JustRandy

You wish people would get sick so you can show them the plandemic is no joke? Well, pray to The Science and maybe The Science will slay the unbelievers on your behalf. Maybe offer a blood sacrifice... perhaps a Beagle.

Small minority lol Here's your referendum by the "small minority"

Clouds billowing from around the mask demonstrates protection LOL Evidently you live in a universe without physical laws. That says more about you than him.

No amount of evidence can change the mind of a Branch Covidian. Theistic religion is faith in absence of evidence but the Covidians have faith in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Fast coordinated response, early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases evidently worked but the last one, masks, didn't do anything. It's not even possible for masks to work. If masks won't stop smoke then they won't stop viruses.

Viruses are the same size and all studies in the last 100 years show masks make no difference. We've been over this a dozen times. From 1919: "Notwithstanding the fact that the very complete records at the disposal of the California State Board of Health indicate conclusively that the compulsory wearing of masks does not affect the progress of the epidemic, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=15 From 1946 to 2018: In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25). Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article WHO says: A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks March 2020 Fauci said: "There's no reason to be walking around wearing a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better, and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think. And often there are unintended consequences: people keep fiddling with the masks and touching their face." Watch him say it: https://www.bitchute.com/video/prujdWuCxa8/ All the evidence gathered in 100 years indicates that wearing masks makes no difference. Masks may seem like common sense, but science is not based on common sense. Science is based on demonstrable evidence and the evidence refutes the common sense. Another one claiming evidence doesn't matter. Faith in spite of evidence is religion.

Where do you think pneumonia vaccines came from? That's the only vaccine no one is pushing, yet you're most likely to die from pneumonia. Yeah and masks didn't work then either. "Notwithstanding the fact that the very complete records at the disposal of the California State Board of Health indicate conclusively that the compulsory wearing of masks does not affect the progress of the epidemic, it was advised that individuals wear them when in close association with their friends, as it is upon just those occasions that, under a compulsory law, the mask is most liable to be laid aside. The use of the face mask was advised particularly in the presence of anyone who was suffering from a cold or who had recently recovered from influenza. Early in the progress of the epidemic the California State Board of Health issued a regulation requiring the wearing of masks by those in actual contact with known cases, and by persons suffering from a cold while in association with the general public. Under this regulation any health officer could arrest any person with a cold who was found going about unmasked. The reason for the above statement regarding the faults of the mask as an effective protection when applied forcibly to whole communities is to be found by a comparison of the mortality charts of those cities that did not use the mask with those cities that did. The frontispiece shows the cities of Boston, Buffalo, San Francisco and Washington, each with almost identically the same curve and the same death rate per hundred thousand, and in only one of them, San Francisco, was the mask used. New York City, before referred to, as one of those cities that did not prohibit public gatherings, did not use masks either, and its record of deaths is lower than that of any of the other larger cities. Stockton is one town in California that has worn the mask consistently. In Figure 18 is shown Stockton’s record as compared with Boston, which did not require the mask. The conclusion is definitely established that the mask is ineffective." Dr. Wilfred Kellogg, MD, Secretary and Executive Officer, CA State Board of Health: Influenza: A Study of Measures Adopted for the Control of the Epidemic (California State Board of Health Special Bulletin, Number 31, 1919, page 12.) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=15 How can they have EUA without blocking effective treatments? Without EUA pharma would be sued into oblivion. GOP should put you on the payroll.

I don't believe that number. They were calling everything covid. 1918 was a real pandemic that didn't need pre-existing conditions to kill a person, but even then shockingly few died of the virus. Fauci himself co-authored a study finding that the vast majority of deaths were caused by bacteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/ Furthermore, the hospital is a great place to acquire novel bacteria that can't be killed with normal antibiotics: "Hospital-acquired bacterial or fungal infections were frequently complicating the course among ICU patients." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33461613/ "Although uncommon upon admission, bacterial infections frequently occurred in patients with prolonged hospitalization" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33934980/ Of 19 covid ICU patients, 18 died. Of the 18 who died, 17 died of bacteria found only in hospitals. The other one who died had MRSA, which is antibiotic resistant bacteria commonly associated with hospitals. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-020-05374-z While other species of the genus Acinetobacter are often found in soil samples (leading to the common misconception that A. baumannii is a soil organism, too), it is almost exclusively isolated from hospital environments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinetobacter_baumannii Moreover, they denied effective treatments to preserve the emergency authorization of the vaccine. If treatments exist then big pharma doesn't get a liability shield. So, the establishment protocol killed the majority. Tell that to their families.

If you like it then you should try doing it. Another logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real or better because the majority thinks so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum You've tried appealing to numbers and attacking the messenger but you haven't tried refuting the argument yet. Which logical fallacy will you appeal to next in lieu of reason?

Yet you reply anyway. And not to refute the argument, but to attack the person. Because you can't. All you have is slander.

Why do you think Saddam said "A dead friend is better than a live enemy"? Because Saddam is safer if Saddam mistakenly kills a friend rather than risk the supposed friend actually being an enemy. He erred on the side of caution. Cops are safer if they shoot first and ask questions later. It isn't rocket science. Slander is all you and, most particularly Dave, have at your disposal. You attack the person rather than the argument. You say I'm weak minded, my ego is the problem, delusions of grandeur, smoke and mirrors because cutting me down is easier than refuting my arguments. That is the lowest form of wit and most sincere form of flattery. To wit: Another irrelevant ad hom.

Yep, slander is the tool of the loser. Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities. I'm flattered.

Yeah I'm sure I'd been less secure had I been armed on the mountain with the bears when my battery died. Cops kill by mistake all the time. Why? Because it increases their safety. The question is do we want the cops to be safe or society to be safe?

I'd like to think my freedom were secured. Perception is reality again?

Freedom is absence of security and security is absence of freedom. It's definitional. You cannot walk about freely without undertaking risk; it's impossible. You can either walk or be secure, but not both. You can strap on protective gear and achieve a degree of security, but by donning the gear you also lose a degree of freedom. Conflation of context. Freedom to bear arms comes with risks associated with bearing arms, as Dave pointed out: such as kids shooting themselves or taking arms to school. The security from kids harming themselves or mass shootings comes at the limitation of freedom to bear arms. Security from breakins comes with the expense and burden of bearing arms. Freedom from the drudgery of maintaining an armory comes with the risk of breakins. A robust police force comes at the imposition of high taxes, which is less economic freedom. More economic freedom comes with the loss of security of police. Security and liberty are always antipodal like positive and negative. The universe is polar. Everything is a duality. If it weren't then nothing would have meaning because everything is defined by what it is not. Black letters on a screen couldn't be seen without the contrast of a white background. Up only has meaning in relation to down. North has meaning only in relation to south.

What list? If sexist includes low-T men then sure. Why? The work has been done already.

Fine. So why don't you and your band of guitars and flowers go take them away. Women and neutered men wouldn't because they value security more than liberty. Debating yourself again? Yes they are. Russia has nukes but we're going to war with them nonetheless, so nukes isn't a deterrent unless those that possess nukes are unhinged, which would preclude them from having nukes in the first place. Agree. The only caveat is convicted felons and domestic violence offenders. If we give all prisoners weapons do you think it would reduce violent crime in prison? Nope. But give everyone in church a weapon and it would prevent anyone from shooting up the church. If you don't believe it, then why don't cops shoot each other? How many mass shooting happen in police stations? So prisoners, felons, violent people = no guns. Everyone else = yes guns. Hopefully that cleared it up.

Start a philosophy thread and send me the link. The Zen of ATVing. or something.

Already answered: Generally speaking the problem with women in power is they will always choose security over liberty because they don't have the testosterone to tolerate risk. Exceptions exist but it's generally true.

I don't need to do anything. The narrative is crumbling before your eyes whether you acknowledge it not.

No need. Their narrative is falling apart as we speak.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that. If there were attenuation of symptoms there would also be at least some attenuation of transmission, but it appears to exacerbate transmission.

Sitting at home collecting checks sounds good. So why are they protesting? It's not over yet. Look at the rate of change of the ascent: it's gone vertical! It's only a matter of time before everyone on that island gets it. Yep, when you don't have an argument you attack your opponent. When you're out of ammo, you sling mud.

ABC News is right wing? Worldometers is the 2nd from the top on google search. Google doesn't show right wing disinformation sites at the top. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Youtube video was medcram, which is apolitical but probably all liberals. The other link was the Supreme Court docket.

Yep