that poison doesn't affect me and my health in any way (for instance, I believe that lemon is poison - but as long as it does me no harm, there's ok to give me a glass of water with lemon in it); should I go on or you understand the difference between doing something and provoking something?

    I do not object if someone wants to wear a mask, or tights, or one wants to pierce ones nipples, or wants to put a dildo up ones bottom, but I have a problem when the same one wants me to put a dildo up my bottom; again, see the difference?

    I am ok with not getting free treatment (along with paying less money to medicare and buy an optional insurance or take my chances), if I get covid while unvaccinated as long as you are ok with not being treated, if you don't run 30 min every day.
    I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).
    edited March 4 muthuk_vanalingamcgWerks
  • Reply 44 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:

    I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).
    That only became true in the UK in autumn of last year, when vaccination rates exceeded 70%*.  Given that a single shot of a vaccine is expected to provide ~80% (depending on which vaccine) protection from symptoms requiring hospitalisation it is entirely predictable that there is a point where vaccinated people contracting the virus exceed the unvaccinated.  That's simple mathematics.  Infection rates also won't be the same, given that vaccinated people include the high risk people, and that people tend to take less care once they'd had the shot.  Also note that the number of people in hospital who had two shots or more of a vaccine were miniscule.  Finally, note that all hospitalisations are not equal - vaccination dramatically reduces the need for intensive care, and reduces mortality rates down to almost irrelevant, especially a full course**.

    So sure, keep preaching the anti-vax gospel. But the numbers (where you still didn't cite a source, but it's ok, I did the work this time) aren't on your side.


    * https://fullfact.org/health/economist-vaccination-status/ ;
    ** https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31december2021
  • Reply 45 of 53
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 84member
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:

    I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).
    That only became true in the UK in autumn of last year, when vaccination rates exceeded 70%*.  Given that a single shot of a vaccine is expected to provide ~80% (depending on which vaccine) protection from symptoms requiring hospitalisation it is entirely predictable that there is a point where vaccinated people contracting the virus exceed the unvaccinated.  That's simple mathematics.  Infection rates also won't be the same, given that vaccinated people include the high risk people, and that people tend to take less care once they'd had the shot.  Also note that the number of people in hospital who had two shots or more of a vaccine were miniscule.  Finally, note that all hospitalisations are not equal - vaccination dramatically reduces the need for intensive care, and reduces mortality rates down to almost irrelevant, especially a full course**.
    That proves again that you know only what mainstream propaganda tells you to know.
    In UK the percentage of fully  (14 days after the 2nd shot) vaccinated people hospitalised exceeded the number of unvaccinated in the summer - I believe it was in July - and kept on growing ever since and so did the death rate (by the end of the summer, over 70% of deceased were fully vaccinated).
    I'm not gonna explain why that happened it just did; in the rest of Europe there was another ratio, but by the end of the year - when omicron started to interfere - the same thing happened (some studies are showing that the protection with 2 doses of vaccine is negative - as in you're more protected unvaccinated), but not because the vaccines didn't work, but because of the human behaviour.
    Vaccines were/are indeed effective for sick people and people over 60+ of age and were/are useless for everyone else (even USA started to admit that vaccines are useless for young healthy people).
    As for the masks: as long as there is no problem when tens of thousands people cheer and shout to a bunch a dudes in shorts that run after a ball, I'm pretty sure that a few hundreds that look at phones in a room with good ventilation will be safe even though they won't be wearing a mask...
  • Reply 46 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:

    I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).
    That only became true in the UK in autumn of last year, when vaccination rates exceeded 70%*.  Given that a single shot of a vaccine is expected to provide ~80% (depending on which vaccine) protection from symptoms requiring hospitalisation it is entirely predictable that there is a point where vaccinated people contracting the virus exceed the unvaccinated.  That's simple mathematics.  Infection rates also won't be the same, given that vaccinated people include the high risk people, and that people tend to take less care once they'd had the shot.  Also note that the number of people in hospital who had two shots or more of a vaccine were miniscule.  Finally, note that all hospitalisations are not equal - vaccination dramatically reduces the need for intensive care, and reduces mortality rates down to almost irrelevant, especially a full course**.
    That proves again that you know only what mainstream propaganda tells you to know.
    In UK the percentage of fully  (14 days after the 2nd shot) vaccinated people hospitalised exceeded the number of unvaccinated in the summer - I believe it was in July - and kept on growing ever since and so did the death rate (by the end of the summer, over 70% of deceased were fully vaccinated).
    I'm not gonna explain why that happened it just did; in the rest of Europe there was another ratio, but by the end of the year - when omicron started to interfere - the same thing happened (some studies are showing that the protection with 2 doses of vaccine is negative - as in you're more protected unvaccinated), but not because the vaccines didn't work, but because of the human behaviour.
    Vaccines were/are indeed effective for sick people and people over 60+ of age and were/are useless for everyone else (even USA started to admit that vaccines are useless for young healthy people).
    As for the masks: as long as there is no problem when tens of thousands people cheer and shout to a bunch a dudes in shorts that run after a ball, I'm pretty sure that a few hundreds that look at phones in a room with good ventilation will be safe even though they won't be wearing a mask...
    And not a single source to be seen. Won’t even bother reading to the end.
  • Reply 47 of 53
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    Bullshit

    In what regard? Droplet vs aerosol transmission? Or, you don't think coughing is more an issue in medical situations (where the patients are sick)?

    jcs2305 said:
    So the setting of this study you provide is in close quarters ( 1m = 3.28 ft ) and admits that the actual use of masks was inconsistent. Close quarters for extended periods of time and not using a masks consistently is the very example of how to spread COVID. wow... :|
    I think you'd better read it a bit more carefully, instead of just looking for some 'gotcha' you think you found.

    lonestar1 said:
    But you force other people to be exposed to your viruses. You think that people who don’t believe in modern medicine and science are the only ones who have rights.

    There’s an old saying, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” Your “right” to damage or destroy other people’s lives and property is not a right, it’s a wrong.

    It’s not all about you, 
    I'd agree, except that most of the pandemic policies were based on no/faulty science, and aren't without cost/harm on the other side of the equation. It isn't OK to harm people just so you can make yourself feel better/safer either. (That said, masks certainly aren't the hill I'd die on here in terms of importance. The vaccine mandates are the real human rights violation. I wear a mask 8+ hours per work day, so I've lots of mask-wearing experience over the last couple of years.)
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 48 of 53
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    phonephreak said:
    No the mask prevent pathogens from spreading from the surgical teams mouth and nose.   They wear it When in surgery.  Whether it’s a 10 min procedure or a 4 hour one.  I worked in an OR for several years.  Masks were off until they walked into the OR suite.
    Yes, that's the theory anyway, and I'm sure it stops some forms of transmission, of some types of pathogens.
    The problems are:

    1. Most of the real-world studies have shown little impact when it comes to things like influenza.
    2. Covid-19 is aerosol spread. The mask won't stop that.

    crowley said:
    And not a single source to be seen. Won’t even bother reading to the end.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3.full

    Canada is highly vaccinated.

    Israel is highly vaccinated, Palestine is not. Similar people, location, etc.


  • Reply 49 of 53
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 84member
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:

    I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).
    That only became true in the UK in autumn of last year, when vaccination rates exceeded 70%*.  Given that a single shot of a vaccine is expected to provide ~80% (depending on which vaccine) protection from symptoms requiring hospitalisation it is entirely predictable that there is a point where vaccinated people contracting the virus exceed the unvaccinated.  That's simple mathematics.  Infection rates also won't be the same, given that vaccinated people include the high risk people, and that people tend to take less care once they'd had the shot.  Also note that the number of people in hospital who had two shots or more of a vaccine were miniscule.  Finally, note that all hospitalisations are not equal - vaccination dramatically reduces the need for intensive care, and reduces mortality rates down to almost irrelevant, especially a full course**.
    That proves again that you know only what mainstream propaganda tells you to know.
    In UK the percentage of fully  (14 days after the 2nd shot) vaccinated people hospitalised exceeded the number of unvaccinated in the summer - I believe it was in July - and kept on growing ever since and so did the death rate (by the end of the summer, over 70% of deceased were fully vaccinated).
    I'm not gonna explain why that happened it just did; in the rest of Europe there was another ratio, but by the end of the year - when omicron started to interfere - the same thing happened (some studies are showing that the protection with 2 doses of vaccine is negative - as in you're more protected unvaccinated), but not because the vaccines didn't work, but because of the human behaviour.
    Vaccines were/are indeed effective for sick people and people over 60+ of age and were/are useless for everyone else (even USA started to admit that vaccines are useless for young healthy people).
    As for the masks: as long as there is no problem when tens of thousands people cheer and shout to a bunch a dudes in shorts that run after a ball, I'm pretty sure that a few hundreds that look at phones in a room with good ventilation will be safe even though they won't be wearing a mask...
    And not a single source to be seen. Won’t even bother reading to the end.
    PHE released a series of reports with the title "SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England": look for them, open an Excel/Numbers or whatever and calculate for yourself.
    Medrixv published in 23.12.2021 a Danish study, showing negative protection after 91 days after the 2nd dose for people that had 2 jabs.
    Every western country: over 80% of people deceased with covid has had at least one chronic condition; under 65 the percentage goes way over 90%.
    CDC - study on efficacy for children vaccination has not met the criteria - stopped from publishing.
    Oxford University and NHS: the risk for a young healthy unvaccinated person to catch and die from covid is 1 in 200.000 (they even made an application, based on UK data, for everyone to calculate the risk).

    I'm not going to bother giving you sorry a** direct links.
    edited March 7 cgWerks
  • Reply 50 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:

    I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).
    That only became true in the UK in autumn of last year, when vaccination rates exceeded 70%*.  Given that a single shot of a vaccine is expected to provide ~80% (depending on which vaccine) protection from symptoms requiring hospitalisation it is entirely predictable that there is a point where vaccinated people contracting the virus exceed the unvaccinated.  That's simple mathematics.  Infection rates also won't be the same, given that vaccinated people include the high risk people, and that people tend to take less care once they'd had the shot.  Also note that the number of people in hospital who had two shots or more of a vaccine were miniscule.  Finally, note that all hospitalisations are not equal - vaccination dramatically reduces the need for intensive care, and reduces mortality rates down to almost irrelevant, especially a full course**.
    That proves again that you know only what mainstream propaganda tells you to know.
    In UK the percentage of fully  (14 days after the 2nd shot) vaccinated people hospitalised exceeded the number of unvaccinated in the summer - I believe it was in July - and kept on growing ever since and so did the death rate (by the end of the summer, over 70% of deceased were fully vaccinated).
    I'm not gonna explain why that happened it just did; in the rest of Europe there was another ratio, but by the end of the year - when omicron started to interfere - the same thing happened (some studies are showing that the protection with 2 doses of vaccine is negative - as in you're more protected unvaccinated), but not because the vaccines didn't work, but because of the human behaviour.
    Vaccines were/are indeed effective for sick people and people over 60+ of age and were/are useless for everyone else (even USA started to admit that vaccines are useless for young healthy people).
    As for the masks: as long as there is no problem when tens of thousands people cheer and shout to a bunch a dudes in shorts that run after a ball, I'm pretty sure that a few hundreds that look at phones in a room with good ventilation will be safe even though they won't be wearing a mask...
    And not a single source to be seen. Won’t even bother reading to the end.
    PHE released a series of reports with the title "SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England": look for them, open an Excel/Numbers or whatever and calculate for yourself.
    Medrixv published in 23.12.2021 a Danish study, showing negative protection after 91 days after the 2nd dose for people that had 2 jabs.
    Every western country: over 80% of people deceased with covid has had at least one chronic condition; under 65 the percentage goes way over 90%.
    CDC - study on efficacy for children vaccination has not met the criteria - stopped from publishing.
    Oxford University and NHS: the risk for a young healthy unvaccinated person to catch and die from covid is 1 in 200.000 (they even made an application, based on UK data, for everyone to calculate the risk).

    I'm not going to bother giving you sorry a** direct links.
    If you're not going to bother then why the hell would I?  You evidently went to some effort to retrieve the date of publication (or just made them up, that's certainly possible), so not going the extra yard is either petty, lazy, or otherwise obstructive. Either way, I've been engaging in good faith while you are clearly more interested in being an edge lord, so it's not worth continuing this.

    Toodles!
  • Reply 51 of 53
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 84member
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:

    I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).
    That only became true in the UK in autumn of last year, when vaccination rates exceeded 70%*.  Given that a single shot of a vaccine is expected to provide ~80% (depending on which vaccine) protection from symptoms requiring hospitalisation it is entirely predictable that there is a point where vaccinated people contracting the virus exceed the unvaccinated.  That's simple mathematics.  Infection rates also won't be the same, given that vaccinated people include the high risk people, and that people tend to take less care once they'd had the shot.  Also note that the number of people in hospital who had two shots or more of a vaccine were miniscule.  Finally, note that all hospitalisations are not equal - vaccination dramatically reduces the need for intensive care, and reduces mortality rates down to almost irrelevant, especially a full course**.
    That proves again that you know only what mainstream propaganda tells you to know.
    In UK the percentage of fully  (14 days after the 2nd shot) vaccinated people hospitalised exceeded the number of unvaccinated in the summer - I believe it was in July - and kept on growing ever since and so did the death rate (by the end of the summer, over 70% of deceased were fully vaccinated).
    I'm not gonna explain why that happened it just did; in the rest of Europe there was another ratio, but by the end of the year - when omicron started to interfere - the same thing happened (some studies are showing that the protection with 2 doses of vaccine is negative - as in you're more protected unvaccinated), but not because the vaccines didn't work, but because of the human behaviour.
    Vaccines were/are indeed effective for sick people and people over 60+ of age and were/are useless for everyone else (even USA started to admit that vaccines are useless for young healthy people).
    As for the masks: as long as there is no problem when tens of thousands people cheer and shout to a bunch a dudes in shorts that run after a ball, I'm pretty sure that a few hundreds that look at phones in a room with good ventilation will be safe even though they won't be wearing a mask...
    And not a single source to be seen. Won’t even bother reading to the end.
    PHE released a series of reports with the title "SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England": look for them, open an Excel/Numbers or whatever and calculate for yourself.
    Medrixv published in 23.12.2021 a Danish study, showing negative protection after 91 days after the 2nd dose for people that had 2 jabs.
    Every western country: over 80% of people deceased with covid has had at least one chronic condition; under 65 the percentage goes way over 90%.
    CDC - study on efficacy for children vaccination has not met the criteria - stopped from publishing.
    Oxford University and NHS: the risk for a young healthy unvaccinated person to catch and die from covid is 1 in 200.000 (they even made an application, based on UK data, for everyone to calculate the risk).

    I'm not going to bother giving you sorry a** direct links.
    If you're not going to bother then why the hell would I?  You evidently went to some effort to retrieve the date of publication (or just made them up, that's certainly possible), so not going the extra yard is either petty, lazy, or otherwise obstructive. Either way, I've been engaging in good faith while you are clearly more interested in being an edge lord, so it's not worth continuing this.

    Toodles!
    In every single discussion about this stupid cold and the dumb measures the states have taken there is a person who wants sources; every time I gave them the sources (and believe me, I have read hundreds of studies - I have a dedicated tab in Safari with tens of links to data - and I have designed a few tables with charts that helped me make my decisions) I got the reply that I'm an antivaxx that wants to kill my grandma...
    That's why I decided to only provide enough info for anyone to be able to easily find the studies I'm talking about; if you're too lazy to find the info on your own, maybe you shouldn't be talking to me.
    edited March 7 cgWerks
  • Reply 52 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Oh I can find them, and I will probably take a look, but I agree that I shouldn't be talking to you.  I recommend that others do the same if this is the way you conduct yourself.

    Ignore button engaged.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 53 of 53
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    LeoMC said:
    PHE released a series of reports with the title "SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England": look for them, open an Excel/Numbers or whatever and calculate for yourself.
    Medrixv published in 23.12.2021 a Danish study, showing negative protection after 91 days after the 2nd dose for people that had 2 jabs.
    Every western country: over 80% of people deceased with covid has had at least one chronic condition; under 65 the percentage goes way over 90%.
    CDC - study on efficacy for children vaccination has not met the criteria - stopped from publishing.
    Oxford University and NHS: the risk for a young healthy unvaccinated person to catch and die from covid is 1 in 200.000 (they even made an application, based on UK data, for everyone to calculate the risk).
    The super-sad thing (criminal actually), is that studies are starting to come out (and had been all along) on how much impact a few simple things would have been, like making sure people's vitamin D levels has been good (and supplementing), bumping up basic exercise, especially outdoors (like a 30-min walk a couple times per week), trying to reduce stress (especially encouraging less hysteria... hello gov't & MSM), etc.

    And, yes, in context a large portion of Covid-19 deaths would have been deaths anyway, just from something else. When you weigh the remaining deaths against deaths caused by the restrictions, once again, it is criminal. So much needless pain and suffering.

    This will all come out eventually, it will just take time. Sadly, people, by then, will probably have lost the motivation to be sure the responsible parties pay... just like we just had multi-billion $ criminal charges against big-pharma for the opioid crisis, and no one goes to jail. It's just a cost of doing business. Make hundreds of billions, pay tens of billions in fines, laugh all the way to the bank.

    crowley said:
    Either way, I've been engaging in good faith while you are clearly more interested in being an edge lord, so it's not worth continuing this.
    Anyone who's even given the slightest effort to trying to be objective, and is still sticking to the gov't/legacy-media narrative anymore, isn't operating in 'good faith.' Sorry

    Everything down the line has been largely wrong. PCR testing, lockdowns, universal masking, smacking down early treatment/prevention, pushing a vax-only solution, pushing mandates on a failed solution, etc. One might argue a point here or there, and the anti-vax/mandate crowd certainly gets things wrong here and there or also goes too far. But, the truth isn't all that hard to find if you want to look. The censorship hasn't been that absolute (yet).
    edited March 8 muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.