The first virus in history to cause unnatural separation and the muzzling of people
Social Distancing and the use of masks to prevent the spread of the virus are measures based NOT on true science. They are more about what you find in a mandatory course on political science that emphasizes effective tools for authoritarianism and population control.
This then is the so-called science and basis used and the political justification for a 6 foot or 2 meter physical separation or social distancing (SD) and the use of masks between two people for this current active ‘new’ virus.
When a person coughs or sneezes with or without a barrier over their mouth or nose to halt it, virus infected water droplets or even more energetic finer particle mists from the lungs or throat are generated and settles to the ground or at feet of another person 6 feet away or lingers in the air within a few feet to even more than 6 feet away from the other person.
This lingering virus embedded in water/vapor of fine mist though is the major spanner or wrench thrown naturally into the works that is a clear and unavoidable problem with SD and even the use of masks to combat the new virus or any other virus for that matter.
They, the medical ‘experts’ say that if we apply SD into society and into the population for this new and still unknown virus, we can then know if it works or is effective or not, over time. These same ‘experts’ suggest wearing masks with SD as a lesser and secondary mandate- why? The problem with these unscientific thoughts are numerous. Here are some of the highlights – the most obvious ones.
1. Not all people walk precisely at 2m or 6 ft. Many avoid doing SD all together when not in public. It is a very uncontrollable variable.
2. A large percentage of people wear barriers such as masks or plastic shields. Wearing these devises shred the notion of using SD as a control and knowing it effectiveness as a viable measure of slowing down the virus, completely. You cannot observe the SD effect whilst introducing another variable concurrently, viola, the mask!
3. If one is to show the effectiveness of SD, then there has to be a non-SD control group to compare the results. There is none and it there will never one devised.
4. Then there is the nagging lingering fine mist spray of the virus already mentioned, that completely voids the idea of SD being effective measure at all. To linger means to stay in the same airspace for a longer period of time and to stay compact for a longer period of time before even losing altitude. It may flow within the currents of air.
5. Even surgical grade masks when worm ‘correctly’ and smugly, cannot stop the virus from entering the airspace or prevent the virus from entering a body or cavity of the mouth, eyes, nose, especially when a fine mist of the virus in moving in the local airspace. So forget home-make cute masks all together. They do really nothing for preventing the virus spread. Although it can produce a psychologic boosting effect for the user; with a feeling of ‘protection.’
6. The effect of wearing a mask say 4-6 hours a day for a few months can be detrimental to your immune system and breathing in general. We are made to accept bacteria and virus, the good kind to maintain our immune system. Without having full access to these critters our immune system becomes impaired over time. So when a real threatening virus appears, we then are unprepared without a robust immune system to combat it.
7. Wearing a mask for a prolonged period of time can cause lung and breathing problems. Not enough O2 and too much CO2 in our bodies; not to mention inducing a self-inflicted strained lungs condition that stifles tidal normal breathing.
8. There are many important variables that cannot be calculated with any appreciable accuracy in the field, or in public for SD and the use of porous masks.
9. For SD and those with or without masks, - ALL 4 conditions (1. No SD and no masks, 2. SD and no masks, 3. SD and masks, and 4. Only masks and no SD. They ALL must be tested and evaluated. They must be done in a controlled environment as a true scientific experiment. And as of today there has been no true scientific study done on SD or even masking. Not even for the common flu! There have been a few partial tests performed for the use of masks with a virus present; in Hong Kong, Australia and the US, many years ago for the common flu. And these results are still debatable and not convincing. And then we are to believe that SD and even wearing masks are scientific proven measures against ‘slowing down’ a viral spread?!
10. The virus exposure time for potential infection is the main and critical variable for SD and even the use of masks or a combination of both. The time for the virus’ death outside the body is estimated to be between 30 mins to a few hours depending on factors such as being inside or outside, with or without sunshine, with or without rainfall, temperatures being below or above 70 degree F, the humidity, the current air speed and direction, the speed and direction of each of the two people separated, and of course the volume and speed and force of the water droplets or fine mist particles ejected at the muzzle or at the mouth’s exist or at least one person. The calculations really gets complicated even more if both individuals might have the virus and sneeze or cough in the same air space. And finally, how long the two people remain in the same air common airspace.
Before all this ‘new virus’ event began, most people understood that if you hear and or see someone coughing or sneezing you go the other way or evacuate the scene. It was and still is common sense, and it worked. Why not use this same sense for this new virus?
Are servant demeaning muzzles and human separation zones the new norm and the new way of 'dumbing' down the public, triggered by this so-called novel virus?
A critical thinker is something to be….
What say ye?
APAK
Social Distancing and the use of masks to prevent the spread of the virus are measures based NOT on true science. They are more about what you find in a mandatory course on political science that emphasizes effective tools for authoritarianism and population control.
This then is the so-called science and basis used and the political justification for a 6 foot or 2 meter physical separation or social distancing (SD) and the use of masks between two people for this current active ‘new’ virus.
When a person coughs or sneezes with or without a barrier over their mouth or nose to halt it, virus infected water droplets or even more energetic finer particle mists from the lungs or throat are generated and settles to the ground or at feet of another person 6 feet away or lingers in the air within a few feet to even more than 6 feet away from the other person.
This lingering virus embedded in water/vapor of fine mist though is the major spanner or wrench thrown naturally into the works that is a clear and unavoidable problem with SD and even the use of masks to combat the new virus or any other virus for that matter.
They, the medical ‘experts’ say that if we apply SD into society and into the population for this new and still unknown virus, we can then know if it works or is effective or not, over time. These same ‘experts’ suggest wearing masks with SD as a lesser and secondary mandate- why? The problem with these unscientific thoughts are numerous. Here are some of the highlights – the most obvious ones.
1. Not all people walk precisely at 2m or 6 ft. Many avoid doing SD all together when not in public. It is a very uncontrollable variable.
2. A large percentage of people wear barriers such as masks or plastic shields. Wearing these devises shred the notion of using SD as a control and knowing it effectiveness as a viable measure of slowing down the virus, completely. You cannot observe the SD effect whilst introducing another variable concurrently, viola, the mask!
3. If one is to show the effectiveness of SD, then there has to be a non-SD control group to compare the results. There is none and it there will never one devised.
4. Then there is the nagging lingering fine mist spray of the virus already mentioned, that completely voids the idea of SD being effective measure at all. To linger means to stay in the same airspace for a longer period of time and to stay compact for a longer period of time before even losing altitude. It may flow within the currents of air.
5. Even surgical grade masks when worm ‘correctly’ and smugly, cannot stop the virus from entering the airspace or prevent the virus from entering a body or cavity of the mouth, eyes, nose, especially when a fine mist of the virus in moving in the local airspace. So forget home-make cute masks all together. They do really nothing for preventing the virus spread. Although it can produce a psychologic boosting effect for the user; with a feeling of ‘protection.’
6. The effect of wearing a mask say 4-6 hours a day for a few months can be detrimental to your immune system and breathing in general. We are made to accept bacteria and virus, the good kind to maintain our immune system. Without having full access to these critters our immune system becomes impaired over time. So when a real threatening virus appears, we then are unprepared without a robust immune system to combat it.
7. Wearing a mask for a prolonged period of time can cause lung and breathing problems. Not enough O2 and too much CO2 in our bodies; not to mention inducing a self-inflicted strained lungs condition that stifles tidal normal breathing.
8. There are many important variables that cannot be calculated with any appreciable accuracy in the field, or in public for SD and the use of porous masks.
9. For SD and those with or without masks, - ALL 4 conditions (1. No SD and no masks, 2. SD and no masks, 3. SD and masks, and 4. Only masks and no SD. They ALL must be tested and evaluated. They must be done in a controlled environment as a true scientific experiment. And as of today there has been no true scientific study done on SD or even masking. Not even for the common flu! There have been a few partial tests performed for the use of masks with a virus present; in Hong Kong, Australia and the US, many years ago for the common flu. And these results are still debatable and not convincing. And then we are to believe that SD and even wearing masks are scientific proven measures against ‘slowing down’ a viral spread?!
10. The virus exposure time for potential infection is the main and critical variable for SD and even the use of masks or a combination of both. The time for the virus’ death outside the body is estimated to be between 30 mins to a few hours depending on factors such as being inside or outside, with or without sunshine, with or without rainfall, temperatures being below or above 70 degree F, the humidity, the current air speed and direction, the speed and direction of each of the two people separated, and of course the volume and speed and force of the water droplets or fine mist particles ejected at the muzzle or at the mouth’s exist or at least one person. The calculations really gets complicated even more if both individuals might have the virus and sneeze or cough in the same air space. And finally, how long the two people remain in the same air common airspace.
Before all this ‘new virus’ event began, most people understood that if you hear and or see someone coughing or sneezing you go the other way or evacuate the scene. It was and still is common sense, and it worked. Why not use this same sense for this new virus?
Are servant demeaning muzzles and human separation zones the new norm and the new way of 'dumbing' down the public, triggered by this so-called novel virus?
A critical thinker is something to be….
What say ye?
APAK
