A Few Words On Censorship

[davidbanner99@]

The guardian are just promoting the anti Johnson agenda, which I think is fine by me because he's a corrupted moron.

That’s the issue. The media pushes an agenda and people are fine with it and lap it up as long as it supports their own feelings. I see the conservatives doing the same crap with Biden. Every headline is negative. Granted he is a corrupt moron, but it is NOT fine by me.

But that’s the world we live in. You can’t get the actual news.

if anything its the teachers worrying.

And why are they worried? After 2 friggin years and basically 0.00001% deaths of children, what legitimate fear do teachers have? These same teachers who go out to eat and take their masks off? These same teachers who know, or should know, that masking does nothing to protect anyone. And at the same time, they know it hurts the ability of children to learn and to socialize.

How are teachers surviving in all these other countries wear children don’t use masks? How is it possible? The teachers still endorsing masks are ignorant.

Johnson's an educated, public school toff. He's not overall a bad guy but just not in any way cut out to make major political decisions. Richard Branson, yes, because Branson over years learned to direct major companies. The problem we have is unsuitable people in power, unable to govern societies and economies. It's a bit like John Lennon's Nowhere Man. Johnson doesn't have a point of view, knows not where he's going to. Whatever "in slogan" is scripted out to him, he repeats like an automaton. If Johnson had ever studied basic biology, maybe he could have questioned the seemingly impressive case for a wonder vaccine. Yet, Boris was simply sent to a posh school and given a gentleman's education. Whereas Branson "lived" in the corporate world and survived in it and those are the people that you need in power.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Yesterday I went to a coffee shop. Three employees wearing masks, serving upwards of 25 customers not wearing masks. Customers wear a mask to order, but then take their masks off, drinking with friends, colleagues, etc. spreading the virus.

Two years in and the data is super clear, the masking mandates have had a net zero impact. The proof, look at countries/regions where masking has been heavily implemented and look at countries/regions where there has not been much masking. Do you see any real difference in outcomes? Nope.

[tokeless]

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
These studies suggest some benefits for mask wearing.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
These studies suggest some benefits for mask wearing.

@tokeless, a solid theoretical article with recommendations based on evidence from across disciplines.

You say the study shows masking has some benefits. I think the study presents a hypothetical that masking could have some benefits, if the recommendations of the authors are followed. This is a very important distinction.

What do the researchers recommend? I quote, “We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.”

What did the researchers find? They did not find that masks work. They found that masks hypothetically could work under certain conditions, those being even more draconian measures to ensure higher compliance.

The researchers admit that their recommendations are based on modeling of what masking might be capable of achieving. It’s not based on what masking actually did or has achieved, because we can see the actual lived results all around the world. Compliance was not high enough.

For instance, the authors discuss evidence of how masking in areas of higher compliance resulted in lower transmissions. At the same time the authors fail to acknowledge this was temporary at best. Regardless of masking, the waves of delta and omicron struck everywhere and with roughly the same intensity.

What does this mean?

It means, according to the authors and paraphrasing their own findings, that compliance with mask wearing was not high enough. Even as you and I and the public all around the world wore masks for two years and continue, the authors want even stricter compliance with “appropriate regulation”.

Is that what you want tokeless? Do you agree with the authors recommendations? You support a future world of higher compliance with masking by government authority?

[tokeless]

The question was do masks reduce transmission... the context wasn't requested. If I made everyone stay in, like a curfew, add vaccines, masks and social distancing and any other measure, it would impact on transmission. It doesn't mean I agree we should.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

The question was do masks reduce transmission...

We know the answer. The data is super clear. Given the policies of the last two years, the answer is a very solid NO.

The actual question is not “do” masks reduce, but can or could masks reduce transmission given the right incentives?

The authors make recommendations that for masking to reduce transmission requires higher compliance and they recommend governments enforce that compliance.

To do this the authors create a model. They look at a few slices of evidence where masks reduced transmission and then say in effect, “IF we could apply this model to the entire world via government intervention, THEN based on our models it might work.”

[tokeless]

They look at a few slices of evidence where masks reduced transmission.

So, there is some evidence that they do... the actual masks. The conditions to make that more common is the issue. In hospitals, the use of masks did reduce transmission, which was the reason staff wore them. Before the pandemic surgeons wore masks in theatre with other staff to reduce transmission that could result in infection. Do you think there was no evidence for that?

[davidbanner99@]

Very big and violent protests in Brussels. This involved protesters from other EU countries. Here's the bottom line though:
The Brussels government and the EU claim literally thousands are dying each day and are hell-bent on restricting all freedoms and liberties. Tens of thousands of us do not believe any such mass deaths are taking place. So, we see ever more violent clashes and more casualties. I mean, people gassed or shot in the streets.
Doesn't make any sense to me. Why fire gas and rubber bullets at those whose well-being you claim is paramount? How can it be claimed these lockdowns are about protecting the economy when it's being wrecked?
To me it's beginning to look very much like a war declared by governments on people - for motives that remain a mystery. On that score I have no idea. Maybe it's a self-destructive social psychosis - since a lot of ordinary people will even get upset if you challenge the doctrine.
It would be very naieve of us to even start to assume things will go back to normal, as Tokeless concluded. That won't happen. The harsh reality is that no effort will be spared to destroy all civil liberties and enforce drug programs on children, working people and the elderly. That's why clashes are taking place in Brussels.

[davidbanner99@]

Just reading descriptions of the protest in Brussels, it is said to be awesome in terms of numbers. Protesters are rightfully claiming their constitution has been scrapped - that supposedly protected basic liberties.
Moreover - and this is important - protesters united behind their own national flags and attacked EU headquarters. The EU is now viewed by many as having conned sovereign nation states.
The truth is if full scale revolution doesn't happen soon, it may do so later.

[tokeless]

It would be very naieve of us to even start to assume things will go back to normal, as Tokeless concluded. That won't happen.

Strange how things in the UK are doing exactly that this Thursday... why is that David?

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

It would be very naieve of us to even start to assume things will go back to normal...

Things will never go back to "normal" as in how they were previously. That's just not going to happen. The pandemic, for better or for worse, has altered how governments will respond in the future for many generations to come. There will be no going back.

There are places, countries, regions of the world that will move forward with more control, not less.

But as tokeless pointed out, there are good signs that things are going back to normal in the sense that mandates are being lifted. For all practical purposes, from the perspective of an outside observe, they will see a maskless society, no vax passports, and everyone going about their day as if it were the year 2019. In this sense, things are indeed returning to normal in many parts of the world.

Of course, it was always rather normal in countries like Mexico or many countries in Africa that didn't have the resources to go mandate crazy.

[davidbanner99@]

It would be very naieve of us to even start to assume things will go back to normal...

Things will never go back to "normal" as in how they were previously. That's just not going to happen. The pandemic, for better or for worse, has altered how governments will respond in the future for many generations to come. There will be no going back.

There are places, countries, regions of the world that will move forward with more control, not less.

But as tokeless pointed out, there are good signs that things are going back to normal in the sense that mandates are being lifted. For all practical purposes, from the perspective of an outside observe, they will see a maskless society, no vax passports, and everyone going about their day as if it were the year 2019. In this sense, things are indeed returning to normal in many parts of the world.

Of course, it was always rather normal in countries like Mexico or many countries in Africa that didn't have the resources to go mandate crazy.

Tokeless has a small advantage he doesn't live in the EU and we are a bit more isolated here. Tokeless isn't likely to be fired at by water canons. The UK economy is weakened by a degree of isolation and politics is therefore affected. The EU is in my view an awful set-up and very much back to its old antics, repression and fascism. As Thatcher warned years ago.
Just recently in my locality an historic inn has been burned to the ground. This inn was visited by Charles Darwin and H.G. Wells. The cause of the fire was drugs. Pot was being grown in the inn by dealers since it had recently shut down due to social distancing. Many bars were forced out of business. Local comments surprised me since people just felt it was a good time to build new locations. However, myself I tend to value history. The loss of an historic inn such as this is a tragedy. Lockdowns and the poverty caused contributed to the loss.

[davidbanner99@]

Let's hope between Russian exasperation and mass protests in Europe, we see the arrogant EU dismantled for good. And the US would be far better off without being bogged down.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

So, there is some evidence that they do... the actual masks. The conditions to make that more common is the issue.

Precisely what the researchers are arguing for. Because they developed a theoretical model that might work, they are recommending governments create the conditions that will support their model, i.e. a world that has even higher mask compliance than the last two years.

The basic physics of the actual mask is not the issue the authors were tackling. It was compliance.And while higher compliance might seem to be a reasonable goal, there is still (1) the matter of how we go about achieving higher compliance without being draconian, and (2) acknowledging the significant damage that masking has done, which the authors ignore.

[tokeless]

Tokeless has a small advantage he doesn't live in the EU and we are a bit more isolated here. Tokeless isn't likely to be fired at by water canons.

Then don't reference me to try and justify your argument.

The UK economy is weakened by a degree of isolation and politics is therefore affected. The EU is in my view an awful set-up and very much back to its old antics, repression and fascism. As Thatcher warned years ago.

Thatcher was no saviour from fascism. She, along with Reagan introduced a type of corporate fascism, burning regulations and barriers to letting the markets rip through societies and chase profits over all else. Hideous woman.

Just recently in my locality an historic inn has been burned to the ground. This inn was visited by Charles Darwin and H.G. Wells. The cause of the fire was drugs. Pot was being grown in the inn by dealers since it had recently shut down due to social distancing. Many bars were forced out of business. Local comments surprised me since people just felt it was a good time to build new locations. However, myself I tend to value history. The loss of an historic inn such as this is a tragedy. Lockdowns and the poverty caused contributed to the loss.[/quote]

David, to try and blame the lockdown for someone growing weed is ludicrous. Weed growing has been occurring for decades because of a failed drug policy. It didn't occur because businesses had nothing else to do. If the fire was in an empty flat in the slums would that be because of lockdown too? Lockdown has caused a lot of misery and hardship for many for sure, but it did not result in weed grows and fires.