Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts

Recommended Posts

On 12/24/2020 at 3:50 PM, Concerned Citizen said:

 

A VERY GOOD set of FACTS epsom. THANKS for putting that together.

You won't mind, I am sure, that I use your set of facts / ONE QUESTION on a little leaflet that I intend putting out in a couple of places locally. Will also quote your set of facts to others that I send stuff to (and also being blanked by).

 

Thanks---with pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2020 at 4:01 PM, Not-me said:

 

It tells you that the mask is not 100% effective, nor is it claimed to be. They use them in hospitals and have done so for a very long time. They limit.

 

If a 75% effective mask wearing person encounters another 75% effective mask wearing person, the collective overall effectiveness is massively improved............

 

Why Masks Work BETTER Than You'd Think - YouTube

 

Studies of Surgical Masks Efficacy

by Chris of the family Masters

Aug 12 2020

As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”

I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

  • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”

  • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”

  • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

  • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

  • A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.

  • Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”

  • Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

  • Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.

  • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

  • Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.

  • Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

  • Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”

  • Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”

  • Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.
_____________
* from Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoners, 1951.

Arthur Firstenberg

August 11, 2020

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

I had the same situation a few days ago. I don't want to be on Zoom. I'm sure they can harvest facial and voice recogntion. Because I'm truly a tech dinosaur, I was able to bow out. 🙂

How will you deal with the facial recognition cameras in the streets up and down the country

do you have a strategy that will enable you to hide your identity from these cameras?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oneantisworthtenofyou said:

How will you deal with the facial recognition cameras in the streets up and down the country

do you have a strategy that will enable you to hide your identity from these cameras?

 

 

 

It's a valid point, but people don't expect much privacy in a public setting where everyone can see you anyway. It's the intrusive crap that is spilling into our own homes that annoys me the most.

 

Edit: Not saying I support mass surveillance in public though, that sucks too.

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=5889

 

I read this...it mentions Mercury, Carbon Dioxide and Ammonia. At the bottom it mention liquid Nitrogen for freezing cells. I am not a chemist but maybe someone has some suggestions?

 

IIRC PEG - poly ethylene glycol - (anti-freeze) is another component in some of the concoctions and has a history of anaphylaxis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Athenry04 said:

Some mongs on my facebook feed have now had the jab, the messages of support on their posts are just scary. It's all going to plan thus far...

I deleted mine at the start of all this because of the amount of cowardly men scared little men on my feed. I knew it would get worse. Good insight for you though if you can disconnect your emotions on how the normies are acting. Too much retardness for me to deal with. 

 

Edit

Could also give us an update if any of them die in the coming months. 

Edited by Fluke
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

It's a valid point, but people don't expect much privacy in a public setting where everyone can see you anyway. It's the intrusive crap that is spilling into our own homes that annoys me the most.

i find street security cameras intrusive imo they will be used to control people a great deal more than zoom or skype 

 

i expect to enjoy the same human rights wherever i am the location shouldn't matter 

 

i have avoided social media since its conception myspace facebook twitter etc i always held the view that folk that use

that kind of media are not computer literate that is why they are posting their real identity all over the net on facebook 

thinking its a great idea 

 

for me i don't see the point hiding from zoom or skype when i will walk down the street and be identified by multiple

street cameras that could place me at the scene of an event that i have nothing to do with and could be used

as circumstantial evidence against me 

 

zoom on the other hand most likely will sell my search habits so i can be better targeted with advertising 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fluke said:

I deleted mine at the start of all this because of the amount of cowardly men scared little men on my feed. I knew it would get worse. Good insight for you though if you can disconnect your emotions on how the normies are acting. Too much retardness for me to deal with. 

 

Edit

Could also give us an update if any of them die in the coming months. 

 

Defo man, they are due to be going back for second shot at some point in New Year, the smugness from them is shocking,but I'm keeping a close eye on their pages. I doubt they'd post any adverse reactions anyway, as the damage it would do to their belief system would be too much for them to take. But so far, they appear to be ticking over ok.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oneantisworthtenofyou said:

i find street security cameras intrusive imo they will be used to control people a great deal more than zoom or skype 

 

i expect to enjoy the same human rights wherever i am the location shouldn't matter 

 

i have avoided social media since its conception myspace facebook twitter etc i always held the view that folk that use

that kind of media are not computer literate that is why they are posting their real identity all over the net on facebook 

thinking its a great idea 

 

for me i don't see the point hiding from zoom or skype when i will walk down the street and be identified by multiple

street cameras that could place me at the scene of an event that i have nothing to do with and could be used

as circumstantial evidence against me 

 

zoom on the other hand most likely will sell my search habits so i can be better targeted with advertising 

 

 

 

 

I find public surveillance creepy too, especially social distancing surveillance that will no doubt be used to stop protests.

 

This concerns me a lot though:

 

gf.jpg.c0296d523eeb3c82d5437e33f6957a3a.jpg

 

When we're at a point where we have no privacy in our own homes then we're going to be totally enslaved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

It's the intrusive crap that is spilling into our own homes that annoys me the most.

From the very first days of telephones it has been possible to make the handpiece microphone "hot" remotely. This technique is called hookswitch bypass.

 

Basically what this means is that a remote operator or anyone privy to this mechanism could override the hookswitch of a telephone meaning they could listen into a room or meeting or office or bedroom while the owners of the phone were confident the phone was on hook and inactive.

 

I trust most will see the incredible power wielded by those betraying the confidence of subscribers this way.

 

Music compositions, impending business deals, infidelities, crimes, associations, plans etc, anything discussed or transpiring near such hot mikes was compromised.

 

To this day the method is still employed to gain an unfair advantage or to blackmail or any other number of applications. Worst even are the cameras on cell phones that can easily be activated without the knowledge of the owner.

 

It has always been my belief that this unscrupulous ability has been a major cornerstone of tyrannical advancement in our world of blind trust in the integrity of these systems.

 

Technically one could logically assume that everyone owning a cell is carrying a snitch in his/her pocket. All others tethered to a landline suffer this same issue unknowingly.

 

Imagine the number of people that could be listening in as the phone on the nightable transmits a person's orgasmic grunts to some remote listener.

 

Also this is how they could monitor compliance with face masks in the home and elsewhere.

Edited by Avoiceinthecrowd
Typo and extra paragraph
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

When we're at a point where we have no privacy in our own homes then we're going to be totally enslaved.

We never did.

Imagine if you could dial up any number in the world and seemlessly activate the cameras and microphones on these devices by entering a code. Think of the fantastic power you would have knowing everyone's most intimate secrets.

 

You could steal original music, sabotage a competotor's business strategy, steal copyrights before they get patented, obtain information that would make you a successful medium and the list goes on forever.

 

Of course you would often stumble across criminal activity. You might also discover where people have buried their little treasures. Easily one of the most impressive confidence abuses ever known to man.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

We never did.

Imagine if you could dial up any number in the world and seemlessly activate the cameras and microphones on these devices by entering a code. Think of the fantastic power you would have knowing everyone's most intimate secrets.

 

You could steal original music, sabotage a competotor's business strategy, steal copyrights before they get patented, obtain information that would make you a successful medium and the list goes on forever.

 

Of course you would often stumble across criminal activity. You might also discover where people have buried their little treasures. Easily one of the most impressive confidence abuses ever known to man.

 

This is true, but most of the tech they can spy through isn't mandatory.

 

I guess there isn't much difference at this point though as someone could spy on you through a light bulb if they can get a clean line of sight to it, and I don't see many people that would be willing to have no light bulbs, unless they're camping out in the sticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

I find public surveillance creepy too, especially social distancing surveillance that will no doubt be used to stop protests.

 

This concerns me a lot though:

 

gf.jpg.c0296d523eeb3c82d5437e33f6957a3a.jpg

 

When we're at a point where we have no privacy in our own homes then we're going to be totally enslaved.

Well it is the communist ideal. No private or public.* No property ownership.*

*Except for a small minority who are afforded property rights and privacy. 

 

But look at it this way a whole bunch of people have bought those stupid voice activated boxes called alexa or whatever. They chose to and chose to keep them after the privacy issues were discussed publically

 

The figures say the people want to become serfs and dont mind a select few being above the laws for the civilians

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

This is true, but most of the tech they can spy through isn't mandatory.

With the advent of covid we are hearing talk of following China's lead in making smartphones mandatory for everything. Consistent with the Orwellian newspeak they will assure you that you have a choice however the reality is that you will be denied services without it. I predict this denial of services and products for  refusal to comply will give rise to widespread black market practices.

 

If anything we have learned from communist totalitarianism is that it inevitably creates vast underground markets and practices. Things like a butcher trading prime cuts for opera tickets and such.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

A common rationale used to dismiss privacy concerns is that they have nothing to hide. Can anyone really have nothing to hide?

Privacy relates intimately with ownership and rights to share or not

Privacy is your body and mind

No private thoughts

No private decisions 

 

Twitter and fb promote rejurgitation of intimate thoughts with lack of contemplation

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

A common rationale used to dismiss privacy concerns is that they have nothing to hide. Can anyone really have nothing to hide?

 

Yeah I can't stand that silly argument. In a society where telling some truths is illegal, only a dishonest person would say "no need to worry if you have nothing to hide", or a person that has nothing of interest to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bamboozooka said:

thats what all the programmed oap's i know say

they don't give a shit they are actually doing it

Privacy may be shared intimately with a significant other as a gesture of special consideration. However, it appears that many people like to extend this intimacy to the ruling authorities for the same reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

Yeah I can't stand that silly argument. In a society where telling some truths is illegal, only a dishonest person would say "no need to worry if you have nothing to hide", or a person that has nothing of interest to say.

The trick is understanding the value a certain party may give to a thing another views as benign. Person has nothing to hide but places his phone on the table as he discusses all the unlawful tax exemptions his clients have asked him to apply to their returns. Not endorcing truth in taxes but this trusting tax specialist is selling out all his clients. Maybe not the best example but I hope it illustrates the mistake of blind trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that judges do not like police ticketting or hauling persons that can do a good job of defending themselves. Especially in matters of the current covid restrictions. Here we see the invasion of privacy as a tool to give police a pretty good idea who possesses the kind of evidence they dont want in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, oneantisworthtenofyou said:

How will you deal with the facial recognition cameras in the streets up and down the country

do you have a strategy that will enable you to hide your identity from these cameras?

 

 

 

Point taken, and that is one of the reasons I left London years ago to live in a semi rural location in Spain, with very few cameras at all.

Edited by Golden Retriever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...