Robert Dingwall, a Professor at Nottingham Trent University and a leading sociologist, has written an excellent piece for Social Science Space criticising the imposition of mask mandates, given the paucity of evidence that masks interrupt transmission and the lack of any robust evaluation of the harms masks cause.
First, Professor Dingwall looks at the two main sources of evidence purporting to show that masks are effective.
One is studies at various scales of the impact of mask mandates on reported infection rates. These may compare cities, states, provinces or entire nations using time series data to look for inflections of rates that may be attributable to the mandates. A great deal of mathematical ingenuity has been expended in trying to control for the numerous confounders from biases in reporting, differences in diagnosis, leads and lags in public behaviour in response to the mandates, seasonal fluctuations, mobility – the list is almost endless. By the time these manipulations are complete, though, it is very difficult to conclude that there is any clear and obvious effect. Infection rates do not seem to vary much between comparable communities regardless of the NPIs that have been introduced. I have yet to see a study that identifies a clear and unequivocal benefit from a mask mandate in the form of an obvious inflection point attributable to the intervention. For all the reasons cited, this would be hard to find so perhaps we should not treat its absence as conclusive proof of a lack of benefit so much as something that is consistent with the RCT evidence that any benefit is likely to be minimal.
The other main source of evidence is laboratory studies of the properties of masks using techniques from physics and engineering. Some studies treat masks as a straightforward air filtration experiment. These are well-controlled and reproducible, but bear little resemblance to real-world conditions. The more sophisticated studies use mannikins to create a jet of air carrying inert particles into a controlled space, mimicking human exhalation. Masks can then be used to interrupt the air flow. The resulting measurements are the basis for computational models that provide more general descriptions of the spread of particles, which may be used to create video simulations. These studies are often elegant but suffer familiar problems in generalising to real-world environments. Within reason, the experimenter can manipulate the average velocity of the jet, the size of particles and the permeability of the mask in ways that aim to mimic breathing at different rates, coughing or sneezing. To get reliable measurements, including video or photographic evidence of the dispersion of the particles, the simulated exhalations must enter still air. Air, however, is never still in the real world. In any space there are thermal currents that are moving air around and dispersing exhalations in ways that are not captured, and probably cannot be captured, by the experimenter in a physically meaningful way. The efficacy of masks is also sensitive to the choice of particle size. If the experimenter favours droplets, larger particles, masks capture these quite well – but they also fall quickly to the ground and are unlikely to be inhaled by anyone at a normal social distance. If the experimenter favours aerosols, smaller particles, these are likely to pass through or around cloth masks, whose pore size is typically significantly larger than the aerosol particles. In which case the masks may filter a small proportion of the particles but probably let most through or around the edges. Where higher quality masks have been mandated, the community evidence runs into the same problems as before.
Having concluded that neither body of evidence is remotely persuasive, he then turns to the potential harms that masks do.
The precautionary principle also requires a proper evaluation of the potential harms. Few such studies have actually been done but relevant issues can readily be identified. Four are clearly important. First, they discriminate against a large group of people with communicative disabilities of speech and hearing, with neurodisabilities, such as autism or Aspergers, or with mental health issues, such as prior trauma from confinement as an abused child or as a survivor of sexual assault. Second, they discriminate against people who have medical consequences such as acute skin infections, eye infections or respiratory infections as a result of mask use. In the pre-pandemic world, such people could find workplaces where these issues were avoided but they cannot escape the mandates. Third, there is the impact on child development, particularly in relation to language and social interaction. The American Academy of Pediatrics claimed that there was no evidence for this, but there is a substantial body of research from psychology, education and linguistics establishing the importance of observing faces, particularly for small children. Fourth, and perhaps hardest to measure, there is the impact on community levels of fear and anxiety. This, indeed, has been the ultimate fall-back for committed advocates of masks – they may not have an impact on the transmission of the virus but they remind everyone that there is a pandemic going on and that they should be cautious every time they set foot outside their home – the safety of the home is assumed, of course. The consequence, of course, is that we are nudged towards regarding our fellow human beings as no more than potential vectors of infection. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent. The trust on which everyday life depends in modern societies is fatally compromised.
He concludes that mask mandates should never have been introduced, given the paucity of the evidence and the lack of research into potential harms.
If we do not think it is acceptable to have our lives ordered in ways that discriminate against large sections of the population, that impair the development of children, that damage the mental health of the nation and that make each of us fearful of the other, then it is time to hold the advocates of masking to account for the quality of evidence. It is simply too fragile to justify coercive measures, whether by the state or by private actors. Why has there been so little investment in RCTs? Why are mask advocates now arguing that RCTs would be unethical because the benefits are obvious, when they patently are not? It is more unethical to perpetuate a practice without evidence than to challenge one’s preconceptions. This is truly how science progresses and debate should be conducted.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I have come across the bizzare argument that masks are so obviously beneficial that a controlled experiment would be unethical before. It strikes me there are two good answers, firstly that the same was probably said about blood letting in the C19, and the second answer is that the models which assumed high mask effectiveness were the self-same ones which massively overestimated the effect of dropping the mask mandates. If they are effective it’s such a small effect that it’s really not worth bothering with.
The obvious benefit to the fervent muzzloids (love this word) is seeing others wearing a mask makes them feel safer, IOW, that not wearing a mask is a (not-so-)microaggression which harms them. That evidence must never be allowed to get in the way of people’s feelings is a well-accepted point in certain circles.
I’m all in favour of them feeling less safe in this context – it’s a step towards reality that they desperately need.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/blowing-smoke-up-your-ass
Probably this is the 18th Century alternative…
although I don’t want to give them ideas…
There is a big study by Jan M. Brauner et al from 2020 which ascribes 1% R value reduction to mask mandates (95% confidence interval: -13% – 8%). Tellingly, a later 2021 article published in Science by the same author drops the topic of masks almost altogether…
Blood-letting is an interesting comparison. It never did any good, often did harm, could kill (it killed John Keats), and yet the medical profession persisted with it in the teeth of all the evidence, on the basis of wholly incorrect ‘science’. For centuries.
In more recent times see statins. They are Standard Of Care and thus a study not using them would be considered unethical.
Same with low fat diets: many studies on low carb diets were banned by Ethics Committees.
I suspect it would be the same with any studies on unvaccinated people.
I can see why he left/was sacked from SAGE for being too sensible while the others are busy blowing smoke up our arses.
Practically from day one of introduction of (then DIY) mask mandates with the rationale of it being a “harmless cheap measure” (there was zero data to support it back then, just like there is still no convincing data today), the question in my mind was: this is a radical new policy, where are all the sociologists/psychologists voicing in opinions about its behavioral side effects? And my primary expectation was: “this shit is going to divide people like nothing else before”.
It took a looong time for the professor to express his concerns…
Get vaccinated today! Do you want to know more?
Unlike the masks, vaccination actually works.
for most of the population so does the immune system.
The jab works 1/8th as well as actually catching COVID and delta seems a CFR of 0.2 which is the same as Flu.
Which begs the question… Why risk the jab?
The risk of the jab is actually about 100 times smaller than the risk of infection, overall. This is quite regardless of the infection risk being small in absolute terms for the majority of population; but you still don’t want to find yourself in that unlucky minority. Quite basically, vaccination is shifting the odds in your favor (also don’t forget the “long covid” part, which seems to affect even those with a mild main course of the disease).
The risk of the jab is 100 smaller than the risk of INFECTION?
So?
The issue is the risk of being badly harmed by the jab vs the risk of being badly harmed by Covid, which for the immense majority of people is at worst a flu.
If you are taking the jab to avoid being infected (a) you are going to be bitterly disappointed – at least going by the post 2020 definition of infection and (b) you are so fearful that you might as well stay indoors for the rest of your life, because nothing society does will ever make you feel safe – not that society should do anything just to make you feel safe.
Are you making up that figure or is there any research to back it up?
I’ve only seen long-Jabbed at Close hand, I’ve also seen people with “long-Covid” after being jabbed twice, but I suspect long jabbed there too.
I’m sure you’re first in the queue for your third.
Hopefully.
This is only true when you add all the vulnerable into the mix. For ordinary healthy people the risk is much higher from the vaccine.
Treating people infected with Sars-Cov-2 or using a prophylactic regime, as in India, also results in no long covid & is of far lower risk than being injected with an experimental drug which is not a sterilising inoculation & much preferred. However, these treatments & prophylactic protocols have been suppressed or deemed “misinformation” or “dangerous to health” as the EUA for the experimental so-called vaccine would end instantly & big pharma wouldn’t be making so much profit from our hard earned taxes.
The latest study on Ivermectin (Together Trial) showed “no effect whatsoever”. And in case you think it was “designed to fail”, the dosage was adjusted to take the initial criticism into account – and still showed “no effect whatsoever”. As of today, vaccination is the only “prophylactic” known to work (although its effect, too, diminishes over time).
dexamethasone is shown to work stopping the immune system locking down the organs.
“The latest study on Ivermectin (Together Trial) showed “no effect whatsoever”.”
Has that been formally reported yet? I saw the results from a report of an NIH symposium iirc, but it would be nice to see it properly checked.
I was prepared to follow Dr Rushworth’s inclination to find the existing evidence persuasive, so it’s disappointing if this study holds up. Trust is in short supply all around.
Update on ivermectin for covid-19(as of May 2021)
The Together trial was funded by Bill Gates, a vaccine advocate, and it showed a small effect. Particular concerns were the exclusion of high-risk groups (to weaken the significance of the results) and treatment only lasting 3 days (I don’t know any IVM protocol like that) but there were lots of problems with the trial: “Trial design, analysis, and presentation suggest investigator bias. Design: including very late treatment, additional day before administration, including low-risk patients, operation in a region with high community use, specifying administration on an empty stomach, limiting treatment to 3 days, using soft inclusion criterion and a soft primary outcome, easily subject to bias (e.g., observe all patients >6 hours). Analysis: authors perform analysis excluding events very shortly after randomization for fluvoxamine but not ivermectin, and report viral load results for fluvoxamine but not ivermectin.” https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html
Doctors actually treating patients on the ground are having great success with a variety of protocols.
The bottom line is: everyone should have a choice in how they want to be treated. Early treatments and vaccines aren’t mutually exclusive. One can do both and no one should be forced/coerced into choosing.
Personally I’ve seen more illness from the vaccine than actual Covid, but my family and friends are a healthy bunch. Some of us had treatment when we caught the lurgy before vaccines were available. 2 Friends got Covid fully vaccinated and used the same treatment protocol. None went to hospital.
Again – Jabs : ARR ~1%. Known to work?????
As to Ivermectin. How does that trial affect the superior meta-analysis? – even if valid (which is questionable)? It is certainly safer than the jabs, and has a better record of possible effectiveness than the smoke and mirrors of the ‘evidence’ – aka PR campaign by financially/politically interested parties – for jabbing.
Really: get in touch with Dr Peter McCullough and his US medic colleagues who have been using Ivermectin and other treatments to keep people with Covid 19 out of hospital, for “real world’ efficacy of this and the other component medications he has documented in many peer reviewed papers and found it and them to be very effective.
Who do you put your faith in – medics with actual experience or a trial….?
..and how many people given Ivermectin have died since it was approved circa 40 years ago versus any of the EUO approved mRNA gene therapy preparations ( as one manufacturer has described their own “product”)….right, very very few – ask yourself this – what is the number CDC accepted cases of post mRNA jab deaths, even if you do not believe the US whistleblower confirming at least 45,000, now does that make you think?
The FDA have approved – fully – the Pfizer “vaccine”, except it does not meet the US legal definition of a vaccine ( not my words or opinion – see Dr David Martin* below ) . Now that there is an approved treatment – despite the small matter of fact it does not give immunity, prevent infection or transmission as acknowledged by the manufacturers in their Patent application or so I understand – does that not mean that , by the very fact of its existence, any other Experimental Use Only authorised non immunising gene therapy has to be withdrawn immediately – if I may be permitted to offer an opinion, it is about time people like you who seem determined to deny the actuality of this whole scam, started to realise that these are – manufacturer self proclaimed – gene therapies , not vaccines and are bloody dangerous. Listen to Dr David Martin fire the latest smoking gun about this charade here*:
“Before its news” – “Dr. David E. Martin Drops Shocking Info on Canadians! Please ignore the title and do listen to his exposition about the 3 decade long criminal process to design, perfect and implement the non naturally occurring, computer generated SARS COV 2 ” virus/bioweapon/scam” on the world – he has considerable experience in nailing the racketeering machinations of Fauci/Moderna/Pfizer as far as the history of US patents is concerned – and I recommend for your further reading: https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The_Fauci_COVID-19_Dossier.pdf
Now I acknowledge that there is the possibility I and a load of others may be victims of the most elaborate con; but someone who goes put on a limb almost 20 years ago to alert the US Intelligence Services of the event he describes and backs it up by referencing the publicly available Patents he mentions – “got an opinion on that?”
The risk of the jab in the medium to long term is a complete unknown. It might small, but who knows right now. I do however have the data to tell me the risk of Covid to me – and it is minuscule, and made more so by the fact I’ve already had it and so I have immunity.
So for me – and the vast majority – the choice is between a known and very small risk and an unknown risk. You’d have to be particularly lacking in judgement to make the wrong call there.
so very much this
The nonsense you talk is astounding. Mike Yeadon predicts to the Israeli Rabbis that 100 kids will die for every million they jab and none of them is at any risk whatsoever!!!
Any sane response to that is that 100 times greater of nothing is still nothing. If you are not very old, or very sick or very fat your risk is more or less zero from covid. And please don’t give me the sob story of socalled ‘long covid’, the latest in a long line of yuppie-flu.
If you want to get injected fine, its your body, but don’t try to force anyone else to do so.
Works at doing what? The manufacturers claim the experimental jabs merely mitigate symptoms – the jabs do not stop people contracting or transmitting the not very deadly virus. There is a growing body of evidence that the side-effects are an increasing cause for concern, as the adverse reporting systems in the USA, UK and Europe testify.
Works at keeping you out of hospital. Sounds good enough to me. And no, side effects are not increasing anywhere (unless by increasing you mean from “one in a million” to “two in a million”, a 100% increase in side effects lol).
In the last week, there have been 37 more reports of deaths following the experimental injections, attributed to the injections. Presumably in young people, the ones currently being injected. Don’t bother trying to play the coincidence card, that doesn’t wash. Even the government have taken out the sentence denying a link in individual cases.
37 deaths where? Source? And attributed by whom? The official death risk from vaccine is 1 in 50000. So yes, there will be some vaccine deaths, although considerably fewer than covid deaths. Vaccination is essentially a choice of the lesser evil, but it’s not marketed as such because of concern that many dumb people like you who don’t understand numbers might get too scared if truth was told directly.
So claiming that vaccination is “the best ever, completely safe” is of course another of those “noble lies” that the governments/corporations love to use to sell their products. But it still is way safer than getting a million-fold dose of the very same shit from the replicating virus within your body.
Source: uk government yellow card data. Last week’s total “events with a fatal outcome” = 1596, the previous week’s total = 1559. Difference = 37. I think I understand those numbers. Glad to see you’re acknowledging that the truth is being deliberately obscured by the government.
Worth noting too that the yellow card scheme tends to under report
Yeah, reporting between 1% and 10% according to the horse’s own mouth.
“Vaccination is essentially a choice of the lesser evil, but it’s not marketed as such because of concern that many dumb people like you who don’t understand numbers might get too scared if truth was told directly.“
It would be nice if the arrogant bastards in government and in medicine generally would give over with the noble lie bullshit and just tell the truth.
They’re not responsible for the health of free adults, they have no right to arrogate such power and responsibility to themselves,. and all they do is give people good reasons not to trust them.
Safer to get the real deal if you are a healthy < 50
Do you want to kill people? Do you want to be responsible for unnecessary deaths? Do you ? If you do, keep peddling this rubbish.
Oh but they are not unnecessary deaths, they are mere coincidences so they don’t count.
1 in 50k you say?
1) where does this figure come from?
2) my personal risk (female, aged 48, no comorbidities p, BMI 21) of catching and dying of COVID is 1 in 55k according to qcovid.org ….so tell me again why it makes sense to be vaccinated?
And there are tons of people much lower risk than me. Anyone younger who is not fat for starters.
I think the 1 in 50k is just the Yellow Card score divided by total UK stabs? =1500/90m which is actually 1 in 60k, although that’s per stabbing and most people will take a double stab, so the associated risk of death is really 1 in 30K, or 1 in 20K with a third booster stabbing.
Don’t forget to factor in though that the Covid death figures have been exaggerated by the government who recorded any death within 28 days of a positive test for Covid as a Covid death, regardless of cause.
I have a friend with “long vaccine” – 2 weeks in bed and counting. She’s not in hospital, so not counted as serious side effect. Do the people who assured her it’s “safe and effective” give a shit? Of course not.
Is the vaccine keeping people out of hospital? I suspect not – Delta seems to be milder
What about the people the vaccine has put in hospital? No one knows what long term effects this new type of vaccine will have on the human body over the next 10-20 years. It may well be that it does not have any affect at all but why take the risk when for most people the likelihood of been killed by Covid Is negligible.
Knowing my postal lady well and knowing she is non-judgmental, I took the opportunity today to ask her if she was aware of anyone else in the area who was sceptical of the mainstream narrative. ‘Posties’ are often a good source of local info! Whilst she said she wasn’t aware of any obvious sceptics, she said that she thought more people were becoming frustrated by the continual moving of the goalposts.
But she added, almost as an incidental observation, that “I have heard that a lot of old people in care homes round here have been dying from strokes after they’ve had the vaccine. Have you heard this?”. I hadn’t heard, but then I would have no reason to, but it was interesting to hear this.
The deaths from jabbing are only part of the problem. The proportion of people reporting significant reactions from the snake oil has been unprecedented – a clear indication of the physiological responses from the under-tested experiment being out of the ordinary. It has surprised even we rationalists who are suspicious of the narrative used to support this careless (I use the term literally) use.
In other situations, this would have led to the withdrawal of authorization – particularly when there is no health ’emergency’ or even epidemic.
There is simply no useful data on the efficacy and safety of this expensive snake oil drug pushed by interested parties.
I completely agree with your comment; VAERS and UK Yellow Card are just two horrendous indictions that these jabs are not what some people think but everything the non naturally occurring virus’s designers and manufacturers hoped it would be.
It boils down to this, imho; if the manufacturers are insisting the virus “exists” and that it is pathogenic to humans – why on this earth would they seek to persuade people that their “preparation” is a vaccine – as they themselves refer to it “in public” but describe it as a gene therapy in their patent application (ref; Dr David Martin, US Patent), and then confirm it does not prevent infection, transmission and does not give immunity but is designed to “reduce symptoms” . So it does not confer immunity but can seriously harm your long term health ( ref Dr Ryan Cole US, Dr Peter McCullough and others ) by inducing the production of S1 spike proteins – that your body does not produce naturally – through out the cells in your body, causing morbid inflammation in the most serious cases, uniquely causes death in some jabbed people within a matter of days of either jab 1 or 2, and does so on a scale never before experienced by experimental use only authorised drugs “where no other treatments are available” (a downright lie). “If it looks like a duck , has a beak, webbed feet, flies and quacks, it is a duck”.
I see you are ignorant concerning the latest data from Israel and the increasing number of double-jabbed being admitted to hospital with Covid!
I know of 6 people in my locality, of my acquaintance, who have died from the vaccine compared with 2 who have died ‘with covid’. One of my contractors suffered a mini-stroke in front of me on site, 4 days after taking the vaccine. His doctor’s surgery refused to record it on the yellow card system and told him to go to the local A&E if he had continuing problems.
Great , so you have a better scientific and practical real world experience than Dr Peter McCullough and his US medic colleagues, using and getting results not achievable with these jabs….when he and others have stated that previous EU authorisation applications for drugs that have incurred deaths in trials far far fewer in number than these scam jabs have been immediately pulled , does that. not make you think….again….why have these non vaccinating jabs been allowed to kill and injure many many hundreds of thousands of people? I refer you to Peter McCullough testimony here:
Odysee ( geddit?) : Dr Peter McCullough Dr Mike Yeadon Dr Jane Ruby advise Israeli Rabbinic Court {Corona Investigative Commitee No2} on the needlecraft August 2021
Are they all bad, wrong, mad and conspiracy nutters? I think not.
But of course, given these are new, untried and still experimental treatments, the question for the long run is: what do they work at?
Raising blood clotting effects? Increasing long term heart health issues? Increasing long term brain health issues? Reproductive issues? Driving evolution of more dangerous virus strains? Setting up direct enhancement of virus effects in future infections (ADE)?
All issues with potential past examples, pathways or indicators already identified and no way, by definition, of knowing if they will come to pass.
And then of course there is the unavoidable potential of unknown unknowns, with mass rollout of an experimental technology.
Essentially, the authorities are just crossing their fingers, and claiming it’s justified because emergency.
… in order to implement a permanent digital health ID system.
There. Finished the sentence for you.
social credit system.
Health is always personal.
You can be pro-vaccination and against vaccination passports and vaccination mandates. Mind-boggling, I know.
They certainly will do what they have been designed to do…
They’re not vaccines. Idiot tr0ll
Ray, behold Israeli data !
Please do some homework lol
And what is this data supposed to tell me? That vaccines are not 100% effective, especially against infection (“cases”)? This has never been claimed by anyone, as far as I’m aware. Or that most people in Israel are vaccinated by now, therefore most “cases” will be vaccinated as well? That too does not appear as any grand revelation.
The data means that the vaccines are not working at all. Early treatment needed.
It means your statistics are a bit primitive and you’ve fallen into a trap.
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated
It says the younger you are the less the jabs do anything, up until age 50.
Yes, the Israeli data. Which you have to be very careful with so you don’t trip over the Simpsons paradox.
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated
Presumably you skipped that bit in your homework.
Actually works ????
…..so why are double jabbed such a large proportion of those hospitalised. And dying of the disease.
Robert Dingwall has been saying what he says in this article all along in many other articles and interviews. He is a good man.
I reckon this rejection is about as kind to mask fanaticism as you can get.
The actuality is that an intervention needs to show benefit beyond reasonable probability, and the absence of harm in similar terms.
In terms of simple science, a hypothesis has to be supported in terms of rigorous probabilities – or the null hypothesis stands.
By neither standard is the wearing of masks supported. No argument on present evidence overall. The hypothesis is crap science and crap medicine.
… and that’s not accounting for the absent mention of obvious potential harms of hypercapnia and hypoxia in the healthy population, which Dingwall doesn’y mention.
He doesn’t mention hypoxia and hypercapnia because these are bullshit fairy tales invented by covidiots. You can be veryr right about masks being useless and still an imbecile by resorting to such arguments.
As I recall, the Government Chief Medical Adviser stated that mask wearing was likely to be unhealthy during the early stages of the panic – when the government were interested in freeing up PPE for medical users. perhaps they were lying then, as well?
But I can’t help thinking that trapping air and particulate matter close to your nose for extended periods probably has some health implications…
I hope you respond with similar disdain and arrogance to the bullshit fairy tales invented by the establishment, which are both more numerous and more harmful.
Do you have a demeaning name for the psychos running your life and everyone else’s?
Indeed I do, and so should you. Call out bullshit regardless of who it is coming from. By the way, it is the tragedy of the dissenters that their ranks are populated by true covidiots. These people spoil all reasonable arguments and are readily picked out and publicized by governments to discredit the entire group. This has been the government strategy from the very beginning and it appear to works very well. As the saying goes, “with friends like that, you don’t need enemies”…
You could perhaps explain that to the old lady who my hairdresser was working on passing out and being told by the attending paramedic to stop wearing a mask.
Some old ladies are passing out in hot weather even without wearing a mask. It does not change that these masks, although idiotic and useless, are completely harmless for a healthy person. Otherwise all dentists out there should be getting ill from their prolonged surgical mask use (multiple hours per day).
That reminds me, doesn’t mask use (and certainly incorrect mask use) potentially cause tooth decay as people rebreathe germ laden air built up behind the masks?
My dentist only puts the mask on when actually treating his patients, and otherwise leaves it off.
How is the excess re-breathed CO2 on Planet Zog? Still affecting brain function I see.
For information – there is a reputable study that measured the concentration of gases behind children’ masks.
You can judge its validity by the fact that it was forced into withdrawal – it was too uncomfortably accurate.
It will shock you to know that it’s not CO2 but rather O2 (overbreathing) which makes you unhealthy and dumb. That’s why breath holding exercises have been used for ages in traditional yoga and also medicinally in Buteyko breathing technique. For panic attacks, rebreathing air (breathing into a bag) is also recommended to stabilize the affected person’s nervous system. Etc etc. So yes, you can take your “horrible CO2” bullshit elsewhere.
So exhaled Co2 magically turns into ‘rebreathed air’? Thanks for your novel scientific insight :-(. (Over breathing is entirely different – except on Planet Zog, perhaps).
Sorry – the measurements have been done, and if you have a mask on, you aren’t breathing just ‘air’.
Oh – and although panic attacks have been induced (as the symptom of mask wearing testifies), I don’t think sustained breathing of stale gases is a recommended cure.
Only for acute blood acidosis perhaps…
Why are you being so unfriendly? I don’t see how it will help you be heard with your opinions, unless this isn’t your aim? If your views on masks are correct, would it hurt to speak civilly to those who disagree?
Almost certainly from the 77th.
He’s taking turns with the other one. Both expect to convert us by repeating Government propaganda as if we don’t get enough of it already.
I agree hypoxia and hypercapnia are not a concern in the vast majority of use cases, provided people take breaks and aren’t vulnerable for other reasons.
I think small pore electrostatic masks properly worn might have some ultra-slight positive effect in terms of bacterial infection. I think cloth masks improperly worn (more common) might have an ultra-slight negative effect in terms of bacterial infection. Negligible effect on viruses.
This is a mostly hypothetical view… the evidence seems to suggest the effect hovers either side of zero, but so close to zero that it’s hardly worth worrying about. They’re pointless.
You’re partly right, and severe hypoxia and hypercapnia are not the key issue.
That said, I have witnessed the absurdity of a hospital patients with breathing problems having to wear a mask.
However, there are physiological effects, and we would have a natural mask mechanism if they had any evolutionary advantage. The effects on children are particularly worrying.
But the main issue is the sociopathic nature of mask-wearing, with the psychological effect to wearer and observer.
This occurred to me when the mask wearing began: how come we haven’t naturally evolved some kind of weird flap of skin over our nose and mouth if it is so effective at preventing the spread of disease? Our immune systems are so highly developed, it’s odd they haven’t thought of this yet… Hmm, but the flap would need to have the exactly level of porousness so we could still breathe properly and yet keep pathogens from going in or out. Wait, can that even work?
Suely that’s what the hairs up our noses are for? And as we get older they grow out of the nostrils maybe to increase the effect as our immune systems gently decrease.
I call Rayc out for bullshit. A very short look at the studies finds, for example, Transfus Apher Sci Aug 2021, Use of Face Masks by blood donors: “This study inc 19504 blood donors showed prolonged use of face masks by blood donors may lead to intermittent hypoxia and an increase in haemoglobin mass.”
Or Newocirugia 2008 Apr 19, early, so not influenced by current politics, to evaluate whether surgeons’ oxygen saturations of haemoglobin was affected by surgical masks during ops –
“Our study revealed a decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations and a slight increase in pulse rate” esp in those over 35.
There are more.
RickH can get testy but the man is reliable on science.
Unlike Rayc.
They also stop people giving blood. I had as many phone calls to get me to make a blood donation appointment as I did to get a vaccine.
I declined the lot, and will not donate again unless they lift the mask requirement.
Soddem.
Makes you wonder why they suddenly want our blood so much…
Cocktails
The masses swallowed the story, but those who introduced masks did so for political reasons – they knew very well masks were no real use.
The same applies to every other measure, IMO, except perhaps they believed in the vaccines, for a while.
The reason for mask mandates was to un-lock the economy after first lockdown, to make morons feel safer and happy to shop/work again. This plan of “mask as a magic talisman” has succeeded very well, as you can see.
“The reason for mask mandates was to un-lock the economy after first lockdown, to make morons feel safer and happy to shop/work again.”
Doesn’t seem very likely, given that when they introduced the mask mandate in the UK, as I well remember, it was in the summer with almost no cases around, and yet alongside the mask mandates we still had full on virus fear propaganda. There was no indication whatsoever of any letup from the regime or the media via their control mechanisms.
If that had really been the purposes there’d have been a detectable shift in the climate, rather than just a few dissenting voices speaking out, as there was at the time.
The alternative hypothesis: that they imposed the mask mandate precisely because they thought people were getting complacent, and they needed to ramp up the fear, is much more consistent with their actual actions at the time. The story about “encouraging people to go out again” seems to have been a cover story.
Indeed. At that point, if people really wanted or thought they needed masks, they would already have been wearing them, which most of them were not.
Hancock said in July 20 “We want to give people more confidence to shop safely, and enhance protections for those who work in shops.
Both of these can be done by the use of face coverings.”
He did indeed say that, but he is a liar.
When you quote Handoncock, you should know you’r on a loser.
He probably told his wife he’d be faithful.
The introduction during a time in which the cases were naturally declining was purposeful so as to establish and support the bogus claim that the masks were working. The seasonality of coronaviruses is/was well known, so it does not make any public health sense to introduce mask mandates at the end of season, yet this is precisely what was done.
In Germany the mask mandates were introduced after a short lockdown in late spring. Fear was at its highest back then. You could sense it during every grocery shopping because there was so little real data about the virus. People even stopped talking inside, it felt like going to church! I also wondered why the official recommendation “shut up, loud talking spreads the virus” was never given, I bet it would have worked way better in terms of stopping the pandemic than the masks.
“I bet it would have worked way better in terms of stopping the pandemic than the masks” How many years of insane fascism do we have to endure before we recognise that we do not have the power to “stop pandemics”?
“The reason for mask mandates was to un-lock the economy”
Well – that theory went up in smoke as quickly as the one which dismisses the effect on inhaled gases.
If this is true do you find it acceptable? That the government deliberately lied to people and had them believe that walking around town with a visor and a handkerchief across their mouth was actually doing something useful?
I find myself having this discussion more and more as people tell me I’m being selfish and it ‘s an act of kindness and respect to wear one. What kind of argument is that? Would we be asked to walk on our hands out of kindness for someone? It’s like a story straight out of the Prisoner where the sheep repeat the slogan with no idea why or what it even means. I always try to make folk realise that the rules surrounding mask wearing gave the game away- basically, you can wear what you want as long as it covers your nose/mouth, you can handle it however you like and as many times as you like, you can take it off whilst sat down in a cafe or pub but must put it back on if you stand up, (after having handled food/drinks and the mask many times), you can dispose of them any way way you like or just keep re-using them. If the Government really believed them to be so effective at catching the virus do you think you would simply be allowed to re-wear them, lend them, throw them in any old bin? Is that what you think hospitals do with masks? ‘Oh bugger nurse- I’ve forgotten my mask again’ , ‘Don’t worry doctor, you can wear one of mine- they have pictures of pixies on them!’ As Ayn Rand said – they close their eyes, but not because they fear ignorance, but because they fear knowledge.
People wear masks for the same reason that people will avail themselves of even a useless shelter if danger threatens.
I recall a WW2 reminiscence from an American PT Boat commander, when he remarked that the machine gunners would duck behind their gun positions if the boat was under attack, even though these were made out of 1/8″ ply and completely useless for stopping bullets.
People just FEEL safer if there is something between them and the danger – no matter what it is…
“People wear masks for the same reason that people will avail themselves of even a useless shelter if danger threatens.”
Some, doubtless. But that’s not the reason mask mandates are imposed.
Nor is it universally the reason people wear them. After all, it’s constantly claimed “they’re not to protect me, but to protect you“. In many cases it’s a badge of conformity or of signalling one’s virtue. As was noted in the US: ‘I’m not about to look like a Republican’.
And I think it’s pretty clear that any increased feeling of personal safety is completely overwhelmed by the societal feeling it creates of “there must be a real emergency” if everyone around you is forced to wear a mask.
It’s to share the scare, not for health.
At least here in the UK they at least claimed it was to make people feel safer even if we all know it’s to crank up the fear factor.
An admittedly small sample but colleagues and friends who still wear them when shopping actually believe they’re offering some protection and for sure the masked idiots roaming the streets with nobody else in sight believe the same.
On a positive note the number still wearing them seems to be falling week by week.
As Mark noted, it’s neither about fear nor safety, it’s about becoming compliant and more trusting. This “foot in the door” technique (used by salesmen and con artists) is to make the other party agree to some small favor, which opens the door for asking for much larger favors (closing the sale or perpetrating the con) – due to a tendency to avoid cognitive dissonance and post-hoc rationalization of one’s own past decisions.
Indeed. My rush hour trains to work are now about 25% muzzled and dropping. They are now busy enough that you actually have to sit next to a stranger. Currently on the way home though, the families on day-trips are all muzzled, bumping the proportion up (why do families think it a good idea to head home during weekday rush hour?).
Kids need to get home for their tea…
Saw a woman with two kids on a train last week. They looked like they’d had a nice day out but the mother was borderline hysterical telling the kids to sit still, not touch anything keep away from the silly people, (unmasked at a guess since she kept glaring at us and others). When her smallest child touched the window, (gasp!), I thought she was going to faint- she was near screaming that you don’t know who’s been touching it, (because that’s what we silly people do on trains…), and he had to STAY SAFE!! Out came the gloop of course. Two kids growing up to be well adjusted, rational adults there then.
I saw her relative in the park. She screeched at the kids not to run around, and when one of them sat on a seat she aprayed both the kids and the seat with sanitiser.
Indeed- I’m actually finding it harder and harder to watch US TV shows as all the good folk are wearing masks, even outside, even the kids- bless ’em!- whilst anyone not wearing one is obviously up to no good. Used to be the other way round…
As Robert Dingwall points says at the beginning of the article he is not saying people cannot choose to mask up but he is against mandates with no science and only politics behind them. Had Johnson been a brave leader he would have lead the way forward and not allowed mask mandates but he isn’t a brave leader!!
You could argue there never was a mask mandate. It’s quite clear that anyone who wanted to claim an exemption could do so just that most were too stupid/lazy/scared (take your pick) to bother reading the rules.
Yes, we here knew this from the beginning but then political manoeuvring took over.
And the same applies to vaccine passports in domestic settings.
You could, but it resulted in endless hassle if you didn’t wear a mask. I did actually count as exempt under the government’s guidelines and never wore a muzzle, but it resulted in many confrontations with supermarket door-guardian jobsworths, railway staff and occasionally police – plus the glares above the muzzles of the true believers. I gave in after a few months and got one of those bloody lanyards which reduced it but didn’t remove it.
While I am perfectly capable of standing up to this sort of bullying (and let’s face it, that’s what it is), I really didn’t want the hassle and so far as is possible avoided situations where it was likely to occur (obviously, it was sometimes not possible). It created a nasty, hostile atmophere which was thoroughly dispiriting – as was doutbless the intention. And it must have been a lot worse for those who are more timid and / or less able to stand up for themselves (I intervened once when a train guard was hassling a young woman and demanding “proof” of mask exemption – he backed off when I backed up her correct claim that no proof was required).
It’s so strange how much variance there is in different parts of the country. I have never worn a muzzle in the UK and I have only been challenged seriously once and that was in Cornwall where the locals saw tourists as lepers. In the Midlands you have always just been able to say the magic word “exempt” and that was the end of it.
Definitely a rural/ urban thing. I live in a small village in the countryside and compliance was universal- still is mostly- and there was much tutting at anyone who dared ‘break the rules’. They made it known that they were watching for anyone venturing out for more than their allotted time or for nefarious reasons too, whilst in nearby cities folk seemed more relaxed although still compliant.
Like hiding under a table in the event of a nuclear blast! That was government advice when I was a kid.
It has become a safety net for many now. They think it keeps them safe like God or putting your head between your knees in a plane crash! Nothing will stop most them wearing a muzzle even when this is declared to have passed.
I also associate the muzzles with that strange phenomenon of drivers partial covering their face with their right hand when stopped in traffic. Just weird.
I’ve always associated face coverings with backward muslim tradition.
My mother posted that wearing a mask “makes you feel as though you are helping the cause”. I haven’t yet had a reply to my query about which cause. I likened the wearing of a mask to religious symbology and said that I don’t subscribe to any religions, particularly Covidianism.
“Makes you feel as though” – says it all, as well as the which cause part…
I wore a mask all day last week. It really worked well at doing what it was designed for …..keeping out the dust!
It says on the box that the masks don’t work against viruses. End of discussion.
Yes, it if you are a simpleton, it’s enough to write something on the box, and you will believe it forever. What a great idea.
You seem like a right twat. Is that normal for you or just having a bad day?
‘He/She/It’ seems to have the ability to post 10 times in a minute.
Somebody monitoring this needs to check please, its getting tiresome just seeing this repeated.
You know you have hit the target when you trigger the trolls
Somebody calling themselves Bebe Bowles has been posting multiple lengthy responses refuting every anti-lockdown etc post on the Telegraph BTL this evening. Very similar MO to rayc. I suspect they have the same job description.
Have you thought that this might be a good day?!
More of a disclaimer to protect against lawsuits from simpletons who think the mask is going to protect them.
Isn’t it time for your booster?
And quite a few “boxes” state that they are not “masks” at all, being non-compliant with specified standards to be labelled as such (usually in less than 6 points font so you can’t read it normally, without a magnifying glass). Often called ‘face coverings’ for which there are no standards, but the tiny text gets them out of jail for trading standards offences. In simple terms, it’s junk, and an opportunity to make a profit.
As far as I am concerned the Danish study involving 6,000 participants nailed the hat on any further need for mask debates.
Using a mask is cod “science,” steeped in the logic of medieval witchcraft.
Masks confirm sign up to The Programme, a lack of intelligence, a belief in the fear narrative and ultimately COMPLIANCE.
To believe that masks, constantly re-used, can out-perform our own finely tuned respiratory system, refined and adapted over millennia to cope with airborne infections is idiocy of the highest order.
Masks play to the powers running this Scam and aren’t they aware:
G7. The Euros. Wimbledon. Barack’s birthday shindig, the upcoming disaster fest they will be enjoying in Glasgow.
The subject is beyond a joke.
The fallacy of masks is that a little of something is better than nothing – if an air-tight wall stops aerosols completely, so the mask “must” at least a little bit. This is essentially the same level of reasoning as was used by cargo cults – if we build an airfield and a mock airplane out of wood, the cargo will come.
What on earth are you wittering on about?
You are correct. A chain link fence works well against sand, they should try it in desert countries – something is better than nothing. ….oh, perhaps not.
Early on in this madness I saw 2 women talking to one another wearing knitted masks. I didn’t see another useless inner liner within the knitted masks and thought the stupidity of people is breath taking (pun intended). Don’t they realise the masks wouldn’t stop flies let alone viruses.
My only hope is that some virulent disease develops and breeds on cloth surfaces taking out the stupid. (Reminds me of the B Ark in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy and getting rid of the useless on their planet).
Knitted masks, lol. Noah and Nelly.
As a satirical gesture I used one early on made of lace. Everyone was very happy with that. They were equally happy when I tried a jam pan strainer. I think netting would have passed too.
In Germany some ladies used their knickers.
the question is whether they knew what they were doing. Many people who felt pushed into wearing something took the piss with their choice of face covering.
Yes I was thinking about getting some string vests and converting them into face coverings to placate covid cultists, then i realised you can self-exempt.
I wore a Halloween mask the first time but I got told off for it. Tell me where it says I can’t!
I’ve only seen these kinds of mask worn by covidiots, so be careful, you may be wishing to take out some of your own kind.
What’s a covidiot?
rayc
It’s not clear what he means by the term. In general usage it’s used by covidians to refer to people who break futile, unscientific and damaging “rules” that the government pretends will “stop the spread”. Is that the meaning rayc is giving it?
Not sure what he means by “your own kind”? What “kind” am I?
MP’S and Ministers, amongst others.
I see a great marketing opportunity here… chin warmer, earrings or dog poo bag. I’ll be a millionaire by Christmas.
well here in this northern totalitarian state masks are still mandatory – so I wear one when I have to made of sackcloth. It serves all the purposes govt wants – keeps up the pretence that there’s a pandemic going about, but lets me breathe just fine. Maybe these knitted masks are also ironic.
Don’t forget that the latest study -from Denmark in 2020 – (many in the past before COVID have) to conclusively prove that non-N95 (i.e. cloth or standard grade medical) face masks provide almost zero protection against the transmission of viruses and actually do more harm than good on the physical side (more likely to get infections because the masks are touched, taken off, placed on unclean surfaces and reused), never mind the psychological harm, was blacklisted from EVRY major medical and scientific journal after political pressure, which itself was due to pressure from ‘unspecified figures in the medical/pharm and business community’ if you get my drift.
No conspiracy there then.
In my view, the DANMASK study was useful but didn’t conclusively prove anything. It suggested that we can say with 95% confidence that the impact on infection risk for wearers is somewhere in the range of -23% to +46%.
Thankfully there are plenty of other data points to help support the idea they’re pointless.
From memory, the study had to make major alterations/concessions to get published. I bet the original text was too politically explosive.
You won’t see Dingwall on the TV again lol
You can always tell how close to the mark an article is by how animated the 77th brigade get
hello rayc, we’re not going to believe your bullshit.
From the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. Informed Consent and ARR vs RRR. Please watch and share. Very important for many that glean all their info from the MSM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR-NYrYyEls
After a hot debate about a person who signes “raic” I remember:
Its flavour is lost in any other idiom.
After half an hour I quit this page. Raic is a nice case but not for me.
Goodbye.
This is from the HSE guidelines on RPE in the workplace. Emphasis is theirs. Surgical masks, which prevent droplets only, are designed to be worn for short periods and then discarded. Nearly all other mask types, if properly fitted and selected, can only protect the wearer.
Link to the pdf for anyone who really wants to bore themselves to death..
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg53.pdf
In the USA they are doubling down on mask compliance on aircraft.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has initiated three-times as many enforcement cases on unruly air passengers in 2021 than in the whole of 2020. One recurring problem has been the refusal of passengers to comply with the mask mandate. As a consequence, the agency has set a benchmark of US$9,000 as a fine for those who defy the mandate.
Since January 1, the FAA has received 3,889 reports of unruly passengers including 2,876 for refusal to wear a mask. This has resulted in over US$1 million levied in fines on unruly passengers. The existing mask mandate has been extended to January 18, 2022, by the Transport Security Administration for airports, airplanes, trains, and transit hubs. Steve Dickson, FAA Administrator, asked U.S. airports this month to help with the effort to crack down on disruptive air. In March he indefinitely extended a “zero tolerance policy” on unruly air passengers, noting that alcohol frequently contributed to unsafe behavior and urged airports to prevent passengers from taking alcoholic drinks on planes. For that reason, American Airlines has extended its ban on main cabin alcohol sales until January 18, 2022.
Airlines for America, a trade group representing major U.S. carriers, said it appreciates “the FAA’s continued support and enforcement of the ‘zero tolerance’ policy for travelers who do not follow crewmember instructions and who do not abide by federal law.”
Source – AviTrader
Meanwhile –
“IATA has announced that the EU Digital COVID Certificate (DCC) and UK NHS COVID Pass can now be uploaded into IATA Travel Pass as verified proof of vaccination for travel. Travellers holding an EU DCC or UK NHS COVID Pass can now access accurate COVID-19 travel information for their journey, create an electronic version of their passport and import their vaccination certificate in one place. This information can be shared with airlines and border control authorities who can have the assurance that the certificate presented to them is genuine and belongs to the person presenting it. “COVID-19 vaccination certificates are becoming a widespread requirement for international travel. Handling the European and UK certificates through IATA Travel Pass is an important step forward, providing convenience for travellers, authenticity for governments and efficiency for airlines,” said Nick Careen, IATA’s Senior Vice President for Operations Safety and Security. Harmonisation of digital vaccine standards is essential to support the safe and scalable restart of aviation, avoid unnecessary airport queues and ensure a smooth passenger experience. IATA welcomes the work done by the EU Commission in developing, in record time, the EU DCC system and thereby standardizing digital vaccine certificates across Europe. Building on the EU DCC success, IATA urges the World Health Organization (WHO) to revisit its work to develop a global digital vaccine standard. “The absence of a global standard makes it much harder for airlines, border authorities and governments to recognise and verify a traveler’s digital vaccination certificate. The industry is working around this by developing solutions that can recognise and verify certificates from individual countries. But this is a slow process that is hampering the restart of international travel,” said Careen.”
As far as I’m concerned this is just part of the plan to make air travel as difficult as possible for ordinary people – especially any that are not fully signed up to the great / green reset cult. The fact that the airline industry – at corporate level – is bought into this self destruction should also tell you something. I stress – at corporate, not operational level.
wow amazing all this global pass interoperability from nowhere…
But they can’t stop people presenting dirty crumpled pieces of paper showing say tea stained antigen tests, with not a QR code in sight. Its a little fight back in this arena, but anything to help clog up the wheels of fascism is worth it. its particularly useful having one in French at a spanish language border. They have to accept it, but only really can understand spanish/english ones most of the time.
Nice little earner, those fines, for someone. What’s not to like?!
I see that anti-vaccine passport protestors have stormed Google headquarters in London.
XR are such corporate puppets even their strings are branded.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-770724/v1
Metabolism-focused drug screen showed that fenofibrate reversed lipid accumulation and blocked SARS-CoV-2 replication. Analysis of 3,233 Israeli patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 supported in vitro findings. Patients taking fibrates showed significantly lower markers of immunoinflammation and faster recovery. Additional corroboration was received by comparative epidemiological analysis from cohorts in Europe and the United States. A subsequent prospective interventional open-label study was carried out in 15 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. The patients were treated with 145 mg/day of nanocrystallized fenofibrate (TriCor®) in addition to standard-of-care. Patients receiving fenofibrate demonstrated a rapid reduction in inflammation and a significantly faster recovery compared to control patients admitted during the same period and treated with the standard-of-care. Taken together, our data show that elevated lipid metabolism underlies critical aspects of COVID-19 pathogenesis, suggesting that pharmacological modulation of lipid metabolism should be strongly considered for the treatment of coronavirus infection.
Alternatively you could just eat a better diet, less risk of side effects.
That’ll never catch on, it may make people well.
I’m surprised they haven’t yet recommended statins for covid. In fact the dreaded LDL cholesterol is an important part of the immune system.
No new tests on masks and respiratory infections are required. The proper science was already in prior to the confounding nonsense that is Covid. Who says so, well it’s the CDC in their Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases. Briefly it says, that masks and other non-pharmaceutical measures don’t work and that they have no place outside of a health care setting.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Apologies for long post. Taken from LS here: https://dailysceptic.org/2020/07/14/latest-news-73/
(There are links in the LS page to tweets that no longer exist – wonder why?)
“But the most interesting thing in the report was the following scoop by Deborah Cohen:
The debate is deeply political. Newsnight understands that the World Health Organisation committee that reviewed the evidence for the use of face coverings in public didn’t back them. But after political lobbying, the WHO now recommends them.
After the report was broadcast, Trish Greenhalgh took to Twitter to criticise it. She complained that Newsnight hadn’t used all of her interview (has she never done a pre-record before?) and that interviewing scientists on both sides of the debate, as opposed to just her side, “sows confusion and could cost lives”. “We need responsible journalism or programmes could/will cost lives,” she tweeted.
This is essentially the same argument that Ofcom made when it issued its coronavirus guidance and which the Free Speech Union is seeking to challenge in the High Court. The evidence that a particular Government regulation will be do more good than harm is inconclusive, but nevertheless it’s wrong to allow people to criticise that regulation just in case it is as effective as the Government claims. If it is – even though we don’t know whether it is – then public criticism of it will mean people are less likely to comply and that, in turn, will cause harm. It’s a bad argument because it’s conditional upon taking it for granted that the Government is right and you can’t ask members of the free press to do that.
Deborah Cohen took to Twitter to defend herself and made a good job of it. “She tried to warn me off talking about the evidence saying people would die if I did that,” she said of Professor Greenhalgh. But she pointed out that the Danish Health Authorities do not currently recommend wearing face coverings in non-healthcare settings, pending the outcome of an an ongoing RCT with 6,000 participants. The bottom line is, you’ll only put people at risk by presenting the case against mandatory face masks if they do more good than harm and the evidence for that is threadbare, at best.
Deborah also doubled down on her scoop: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.”
Thanks for that documentation, Julian.
BTW – Is Deborah Cohen still around, or have they sidelined her?
Still posting on Twitter and I think doing stuff for Newsnight, though not all of it on covid.
“Not many people know this” but a group called Mask4all, savvy media guys, bombarded everyone they could with their “theories”. Governments took note and put pressure on the WHO to change their non-mask stance. I believe this group of a dozen (?) people has gone quiet after their fetish was taken up by everyone – job done!
Worth bearing in mind:
The thing is that mask wearing in England was introduced as a confidence building measure to get people back into the shops! (A lot of people forget this).
There was no medical justification given. It’s only later that they realised that masks were a good weapon for the government to use for increasing the level of fear, and for use as a badge signifying compliance.
That was the claimed reason, but it’s not especially believable – and there’s no way they couldn’t have realised by that point how effective they are at ramping up paranoia and setting people against each other (plenty of examples in Europe to look at by then) – and that was most probably the real intention of the muzzle mandate. Obviously that’s not something they would admit to so there had to be a cover story.
“That was the claimed reason, but it’s not especially believable” Indeed. They are professional liars.
Regards maskerbators – I insist (politely) that they remove their mask so I am able to communicate with them – (Hard of hearing) – my freedom does not depend upon their psychosis. I also inform all awake/unmasked employees in all the businesses I frequent that help is available for them via my new site: https://www.LCAHub.org/
“If we do not think it is acceptable to have our lives ordered in ways that discriminate against large sections of the population, that impair the development of children, that damage the mental health of the nation and that make each of us fearful of the other, then it is time to hold the advocates of masking to account for the quality of evidence.”
As we, namely the majority of (gene therapied) people, ‘scientists’, ‘doctors’ and practically all ‘journalists’, politicians and public ‘health’ officials think all this is not just acceptable but most desirable, those advocates will never be held to account.
The null hypothesis is that should be tested is “Masks as worn by the general public do not reduce the transmission of SARS-Cov-2”.
It reality however the study groups would have the same exposure risk,the same personal risk of disease etc. which is not possible:
We know masks do not eliminate droplets efficiently as they get rapidly wet.As surgeons , when we want to avoid contaminated operative fields we use “space suits” in laminar flow theatre”.
Professor Dingwall is an arts graduate and this may account for his baffling ignorance. There are no papers which demonstrate that masks, as worn by the general public, have been shown to affect the transmission of SARS-Cov-2 and the resulting mortality or morbidity of Covid-19.
Why do we continue to publish the views of these self appointed non medical “ experts” for a medical disease? I have never been at the scene of an accident when someone has cried out”Is anyone a Sociologist/Epidemiologist?
Doesn’t that make you the same as him. He has said masks are ineffective, just the same as you have.
I don’t think you read what he wrote.
And why shouldn’t he have a broad, educated view? The trouble with experts, especially self-appointed experts, is that they generally have a very narrow view on the real world. Neil Ferguson for example who is a physics modeller.
Great piece. But, even if the Gov reversed policy immediately its to late. Masks are so ingrained in the minds of a majority of people, they have been so brainwashed that they won’t be able to stop wearing them. And the Gov won’t change it’s narrative, none of them will.
We have this nonesense in our lives for generations to come.
Man in a mask behind perspex screen at hospital reception. I am a bit deaf so I asked him to repeat what he said. He got irritated when I asked him to speak louder. He would not remove his mask to speak to me and I told him he was brainwashed. He didn’t understand the term. I repeated it and he still didn’t understand but now looked threatening as well as angry. He sensed I was mocking him even with my face as straight as I could make it. I dialled down as otherwise I might have been told to leave the hospital and would miss my appointment. Says it all really.
They usually pull their nosebags down for a moment after you’ve asked them to say something three times.
Its too late. So many people continue to wear muzzles. Whatever is said against them, these people will always wear them.
But don’t continue to talk about the fake virus. It was never identified or isolated.
I was in a local Post office/corner shop yesterday. Lol. There was a perspex window between the lady behind the PO counter and me, but instead of the now usual screen to prevent our hazardous spittle directly reaching each other, there was a large hole cut out between us at her head height for communicating and passing through letters and paying. ?????
Someone in DT wrote BTL on article about masks that as winter flu had apparently been prevented by masks, he would keep his on until Covid had ‘gone’. The fact that winter flu will always be with us appears to have escaped him completely. The lack of logic beggars belief sometimes. I replied saying that given that flu is always with us, did he/she now intend to use a mask forever but don’t know if they replied.
Their confusion is caused by a lack of oxygen to their brains.
I believe Joseph Kellog did a report into Influenza in 1921.
One specific point mentioned was the infection vector via the eyes.
To date, I have never seen anything mentioned in this regard in relation to Influenza, Covid or Coronavirus’s at all.
Why?
It’s just an assumption for many that masks “must” work.
On the same reasoning (or lack thereof) I can assume that the Sun goes around the Earth each day. I see it with the evidence of my eyes. Of course it does.
Ignore that Galileo and his weird theory about planets going round the Sun. What a stupid assumption he made and it nearly cost him his life when the “experts” of his day took umbridge.