Everything to do with masks / face coverings

[Mr H]

People in the msm bubble will not change their behaviour until it physically effects them. E.g. once they lose their job. Once they feint from wearing a mask too long. 

[shadowmoon]

14 minutes ago, Mr H said:

People in the msm bubble will not change their behaviour until it physically effects them. E.g. once they lose their job. Once they feint from wearing a mask too long. 

 

Suddenly, from out of the Synthetic Music Box a Voice began to speak. The Voice of Reason, the Voice of Good Feeling.

 

The sound-track roll was unwinding itself in Synthetic Anti-Riot Speech Number Two (Medium Strength). Straight from the depths of a non-existent heart, “My friends, my friends!” said the Voice so pathetically, with a note of such infinitely tender reproach that, behind their gas masks, even the policemen’s eyes were momentarily dimmed with tears, “what is the meaning of this? Why aren’t you all being happy and good together? Happy and good,” the Voice repeated. “At peace, at peace.” It trembled, sank into a whisper and momentarily expired.

 

“Oh, I do want you to be happy,” it began, with a yearning earnestness. “I do so want you to be good! Please, please be good and …”

[HAARPING_On]

15 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Power to the welsh:

The least likely to wear a mask during a fake pandemic

See here:
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/08/11/people-in-wales-least-likely-to-wear-face-coverings-according-t/

 

(although it is a yougov poll which means absolutely fuck all.
But if, by the off chance , it is a true reflection, then good on you wales!

 

I went to Llandudno at the weekend... 95% of people unmasked which was good to see.

[Kala Namak]

I have not worn a mask at all so far. I'm not particularly brave and will mostly avoid any sort of confrontation unless I'm cornered. So far I've been in several shops mostly supermarkets, Lidl and Sainsbury's and a Travelodge hotel, all of which have had notices at the entrance stating that face masks should be warned. I have not been challenged yet at any of those places. I've been on my own and on separate occasions with my wife and on another occasion with my daughter, where they wore a mask and I didn't, so far without incident.

 

I intend to continue in this fashion for my regular shopping trips and hopefully I will be left alone. If the shop entrance looks a bit too intimidating then I simply will not shop at that store rather than get into verbals. 

[Kala Namak]

On 8/11/2020 at 12:03 PM, MR-E said:

SWISS POLICY RESEARCH STUDY

Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.

FOR THOSE SEEKING ANSWERS !

Published: July 30, 2020; Updated: August 9, 2020
Share on: Twitter / Facebook

An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.

1. Studies on the effectiveness of face masks

So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.

1. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
2. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medince found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
3. A Covid-19 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection. (Source)
4. An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
5. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
6. An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks in the general population or health care workers didn’t reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases. (Source)
7. An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine (preprint) found that “the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks”, but supports the use of masks by “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.” (Source)
8. A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks “offer zero protection against coronavirus” due to their large pore size and generally poor fit. (Source)
9. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)

Additional aspects

1. Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, experienced its most recent influenza epidemic with more than 5 million people falling ill just one year ago, in January and February 2019. However, unlike SARS-2, the influenza virus is transmitted by children, too.
2. Many countries and US states that introduced mandatory face masks on public transport and in shops in spring or early summer, such as Argentina and California, nevertheless saw a strong increase in infections from July onwards, indicating a low effectiveness of mask policies.
3. There is increasing evidence that the SARS-2 coronavirus is transmitted, at least in certain indoor settings, not only by droplets but also by smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, cloth masks cannot filter out aerosols.
4. The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence but “political lobbying”: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.” (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent)
5. Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical face mask by surgeons during operations didn’t reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
6. In children, the risk of Covid-19 disease and transmission is very low – much lower than for influenza – and face masks for children are therefore not indicated in any circumstances.
7. During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks was widespread among the general population, but they made no difference.

2. Studies claiming face masks are effective

Some recent studies argued that cloth face masks are indeed effective against the new coronavirus and could at least prevent the infection of other people. However, most of these studies suffer from poor methodology and sometimes show the opposite of what they claim.

Typically, these studies ignore the effect of other measures, the natural development of infection numbers, changes in test activity, or they compare countries with very different conditions.

An overview:

1. A German study claimed that the introduction of compulsory masks in German cities had led to a decrease in infections. But the data does not support this: in some cities there was no change, in others a decrease, in others an increase in infections (see graph below). The city of Jena was an ‘exception’ only because it simultaneously introduced the strictest quarantine rules in Germany, but the study did not mention this.
2. A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections in three global hotspots (including New York City). This did not take into account the natural decrease in infections and other measures. The study was so flawed that over 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.
3. A US study claimed that mandatory masks had led to a decrease in infections in 15 states. The study did not take into account that the incidence of infection was already declining in most states at that time. A comparison with other states was not made.
4. A Canadian study claimed that countries with mandatory masks had fewer deaths than countries without mandatory masks. But the study compared African, Latin American, Asian and Eastern European countries with very different infection rates and population structures.
5. A much-cited meta-study in the journal Lancet claimed that masks “could” lead to a reduction in the risk of infection, but the studies considered mainly medical masks in a hospital setting, not cloth masks in a community setting, and the strength of the evidence was reported as “low”.

Mandatory masks in German cities: no relevant impact. (IZA 2020)

3. Risks associated with face masks

Wearing masks for a prolonged period of time is not harmless, as the following evidence shows:

1. The WHO warns of various “side effects” such as difficulty breathing and skin rashes.
2. Tests conducted by the University Hospital of Leipzig in Germany have shown that face masks significantly reduce the resilience and performance of healthy persons.
3. A German psychological study with about 1000 participants found “severe psychosocial consequences” due to the introduction of mandatory face masks in Germany.
4. The Hamburg Environmental Institute warned of the inhalation of chlorine compounds in polyester masks as well as problems in connection with face mask disposal.
5. The European rapid alert system RAPEX has already recalled 70 mask models because they did not meet EU quality standards and could lead to “serious risks”.
6. In China, two boys who had to wear a mask during sports classes fainted and died.
7. In the US, a car driver wearing an N95 (FFP2) mask fainted and crashed into a pole.

Conclusion

Cloth face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this proposition. If the SARS-2 virus is indeed transmitted via aerosols, at least indoors, cloth masks are unlikely to be protective.

See also

As with most things I consider to be important enough, I always like to get to the original source material and not just rely on someone else's edited version, so I tried a quick google (other search engines are available) on "Swiss Policy Research" and the first entry in the search results was what appears to be a Wikipedia hatchet job and nowhere in the search results was there a link to the actual website.

 

Now for the suspicious contrarian like myself, the fact that they appear to be going out of their way to hide, censor and trash anyone or any site that is not following the pre-ordained "official" narrative, that's enough for me to want to find out more about what the censored party has got to say. 

 

Anyway, for those that are interested in checking the site for themselves, here is a link to the main site and here is a link to the Covid-19 section. 

 

 

 

[chud]

Just stumbled upon lines I hadn't noticed from an article I had linked and quoted in a draft I never posted on the forum… it's straight related to face masks you'll get how, and even though it remains symbolic there sadly still is something left of it in our current reality… here're the lines…

 

Quote

The potential threat of “chicken zombies” originated with a 2006 incident in Petaluma, California, when the unsuccessful euthanizing of poultry using carbon monoxide resulted in haunted hens crawling out the piles of their slain sisters, and walking around until their bodies died of internal organ failure.

 

What makes it interesting is where these lines were extracted from and what the whole article was about…

 

https://www.history.com/news/are-you-prepared-for-a-zombie-apocalypse-the-u-s-government-is

 

What's the main side-effect of mask-wearing ?

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by chud

[zarkov]

Hi @Kala Namak - thanks for the post.

I particularly like Vernon Coleman's expression that "it would be like a mouse being prevented from passing through marble arch" - not likely!

 

It occurs to me that for those who beleive that a pathogenc virus does exist, then if these pathogenic particles are being transmitted in moisture droplets we exhale then as the moisture hits the fabric and settles and some of this is going to be water vapour then the particles are going to concentrate over a very short time. esp if re-used.

When positive pressure builds up inside the mask duiring exhale the amount of particles forced out is going to be much greater than ordinary exhalation. 

It doesnt seem to make any real sense.

 

Breathing is more than the function of inhaling oxygen for energy production (atp cellular respiration...) and removal of the Co2 by product during exhalation.

It provides the body with a vital mechanism for the instantaneous ejection of toxins which in our current environment is increasingly something of a concern.

With 80 thousand plus man-made chemicals in regular use around the world which are in just about every part of our daily lives, it is clear that our bodies have an enormous load to process and eject!

Masks block this process and if people of even slight vulnerablilty wear them this is gong to increase health risks for them considerably! and inhaling your own bodily ejections is not a snsible thing either.

 

Plus of course hypoxia and co2 build up.

 

 

 

[Yasmina]

6 hours ago, chud said:

Just stumbled upon lines I hadn't noticed from an article I had linked and quoted in a draft I never posted on the forum… it's straight related to face masks you'll get how, and even though it remains symbolic there sadly still is something left of it in our current reality… here're the lines…

 

 

What makes it interesting is where these lines were extracted from and what the whole article was about…

 

https://www.history.com/news/are-you-prepared-for-a-zombie-apocalypse-the-u-s-government-is

 

What's the main side-effect of mask-wearing ?

 

Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are not the same thing. 

[Number6]

Interesting study in relation to n95 vs cloth facemasks and prevention of viruses in medical and community settings. I particularly like this part of the study where it states: 

"Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness".

 

Note the evidence in the table below for Sars Cov 2, lol:

 

 

Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings: A Living Rapid Review

Roger Chou ¹, Tracy Dana ¹, Rebecca Jungbauer ¹, Chandler Weeks ¹, Marian S McDonagh ¹

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 32579379
• PMCID: PMC7322812
• DOI: 10.7326/M20-3213

Free PMC article

Full-text linksCite

Abstract

Background: Recommendations on masks for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary.

Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, and effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks.

Data sources: Multiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 14 April 2020; surveillance through 2 June 2020), and reference lists.

Study selection: Randomized trials of masks and risk for respiratory virus infection, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and observational studies of mask use and coronavirus infection risk were included. New evidence will be incorporated by using living review methods.

Data extraction: One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; a second reviewer provided verification.

Data synthesis: 39 studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 21 observational studies; 33 867 participants) were included. No study evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. Evidence on SARS-CoV-2 was limited to 2 observational studies with serious limitations. Community mask use was possibly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection in observational studies. In high- or moderate-risk health care settings, observational studies found that risk for infection with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus probably decreased with mask use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. In health care settings, N95 and surgical masks were probably associated with similar risks for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infection; clinical respiratory illness had inconsistency. Bothersome symptoms were common.

Limitations: There were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods.

Conclusion: Evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain.

Primary funding source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32579379/

[chud]

7 hours ago, Yasmina said:

Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are not the same thing. 

 

dioxide is just monoxide with one more oxygen atom so it doesn't make a big difference but to 'scientypists'... 

 

it's really hairsplitting anyway since what I wanted to point out was the similarity in the used process : induced hypoxia... otherwise did you check the CONPLAN original document ? still not since that's not important was it ? 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by chud

[Kala Namak]

So...saw this post on the discord server I frequent, posted by a surgeon, a bit of emotional blackmail clearly aimed at folks like me that are opposed to being muzzled...

 

 

...I have yet to respond but might do later.

 

[Yasmina]

1 hour ago, chud said:

 

dioxide is just monoxide with one more oxygen atom so it doesn't make a big difference but to 'scientypists'... 

 

it's really hairsplitting anyway since what I wanted to point out was the similarity in the used process : induced hypoxia... otherwise did you check the CONPLAN original document ? still not since that's not important was it ? 

 

 

 

 

Carbon monoxide is FAR more dangerous, everyone knows that. 

 

I just wanted to point out that they are not the same. 

 

What do you mean conplan original document? And why are you saying I don't think it's important? 

 

Just because I know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide doesn't imply anything other than exactly that. 

[chud]

2 minutes ago, Yasmina said:

doesn't imply anything other than exactly that. 

 

yes it does, sorry but since you wish to split hair... your reply implies that you don't agree' with my post even though there was nothing to 'agree' on it's just a comparison... AGAIN knowing which of the two gas is the most dangerous wasn't required to get my point even though we're all happy to learn that you knew about the difference... 

 

you're being either hypocritical or teasing me for a hidden motive... 

 

 

[Yasmina]

50 minutes ago, chud said:

 

yes it does, sorry but since you wish to split hair... your reply implies that you don't agree' with my post even though there was nothing to 'agree' on it's just a comparison... AGAIN knowing which of the two gas is the most dangerous wasn't required to get my point even though we're all happy to learn that you knew about the difference... 

 

you're being either hypocritical or teasing me for a hidden motive... 

 

 

Wow, you are way too paronoid. You do realise this is my thread right? I started this thread and I think I have the right to correct something that is blatantly wrong. 

[chud]

1 minute ago, Yasmina said:

Wow, you are way too paronoid. 

 

yes and got no idea to which point, but you're being exposing yourself...

 

what was 'blatantly wrong ' ? I even said in my post that it was all symbolic... So your point was just to bother me over ONE oxygen atom ? are you even interested in the topic you posted this thread about ? 

 

it's over my too much frank reply to MatchaLove wasn't it ? : )... people and mostly women thus have hostile reactions you only find out why afterward so when YOU take it bad they go but what happens to you ??... and they'll NEVER admit what the real reason was… 

 

Anyway between being teased that way and getting ignored, I'm tired of dealing with 'egos' instead of having real discussions…

 

 

[Yasmina]

5 minutes ago, chud said:

 

yes and got no idea to which point, but you're being exposing yourself...

 

what was 'blatantly wrong ' ? I even said in my post that it was all symbolic... So your point was just to bother me over ONE oxygen atom ? are you even interested in the topic you posted this thread about ? 

 

it's over my too much frank reply to MatchaLove wasn't it ? : )... people and mostly women thus have hostile reactions you only find out why afterward so when YOU take it bad they go but what happens to you ??... and they'll NEVER admit what the real reason was… 

 

Anyway between being teased that way and getting ignored, I'm tired of dealing with 'egos' instead of having real discussions…

 

 

Are you sure you don't have mental illness??? 

 

I don't even know who matchalove is or what was said to them as I haven't read every single post in this thread and would never have the time to do so. 

 

Clearly you suffer from paranoia and delusions. 

 

If I wasn't interested in this thread, why would I even bother to make it, as well as make the petition and multiple flyers against the masks? Use your brain please. 

 

The whole point of me responding to your post was to let you know that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are completely different and NOT just because of one atom like you keep repeating. Carbon monoxide can wipe out a whole household from carbon monoxide poisoning. 

[chud]

1 hour ago, Yasmina said:

Are you sure you don't have mental illness??? 

 

I don't even know who matchalove is or what was said to them as I haven't read every single post in this thread and would never have the time to do so. 

 

Clearly you suffer from paranoia and delusions. 

 

If I wasn't interested in this thread, why would I even bother to make it, as well as make the petition and multiple flyers against the masks? Use your brain please. 

 

The whole point of me responding to your post was to let you know that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are completely different and NOT just because of one atom like you keep repeating. Carbon monoxide can wipe out a whole household from carbon monoxide poisoning. 

 

because carbon dioxin poisoning is 'safe', you offensive hypocrite ?! try to breath with your head in a plastic bag ! 

 

you didn't read them all but you read MY post and found the time to reply to it just to split hair over a MINOR detail... how strange is this ? you went and pick this detail while ignoring the all rest, but it was just to 'let me know' wasn't it ? 

 

between being teased that way or ignored, I'm tired of dealing with 'egos' instead of having real discussions... 

 

 

by the way this isn't more 'your thread' than it is 'your forum', and you making the OP doesn't give you the right to get insulting... 

 

it's a bit harsh to get called 'paranoid' or 'delusional' on this forum anyway... because I don't believe in 'aliens' ?? 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by chud

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

4 hours ago, chud said:

 

dioxide is just monoxide with one more oxygen atom so it doesn't make a big difference but to 'scientypists'... 

 

it's really hairsplitting anyway since what I wanted to point out was the similarity in the used process : induced hypoxia... otherwise did you check the CONPLAN original document ? still not since that's not important was it ? 

 

 

 

 

Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are completely different acting compounds.
No hair splitting at all.

Carbon Dioxide exhaled in our breath is relatively harmless when exhaled properly - ('also food' for all plants.')
Raised Carbon Dioxide levels in our blood / brain trigger the need to breath, not low levels of oxygen. High levels of CO2 (with masks) will cause the feelings of breathlessness and can cause panic and fainting.
 

Carbon Monoxide - C0 - is a silent killer. Faulty gas appliances in the home have killed countless people in their sleep. Hence the need for Carbon Monoxide alarms in homes.

 

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

1 hour ago, chud said:

by the way this isn't more 'your thread'

It is Yasminas thread.
She could contact Admin or Mods at any point to have her thread 'cleaned up' to get rid of any off topic bickering, if she chose.
Reading through this l see Yasmina politely pointing out CO and CO2 are in fact very different. lt's a valid point which you seem to have taken offence over.
Peace....BC  :O)

[chud]

33 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

Carbon Dioxide exhaled in our breath is relatively harmless when exhaled properly - ('also food' for all plants.')

 

 

what was my post about ? what's this thread about ?

 

I took offence but had a reason for it... WHY caring to undermine my post when it wasn't even a statement but a mere comparison ?

 

Hens asphyxiate -> people chocking behind their masks… hens turn to zombie -> people turning to zombies -> CONPLAN-8888 = COVID-19… it's all it was about so why come and split hair over a 'subtlety' ?

 

Not only that but then playing 'indignation' before to end up insulting me… yet there's 'nothing personal' ?

 

please... 

 

you may have printed flyers but I wrote and published BOOKS, not to mention procedures I launched or instructed and I'm NOT 'boasting' about anything here... 

 

today's people assume everyone else's an idiot, that's one problem... 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by chud

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

4 minutes ago, chud said:

Not only that but then playing 'indignation' before to end up insulting me… yet there's 'nothing personal' ?

 

please... 

It seemed to escalate from the polite and valid point about CO and CO2 by Yasmina.
She wasn't invalidating your post. Just correcting the important point of the difference of  'just one oxygen atom'.
l don't see Yasmina trying to undermine you.
lf you look through Yasminas history of posts, you'll see no such thing.
Chill  :O)

[shadowmoon]

52 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

Carbon Dioxide exhaled in our breath is relatively harmless when exhaled properly - ('also food' for all plants.')
Raised Carbon Dioxide levels in our blood / brain trigger the need to breath, not low levels of oxygen. High levels of CO2 (with masks) will cause the feelings of breathlessness and can cause panic and fainting.
 

 

 

 

A few years ago a Doctor told me that if I got panic attack again to breathe into a paper bag.. in and out..

So looking at what you say, that was actually terrible advice he gave me.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

9 minutes ago, shadowmoon said:

 

A few years ago a Doctor told me that if I got panic attack again to breathe into a paper bag.. in and out..

So looking at what you say, that was actually terrible advice he gave me.

l guess it all depends on what caused the attack..
A good, balanced level of CO2 is needed.

Quote from a quick websearch;
"When hyperventilate from anxiety Why is it recommended to breathe into a paper bag?
 

The idea behind it is to increase carbon dioxide levels. Hyperventilation causes the body to expel too much carbon dioxide, and “rebreathing” exhaled air helps restore that lost gas. The problem is that several medical conditions, like asthma and heart attacks, can be confused with hyperventilation." 

 

[shadowmoon]

1 minute ago, Basket Case said:

l guess it all depends on what caused the attack..
A good, balanced level of CO2 is needed.

Quote from a quick websearch;
"When hyperventilate from anxiety Why is it recommended to breathe into a paper bag?
 

The idea behind it is to increase carbon dioxide levels. Hyperventilation causes the body to expel too much carbon dioxide, and “rebreathing” exhaled air helps restore that lost gas. The problem is that several medical conditions, like asthma and heart attacks, can be confused with hyperventilation." 

 

But most medical studies and experts suggest that the method, though accepted, is dangerous and should be retired. The idea behind it is to increase carbon dioxide levels. Hyperventilation causes the body to expel too much carbon dioxide, and “rebreathing” exhaled air helps restore that lost gas.13 May 2008

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/health/13real.html

 

like most of the internet now, ask and get 100 differing opinions.

[chud]

36 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

It seemed to escalate from the polite and valid point about CO and CO2 by Yasmina.
She wasn't invalidating your post. Just correcting the important point of the difference of  'just one oxygen atom'.
 

 

No no, masks are 'safe' , that's what it means... I'm the one who's wrong and masks are SAFE so why this thread ? why this forum ? 

 

Every cent is worth adding but NOT mine it seems… still nothing 'personal' ? being 'paranoid' ?

 

I more than once pointed out the fact that TV news speakers who're harassing us with DEATH threats and injunctions to wear the masks themselves still DO NOT wear them and why the 'exemption' if it only exists ? are journalists 'immunized' ?... nobody here followed me on that ground even though we saw an American reporter publicly questioning Trump about it, but he was booed there like I got ignored here… sorry but it's true…