PETER HITCHENS: Wear a mask if you want - but understand it's about fear and control, NOT health...

Most states have a code that deals with infectious disease and control. For instance, in Texas, if 10% of the student population has an infectious disease, such as the flu or Covid, that school is shut down, scrubbed medically, and now encourages those to either get treatment or a vaccine until they are allowed to return to that specific school. In Texas, up until 2021, it was on the books of chapter 81 of the Texas Health and Public Safety code where governments and governmental agencies that deal with public health can issue quarantine and other measures to control the spread of the infectious disease. The irony of texas law is that it is up to each individual to prevent the spread of disease. If you intentionally spread the disease, such as AIDS for instance, you can get a criminal charge.

Federal laws are in the link below.
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html

 

I would hope that all hospitals are telling their staff to continue to wear masks because they deal with a vulnerable population. Covid-19 is still going around mutating merrily. It’s common sense to protect vulnerable people.

Probably, never, due to the fact most viral outbreaks have been contained.

I don’t think a few sentences of explanation is a ‘novel’.

So, were you really in a hospital that wasn’t interested in protecting vulnerable patients? Nurses work under the concept of ‘universal precautions’ which basically means to treat everybody as if they are infected and take precautions to both protect the patient and yourself. I just have a lot of trouble imagining that in a place with vulnerable patients, staff would put patients at risk by not protecting them. Not all cases of covid are symptomatic, so it should be compulsory for hospital staff to wear masks.

Just to make people aware - yesterday in the U.S., there were 39,512 new cases of covid which is probably way less than the actual number due to less testing. Yesterday, there were 346 deaths directly attributed to covid. I wonder how many people were infected and how many people died due to being infected by a maskless person. It’s worth considering. It’s a definite health concern still. The government isn’t forcing anyone to wear masks, it’s a personal choice for most unless you happen to work for a company that states you have to wear a mask. Is there really any problem with perhaps making contact with others safer? Our government (UK) still suggests when to wear a mask — in crowded conditions, indoors mostly, around the vulnerable. It’s not about inducing fear and control, it’s about not getting infected. The NHS is overwhelmed right now and you would think people might want to do what they can not to burden the health care system more.

 

That's simply not true. That is not how it works. I have presented medical studies for a living for many years. When it says not statistically significant, that means that it did not statistically separate itself from the control group.

To give a bit more layman description, statistical significance means that if you repeat the statistical sampling, 95% of the time, the group that came out on top will come out on top again (5% of the time it will not come out on top which would be considered a statistical anomaly). When an advantage is NOT statistically significant, that means that it does not have the same assurance that the same group will still come out on top in subsequent sampling. This is why statistically insignificant results are not considered valid and are not used as a point of differentiation.

Additionally, I am hesitant to say this because it takes this down a different path, but to claim 15% as the difference is not accurate. You can play with words and say it is a 15% reduction, but that is not what is being measured. They are instead measuring rates for contracting covid. It is not the difference between 1.8 and 2.1 and then subtracting 1.8 from 2.1 and then calculating a percentage from that difference, rather it is comparing 1.8% to 100% for the control group, vs 2.1 to 100% for the mask group, which is still only .03% which is an extremely tiny number which is why the result is not statistically significant.

 

I'm still sitting here. Probably be here for another five hours. I'll try to keep you updated.

 

And https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/chan...masks-two-metres-distancing-not-enough-333819

 

But there isn't a law requiring masks, correct?

 

you are clearly quoting a non doctor who , according to my dr, and the cdc is wrong.

 

During the revolutionary war, Washington mandated vaccines too.

There is a Constitutional mandate for government to provide for general welfare and most would argue that imposing some measures during a pandering which kills 1 million Americans falls in that territory. Doing nothing would equate to dereliction of duty. This is why even Trump issued the lock-down guidelines, and poured astronomical amounts of money into the economy. IMO it was an overkill, but anyway.....

 

"pandering" perfect way to describe it.

 

I'm good when most readers get the meaning. There are always some who can't put the pieces together.

 

There are laws for public health safety and protective equipment is included. Protective equipment can include masks, along with other items such as a Hazmat suit for instance. But the point is that it is broad enough to include all possible protections and not specific enough to exclude specifically masks. That is how most laws work in this country when it comes to health.

 

Humor is good for the soul. If you can't laugh at yourself that can be a tuff road to travel.

 

The chicken pox, which was deadly in those days. And I believe it was at Valley Forge where he mandated that for his army.

It is going back to the belief that some people still believe either the Covid virus does not exist or that it is not infectious at all, hence, ignoring all signs of rationale and medical science while listening to the Voodoo doctors on TV.

 

Protective equipment for first responders and hospital staffs? Or do you also interrupt this vague law to include forcing Joe Citizen to legally have to wear a mask to go out in public?

 

I want my surgeon to wear a mask

 

The chapters are separate for first responders and hospital staff and for the general public.

 

"Never again. Ditto for the shapeshifting "vaccines." A "vaccine" that was never a "vaccine" until the CDC changed its definition of "vaccine.""

when I read something like this, tells me all I need to know - lol

just fear of needles imo

 

Smallpox.

Anti-masker candidates should be asked if they would ever enact any measures to combat a pandemic which is killing lots of Americans.

 

Alwayss follow the real science and reject those Voodoo doctors.

“Abstract

There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.”
Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. (emphasis mine)
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

 

The actual figures are that N95 respirators are 85% effective at capturing viruses. N95 masks are about 22% effective for viruses and paper and cloth masks (the ones people actually wear) are less than 5% effective. Surgical masks, for instance, are great for the bacteria for which they were designed but worthless against a virus. There is certainly an emotional value for some folks for paper and cloth masks but not much efficacy against a virus. There are some that say the negative aspects of wearing these kinds of masks is more harmful than effective. If you follow the actual science you will not waste your time with a paper or cloth mask. Government, as usual, is lying to you.

 

Hush!

 

I'm not an anti-masker. I just understand that the kinds of masks people actually wear are ineffective against virus infections. I would always support effective measures to combat a pandemic. But it would have to be deemed effective by the actual science, not the government version of the science. The way government handled the pandemic deserves seeing a lot of people fired. My advice is don't take medical advice from government. Take it from your doctor.

 

But it does work against the droplets viruses are suspended in.

 

The advice from my doctor was in line with the doctors employed by the government.

 

My wife is an RN here. Prior to COVID, you could go without a mask if you got your flu shot. If you refused the shot or couldn't take it, you had to mask up.

And I'm sure there are times where you mask up regardless of having taken the flu shot.

I don't think they're back to normal yet after COVID, but that's how it worked prior.