Problems at Manchester airport
Jun 18th 2022, 4:11 pm
#61
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,153
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
If everyone wears a mask in the airport or the plane then a blue surgical mask will probably do. Otherwise, you can wear FFP2/3 if other people around you aren't wearing them. They're easy to find and it's been proven they work. And simply wearing them doesn't bring the airline industry to its knees despite what some people would like to have you believe.
Last edited by DLC; Jun 18th 2022 at 4:15 pm.
Jun 18th 2022, 5:23 pm
#62
Banned
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 42
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
If everyone wears a mask in the airport or the plane then a blue surgical mask will probably do. Otherwise, you can wear FFP2/3 if other people around you aren't wearing them. They're easy to find and it's been proven they work. And simply wearing them doesn't bring the airline industry to its knees despite what some people would like to have you believe.
https://swprs.org/face-masks-and-covid-the-evidence/
https://swprs.org/the-face-mask-folly-in-retrospect/
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05...-covid-deaths/
Last edited by LarryR; Jun 18th 2022 at 5:27 pm.
Jun 18th 2022, 7:57 pm
#63
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 513
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
I love these graphs and graphics etc. I admit I've only scanned through those links but I stopped when I realised I had a question that wasn't answered. Personally I remain unconvinced either way but I'd obey whatever regulations at the time and when LarryR said, "they simply don't work and can cause more harms than any benefit" I also wondered if it was medical harms caused or environmental. Environmental I understand, that is obvious in a way, but if it is meant they increase infections or other medical problems, I've yet to see evidence for that.
But the question I don't have an answer to, maybe there isn't one, is who's to say where and when someone became infected?
Imagine the following and bear with me -
1) 90% of infections occurred when someone was in a mask wearing environment and 10% when they weren't (say at home or with "trusted" relations/friends).
You can conclude mask wearing is ineffective.
2) The reverse, 90% of infections occurred at home or places where mask wearing wasn't mandatory and 10% when masks needed to be worn.
You can conclude mask wearing had little impact on the total infections as 90% happened when no mask was required to be worn anyway.
3) If mask wearing is ineffective and people were still infected en masse, how many were just wearing a bandana/scarf etc, how many wearing the medical type mask and how many wearing what was often mandated as an FFP2 mask? (as with Lufthansa/Austrian airlines and others)?
4) Spain was one country that did introduce mask wearing everywhere outdoors - how many infections occurred outdoors? - if a minimal amount then there is no need to mandate outdoor mask wearing. If in shops, buses, planes, trains....etc etc and a minimal amount, then no need to make mask wearing compulsory in those individual circumstances.
The point is, no matter what the medical and research evidence suggests one way or the other, if a minimal amount of infections occurred in circumstances when mask wearing was obligatory, it's a moot point as to how good/bad they are.
That is what affects those graphics - the infection rate will be similar, the graph lines will run more or less parallel whether masks are required or not if the vast majority of infections happened when no mask is needed to be worn anyway. If the graph line goes up after masks are made to be worn and we don't know how many caught it when wearing a mask, it could mean not that mask wearing is ineffective but the numbers are so small as to affect the total outcome. It just looks like when masks came in and the infection numbers stayed the same/or more masks didn't work.
You can conclude masks are ineffective only if a very large percentage of people caught covid when wearing a mask.
And what type of mask.
That's why I'm interested in where and when.
But the question I don't have an answer to, maybe there isn't one, is who's to say where and when someone became infected?
Imagine the following and bear with me -
1) 90% of infections occurred when someone was in a mask wearing environment and 10% when they weren't (say at home or with "trusted" relations/friends).
You can conclude mask wearing is ineffective.
2) The reverse, 90% of infections occurred at home or places where mask wearing wasn't mandatory and 10% when masks needed to be worn.
You can conclude mask wearing had little impact on the total infections as 90% happened when no mask was required to be worn anyway.
3) If mask wearing is ineffective and people were still infected en masse, how many were just wearing a bandana/scarf etc, how many wearing the medical type mask and how many wearing what was often mandated as an FFP2 mask? (as with Lufthansa/Austrian airlines and others)?
4) Spain was one country that did introduce mask wearing everywhere outdoors - how many infections occurred outdoors? - if a minimal amount then there is no need to mandate outdoor mask wearing. If in shops, buses, planes, trains....etc etc and a minimal amount, then no need to make mask wearing compulsory in those individual circumstances.
The point is, no matter what the medical and research evidence suggests one way or the other, if a minimal amount of infections occurred in circumstances when mask wearing was obligatory, it's a moot point as to how good/bad they are.
That is what affects those graphics - the infection rate will be similar, the graph lines will run more or less parallel whether masks are required or not if the vast majority of infections happened when no mask is needed to be worn anyway. If the graph line goes up after masks are made to be worn and we don't know how many caught it when wearing a mask, it could mean not that mask wearing is ineffective but the numbers are so small as to affect the total outcome. It just looks like when masks came in and the infection numbers stayed the same/or more masks didn't work.
You can conclude masks are ineffective only if a very large percentage of people caught covid when wearing a mask.
And what type of mask.
That's why I'm interested in where and when.
Jun 18th 2022, 9:07 pm
#64
Banned
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 42
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
I love these graphs and graphics etc. I admit I've only scanned through those links but I stopped when I realised I had a question that wasn't answered. Personally I remain unconvinced either way but I'd obey whatever regulations at the time and when LarryR said, "they simply don't work and can cause more harms than any benefit" I also wondered if it was medical harms caused or environmental. Environmental I understand, that is obvious in a way, but if it is meant they increase infections or other medical problems, I've yet to see evidence for that.
But the question I don't have an answer to, maybe there isn't one, is who's to say where and when someone became infected?
Imagine the following and bear with me -
1) 90% of infections occurred when someone was in a mask wearing environment and 10% when they weren't (say at home or with "trusted" relations/friends).
You can conclude mask wearing is ineffective.
2) The reverse, 90% of infections occurred at home or places where mask wearing wasn't mandatory and 10% when masks needed to be worn.
You can conclude mask wearing had little impact on the total infections as 90% happened when no mask was required to be worn anyway.
3) If mask wearing is ineffective and people were still infected en masse, how many were just wearing a bandana/scarf etc, how many wearing the medical type mask and how many wearing what was often mandated as an FFP2 mask? (as with Lufthansa/Austrian airlines and others)?
4) Spain was one country that did introduce mask wearing everywhere outdoors - how many infections occurred outdoors? - if a minimal amount then there is no need to mandate outdoor mask wearing. If in shops, buses, planes, trains....etc etc and a minimal amount, then no need to make mask wearing compulsory in those individual circumstances.
The point is, no matter what the medical and research evidence suggests one way or the other, if a minimal amount of infections occurred in circumstances when mask wearing was obligatory, it's a moot point as to how good/bad they are.
That is what affects those graphics - the infection rate will be similar, the graph lines will run more or less parallel whether masks are required or not if the vast majority of infections happened when no mask is needed to be worn anyway. If the graph line goes up after masks are made to be worn and we don't know how many caught it when wearing a mask, it could mean not that mask wearing is ineffective but the numbers are so small as to affect the total outcome. It just looks like when masks came in and the infection numbers stayed the same/or more masks didn't work.
You can conclude masks are ineffective only if a very large percentage of people caught covid when wearing a mask.
And what type of mask.
That's why I'm interested in where and when.
But the question I don't have an answer to, maybe there isn't one, is who's to say where and when someone became infected?
Imagine the following and bear with me -
1) 90% of infections occurred when someone was in a mask wearing environment and 10% when they weren't (say at home or with "trusted" relations/friends).
You can conclude mask wearing is ineffective.
2) The reverse, 90% of infections occurred at home or places where mask wearing wasn't mandatory and 10% when masks needed to be worn.
You can conclude mask wearing had little impact on the total infections as 90% happened when no mask was required to be worn anyway.
3) If mask wearing is ineffective and people were still infected en masse, how many were just wearing a bandana/scarf etc, how many wearing the medical type mask and how many wearing what was often mandated as an FFP2 mask? (as with Lufthansa/Austrian airlines and others)?
4) Spain was one country that did introduce mask wearing everywhere outdoors - how many infections occurred outdoors? - if a minimal amount then there is no need to mandate outdoor mask wearing. If in shops, buses, planes, trains....etc etc and a minimal amount, then no need to make mask wearing compulsory in those individual circumstances.
The point is, no matter what the medical and research evidence suggests one way or the other, if a minimal amount of infections occurred in circumstances when mask wearing was obligatory, it's a moot point as to how good/bad they are.
That is what affects those graphics - the infection rate will be similar, the graph lines will run more or less parallel whether masks are required or not if the vast majority of infections happened when no mask is needed to be worn anyway. If the graph line goes up after masks are made to be worn and we don't know how many caught it when wearing a mask, it could mean not that mask wearing is ineffective but the numbers are so small as to affect the total outcome. It just looks like when masks came in and the infection numbers stayed the same/or more masks didn't work.
You can conclude masks are ineffective only if a very large percentage of people caught covid when wearing a mask.
And what type of mask.
That's why I'm interested in where and when.
https://www.aier.org/article/the-dangers-of-masks/
Oh and another fully peer reviewed which is worth reading and concludes "
Conclusions
While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e., during the strong 2020-2021 autumn-winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.https://www.cureus.com/articles/9382...omes-in-europe.
Oh and yet another from a simple search
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/ma...arms-than-good
Suggest you also watch the video posted above
Last edited by LarryR; Jun 18th 2022 at 9:16 pm.
Jun 18th 2022, 10:32 pm
#65
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 513
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
You could have just quoted the part you've made in red rather than the whole thing.
I've only quickly scanned through your links and will dive deeper into them when I have a bit more time, but -
a) when I say I've not seen anything about it doesn't mean I can't be bothered to look and want you to do it for me. Yes, I am fully aware Google is my friend, give me some credit and maybe I should have said this is new to me and I'll look into it.
b) (in the first link) the mention of the construction of the medical masks such that they contain asbestos, synthetic fibres, chlorine, chemicals, polyester, microplastic, toxic mould, fungi bacteria, graphene, polypropylene plastic............. well, quite scary. But then I read in that article the sources are from - "Emergent reports, albeit nascent and anecdotal...." and "We are in uncharted territory...."
c) (in the second link) I am open minded about this but then read in the conclusions, "While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis..."
Also - "...the widespread use of masks........ was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission."
Alternative reason - if no masks had been worn the rate of infections would have increased far more but due to mask wearing the rate stayed more or less the same, thus mask wearing contributed to keeping the rate in check.
Or, alternative reason also - still no break down of when people became infected (wearing a mask or not), so if, as I said for example, 90% became infected when not in a situation when mask wearing was mandated (at home, with relatives etc), so wearing a mask when it was dictated to do so made little impression on the total figures one way or the other because in those circumstances, few were infected anyway, most were at home, with friends etc. the times when people had to wear a mask had little impact.
d) "...the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences."
This is a typical example of - "Correlation does not imply causation" and refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause and effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them."
e.g. deaths increased when universal mask wearing was brought in, thus mask wearing caused more deaths.
Forget all the other reasons deaths did or may have increased, it was wearing a mask wot did it. Simples. (I hate that word but seemed fitting)
Third link I'll look at tomorrow. Still not convinced by anything yet and still nothing I can see anywhere so far, here or elsewhere, that tells me mask wearing had little/no effect on infection rates due to the fact that the vast majority of infections happened when you had to wear a mask. I don't think that was the case.
My instinct (yes, not direct evidence) tells me most infections happened when no mask needed to be worn, thus the relative few that happened during mask wearing times had little sway on the total figures - thus the question of being infected whilst mask wearing contributing to the totals is minor and of little influence.
My unscientific conclusion so far is that mask wearing didn't increase deaths, didn't increase infections, helped stop more infections that we didn't know about, because they stopped them and so couldn't be counted, if infection rates increased when masks came in, there is nothing to say masks caused that and not other factors........ I have more, but time for bed.
I've only quickly scanned through your links and will dive deeper into them when I have a bit more time, but -
a) when I say I've not seen anything about it doesn't mean I can't be bothered to look and want you to do it for me. Yes, I am fully aware Google is my friend, give me some credit and maybe I should have said this is new to me and I'll look into it.
b) (in the first link) the mention of the construction of the medical masks such that they contain asbestos, synthetic fibres, chlorine, chemicals, polyester, microplastic, toxic mould, fungi bacteria, graphene, polypropylene plastic............. well, quite scary. But then I read in that article the sources are from - "Emergent reports, albeit nascent and anecdotal...." and "We are in uncharted territory...."
c) (in the second link) I am open minded about this but then read in the conclusions, "While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis..."
Also - "...the widespread use of masks........ was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission."
Alternative reason - if no masks had been worn the rate of infections would have increased far more but due to mask wearing the rate stayed more or less the same, thus mask wearing contributed to keeping the rate in check.
Or, alternative reason also - still no break down of when people became infected (wearing a mask or not), so if, as I said for example, 90% became infected when not in a situation when mask wearing was mandated (at home, with relatives etc), so wearing a mask when it was dictated to do so made little impression on the total figures one way or the other because in those circumstances, few were infected anyway, most were at home, with friends etc. the times when people had to wear a mask had little impact.
d) "...the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences."
This is a typical example of - "Correlation does not imply causation" and refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause and effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them."
e.g. deaths increased when universal mask wearing was brought in, thus mask wearing caused more deaths.
Forget all the other reasons deaths did or may have increased, it was wearing a mask wot did it. Simples. (I hate that word but seemed fitting)
Third link I'll look at tomorrow. Still not convinced by anything yet and still nothing I can see anywhere so far, here or elsewhere, that tells me mask wearing had little/no effect on infection rates due to the fact that the vast majority of infections happened when you had to wear a mask. I don't think that was the case.
My instinct (yes, not direct evidence) tells me most infections happened when no mask needed to be worn, thus the relative few that happened during mask wearing times had little sway on the total figures - thus the question of being infected whilst mask wearing contributing to the totals is minor and of little influence.
My unscientific conclusion so far is that mask wearing didn't increase deaths, didn't increase infections, helped stop more infections that we didn't know about, because they stopped them and so couldn't be counted, if infection rates increased when masks came in, there is nothing to say masks caused that and not other factors........ I have more, but time for bed.
Jun 19th 2022, 7:11 am
#66
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 513
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
It is easy to criticise any one element of all the precautions necessarily taken. It is easy to say a certain thing didn't work and was ineffective. It is easy to dip into figures and statistics and prove anything. It really is. That's why people love graphs, statistics etc, they can be manipulated to forward your own message.
It's easy to ascribe a cause to an effect and ignore all the other potential causes
When there are and were a myriad of factors affecting every aspect of infection rates and deaths there are bound to be some things less or more effective than others and less and/or more effective than expected. Everything was thrown at covid that could be, and it still ravaged the world.
That leads me on to wonder, if everyone who objected to certain things had their own way, and governments said stuff it, do whatever the hell you want, and world wide, how many millions more would have died.
Is mask wearing ineffective? I'm not so bothered one way or the other because I'll take every option to protect myself even if the effect is slight.
Is mask wearing ineffective? Not wearing it properly, not changing it regularly etc makes it ineffective. Not the proper use of it, it's the misuse of it that causes it to be ineffective.
Wearing a mask on balance and used properly is better than a slap in the face with a wet kipper. You'll never get me to not wear one when the situation demands it - just in case.
Did mask wearing make the situation worse? Yeah, right. Can't see that myself.
It's easy to ascribe a cause to an effect and ignore all the other potential causes
When there are and were a myriad of factors affecting every aspect of infection rates and deaths there are bound to be some things less or more effective than others and less and/or more effective than expected. Everything was thrown at covid that could be, and it still ravaged the world.
That leads me on to wonder, if everyone who objected to certain things had their own way, and governments said stuff it, do whatever the hell you want, and world wide, how many millions more would have died.
Is mask wearing ineffective? I'm not so bothered one way or the other because I'll take every option to protect myself even if the effect is slight.
Is mask wearing ineffective? Not wearing it properly, not changing it regularly etc makes it ineffective. Not the proper use of it, it's the misuse of it that causes it to be ineffective.
Wearing a mask on balance and used properly is better than a slap in the face with a wet kipper. You'll never get me to not wear one when the situation demands it - just in case.
Did mask wearing make the situation worse? Yeah, right. Can't see that myself.
Jun 19th 2022, 7:52 am
#67
Banned
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 42
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
Its easy to play word fireworks.....................but bottom line...........Masks Don't Work. Or were all the experts in the below video all telling porkies?
Jun 19th 2022, 8:02 am
#68
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 513
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
I do hope this then becomes policy for the next time there is a covid type infection or when, like Germany mooting enforcing mask wearing this winter, they are told it is pointless wearing masks so why bother. I'm not sure most governments would agree which would make every single one wrong then..
Jun 19th 2022, 8:17 am
#69
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 702
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
It is easy to criticise any one element of all the precautions necessarily taken. It is easy to say a certain thing didn't work and was ineffective. It is easy to dip into figures and statistics and prove anything. It really is. That's why people love graphs, statistics etc, they can be manipulated to forward your own message.
It's easy to ascribe a cause to an effect and ignore all the other potential causes
When there are and were a myriad of factors affecting every aspect of infection rates and deaths there are bound to be some things less or more effective than others and less and/or more effective than expected. Everything was thrown at covid that could be, and it still ravaged the world.
That leads me on to wonder, if everyone who objected to certain things had their own way, and governments said stuff it, do whatever the hell you want, and world wide, how many millions more would have died.
Is mask wearing ineffective? I'm not so bothered one way or the other because I'll take every option to protect myself even if the effect is slight.
Is mask wearing ineffective? Not wearing it properly, not changing it regularly etc makes it ineffective. Not the proper use of it, it's the misuse of it that causes it to be ineffective.
Wearing a mask on balance and used properly is better than a slap in the face with a wet kipper. You'll never get me to not wear one when the situation demands it - just in case.
Did mask wearing make the situation worse? Yeah, right. Can't see that myself.
It's easy to ascribe a cause to an effect and ignore all the other potential causes
When there are and were a myriad of factors affecting every aspect of infection rates and deaths there are bound to be some things less or more effective than others and less and/or more effective than expected. Everything was thrown at covid that could be, and it still ravaged the world.
That leads me on to wonder, if everyone who objected to certain things had their own way, and governments said stuff it, do whatever the hell you want, and world wide, how many millions more would have died.
Is mask wearing ineffective? I'm not so bothered one way or the other because I'll take every option to protect myself even if the effect is slight.
Is mask wearing ineffective? Not wearing it properly, not changing it regularly etc makes it ineffective. Not the proper use of it, it's the misuse of it that causes it to be ineffective.
Wearing a mask on balance and used properly is better than a slap in the face with a wet kipper. You'll never get me to not wear one when the situation demands it - just in case.
Did mask wearing make the situation worse? Yeah, right. Can't see that myself.
Jun 19th 2022, 8:20 am
#70
Banned
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 42
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
I do hope this then becomes policy for the next time there is a covid type infection or when, like Germany mooting enforcing mask wearing this winter, they are told it is pointless wearing masks so why bother. I'm not sure most governments would agree which would make every single one wrong then..
Jun 19th 2022, 8:25 am
#71
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 702
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
I do hope this then becomes policy for the next time there is a covid type infection or when, like Germany mooting enforcing mask wearing this winter, they are told it is pointless wearing masks so why bother. I'm not sure most governments would agree which would make every single one wrong then..
Jun 19th 2022, 10:30 am
#72
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,153
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
Utter Nonsense..they do not work.............Only fully sealed masks with their own air supply are capable of preventing infection from an airborne disease. FACT. It has been known for decades that face masks don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics. Blue surgicaL masks are about as effective as swatting mosquitoes with a tennis racquet.
A room, a bar and a classroom: how the coronavirus is spread through the air
The risk of contagion is highest in indoor spaces but can be reduced by applying all available measures to combat infection via aerosols. Here is an overview of the likelihood of infection in three everyday scenarios, based on the safety measures used and the length of exposure
The risk of contagion is highest in indoor spaces but can be reduced by applying all available measures to combat infection via aerosols. Here is an overview of the likelihood of infection in three everyday scenarios, based on the safety measures used and the length of exposure
Jun 19th 2022, 10:39 am
#73
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,153
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
Wearing masks in a crowded indoor areas to reduce the chances of taking sick leave due to catching covid destroys lives, you say?
Well, that's any shred of credibility you might have had out the window.
Jun 19th 2022, 11:08 am
#74
Banned
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 42
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
Oh watch the video for goodness sake and listen to an expert on the matter not believe a graphic lead article in a "popular" Spanish Newpaper
So why did our own experts lie to us then?
Even the great Fauci says masks don't work.............accept that you've been duped.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hfKBp1cHw2hs/
Jun 19th 2022, 11:31 am
#75
Banned
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 42
Re: Problems at Manchester airport
"The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case,” summarized the paper. “Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.”
https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/...emasks.60.aspx
https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/...emasks.60.aspx