Discussion:
Wot happened to Keena's nan? Caught the Black Death?
Add Reply
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-05 14:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After denying its existence since February?
Pamela
2021-01-05 17:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-05 19:56:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess deaths
were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
Pamela
2021-01-06 11:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess deaths
were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
Either way, I hope he's okay now.

M.Rowing is another we don't see here now.
Despite all our differences, I hope he too is okay.
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-06 14:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess deaths
were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c
ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at the
expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important than deaths
from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from the deaths that
will be caused by the economic devastation the Government has set in
train and cannot prevent"
"Isn’t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But we were
unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the tinfoil hat
brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was obviously going to
become a far bigger killer than all other ones combined.

All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take at least
a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the idea?"

* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
Post by Pamela
Either way, I hope he's okay now.
M.Rowing is another we don't see here now.
Despite all our differences, I hope he too is okay.
Indeed. Regardless of our differences, we don't wish ill on anyone.
Well, most anyone.
Pamela
2021-01-07 20:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at the
expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important than
deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from the
deaths that will be caused by the economic devastation the
Government has set in train and cannot prevent"
"Isn’t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But we
were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the tinfoil
hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was obviously
going to become a far bigger killer than all other ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take at
least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't significant
by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a day.

However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the scepticism
seems misplaced.
abelard
2021-01-07 21:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at the
expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important than
deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from the
deaths that will be caused by the economic devastation the
Government has set in train and cannot prevent"
"Isn’t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But we
were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the tinfoil
hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was obviously
going to become a far bigger killer than all other ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take at
least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't significant
by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the scepticism
seems misplaced.
average more like 2,300 per day

usually more in winter and less in summer
Joe
2021-01-07 21:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 20:48:57 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at the
expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important than
deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from the
deaths that will be caused by the economic devastation the
Government has set in train and cannot prevent"
"Isn_t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But we
were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the tinfoil
hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was obviously
going to become a far bigger killer than all other ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take at
least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't significant
by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the scepticism
seems misplaced.
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed* to have
died direct from Covid.

Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of the
amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive test
results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.

Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they have
tested positively in the 28 days before they died *regardless* *of*
*what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.

Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in every
other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
--
Joe
abelard
2021-01-07 21:43:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 20:48:57 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at the
expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important than
deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from the
deaths that will be caused by the economic devastation the
Government has set in train and cannot prevent"
"Isn_t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But we
were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the tinfoil
hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was obviously
going to become a far bigger killer than all other ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take at
least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't significant
by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the scepticism
seems misplaced.
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed* to have
died direct from Covid.
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of the
amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive test
results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they have
tested positively in the 28 days before they died *regardless* *of*
*what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in every
other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
s/he's thick....you're wasting your time
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-08 14:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 20:48:57 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at the
expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important than
deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from the
deaths that will be caused by the economic devastation the
Government has set in train and cannot prevent"
"Isn_t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But we
were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the tinfoil
hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was obviously
going to become a far bigger killer than all other ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take at
least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't significant
by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the scepticism
seems misplaced.
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed* to have
died direct from Covid.
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of the
amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive test
results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they have
tested positively in the 28 days before they died *regardless* *of*
*what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in every
other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
s/he's thick....you're wasting your time
Keep denying it, Lard. You'll change your tune if you or someone (if
any) close to you catch it.
Pamela
2021-01-08 10:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 20:48:57 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at
the expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important
than deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from
the deaths that will be caused by the economic devastation the
Government has set in train and cannot prevent"
"Isn_t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But
we were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the
tinfoil hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was
obviously going to become a far bigger killer than all other
ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take
at least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the
idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't
significant by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a
day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the
scepticism seems misplaced.
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed*
to have died direct from Covid.
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of
the amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive
test results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they
have tested positively in the 28 days before they died
*regardless* *of* *what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
You shouldn't believe all the weird claims by Covid-deniers. The
allegation of overinclusion was laid to rest sometime ago when the
government removed 5,000 Covid deaths from its tally at a stroke
largely by excluding Covid deaths after 28 days. The true figure of
deaths from Covid, based on excess, deaths is at least 10,000 higher
than massaged government stats show.

Covid now needs to be the primary cause of death (line 1 on the
death certificate) to be included in the statistics. These deaths
are primarily from Covid. Underlying condition may also get
mentioned if they contributed to death, which is very likely with
Covid.

Covid will also have been the secondary cause of death from
conditions such as heart failure, lung collapse, kidney failure,
liver decompensation, etc that caused death. If Covid causes a death
from lung failure then it can be called either a Covid death or a
lung failure death.

A similar consideration applies to cancer. You don't die of cancer
alone but of its effect on another organ. In the case of cancer the
target organ is often mentioned such as "lung cancer".
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-08 14:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 20:48:57 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at the
expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important than
deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or from the
deaths that will be caused by the economic devastation the
Government has set in train and cannot prevent"
"Isn_t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But we
were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the tinfoil
hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was obviously
going to become a far bigger killer than all other ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take at
least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't significant
by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the scepticism
seems misplaced.
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed* to have
died direct from Covid.
Do you *deem* otherwise?
Post by Joe
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of the
amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive test
results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they have
tested positively in the 28 days before they died *regardless* *of*
*what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please note that everyone dies eventually. What Covid has done is
accelerate the death rate among the elderly and those with
vulnerabilities. Surely the 'excess deaths' figures tell you that?
Post by Joe
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in every
other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
Please also note that the wearing of masks, social distancing,
lockdowns etc have avoided the conditions that normally allow flu to
spread. I would have thought that was obvious.
Pamela
2021-01-08 16:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at
the expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important
than deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or
from the deaths that will be caused by the economic
devastation the Government has set in train and cannot
prevent"
"Isn_t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But
we were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the
tinfoil hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was
obviously going to become a far bigger killer than all other
ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take
at least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the
idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't
significant by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a
day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the
scepticism seems misplaced.
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed*
to have died direct from Covid.
Do you *deem* otherwise?
Post by Joe
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of
the amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive
test results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they
have tested positively in the 28 days before they died
*regardless* *of* *what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please note that everyone dies eventually. What Covid has done is
accelerate the death rate among the elderly and those with
vulnerabilities. Surely the 'excess deaths' figures tell you
that?
Post by Joe
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in
every other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
Please also note that the wearing of masks, social distancing,
lockdowns etc have avoided the conditions that normally allow flu
to spread. I would have thought that was obvious.
I heard today conspiracy theory secialist, Daniel Jollie from
Newcastle University, explain how Covid-deniers are trying to fit
the problems caused by the disaster into their existing belief
structures.

If they can't form an understanding of the threat, they reach for
strange explanations which is often based on based on their
pre-existing distrust of powerful groups. It explains about their
strange ideas and also how resistent they are to the facts.

Personally, I think there's an element of transient psychosis
present too, in which two conflicting ideas are believed at the same
time: such as believing Covid is a conspiracy and separately being
told authoritatively the hospitals are full of Covid patients.

Oh well. If only everyone was as perfect as me ... !
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-08 20:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Pamela
Post by KKKernal Corn
After denying its existence since February?
Did Keema deny it? I thought he took it seriously.
He spent months saying it was a MSM hoax and that the excess
deaths were negligible. Perhaps he finally saw the light?
I didn't really detect a lot of that from Keema.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8776423/
Coronavirus-UK-learn-live-c ovid-says-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
"And this is why we have an obsession with Covid-19 deaths at
the expense of others. Why are Covid deaths more important
than deaths from cancer, strokes or domestic violence? Or
from the deaths that will be caused by the economic
devastation the Government has set in train and cannot
prevent"
"Isn_t that exactly what some of us were saying in March? But
we were unceremoniously told to shut up; because we were the
tinfoil hat brigade and Covid was a pandemic so therefore was
obviously going to become a far bigger killer than all other
ones combined.
All it has done is fucked most western economies and made our
politicians run around like headless chickens. This will take
at least a decade to recover from; but maybe that was the
idea?"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
He seems to have subsequently changed his tune.
[TRIMMED]
Now you mention it, Keema did discuss how Covid wasn't
significant by comparison with the natural death rate of 1,500 a
day.
However today 1,000 people died direct from Covid, so the
scepticism seems misplaced.
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed*
to have died direct from Covid.
Do you *deem* otherwise?
Post by Joe
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of
the amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive
test results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they
have tested positively in the 28 days before they died
*regardless* *of* *what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please note that everyone dies eventually. What Covid has done is
accelerate the death rate among the elderly and those with
vulnerabilities. Surely the 'excess deaths' figures tell you
that?
Post by Joe
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in
every other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
Please also note that the wearing of masks, social distancing,
lockdowns etc have avoided the conditions that normally allow flu
to spread. I would have thought that was obvious.
I heard today conspiracy theory secialist, Daniel Jollie from
Newcastle University, explain how Covid-deniers are trying to fit
the problems caused by the disaster into their existing belief
structures.
If they can't form an understanding of the threat, they reach for
strange explanations which is often based on based on their
pre-existing distrust of powerful groups. It explains about their
strange ideas and also how resistent they are to the facts.
Personally, I think there's an element of transient psychosis
present too, in which two conflicting ideas are believed at the same
time: such as believing Covid is a conspiracy and separately being
told authoritatively the hospitals are full of Covid patients.
Oh well. If only everyone was as perfect as me ... !
It usually takes a politician to hold two contradictory beliefs, each
as sincerely and enthusiastically held as the other!
Joe
2021-01-08 20:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:41:58 +0100
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed* to
have died direct from Covid.
Do you *deem* otherwise?
Most certainly. See below for the deeming criterion.
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of
the amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive
test results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they have
tested positively in the 28 days before they died *regardless* *of*
*what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please note that everyone dies eventually. What Covid has done is
accelerate the death rate among the elderly and those with
vulnerabilities. Surely the 'excess deaths' figures tell you that?
Not in my country, the seasonal rise in deaths this year is lower than
last year, and apparently almost none of them are due to our usual
seasonal disease.
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in
every other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
Please also note that the wearing of masks, social distancing,
lockdowns etc have avoided the conditions that normally allow flu to
spread. I would have thought that was obvious.
Is the flu virus that many orders of magnitude larger than SARS?
Because the precautions seem to be doing little to slow Covid down.

I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to keep
out brick dust.
--
Joe
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-08 22:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:41:58 +0100
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed* to
have died direct from Covid.
Do you *deem* otherwise?
Most certainly. See below for the deeming criterion.
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of
the amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive
test results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they have
tested positively in the 28 days before they died *regardless* *of*
*what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please note that everyone dies eventually. What Covid has done is
accelerate the death rate among the elderly and those with
vulnerabilities. Surely the 'excess deaths' figures tell you that?
Not in my country, the seasonal rise in deaths this year is lower than
last year, and apparently almost none of them are due to our usual
seasonal disease.
Which country might that be? The Faroe Islands?
Post by Joe
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in
every other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
Please also note that the wearing of masks, social distancing,
lockdowns etc have avoided the conditions that normally allow flu to
spread. I would have thought that was obvious.
Is the flu virus that many orders of magnitude larger than SARS?
Because the precautions seem to be doing little to slow Covid down.
Can you imagine what Covid would be doing *without* these precautions?
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to keep
out brick dust.
But it may be enough to keep *in* the airborne droplets that carry the
flu virus.

Your deeming criteria seem to be lacking somewhat.
Ian Jackson
2021-01-09 08:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:41:58 +0100
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed* to
have died direct from Covid.
Do you *deem* otherwise?
Most certainly. See below for the deeming criterion.
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can be
expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be made of
the amplification used in the test. Any desired level of positive
test results can be obtained by adjusting the amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they have
tested positively in the 28 days before they died *regardless* *of*
*what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please note that everyone dies eventually. What Covid has done is
accelerate the death rate among the elderly and those with
vulnerabilities. Surely the 'excess deaths' figures tell you that?
Not in my country, the seasonal rise in deaths this year is lower than
last year, and apparently almost none of them are due to our usual
seasonal disease.
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Please also think carefully about why hardly anybody is apparently
dying of flu complications, as they have done in large numbers in
every other winter. Have we really discovered a cure for flu?
Please also note that the wearing of masks, social distancing,
lockdowns etc have avoided the conditions that normally allow flu to
spread. I would have thought that was obvious.
Is the flu virus that many orders of magnitude larger than SARS?
Because the precautions seem to be doing little to slow Covid down.
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to keep
out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust. The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
--
Ian
Joe
2021-01-09 09:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.

The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.

You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
summary of the best known one:

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
--
Joe
Ian Jackson
2021-01-09 11:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."

Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."

Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
--
Ian
abelard
2021-01-09 12:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical

for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-09 20:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical
for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
Do you prefer to be a statistical beneficiary of Covid-19 or a binary
one?
abelard
2021-01-09 21:22:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical
for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
Do you prefer to be a statistical beneficiary of Covid-19 or a binary
one?
why do you believe it makes a difference?
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-09 22:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical
for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
Do you prefer to be a statistical beneficiary of Covid-19 or a binary
one?
why do you believe it makes a difference?
Didn't you just suggest there was a difference?
abelard
2021-01-09 22:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical
for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
Do you prefer to be a statistical beneficiary of Covid-19 or a binary
one?
why do you believe it makes a difference?
Didn't you just suggest there was a difference?
no

however, there are reasons for observing the world
from individual and/or collective positions

different positions infer different objectives and different
logic

i was trying to evoke your position and objectives
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-10 13:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical
for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
Do you prefer to be a statistical beneficiary of Covid-19 or a binary
one?
why do you believe it makes a difference?
Didn't you just suggest there was a difference?
no
however, there are reasons for observing the world
from individual and/or collective positions
different positions infer different objectives and different
logic
Logic? From you???
Post by abelard
i was trying to evoke your position and objectives
I've been vaccinated against those. I wanted the placebo, but they
wouldn't give me one.
abelard
2021-01-10 13:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical
for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
Do you prefer to be a statistical beneficiary of Covid-19 or a binary
one?
why do you believe it makes a difference?
Didn't you just suggest there was a difference?
no
however, there are reasons for observing the world
from individual and/or collective positions
different positions infer different objectives and different
logic
Logic? From you???
so...you are merely confused...again
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
i was trying to evoke your position and objectives
I've been vaccinated against those. I wanted the placebo, but they
wouldn't give me one.
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-10 18:36:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:17:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask to
keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are going
in or out.
It's now generally well-accepted that they're primary job is to impede
the outgoing. Anything else is a bonus.
Post by Joe
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the
typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is not so much to filter the
outgoing breath, but instead it is to impede it, and slow it down so
that it doesn't project very far from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and sneezing,
something many people can achieve without a mask.
It certainly will - but your normal breath can still travel quite some
distance. I don't think the primary function of masks is to catch your
coughs and sneezes - in fact, it's pretty horrible for you if can't you
stifle a cough when you're wearing a mask.
Post by Joe
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around the
nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the bottom or
sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of wire, unless
they wear glasses.
That is true. Without a bit of manual twiddling, the usual cheap Chinese
light blue masks don't fit too well - and they also allow your specs to
steam up. Nevertheless, they do impede the direct forward projection of
the wearer's possibly virus-laden exhalation.
Post by Joe
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness of
these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a brief
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
"The study did not evaluate whether people with masks are less likely to
infect someone else. However, given that we now know that surgical masks
have limited filtering capacity, we must derive that it is very unlikely
that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious
wearer."
Translation: "We didn't actually do the one test that we should have
done - so we are only sort-of guessing."
Comparison with the effectiveness of surgical masks could well lead you
to the wrong conclusion. If it's masks being used in a hospital
environment, those wearing them are frequently in close proximity to
others, and for quiet a long time. In contrast, in shops were are urged
to maintain 'social distancing', and close proximity to others is
usually relatively transitory.
it is important people learn that this is statistical
for a population the risks amount to additive and
subtractive...not binary
Do you prefer to be a statistical beneficiary of Covid-19 or a binary
one?
why do you believe it makes a difference?
Didn't you just suggest there was a difference?
no
however, there are reasons for observing the world
from individual and/or collective positions
different positions infer different objectives and different
logic
Logic? From you???
so...you are merely confused...again
No, I think you must be confused if you think yourself capable of
logic.
abelard
2021-01-10 19:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
different positions infer different objectives and different
logic
Logic? From you???
so...you are merely confused...again
No, I think you must be confused if you think yourself capable of
logic.
only idiots think
KKKernal Corn
2021-01-10 20:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by abelard
different positions infer different objectives and different
logic
Logic? From you???
so...you are merely confused...again
No, I think you must be confused if you think yourself capable of
logic.
only idiots think
The 'logic' of someone who clearly doesn't.

Pamela
2021-01-09 12:19:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:41:19 +0000 Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
I wouldn't personally expect the typical 'virus-filtering' mask
to keep out brick dust.
I was unaware that people exhale brick dust.
Not generally, no. But a basic mask can't tell whether things are
going in or out.
Post by Ian Jackson
The main purpose of the typical man-in-the-supermarket mask is
not so much to filter the outgoing breath, but instead it is to
impede it, and slow it down so that it doesn't project very far
from the exhaler.
No, it will reduce the projection distance for coughing and
sneezing, something many people can achieve without a mask.
The most common mask type has a bit of bent wire to shape around
the nose, but no provision for any kind of fitting around the
bottom or sides. And many people don't bother shaping the bit of
wire, unless they wear glasses.
You might also look up the very few studies of the effectiveness
of these simple masks in reducing the spread of Covid. Here's a
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-6
The following article from one of the editors of the BMJ commenting
on the same study puts the comment you linked into a wider
perspective:

DANMASK-19, the first trial of mask use during covid-19, was
"negative." Masks didn’t work. We knew this before the trial was
published because we were told so on social media. The authors
were reported by the media to be struggling to find a major
journal for their trial. Journals weren't proving brave enough
to publish the study, said the authors, and they didn’t make a
preprint available.

When the mythical trial was finally published last week in the
Annals of Internal Medicine we didn’t need to read it. We
already knew its damning verdict on mask wearing. Social media
told us as much. Eminent professors of evidence based medicine,
Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, confirmed this in an article for
the Spectator.

Except that if you read the published paper you find almost the
exact opposite. The trial is inconclusive rather than negative,
and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the
wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced
spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where
mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low.
This finding is in keeping with summaries of evidence from
Cochrane.

A disagreement among experts, especially about interpretation of
a study, is a common occurrence. It is the usual business of
science. Only, Facebook didn’t see it that way.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

This article from Nature may be more useful:

Face masks: what the data say. The science supports that face
coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and
yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 (Oct 2020)
Pamela
2021-01-09 12:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:41:58 +0100
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
*Please* be precise....1000 people who died have *been* *deemed*
to have died direct from Covid.
Do you *deem* otherwise?
Most certainly. See below for the deeming criterion.
Post by KKKernal Corn
Post by Joe
Please learn how the Covid test is done and how accurate it can
be expected to be, and how in this country no mention need be
made of the amplification used in the test. Any desired level of
positive test results can be obtained by adjusting the
amplification.
Please note that people are deemed to have died of Covid if they
have tested positively in the 28 days before they died
*regardless* *of* *what* *they* *actually* *died* *of*.
Please note that everyone dies eventually. What Covid has done
is accelerate the death rate among the elderly and those with
vulnerabilities. Surely the 'excess deaths' figures tell you
that?
Not in my country, the seasonal rise in deaths this year is lower
than last year, and apparently almost none of them are due to our
usual seasonal disease.
Can you kindly cite the figures and also specify which country it is.
Loading...