Studies showing mask wearing has negative health affects.

[Clete]

That's a brilliantly well done web site!

The above chart speaks for itself except that it should be pointed out that this is only COVID deaths on the chart. If you started graphing all the deaths that can be attributed to the lock down itself then CA is simply nothing but a Communist hell hole in comparison to Fl.

 

[annabenedetti]

Why don't you go see if you can find a study that masks and/or lock downs make a statistically significant improvement in infection rates, hospitalizations or deaths?

Go on! Live up to your own standard! I DARE YOU!

You won't do it because it can't be done because there is no such study.

I thought you said goodbye?

 

[way 2 go]

I don't know. Not saying it is or isn't, I just saw the graph for the first time. Looked at the sourcing, saw it was his graph. Looked at his profile, there's no info as to who he is, what kind of expertise he has, etc. So I don't know if all the data going in is accurate, or if it's been accurately interpreted. Elsewhere, some stats at different points have shown California looks better, some stats show Florida looking better, there are a lot of (sometimes shifting) variables.

everybody wished masks worked but the evidence is they do not (pg14)

 

[Clete]

I thought you said goodbye?

I see you side stepped finding any science that supports your side of the debate because you realized you're a fool defending fascist government dictates rather than doing anything related to health and science.

 

[Clete]

everybody wished masks worked but the evidence is they do not (pg14)

That's true! I'd be all for wearing masks if they worked but you know who wouldn't be? The very people who are making you wear one now! They'd be the ones calling it fascist, (they'd find a way to call it racist too) and be all up in arms about to much government power, etc.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's true! I'd be all for wearing masks if they worked but you know who wouldn't be? The very people who are making you wear one now! They'd be the ones calling it fascist, (they'd find a way to call it racist too) and be all up in arms about to much government power, etc.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Oh get a grip. I don't like wearing the things. They're a total inconvenience to me because I wear glasses and the things steam up as soon as I put them on but I get on with it because I'd sooner take precautions for other people's well being than whine on about it. There's plenty of science to suggest that it's better to do so than not and your latter is more than a little ironic.

Far right extremism is a scourge on society. To be fair, any sort of extremism is but the prevalence of far right nuttery and conspiracy garbage going on these days is something else...

 

[way 2 go]

There's plenty of science to suggest that it's better to do so than not and your latter is more than a little ironic.

all you have is pseudo science

the evidence all shows masks/ lock downs make no difference

 

[way 2 go]

There's plenty of science to suggest that it's better to do so than not and your latter is more than a little ironic.

all you have is pseudo science

 

[Arthur Brain]

all you have is pseudo science

the evidence all shows masks/ lock downs make no difference

View attachment 433

Well, no, but you carry on with whatever makes you feel better about not wearing them.

 

[Clete]

Oh get a grip. I don't like wearing the things. They're a total inconvenience to me because I wear glasses and the things steam up as soon as I put them on but I get on with it because I'd sooner take precautions for other people's well being than whine on about it. There's plenty of science to suggest that it's better to do so than not and your latter is more than a little ironic.

There isn't any such science.

Far right extremism is a scourge on society. To be fair, any sort of extremism is but the prevalence of far right nuttery and conspiracy garbage going on these days is something else...

By "far right", I have no doubt that you are referring to fascism which is entirely a left wing ideology where big government wields its power to conform society to its will, telling people where they can live, what they can do for a living, what they are allowed to say and what they are allowed to think.

The real far right position is freedom. Freedom from the government interfering with one's life except to protect your rights from those who would violate them. Freedom to decide for yourself what you will do for a living, what you will say and how you will say it, what you will think feel and believe about whatever issue comes up without the government having any authority whatsoever to hinder that freedom except where its exercise violates someone else's right to do the same.

And if you want proof that it is YOU who would be up in arms about mask usage if they actually did work, look no further than hydroxychloroquine. When its use would have benefited their political enemy then it's deadly, horrible, irresponsible and usually somehow racist. When it benefits their political guy then it's magically fine and dandy and was probably somehow the other guy's fault that we haven't been using it for months. The things the left support are those things which further the narrative which is in place to further their power and to diminish the power of their political enemies. They don't give a damn about whether something works or doesn't work as intended, they care about whether it works to further their agenda.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There isn't any such science.


By "far right", I have no doubt that you are referring to fascism which is entirely a left wing ideology where big government wields its power to conform society to its will, telling people where they can live, what they can do for a living, what they are allowed to say and what they are allowed to think.

The real far right position is freedom. Freedom from the government interfering with one's life except to protect your rights from those who would violate them. Freedom to decide for yourself what you will do for a living, what you will say and how you will say it, what you will think feel and believe about whatever issue comes up without the government having any authority whatsoever to hinder that freedom except where its exercise violates someone else's right to do the same.

And if you want proof that it is YOU who would be up in arms about mask usage if they actually did work, look no further than hydroxychloroquine. When its use would have benefited their political enemy then it's deadly, horrible, irresponsible and usually somehow racist. When it benefits their political guy then it's magically fine and dandy and was probably somehow the other guy's fault that we haven't been using it for months. The things the left support are those things which further the narrative which is in place to further their power and to diminish the power of their political enemies. They don't give a damn about whether something works or doesn't work as intended, they care about whether it works to further their agenda.

Of course there's such science, a plethora of it in fact. You won't entertain it because it doesn't fit in with your biased narrative but that doesn't invalidate it or that it doesn't exist..

Where it comes to fascism then you are not only wrong on the score but ironically so where it comes to your talk about 'freedom'. You do realize that there are people here who advocate that government should be akin to a theocracy/theonomy, right, in fact aren't you one of them? Such a "government" would have all of society subjugated under religious rule, where homosexuals would be executed, co-habiting would be an offence punishable by enforced marriage with no possibility of divorce etc etc etc. How is that "freedom" exactly? How is that not interference in people's lives and an infringement upon their civil liberties?

As to the rest, nope. I'm hardly 'up in arms' about anything and sure wouldn't have had a problem with hydroxychloroquine if it was shown to be an effective treatment or anything else for that matter. I care about this virus being brought under control, hopefully, if possible, eradicated altogether and it's not a political issue for me. Sorry if it is for you.

 

[Right Divider]

Where it comes to fascism then you are not only wrong on the score but ironically so where it comes to your talk about 'freedom'. You do realize that there are people here who advocate that government should be akin to a theocracy/theonomy, right, in fact aren't you one of them? Such a "government" would have all of society subjugated under religious rule, where homosexuals would be executed, co-habiting would be an offence punishable by enforced marriage with no possibility of divorce etc etc etc. How is that "freedom" exactly? How is that not interference in people's lives and an infringement upon their civil liberties?

You seem to think that "freedom" means just doing whatever you want regardless of God definitions.

Are you really opposed to God as absolute ruler? (i.e., theocracy).

Are you unaware that the kingdom that Christ will establish when He returns will be a theocracy?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You seem to think that "freedom" means just doing whatever you want regardless of God definitions.

Are you really opposed to God as absolute ruler? (i.e., theocracy).

Are you unaware that the kingdom that Christ will establish when He returns will be a theocracy?

Well, this is hardly the thread to get too deep into it here but I'll answer and then if you want to continue, start another thread on it?

No, I do not promote the notion that "freedom" means doing just whatever you want regardless. We have set laws that prohibit murder, rape, assault, child molestation, domestic abuse, drink driving etc. I don't necessarily agree with all laws but I certainly do in the main. For example in America. AFAIC, if someone is old enough to risk their life in a war somewhere then they're old enough to sit in a bar and have a pint of beer.

When people talk about "Godly definitions" then it's pretty much what they assert as such for the most part so why would I be obliged to take it as read? If you consider the context of my reply to Clete, he argued that it's the "left" that wants to interfere with people's lives, their rights etc. I'm pointing out that it's the far right that in some cases would usurp civil liberties to the point where "government" would control people's private lives. That is stripping away people's individual liberty and personal freedom. What you believe where it comes to homosexuality and relationships out of wedlock is one thing, advocating that all of society should be subjugated under a religious rule is another thing altogether.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, this is hardly the thread to get too deep into it here but I'll answer and then if you want to continue, start another thread on it?

No, I do not promote the notion that "freedom" means doing just whatever you want regardless. We have set laws that prohibit murder, rape, assault, child molestation, domestic abuse, drink driving etc.

Most of those are based on Biblical principles.

I don't necessarily agree with all laws but I certainly do in the main. For example in America. AFAIC, if someone is old enough to risk their life in a war somewhere then they're old enough to sit in a bar and have a pint of beer.

Nope. Military will take 18 year old's, but it's 21 for a pint of beer.

When people talk about "Godly definitions" then it's pretty much what they assert as such for the most part so why would I be obliged to take it as read? If you consider the context of my reply to Clete, he argued that it's the "left" that wants to interfere with people's lives, their rights etc. I'm pointing out that it's the far right that in some cases would usurp civil liberties to the point where "government" would control people's private lives. That is stripping away people's individual liberty and personal freedom. What you believe where it comes to homosexuality and relationships out of wedlock is one thing, advocating that all of society should be subjugated under a religious rule is another thing altogether.

Please get a Bible and study it. God severely limits "personal freedom".

 

[Arthur Brain]

Most of those are based on Biblical principles.

Nope. Military will take 18 year old's, but it's 21 for a pint of beer.

Please get a Bible and study it. God severely limits "personal freedom".

Well, firstly, they're sensible laws that we have whatever. Any civilized society has laws in place to protect the populace.

Secondly, that was one example of a law that I disagree with. Someone deemed old enough to fight in a war is old enough to have a drink AFAIC.

Thirdly, already have done and like most, I don't come to the conclusions that some of you on the far right do. Again, in regards to the context with Clete, then you, being on the far right seem to advocate laws that severely infringe upon people's personal freedom and private lives, something that Clete accuses the left of doing. That's the relevant part here and that you jumped in on.

 

[Clete]

Of course there's such science, a plethora of it in fact. You won't entertain it because it doesn't fit in with your biased narrative but that doesn't invalidate it or that it doesn't exist..

Liar.

Where it comes to fascism then you are not only wrong on the score but ironically so where it comes to your talk about 'freedom'. You do realize that there are people here who advocate that government should be akin to a theocracy/theonomy, right, in fact aren't you one of them? Such a "government" would have all of society subjugated under religious rule, where homosexuals would be executed, co-habiting would be an offence punishable by enforced marriage with no possibility of divorce etc etc etc. How is that "freedom" exactly? How is that not interference in people's lives and an infringement upon their civil liberties?

You haven't any idea what you're talking about. Or this is more lies. You're a waste of time either way.

As to the rest, nope. I'm hardly 'up in arms' about anything and sure wouldn't have had a problem with hydroxychloroquine if it was shown to be an effective treatment or anything else for that matter. I care about this virus being brought under control, hopefully, if possible, eradicated altogether and it's not a political issue for me. Sorry if it is for you.

It had been shown to be effective for decades - DECADES - on similar illness and had shown promising results in regards to COVID19 specifically. Were you on here saying that Fauci and the CNN sexually perverted "news" anchor was lying about it? NOPE! You toed the line just line the rest of your communist/fascist comrades on the left.

Don't bother responding. I won't read it.

Clete

 

[Arthur Brain]

Liar.


You haven't any idea what you're talking about. Or this is more lies. You're a waste of time either way.

It had been shown to be effective for decades - DECADES - on similar illness and had shown promising results in regards to COVID19 specifically. Were you on here saying that Fauci and the CNN sexually perverted "news" anchor was lying about it? NOPE! You toed the line just line the rest of your communist/fascist comrades on the left.

Don't bother responding. I won't read it.

Clete

In what way am I lying? If you don't respond then that's your prerogative of course but flinging about the term 'liar' doesn't amount to anything in itself. It is fact that there is plenty of evidence to support the efficacy of wearing masks whether you like it or not. It's why I wear them because I'd sooner do so than not and put another person at potential risk.

Where it come to your notion of the "left" wanting to interfere in people's lives and diminish personal freedom then I merely reminded you of what some on the far right advocate that completely upends said 'argument' and it's telling that you didn't want to address that.

Your notion of what is "effective" in regards to Covid-19 has been addressed multiple times and I'm no more a fascist/communist than my cat is a Scotch egg.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, firstly, they're sensible laws that we have whatever. Any civilized society has laws in place to protect the populace.

Yes, and they are mostly based on Biblical principle. Although many countries are departing from these principles to their own destruction.

Secondly, that was one example of a law that I disagree with. Someone deemed old enough to fight in a war is old enough to have a drink AFAIC.

Should all laws be based on what you agree with? (BTW, I agree on that one).

Thirdly, already have done and like most, I don't come to the conclusions that some of you on the far right do. Again, in regards to the context with Clete, then you, being on the far right seem to advocate laws that severely infringe upon people's personal freedom and private lives, something that Clete accuses the left of doing. That's the relevant part here and that you jumped in on.

Do you believe that people have the right to sexual perversion? Ultimately who should decide? I'm going with God on these issues.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, and they are mostly based on Biblical principle. Although many countries are departing from these principles to their own destruction.

Should all laws be based on what you agree with? (BTW, I agree on that one).

Do you believe that people have the right to sexual perversion? Ultimately who should decide? I'm going with God on these issues.

They're based on common sense. Any civilized society needs laws that outlaw extremes such as murder and the like. What countries are you referring to and in what way? There's plenty of places where there are grievous laws in place and where human rights are practically non existent. Good thing we both happen to live in respective countries where that doesn't happen, right, even if we might happen to disagree with some aspects of such? We still have the freedom to express opinions. That's not a given elsewhere.

Of course all laws shouldn't be based on what I agree with, they should be based on common sense and for the most part, they are. I'm glad you agree on one of the aspects of law that I disagree with.

AFAIC, consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want, providing they aren't breaking laws that are already in place. That includes homosexuals being allowed to have sex and be married, couples co-habiting out of wedlock and having sex and a whole load more, much of which would be kicked into touch were such as what some want in place as "government" happened to come into being. That would infringe upon civil liberties and personal freedom. You're free to believe as you will but you're not free to impose your beliefs on everyone else and neither should any sort of government.

 

[Right Divider]

They're based on common sense.

This is a classic cop-out when someone has no foundation for their idea.
Our laws are not based on vague and abstract ideas.

Any civilized society needs laws that outlaw extremes such as murder and the like.

Laws like those against murder are not based on vague and abstract ideas.

What countries are you referring to and in what way? There's plenty of places where there are grievous laws in place and where human rights are practically non existent.

Is there no common sense there?

Good thing we both happen to live in respective countries where that doesn't happen, right, even if we might happen to disagree with some aspects of such? We still have the freedom to express opinions. That's not a given elsewhere.

Our countries laws are based on Biblical principles.

Of course all laws shouldn't be based on what I agree with, they should be based on common sense and for the most part, they are. I'm glad you agree on one of the aspects of law that I disagree with.

Common sense is a vague abstraction and not something that can be used to base absolute moral laws like that against murder.

AFAIC, consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want, providing they aren't breaking laws that are already in place. That includes homosexuals being allowed to have sex and be married, couples co-habiting out of wedlock and having sex and a whole load more, much of which would be kicked into touch were such as what some want in place as "government" happened to come into being. That would infringe upon civil liberties and personal freedom. You're free to believe as you will but you're not free to impose your beliefs on everyone else and neither should any sort of government.

God thinks otherwise, but I understand that you don't think that He has any place in the law.