Question about The Masks

Those who silence dissent have their own agenda obviously but in here, right now, this is a free, open talk where we're trying to understand each-other's point of view.

As i mentioned earlier, the problem seems to be with mandates and yes i totally agree with those who don't want to wear them just because the government says so. It's totally your right.
I also said that on a molecular level, common sense tells you that the virus isn't prevented because otherwise how would you be able to breathe air through your mask right?
But it DOES prevent someone's snot on your salad like you said.

That's why some people have them.
Also, people in Asia have been keeping them for decades as 2 other members mentioned so maybe they do it for fashion choices maybe to prevent snots in salads or for other reasons.

The point is we should all have free-will to make a choice.
You should have a choice to reject what the government says and i should have a choice to put a mask on.

A sneeze guard keeps your snot off of my salad ingredients. It does nothing to stop the spread of a virus.

It is about power and control. They want your cooperation/obedience to comply. One of these days those left behind in the tribulation the ac will want you to take the mark or you will not be able to buy or sell. For those who don't comply they will be beheaded.

You don't like them because the government is imposing this?
Or you don't like them when you see a person wearing them when the government doesn't force a mandate?

I am talking about the sneeze guard that protects the cashier at the checkout. That piece of plastic is much more effective at protect them from being sneezed on than people wearing a mask and if you have a sneeze guard the mask is irrelevant. The only justification given so far for a mask is that if you don't cover your sneeze it will protect others from being sneezed on.

The problem with ALL of the scientific studies is that they are done in a controlled environment. That's not real world. People didn't wear masks correctly. They wore the same one for days/weeks/months. They were worn inconsistently. None of that (and other non-clinical conditions) was included in ANY "scientific" study.

If people want to wear a mask, that's fine. Wear ten. I can't wear them because I have asthma, and after a short time my OS level drops below 90. Was I given a medical exemption? Not a chance. ADA was thrown out the window. Forcing masks was forcing compliance. It was a way of government control. Now look, one governor has used "health emergency" to ban all guns away outside a person's residence.

Justice Robert Jackson in Korematsu v United States warned about this:

"A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. ... But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all of time has validated the principle of racial discrimination. ... The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of urgent need."

So did C.S. Lewis:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Thank you for this post.
I have to say that in general i agree with what you're saying here and the fact that the government is making you do things which are also AGAINST your current health condition is something which i completely get and i am against in this very topic. Because of your condition your doctor should give you an exemption but as we mentioned a few pages earlier a lot of what doctors do are insurance-driven not patient-driven.
There is a lot to say here which is also linked to your last paragraphs and it has to do with pros and cons of living in a place or how much you're willing to fight for a place instead of leaving a place.

But i want to talk more specifically about your first paragraph. Basically what you're asking there is perfection in studies and in practicality and i'm not sure if you realize this but that's not possible ever.
You will never have perfect results or conditions anywhere. Even an Advil can cause death in 0.00001% of the population.
I mean, there is no cure for death either but we keep living everyday one day at a time despite this fact. So you can't and you won't ever have perfect results.
Ultimately this should remain a free-willed choice and in your specific case i would have to think about where to pick my battles. Fight or Flight basically.

I disagree and "studies" determined that they actually had a negative effect by affecting air circulation. Were those studies right? I don't know. I just know that NONE of the attempts to slow the virus succeeded. We should've protected the most vulnerable. Instead, we quarantined the healthy.

It wouldn't matter if I had gotten a letter from my doctor. I was offered one. The problem was, nobody would honor it. My options were to wear one, or be refused service.

I didn't say there were perfection in studies. I said the studies didn't include all possible scenarios. Whether that was intentional or not doesn't matter. I know that a lot of "misinformation" came from those very same doctors and scientists.

Thank you for this post.
I have to say that in general i agree with what you're saying here and the fact that the government is making you do things which are also AGAINST your current health condition is something which i completely get and i am against in this very topic. Because of your condition your doctor should give you an exemption but as we mentioned a few pages earlier a lot of what doctors do are insurance-driven not patient-driven.
There is a lot to say here which is also linked to your last paragraphs and it has to do with pros and cons of living in a place or how much you're willing to fight for a place instead of leaving a place.

But i want to talk more specifically about your first paragraph. Basically what you're asking there is perfection in studies and in practicality and i'm not sure if you realize this but that's not possible ever.
You will never have perfect results or conditions anywhere. Even an Advil can cause death in 0.00001% of the population.
I mean, there is no cure for death either but we keep living everyday one day at a time despite this fact. So you can't and you won't ever have perfect results.
Ultimately this should remain a free-willed choice and in your specific case i would have to think about where to pick my battles. Fight or Flight basically.

In my understanding it is absurd to try and not be exposed to the virus. That is a fool's errand. If you are "bubble boy" or someone without any immunity you have a special situation and there are measures you can take, but for the 99.9% of the population that is not a valid goal.

Instead the goal should be to minimize the viral load when you do get exposed.

The vaccine takes a spike protein and develops a very specific immunity to that. The problem is if the virus mutates and gets rid of that spike protein you don't have immunity to the new variation. However, if you were exposed to the omicron variant you have much more immunity, than with the vaccine.

The only plausible explanation for why Vietnam and Taiwan avoided the pandemic to the extent they did was because 10 years earlier they were hit hard with SARS and this was a variant of SARS.

Your immune system fights off viruses every day. You are swimming in an atmosphere filled with viruses. Our goal should be two fold: build up your immunity and decrease the viral load when you are exposed.

Wash your hands and face, and stay home when you have a fever are the two most effective ways to reduce the viral load.

If you don't have a fever but test positive for the virus we want you to come to work. We want to be exposed to the least virulent strains so that our immune system can develop immunity.

Sorry to hear that. If i was in your place and someone did that to me i would think about moving somewhere else where common sense still prevails or an area which fits your lifestyle and beliefs.
I know that most would think this is a drastic measure and they can't do it for a million reasons one of them might be health-related, but for me it's not. I've moved with family with nothing but $20 on my back and everything has worked out fine.

I hope that these mandates if they become reality across many states don't affect your area.

Because of your condition your doctor should give you an exemption but as we mentioned a few pages earlier a lot of what doctors do are insurance-driven not patient-driven.

I've had it 5 times. One more, and I think I get a set of steak knives.

My mother had become "the patient" in a study of treatment that she felt, after an extended period of endurance with much more to go, was killing her. I offered her my support if it was her desire to discontinue the treatments, against those that were the administrator's (who were receiving something towards $35K per session) advisement, since it was by my urging that had even began the treatment. Looking back, if the treatment had ended before completion of the treatment because of her passing, I suppose the entry would have been something like, "the subject" has "expired" or some other euphemism employed so that the study might've retained its 'clinical' substance. Personally, I suspect that these are the locusts with faces of men and hair of women whose tails sting and torment. Even the most well-meaning and compassionate of them are regulated to "restrain" themselves from any emotional attachment to their patients, aren't they?

But in other parts of the world they incorporate a mind-body-soul approach. Where they don't treat you like a bunch of cells but as a human being with thoughts, feelings and emotions.