Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Penfailed

Penfailed wrote: »

Yeah...like I said to you previously, Covid conspiracy thread thataway >>>

And coincidence theorist thread thataway for you >>>> :pac:

You'll see when you roll up for your vaxxes etc anyway.

ShyMets

3xh wrote: »

Haha! Yes, indeed. That’s why I asked! There’s one recent poster who reminds me of him.

I wonder who you mean:)

nofools

nofools wrote: »

I wish you would be less polite.

You trying to get an angry mob going in here?

Penfailed

Hector Savage wrote: »

Same, I have saved a lot more than usual as I dont pay transport to work, dont eat out etc - some of my colleagues are loving it (they dont want to go back to office ever ...) really pisses me off that some people have this attitude , don't care that retail and entertainment workers are screwed ..

Your colleagues can both 'love working from home' and 'care that retail and entertainment workers are screwed'. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Penfailed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And coincidence theorist thread thataway for you >>>> :pac:

You'll see when you roll up for your vaxxes etc anyway.

I've already stated in this thread that I will not be queuing up for a Covid vaccine.

zf0wqv9oemuasj

road_high wrote: »

I wonder why this paper cannot get published? Could it the answer is it's politically correct to do so?
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/major-mask-study-rejected-multiple-journals-amid-rumors-it-shows-masks

Hi, It is obviously not meeting the standard for publication. Maybe you don’t understand how the peer review process works but the idea is to prevent bad research getting published. You seem to want it published regardless or think the act of conducting a study (that happens to suit your minority opinion) is reason enough to publish.

nofools

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You trying to get an angry mob going in here?

Ha one angry mob here is enough

I just admire his composure

normanoffside

nofools wrote: »

Where did you think the outbreaks came from?

Why don't they use antigen tests to test all staff before they start a shift?
You can get a result in 15 minutes.

Use these as well as the regular (weekly?) PCR tests.

What harm can it do? Nobody seems to think outside the box.

I see McNamara brought this up in the Dail today, he's insinuating the NPHET are reluctant to bring in any routine Antigen tests as on of the NPHET members makes a lot of money processing PCR tests in his lab But even then they could just recommend Antigen as an addition, and any positive antigen test could be sent for a PCR. To me its a no brainer.

https://twitter.com/MlMcNamaraTD/status/1326596798962692096

Seweryn

Penfailed wrote: »

Okay, "could cause". Have you any evidence to back up that wishy-washy claim?

A loose particle from a face mask can cause lung damage, scar and as a result could cause pulmonary fibrosis. But there are millions that wear masks without major side effects, so it may not happen to you or me.

We all know about the benefits of wearing these things (just turn on the radio). But feck all info is available about the potential health hazards, so why not look at both sides?

CIARAN_BOYLE

normanoffside wrote: »

Why don't they use antigen tests to test all staff before they start a shift?

The argument is that we have to act as if we are infectious and not safe in order to control spread. If people get a negative test result and know they are dealing with people who have a negative test precautions will drop.

However the false negative rate is sufficiently high enough that the effect from the likely change in behaviour is worse than the effect from increased detection.

Personally I agree for the general population but feel that it would make sense for certain high risk sectors (like medical staff or nursing home residents.

Penfailed

Seweryn wrote: »

A loose particle from a face mask can cause lung damage, scar and as a result could cause pulmonary fibrosis. But there are millions that wear masks without major side effects, so it may not happen to you or me.

We all know about the benefits of wearing these things (just turn on the radio). But feck all info is available about the potential health hazards, so why not look at both sides?

You weren't looking at both sides. Your post was a hatchet job on masks.

Seweryn

Penfailed wrote: »

You weren't looking at both sides. Your post was a hatchet job on masks.

We have the other side widely available 24h per day.

CorkRed93

https://twitter.com/McConnellDaniel/status/1326625366300119040

Penfailed

Seweryn wrote: »

A loose particle from a face mask can cause lung damage, scar and as a result could cause pulmonary fibrosis.

Could?

Scientists are, as yet, unsure what causes pulmonary fibrosis. You still felt the need to put it in your anti-mask post.

There's plenty of other questionable stuff in your post but I really CBA taking it apart line by line.

zf0wqv9oemuasj

Hector Savage wrote: »

Same, I have saved a lot more than usual as I dont pay transport to work, dont eat out etc - some of my colleagues are loving it (they dont want to go back to office ever ...) really pisses me off that some people have this attitude , don't care that retail and entertainment workers are screwed ..

Hi, as I said in a post which I made a few pages back I think it is very unfair to make people feel bad for the fact they are happy for things to continue as they are since they are benefitting and so on.

Going back to the office means stress, commutes, less money, children seeing less of their parents and so on. These people are fully entitled to be happy with their situation and I think it reflects very poorly on you for your attitude towards them.

As a person who spent much of the week away from my wife and child due to work (as in many nights most weeks) the last 9 months or so have very very beneficial for us and I refuse to be made feel I am wrong to be happy for this much improved situation.

I personally feel very bad for those out of work and I am not one for going overboard in my opinion on any aspect of the lockdown or positives/negatives but I feel what I’ve said needs to be highlighted

normanoffside

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

The argument is that we have to act as if we are infectious and not safe in order to control spread. If people get a negative test result and know they are dealing with people who have a negative test precautions will drop.

However the false negative rate is sufficiently high enough that the effect from the likely change in behaviour is worse than the effect from increased detection.

Personally I agree for the general population but feel that it would make sense for certain high risk sectors (like medical staff or nursing home residents.

I am talking about Health/care staff. keep up their regular PCR tests but use antigen tests as an addition.

Standards should be maintained as per normal regardless of result of Antigen test.

Seweryn

Penfailed wrote: »

Could?

Scientists are, as yet, unsure what causes pulmonary fibrosis. You still felt the need to put it in your anti-mask post.

There's plenty of other questionable stuff in your post but I really CBA taking it apart line by line.

Well, the same way we can question every decision our government have taken recently. Masks are only one of the factors.

The fact is that the restrictions and the effects of lock-downs kill far more people than the virus.

FintanMcluskey

CorkRed93 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/McConnellDaniel/status/1326625366300119040

Tony warned that child about talking nonsense.

He will get dressed down with his notions.

Penfailed

Seweryn wrote: »

The fact is that the restrictions and the effects of lock-downs kill far more people than the virus.

Much like your mask post, that ^^^ is not a fact. Until it can be proven (and it can't) it's supposition.

Seweryn

Penfailed wrote: »

Much like your mask post, that ^^^ is not a fact. Until it can be proven (and it can't) it's supposition.

If so, same way the fact that wearing masks can't be proven being effective. Or imposing lock-downs being effective.

Penfailed

Seweryn wrote: »

If so, same way the fact that wearing masks can't be proven being effective. Or imposing lock-downs being effective.

I'm not the one on here saying that those are facts.

Seweryn

Penfailed wrote: »

I'm not the one on here saying that those are facts.

No worries. But even Mr WHO and the main string pullers have constantly changed its advice for no good reason on this matter. They don't use science or very little when advising the World.

nofools

Seweryn wrote: »

.

The fact is that the restrictions and the effects of lock-downs kill far more people than the virus.

Lies

It is just something the success of containment in Ireland has invited you to fall into believing.

foxyladyxx

Deleted User wrote: »

Amazingly, they just happened to announce the vaccine the day after Biden was elected :pac: It's coincidence after coincidence with this whole scam. I'm not going into the whole coincidental/convenient timeline again. Have done it numerous times elsewhere.

The lockdown is being dragged out unnecessarily to make people desperate enough to accept the measures that were planned in the first place. We'd never of accepted mandatory vaccines and increased tracking measures back in March. But March 2021... enough people just might.

We'll see how it plays out.

And amazing coincidence how China just happened to supply the rest of the world with billions of pounds worth of PPE having just managed the pandemic in Wuhan themselves!!

road_high

Waylon Petite Shower wrote: »

Hi, It is obviously not meeting the standard for publication. Maybe you don’t understand how the peer review process works but the idea is to prevent bad research getting published. You seem to want it published regardless or think the act of conducting a study (that happens to suit your minority opinion) is reason enough to publish.

In a previous life I actually published a few as part of an MSc so yea I do understand the process- no where is it indicated the research methodology fell short etc. It’s very unlikely a scientist would submit a paper not being aware or having already addressed any deficiencies

nofools

foxyladyxx wrote: »

And amazing coincidence how China just happened to supply the rest of the world with billions of pounds worth of PPE having just managed the pandemic in Wuhan themselves!!

Ah jaysus can we not go down that rabbit hole?

Like penfailed said there is already a conspiracy forum for that line of insightful questioning.

---

>

nofools

road_high wrote: »

In a previous life I actually published a few as part of an MSc so yea I do understand the process- no where is it indicated the research methodology fell short etc. It’s very unlikely a scientist would submit a paper not being aware or having already addressed any deficiencies

My hunch is there are loads of papers supporting the use of masks.

road_high

Waylon Petite Shower wrote: »

Hi, as I said in a post which I made a few pages back I think it is very unfair to make people feel bad for the fact they are happy for things to continue as they are since they are benefitting and so on.

Going back to the office means stress, commutes, less money, children seeing less of their parents and so on. These people are fully entitled to be happy with their situation and I think it reflects very poorly on you for your attitude towards them.

As a person who spent much of the week away from my wife and child due to work (as in many nights most weeks) the last 9 months or so have very very beneficial for us and I refuse to be made feel I am wrong to be happy for this much improved situation.

I personally feel very bad for those out of work and I am not one for going overboard in my opinion on any aspect of the lockdown or positives/negatives but I feel what I’ve said needs to be highlighted

At least you’re being honest- the situation benefits you so why would you live the negatives?

I’m sure the people that are actually suffering will be greatly comforted by your “feelings” but unfortunately that isn’t going to pay the mortgage, the rent, the loan that’s been deferred etc. If you were actually one of these you’d feel a hell of a lot differently I can assure you

Seweryn

nofools wrote: »

Lies

It is just something the success of containment in Ireland has invited you to fall into believing.

Sure.

There are about 9 mln people die every year just from hunger. We prevent more deaths by sending humanitarian aids and food to poor countries. When economy collapses because of lock-downs the foreign aids will likely be cut. The deaths from hunger could double the numbers. That is just one example.

nofools

road_high wrote: »

At least you’re being honest- the situation benefits you so why would you live the negatives?

I’m sure the people that are actually suffering will be greatly comforted by your “feelings” but unfortunately that isn’t going to pay the mortgage, the rent, the loan that’s been deferred etc. If you were actually one of these you’d feel a hell of a lot differently I can assure you

You are voting with your feet to sustain that situation, earning fresh lockdowns.

It is you that is hurting their livelihoods with your carry on here.