****ing obviously. Do I really have to take the time to explain what hyperbole is to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
The point still stands, unopposed by you.
****ing obviously. Do I really have to take the time to explain what hyperbole is to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
The point still stands, unopposed by you.
Have you gotten the covid vaccine?Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
Who says anyone who complies hasn't thought or questioned the government? I questioned the need, then I actually listened to medical experts. When they're all saying the same thing, it's pretty logical to believe them.
But then again, that's your problem. You don't think listening the medical professionals is a logical thing to do when discussing medical questions.
anti-science/anti-government covid deniers think that the Government is telling everyone to jump off a cliff and people are unquestioning fools who do it, but the reality is more the Government is telling everyone they cannot jump off a cliff and they call everyone else unquestioning fools as they jump to their death.
Thankfully, SCOTUS settled this question long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
I have this new technology called google translate.Quote:
Originally Posted by natepro
We have known about negative effects, they just aren't alien invasions like you want.Quote:
As I've already pointed out, children wearing masks isn't new. If there were all these negative effects from it, we would've seen them for years before COVID was even a thing. So where are there?
German survey:
By 26.10.2020 the registry had been used by 20,353 people. In this publication we report the results from the parents, who entered data on a total of 25,930 children. The average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).
How intentionally naïve do you have to be to deny forcing masks on kids has negative impacts?
Now who is anti-science?Quote:
Voluntarily mitigation measures to stop a pandemic are, much like your arguments here, ineffective nothings. You can jerk yourself off over freedom all you want, but nature doesn't give a ****.
'You can jerk yourself off over ineffective fascist policies but nature doesn't give a ****.'
This supports my position that the masks being required are not as effective.Quote:
It was also dove using N95 masks which, again, no one is suggesting children wear. I don't even know if they make them for children.
Its security theater at the expense of kids and shouldn't be required.
It was entirely valid for them to include that study under mounting evidence, but i agree it does not necessarily apply to everyone.Quote:
One of the studies being on people with end-stage renal failure does not mean you can simply apply it to anyone and everyone. That's not how anything works.
Is there a good reason to believe it only applies to people with renal failure?
One study about patients with renal failure is not representative of all of the references.
Do you agree or disagree that the studies and examples of increased difficulty breathing can reasonably apply to children?
Do you really need a study to tell you that covering up the facial expressions of kids can have a negative impact?
A study to show increased anxiety and difficulty breathing is a bad thing?
Try to be open and honest here.
I always love how people act like the people who have breathing problems that walking around without a mask is a good idea. The people who are most susceptible to a disease that affects ones ability to breath are the ones who they are saying shouldn’t wear masks.
None of your business.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
I never said that.
They aren't all saying the same thing.
A misrepresentation and false appeal to authority.Quote:
But then again, that's your problem. You don't think listening the medical professionals is a logical thing to do when discussing medical questions.
Whether or not there should be a mandate does not solely fall under the medical field, nor do all medical professionals agree.
The point doesnt stand when its absurd hyperbole and ignores the actual negative effects and concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by natepro
So this is a registry anyone can use? Is any of this verified? Clearly it's my mistake thinking they weren't being scientifically rigorous.:laugh2:Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
How fascinating that simply asking for evidence gets this kind of reaction from you. I wonder why that might be.Quote:
How intentionally naïve do you have to be to deny forcing masks on kids has negative impacts?
Still you, chief.Quote:
Now who is anti-science?
Yes, everything you don't like is fascism. Yawn.Quote:
'You can jerk yourself off over ineffective fascist policies but nature doesn't give a ****.'
Not as effective is not the same thing as not effective. You can tell by the way they're not the same terms. No one claimed, anywhere, that cloth masks were as effective as N95 masks. That doesn't mean they're not effective. Are intellectually dishonest arguments really the best you have?Quote:
This supports my position that the masks being required are not as effective.
Its security theater at the expense of kids and shouldn't be required.
It was not REMOTELY valid to include that study. It was looking at masks that are not being recommended, on an age group that is not being discussed, on people with a disease that has a high mortality rate, who were receiving a medical procedure that is not, last I checked, typically done in a school. Who knows, maybe you went to Dialysis Elementary. The idea that you would happily ignore all of that to apply their finding to school age children is ****ing hilarious.Quote:
It was entirely valid for them to include that study under mounting evidence, but i agree it does not necessarily apply to everyone.
Is there a good reason to believe it only applies to people with renal failure?
And yes. Obviously. Because it was only done on people with end-stage renal failure.
No one said it did.Quote:
One study about patients with renal failure is not representative of all of the references.
Besides, the only thing that can really be representative of all the references is the sustained sound of mocking laughter.
Obviously they can't. You don't even have to take my word for it:Quote:
Do you agree or disagree that the studies and examples of increased difficulty breathing can reasonably apply to children?
"This chapter discusses why research with adults cannot simply be generalized or extrapolated to infants, children, and adolescents and, thus, why research involving children is essential if children are to share fully in the benefits derived from advances in medical science.
...
Other conditions such as influenza and certain cancers and forms of arthritis occur in both adults and children, but their pathophysiology, severity, course, and response to treatment may differ for infants, children, and adolescents. Treatments that are safe and effective for adults may be dangerous or ineffective for children. Many of the examples cited in this report involve drugs, but clinically significant differences between children and adults extend to other areas. Radiation therapy can, for example, disrupt normal tissue development in children."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25553/
Yes. Are you trying to argue now that evidence is a bad thing and we shouldn't want any?Quote:
Do you really need a study to tell you that covering up the facial expressions of kids can have a negative impact?
A study to show increased anxiety and difficulty breathing is a bad thing?
Try to be open and honest here.
Try being intellectually honest here.
Oh, so you DO know what hyperbole is and that was all just an act to avoid acknowledging the point? Well imagine my surprise!Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
You have yet to demonstrate actual negative effects.
A dishonest representation of your behavior that caused that reaction.Quote:
How fascinating that simply asking for evidence gets this kind of reaction from you. I wonder why that might be.
No, claiming voluntary mitigation efforts are worthless but mandated ones are great is anti-science.Quote:
Still you, chief.
No, not everything.Quote:
Yes, everything you don't like is fascism. Yawn.
That safely falls under the definition of fascism.
I never claimed they were the same terms.Quote:
Not as effective is not the same thing as not effective. You can tell by the way they're not the same terms.
No one claimed, anywhere, that cloth masks were as effective as N95 masks. That doesn't mean they're not effective. Are intellectually dishonest arguments really the best you have?
Congrats on ceding the point that the random masks being mandated aren't nearly as effective.
Just another fact that supports my point that school mask mandates aren't necessary, particularly effective or good.
Its ironic you choose to make up a strawman in the midst of accusing me of being intellectually dishonest.
incorrect. it definitely falls under the criteria of mounting evidence of potential negative effects.Quote:
It was not REMOTELY valid to include that study.
Good I've identified another deep flaw in your worldview.Quote:
Yes. Are you trying to argue now that evidence is a bad thing and we shouldn't want any?
Try being intellectually honest here.
Recognizing knowledge and reason exists outside of a formal study and that a study is not required to find truth does not mean I think evidence is bad.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate overwhelming positive effects of weak-mask mandates on children and to destroy any moral considerations.
Bolded: So that’s a no.Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
Which medical professionals are you listening to that disagree?
Whoops. Seems like you edited some stuff out of my reply there. Surely just an accidental oversight, I'm sure. Certainly not something you did so you wouldn't have to acknowledge it. I'll wait for you to fix that before replying.Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
Actually the sentence from your source you quoted said they were ineffective. So are you sticking by your original contention they are ineffective or are you saying they are effective just not as effective as N95 masks?Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
If this were a criminal court, I would have to disagree with you. But it’s not, so this is 100% a no to the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
I’ll say it: I got my shot back at the end of April and second in the middle of May. I got the Pfizer shot at my local hospital.
You have consistently refused to address my points and i refuted a number of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by natepro
I am ok with ending correspondence with another closeminded authoritarian