Heaven and Hell

jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 8:08:24 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 6:57:54 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Jeff Liebermann writes:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:18:07 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Reading your reference I had a look at the quoted study, which says in
part, "the physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks
suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to
their difference in scales".

Now if you ask any competent medical authority he/she/it will agree
with that statement as the common "surgical mask" is/was never
intended to filter virus. It is intended to trap tiny droplets of
(basically) water that is expelled in the breath.

In fact I asked my cardiologist about masks and he stated that masks
are not designed, or intended, to protect you from disease but rather
as a help in you not spreading a disease. Note that "as a help".

Yep. No mask is going to stop a tiny virus particle. However, a mask
will block a virus particle riding on a water droplet or in an
aerosol. Instead of citing studies, try this experiment for yourself:

1. Breath on a hand mirror. Moisture will condense on the mirror.
2. Put on a face mask and again try to "fog" the mirror. Good luck
trying because unless you do something odd (such as cooling the mirror
in a refrigerator to help condense moisture from the air), there's not
going to be any visible fog on the mirror.
3. Try smelling something through a mask. Assuming the edges are
properly sealed, it's rather difficult to smell anything through the
mask.
When wearing a mask I frequently fog my glasses. I am not alone, many
people complain of this. I try to adjust the mask, nose wire and
whatnot to avoid the effect, because it interferes with seeing, however
I am not often completely successful.

It's true that wearing a typical mask blocks moisture transport directly
in front of the mouth, but air leaks around the edges instead, even for
those trying to do their best. For those merely aiming for visible
compliance with a rule ...
What this demonstrates is that a mask will block moisture and
aerosols, which are the major forms of transport for Covid-19. It
also works in both directions. If you have two people talking to each
other, both wearing masks, the total moisture transport will be th
product of the filter efficiency of each mask. For example, if two
masks pass 10% of the moisture, then two masks will pass only:
0.1 * 0.1 = 0.01 = 1%
which is a rather dramatic reduction.

Even a leaky mask reduces the velocity and spread of aerosols. It is
a small inconvenience and a better option than more extensive
isolation -- and reduced participation in the great American activity
of shopping in a store. My glasses fog, too, but I manage.
My comment about glasses was not a complaint -- it was an observation on
the probable effectiveness of the sort of mask I, and many others, wear.

It's not at all clear that more extensive isolation has any benefits at
all, and it's quite clear that the costs outweigh the benefits. Is a St.
Christopher medal a better option than a rabbits foot?

It is clear enough that masks help reduce spread. I linked the
studies. And isolation is -- and has been -- the best way of
preventing spread of disease. The balancing here is masks and social
distancing versus isolation, and we now have the former rather than
the latter -- or some mix with lockdowns of varying degrees.

I don't even feel like arguing about this because it just gets into a
diatribe about civil rights and fight the power, St. Christopher
medals, etc., etc. Governments make public health decisions all the
time. Are the decisions based on perfect science -- no, and they
never are, but nowadays in the current political climate, less than
perfect decision making is seen as overreach and oppression -- or more
often as some sort of conspiracy. Mask wearing is certainly a minor
inconvenience compared to some other public health decisions like
being quarantined on a cruise ship.

I think that the benefit of signaling a turn is vastly overrated and
not supported by science, and it requires me to hold my arm out, which
hurts because I have AC arthritis from a crash-caused AC separation.
I'm fighting the power and not signaling. I'm also not going to cover
my mouth when I cough -- and no more suppressing farts in elevators,
although I'm under no regulatory obligation to do so, I'm rejecting
the societal pressure and fart-shaming.

I mean if we really want to change the world, why don't we work on
getting rid of those vile automated help lines: "I'm sorry, did you
say f*** you? That is not a valid response. Please say in a few
words what it is you want. [slamming phone against desk, screaming]."

If you don't want to argue, you're always free to just not post. That's
what I do, almost all of the time.

Essentially you're telling me that I really should wear a
St. Christopher medal, because it's easier on the pocket than a rabbit's
foot, less likely to smell bad, and won't offend vegans, while
completely begging the question of how either one does any good at all.

The decisions we're seeing governments make in the name of public health
go so far beyond what would have been considered reasonable two years
ago, and are so far divorced from any kind of rational cost vs benefit
analysis that I am gobsmacked every time I read the news.

Jeff Liebermann writes:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Governments make public health decisions all the time. Are the
decisions based
on perfect science -- no, and they never are, but nowadays in the
current political
climate, less than perfect decision making is seen as overreach and oppression
-- or more often as some sort of conspiracy. Mask wearing is
certainly a minor
inconvenience compared to some other public health decisions like
being quarantined
on a cruise ship.

Getting rid of the bad government decisions is somewhat difficult. An
example is requiring supermarkets and stores to mark the required
direction of travel in each aisle. Some brilliant official decided
that it was safer to have everyone walk in the same direction.
Apparently, this official did not understand that the exposure time to
other shoppers dramatically increases if everyone is walking in the
same direction. It's safer if everyone went in opposite directions,
but there's no way to stick arrows on the floor for that. So,
shoppers followed a ridiculous serpentine path through the aisles for
a few months, and then gave up the idea was the arrows slowly wore
away and were not replaced. I don't know the current status of this
one-way traffic requirement. Probably still on the books, but not
enforced. Governments NEVER admit their mistakes. I'm a proponent of
laws and regulations with expiration dates. If governments are not
going to get rid of mistakes, then let them renew what works, and
allow the mistakes to expire.

I still see one way signs on shop floors. I don't know whether it is or
was actually required. It is, as you say, a monumentally stupid idea,
but I suspect that some merchants like it because it forces shoppers to
walk by more of the merchandise.

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 1:13:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 9:17:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Well it is almost entirely political posturing. No one with any sense of the size of the pores in a mask and the size of a virus would ever be tempted to believe for one second that they could possibly have any effect, So Fauci can order that garbage about masks to be disseminated to the general public and people like Jsy, whose education is in an entirely different area actually believes it because his left wing government would NEVER lie to him.
Wow. The lack of memory and forgetfulness of you Trumpers and Republicans is absolutely astounding. Let me remind you again of history. Facts. The Covid-19 virus started in late 2019. It came to the USA in early 2020. February, March 2020. Your golden idol God Trump was running the executive branch of the federal government. A majority of the 50 states had Republican governors. And Republican legislative branches. The US Federal judiciary branch was dominated by Republican appointed judges. Likely at the state level too. The Center for Disease Control in the federal government issued the requirements, recommendations to wear masks. The CDC director was appointed by Trump, Republican.

And yet a year later, you are blaming the evil left and Democrats for the complete failure in handling the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting 600,000 dead people attributed to Covid. Simply amazing.

What reason do we have to believe that this number is accurate?

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:13:59 AM UTC-5, wrote:
I'm a proponent of
laws and regulations with expiration dates. If governments are not
going to get rid of mistakes, then let them renew what works, and
allow the mistakes to expire.
--
Jeff Liebermann

So on January 1 of even number years, the law against murdering people is no longer valid? And robbing people is legal on January 1 of odd numbered years because the law against that expired. Interesting idea to have laws expire. I guess we sort of have that with marijuana being legal in many places. And driving faster than 55 mph is legal in many places. The laws for those examples expired, were changed. I think we have laws making it illegal to dump toxic waste on the ground. But is that action now legal the beginning of next month after the law expires? Currently government is not considered the most efficient institution. But just imagine how less efficient it would be if they had to reargue and repass every single law every single year or maybe more often? We would have zero laws. Now I am sure some people would love that. But I think most people would quickly realize it is not a panacea. The whole world works much better with rules and regulations. Not anarchy.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/21/2021 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I think that the benefit of signaling a turn is vastly overrated and
not supported by science...

Reluctantly deflecting the discussion into cycling matters:

John Forester agreed with you. He saw little value in
signaling. Specifically, when a cyclist needs to merge from a right
lane into the next lane left, he advocated just looking over one's
shoulder at the next driver and getting cooperation that way - by
telepathy, I suppose.

My shoulders are pretty good. I signal. So we should argue! ;-)

I signal if it seems that someone might pay attention. This afternoon I
signaled a left turn to some guy driving behind me, because I wanted to
make sure he wasn't tempted to pass me on the left (even though I was on
the left side of the lane). I have seen that sort of behavior at that
intersection.

I signal when turning right if it looks as though someone is waiting on
me. Not sure it ever makes much difference, but it makes me look
cooperative.

I signal fairly conscientiously at stop signs, and wish there was a
signal for "I'm going straight".

I confess to not signaling if it does not seem likely anyone will see or
care.

Radey.

Noone is mentioning the point of diminishing returns.
If it is a 1-percenter, well, we live around 100 years, and we've given it a year, and it hasnt gone away.
If the last year was as bad as death, then we've hit the point of diminishing returns and should throw no more good time after bad.

Since the last year wasn't -quite- as bad as death, what is the correct formula?

Jeff Liebermann writes:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:48:24 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

For a round up of mask studies, see

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence

My take on these, not having read them all, is that the evidence that
masks are helpful is weak. As for why the CDC would recommend mask
wearing, they're part of a government that has invested heavily in
claiming to be able to command the tide to go out. Masks are a part of
the pandemic theater.

Swiss Policy Research (formerly Swiss Propaganda Research):
https://swprs.org/contact/
"Swiss Policy Research (SPR), founded in 2016, is an independent,
nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical
propaganda."
Note that the web site is almost completely anonymous.

Kinda sounds like a political organization that might be carefully
selecting the available articles to match their agenda. At least they
have the guts to provide links to articles that are critical of SPR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/
https://web.archive.org/web/20201221013854if_/https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ENG-SWPRS.org-UPDATED.pdf

When and if the site owners and authors are eventually revealed, I
suspect it will turn out to be owned and operated by one person,
probably in Germany. However, this is only a guess.

That's entirely possible. I don't recommend you believe what they say,
I recommend you follow the links, which are generally not anonymous.
Note that a search using the engine of your choice really is anonymous,
at least on the receiving end.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/21/2021 9:48 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 2:14:44 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 1:28:54 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 12:58:28 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 8:00:25 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 7:12:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/19/2021 8:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:55:49 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
1979:
Q. What is the difference between Heaven and Hell?
A: In Heaven, the French are the chefs, the Italians are
the lovers, the swiss are the bankers, the Germans are
the engineers, and the British are the police.
In Hell, the Germans are the police, the British are the
cooks, the Italians are the engineers, the French are
the bankers, and the Swiss are the lovers.

2029:
Doordash are the police
Google are the engineers, the bankers, and the government
Safeway and McDonalds are the cooks
And there are no lovers, since we all live alone in 1
room apartments due to covid-26, and visiting hours were
suspended due to covid-28
This is not that far off. The latest study on masks from
Stanford University is that masks can cause pneumococcal
pneumonia. Fauci is literally murdering people to force
more and more people to use vaccines for which he has so
far earned over $9 million. Fauci actually thinks this is
funny and laughs about this in public!

Most of the posters here don't know what science is but
since they dislike my comments they will turn happily to
the dark side and kill themselves rather than take any
advice from me. Well, I can think of a few who won't be
missed in the least after they are gone.

Tommy, I believe that you are telling lies.... again. Please post a
reference to your remark that "The latest study on masks
from Stanford
University is that masks can cause pneumococcal pneumonia".

I believe that failure to do will be proof positive that you are a
liar.

The Stanford piece this week was yet another blow to the
mask religion:

https://noqreport.com/2021/04/17/sta...against-covid/

Not that anyone's religion will change from mere data.

The 'pneumonia' claim was in some other paper I did not read.
Really?
Gawd. https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...cks-evidence-/
Hmm. That article certainly sounds/reads like the kind of bunk
it purports to debunk. Putting aside the childlike style, the
first claim seems ridiculous to me - how could the mask NOT
result in less oxygen? And if it's not, why do I want to take it
off so I can breathe easier?
The Politfact article points out what is generally available on
the internet about the author and nature of the hypothesis stated
by the author -- who is not a representative of Stanford. It is
not in itself a scientific journal article.

A search of the Elsevier medical journal data base using the
search "effect! w/20 "face mask" or "surgical mask" or "personal
protective equipment"" turns up 2,538 articles. Skimming the hits,
the consensus seems to be that surgical masks help stop the spread
of droplets and aerosol from infected persons, and with social
distancing, reduce virus transmission. Poor fitting surgical masks
provide little protection to the wearer. There is evidence that
wearing a surgical mask may reduce blood oxygen levels in an
insignificant way during relatively static activities like
attending a college class. The effect is greater with higher
efforts, not surprisingly -- and with different masks.
Why are you pretending that the CDC themselves did not write an
article saying the same things? Why are you making any possible
attempt to hide the fact that masks do nothing and that there have
been studies for 40 years that all say the same thing?

This is what the CDC says about masks:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...-guidance.html
Here, print yourself a poster:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...hers-Final.pdf

This study does not say that masks do
nothing. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...mm6936a5-H.pdf
Why would the CDC recommend mask wearing if a mask did nothing? What
is in it for the CDC? The last time I checked, they did not hold
stock in J&J, 3M or the legion of other mask producers. Is it all
about the subjugation of ubermensch Tom Kunich? Are they trying to
keep you down -- you and John Galt?

As I was saying, loose fitting surgical masks provide little
protection to the wearer. A mask prevents or limits spread from the
user -- and along with social distancing reduces exposure. It is a
better version of coughing into your sleeve. Why is that so hard to
understand? Go back and slowly re-read the CDC guidance on mask
wearing. Here, again:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...-guidance.html

Read this, too: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2776536

For a round up of mask studies, see

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence

My take on these, not having read them all, is that the evidence that
masks are helpful is weak. As for why the CDC would recommend mask
wearing, they're part of a government that has invested heavily in
claiming to be able to command the tide to go out. Masks are a part of
the pandemic theater.

I'm curious how you came upon an organization called Swiss Policy Research?

Did you begin by googling "masks don't work"?

When did you stop beating your wife?

On 4/21/2021 4:35 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 9:57:53 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

And in bike news, my sole piece of telemetry -- an ancient Cateye wired cyclometer with a wheel magnet -- finally died, and I decided to get a GPS/computer thing -- one of the Stages head units because my son can get them super-cheap. I passed on the matching power meter since I don't need to know how bad I suck.

-- Jay Beattie.

I still have a Cateye wired bike computer on all of my bikes. One is about 24 years old.

I'm still keeping a couple Avocets going. I was recently given another
as a potential backup, but one battery contact had corroded in two. I
was unable to repair it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/21/2021 9:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

Again, it's a benefit vs. detriment issue. The horror regarding mask
wearing is mostly political posturing.

As is the horror of those walking about bare-faced.

I will agree, there are plenty of faces that look horrible without
masks. But try to be charitable! Not everyone can be good looking!

Masks are above all
a public expression of obedience to authority.

As are pants, some would say. But I suspect almost everyone looks
better wearing those as well.

Fashion is, as you say, strange and unaccountable. There are countries
in which neglecting to wear pants does not incur the kind of penalty it
does in the US.