• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Goal Post Change: Mask and Social Distancing are No Longer The Best. Vaccine is the best to protect yourself against virus

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
This is Sam's situation: He has to save face and keep up his "masks don't work" argument. So he resorts to pulling up data from crazies and dubious sources and digs himself deeper into the hole... Now he is saying don't take this forum seriously to mitigate his stupidity from the beginning.

Advice to Sam: Don't try to sound smarter than others by posting things that make you look like a loser. You are not. Admit your argument that "masks don't work" is stupid to begin with and choose science over crazies and salvage some credibility... :biggrin:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion which is exactly what he spews out, however its not even a good one.

Now as to a loss of face is an interesting input, must take this into account as well
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
Capamerica has provided the real data. Yours are taken from a bunch of nitwits with something to prove. Go figure...

What he does is visit ourworldindata.com and use the sliding scales there to support his pathetic opinions by adjusting the timelines to suit whatever tangent he is on

for example, India. As we know Indian has a massive spike, locked down, and then saw the expected decrease in cases but leaves out the positivity rate and record death rates

And this is on top of the underreporting/inaccuracy with the Indians figures to begin with

Its just pathetic his opinions
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
This has absolutely nothing to do with truth or lie. I have no agenda here so expounding either side of the argument brings me no benefits.

I'm just looking at the data and drawing a conclusion.

So point me to the data that shows that masks work and I'll change my mind and say "Wow masks work after all!".

Actually that is precisely what you do.

Look at ourworldindata and adjust the timeframes to suit your own interpretation

We call that an opinion and by the way yours are very stupid
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
You know at some point in time you'll need to come to the truth n just admit u are wrong. You cant live a lie forever.

All these crazy theories of the world is flat, trump won the election, masks dont work, vaccines kill... just won't cut it because people will wise up n you will be seen as a nutcase with zero credibility so whatever u say or post will become empty. Yes I know this forum is for fun but facts are still facts n anything u put up for public view has to be corrected if it's wrong. That is called being responsible.

He is a big spreader of conspiracy theories.

They are easy to defeat because eventually all conspiracy theories die, they get choked out by their lies.

So presenting the facts is the thing that makes Leong look like the most stupid person on the internet
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
I think he is on gangja. Nice green hempy woola moloo weed.

He has access to all the recreational drugs over in Kiwiland so he is on something, or this IMH above has point about him being messed up or something.

I come on here once a freaking week and what do I see? Masks again I mean we know they freaking work

So he's on drugs and he's a dick

You know the loss of face and the hallucinations from drugs abuse would explain the pathetic and stupid opinions

All are possibilities
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
I've seen articles saying that masks work but they are in lab environments.

On the other hand I also have seen data from the ground that shows absolutely no difference between masked jurisdictions and the naked faced ones.

Here's the latest from germany which i assume keeps good statistics.

View attachment 113604

Wrong. Again. Call it 0 for 319 tries, all failed

Correct mask usage is not universal, even in a mandate

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/4...s-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus​

By Nina Bai

Español | русский | 中文
Woman wearing a cloth face mask in a grocery store

Editor's Note: This story was updated on July 11 to include information on why valved masks do not block exhaled droplets.
As states reopen from stay-at-home orders, many, including California, are now requiring people to wear face coverings in most public spaces to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization now recommend cloth masks for the general public, but earlier in the pandemic, both organizations recommended just the opposite. These shifting guidelines may have sowed confusion among the public about the utility of masks.
But health experts say the evidence is clear that masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people wearing masks, the better.
We talked to UC San Francisco epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.

Why did the CDC change its guidance on wearing masks?​

The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said Chin-Hong.
“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”
Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.
Another factor “is that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t really prepared to wear masks,” unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common, said Chin-Hong. Even now, some Americans are choosing to ignore CDC guidance and local mandates on masks, a hesitation that Chin-Hong says is “foolhardy.”
What may have finally convinced the CDC to change its guidance in favor of masks were rising disease prevalence and a clearer understanding that both pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are possible – even common. Studies have found that viral load peaks in the days before symptoms begin and that speaking is enough to expel virus-carrying droplets.
“I think the biggest thing with COVID now that shapes all of this guidance on masks is that we can’t tell who’s infected,” said Chin-Hong. “You can’t look in a crowd and say, oh, that person should wear mask. There’s a lot of asymptomatic infection, so everybody has to wear a mask.”

What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?​

There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.
One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.
But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”
A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.
Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.
Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

Do masks protect the people wearing them or the people around them?​

“I think there’s enough evidence to say that the best benefit is for people who have COVID-19 to protect them from giving COVID-19 to other people, but you’re still going to get a benefit from wearing a mask if you don’t have COVID-19,” said Chin-Hong.
Masks may be more effective as a “source control” because they can prevent larger expelled droplets from evaporating into smaller droplets that can travel farther.
Another factor to remember, noted Rutherford, is that you could still catch the virus through the membranes in your eyes, a risk that masking does not eliminate.

How many people need to wear masks to reduce community transmission?​

“What you want is 100 percent of people to wear masks, but you’ll settle for 80 percent,” said Rutherford. In one simulation, researchers predicted that 80 percent of the population wearing masks would do more to reduce COVID-19 spread than a strict lockdown.
The latest forecast from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that 33,000 deaths could be avoided by October 1 if 95 percent of people wore masks in public.
Even if you live in a community where few people wear masks, you would still reduce your own chances of catching the virus by wearing one, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford.

Does the type of mask matter?​

Studies have compared various mask materials, but for the general public, the most important consideration may be comfort. The best mask is one you can wear comfortably and consistently, said Chin-Hong. N95 respirators are only necessary in medical situations such as intubation. Surgical masks are generally more protective than cloth masks, and some people find them lighter and more comfortable to wear.
The bottom line is that any mask that covers the nose and mouth will be of benefit.
“The concept is risk reduction rather than absolute prevention,” said Chin-Hong. “You don’t throw up your hands if you think a mask is not 100 percent effective. That’s silly. Nobody’s taking a cholesterol medicine because they’re going to prevent a heart attack 100 percent of the time, but you’re reducing your risk substantially.”
However, both Rutherford and Chin-Hong cautioned against N95 masks with valves (commonly used in construction to prevent the inhalation of dust) because they do not protect those around you. These one-way valves close when the wearer breathes in, but open when the wearer breathes out, allowing unfiltered air and droplets to escape. Chin-Hong said that anyone wearing a valved mask would need to wear a surgical or cloth mask over it. "Alternatively, just wear a non-valved mask," he said.
San Francisco has specified that masks with valves do not comply with the city's face covering order.

If we’re practicing social distancing, do we still need to wear masks?​

A mnemonic that Chin-Hong likes is the “Three W’s to ward off COVID-19:” wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance.
“But of the three, the most important thing is wearing a mask,” he said. Compared to wearing a mask, cleaning your iPhone or wiping down your groceries are “just distractors.” There’s little evidence that fomites (contaminated surfaces) are a major source of transmission, whereas there is a lot of evidence of transmission through inhaled droplets, said Chin-Hong.
“You should always wear masks and socially distance,” said Rutherford. “I would be hesitant to try to parse it apart. But, yes, I think mask wearing is more important.”
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal

Wrong. Again. Call if 0 for 319 tries, all failed

Sweden failed even they said so.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/03/swedish-model-failed-covid-19

Now the Swedish model has failed, it's time to ask who was pushing it​

Peter Geoghegan


A light-touch approach to Covid-19 doesn’t work. But that didn’t stop pundits and thinktanks from advocating it for the UK

not aged well.’ Photograph: Simon Walker/HM Treasury
Sun 3 Jan 2021 08.00 EST


831

When future historians come to write the story of Britain’s chaotic pandemic response, one question in particular will surely puzzle them: why, as the UK experienced one of the world’s worst Covid outbreaks, did so many prominent public figures spend so much of 2020 talking about Sweden?
Almost as soon as Boris Johnson announced a national lockdown in late March, British newspaper columnists and professional contrarians demanded that the prime minister adopt “the Swedish model” – and they were still urging the same in September. We now know with certainty what public health experts have long predicted: a light-touch coronavirus approach does not work. Sweden has recorded far higher death rates than its Nordic neighbours, while suffering a similar economic hit. Even the country’s king thinks it has “failed”.

And yet, through the late autumn, as the Covid virus was mutating in England, Sweden was still being cited as an example to follow. In mid-October, the Tory MP Christopher Chope was in parliament extolling the virtues of what he previously called Sweden’s “clear and simple” approach. Just last month, the Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson tweeted that she “admired Sweden’s handling of the pandemic”.

Of course, the full-throated cries of “Sweden” from sections of the conservative press were less about the birthplace of Abba, and more about fostering the idea that Britain could just “open up”, if only politicians were brave enough to do so. Self-styled lockdown sceptics promised – and still promise – that “herd immunity” would save us all, and routinely pointed to Sweden’s adoption of this approach as proof.

Our future historians will doubtless wonder, too, just how, in the imagination of many on the British right, Sweden went from gang violence-riddled dystopia to exemplar in a few months. The answer is quite simple: the same small group of people who talked so fervently about Sweden’s libertarian refusal to lock down – newspaper columnists, backbench MPs, anonymously funded thinktanks – have massively outsized access to British public debate.

All of this is very familiar. In my latest book, I chart how a cadre of backbench Tory MPs, anonymously funded thinktanks and ubiquitous media commentators turned “no-deal Brexit” from an outlandish notion to “nothing to fear”. During the pandemic, the same strategies were employed – often by the same people.

Having held up Norway as a model during the Brexit referendum, Daniel (soon to be lord) Hannan said we could all be like Sweden. Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs declared that Sweden had demonstrated “a more sensible way to balance risk, liberty and the economy”. After so successfully mobilising the European Research Group of Tory MPs to push for a hard Brexit, Steve Baker even started up a tribute act: the Covid Recovery Group, or CRG for short.

All this talk of Sweden appears to have influenced the decision-making in Downing Street. A recent report in the Sunday Times suggested Johnson chose not to impose a circuit-breaker lockdown in September after a meeting with chancellor Rishi Sunak and three proponents of a herd immunity strategy: Sunetra Gupta and Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist behind Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the pandemic. (When openDemocracy asked for details of Tegnell’s correspondence with the prime minister’s office, it was told that any release could compromise the formulation of government policy.)

The ubiquity of contrarian voices on Covid played into Boris Johnson’s well-documented tendency for indecision. As anyone looking to influence the prime minister knows, when faced with an array of choices, he will often do nothing. The delay in imposing restrictions in England after September’s meeting with Tegnell and co led to an estimated 1.3m extra Covid infections.

The rhetoric around the Swedish model – and herd immunity – set the stage for Britain to loosen restrictions faster than scientists, or even the public, wanted. We were even offered a financial incentive to do the one thing we have always known spreads the virus: mix indoors. The image of a maskless Rishi Sunak serving meals in a London Wagamama to launch August’s “eat out to help out” initiative has not aged well. (Research suggests that the scheme directly contributed to a rise in infections.)


Sunak is part of the growing libertarian trend among Conservative MPs, many of whom have been vociferous in their opposition to renewed lockdown measures. Lockdown sceptics have had financial support, too: the much-discussed Great Barrington declaration, which advocated herd immunity, was coordinated by a US thinktank that has received funding from the billionaire Koch brothers, who pumped huge sums into the Republican party and its fringes.

All of this has shaped Britain’s haphazard pandemic response. Faced with pressure from lockdown sceptics in the media and inside his own party, Johnson dithered, time and again. When the prime minister’s chief scientists were urging greater restrictions in December, the prime minister’s transport secretary Grant Shapps was announcing a £3m scheme to bus people to visit their family at Christmas. Less than a week later, most of England went into tier 4. Meanwhile, lockdown sceptics are still cherrypicking data to suggest that Covid is overhyped, even as hospital cases surge to new highs.

The British government is now facing 2021 with a Covid infection rate that the health secretary admits is out of control, but with many of its own MPs firmly opposed to further restrictions. Maybe we shouldn’t wait for the historians’ verdict before we ask ourselves whether it is a good idea to allow a handful of pundits, thinktanks and backbenchers to exert such a pull on British public life.

  • Peter Geoghegan is investigations editor of openDemocracy. His book, Democracy for Sale, is published in an updated paperback on 7 January
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal

CDC chief says masks better at stopping coronavirus than a vaccine​

Alexander Nazaryan
Alexander Nazaryan
·National Correspondent
September 17, 2020·4 min read


WASHINGTON — In a congressional hearing Wednesday, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, held up the disposable surgical mask he had been wearing and declared that the simple covering may ultimately be better than a much-hoped-for vaccine.
This face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine,” Redfield said, referring to COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That disease has now killed about 200,000 people in the United States.
Redfield went on to say that a vaccine could have an immunogenicity of 70 percent, meaning that it may not work in close to one-third of people to whom it is administered.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield appears during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. (Andrew Harnik/AFP via Getty Images)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Wednesday. (Andrew Harnik/AFP via Getty Images)
“If I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine’s not going to protect me. This face mask will.”

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that “since masks can filter out some virus-containing droplets” but not all viral particles, a mask could act as a kind of exposure therapy, prepping the body to fight the coronavirus without actually sickening the subject.

“If this theory bears out, population-wide masking, with any type of mask that increases acceptability and adherence, might contribute to increasing the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic,” the article said. The reasoning behind this idea is that people wearing masks would receive a much smaller viral load than people without masks.

(SARS-CoV-2 is the internationally accepted name for the coronavirus, which emerged in China late last year.)

“The idea that mechanical barriers can be more effective than vaccines in stopping transmission isn’t crazy,” University of Chicago computational biologist Sarah Cobey explained to Yahoo News. “It’s basically how we controlled cholera and other enteric pathogens: We improved plumbing rather than developing an especially effective vaccine.”

Yes there is an entire thread devoted to this. Looks like you dislike the facts, too bad they make your stupid opinions look futile
 

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
I feel I am talking to a juvenile. Just stop...

And look, what Leong tries to do is hope you dont go onto ourworldindata.com and slide the timelines like he just did for Sweden.

Any idiot can amend the graphs there to include the post lockdown success of any country be it India, Brazil or Sweden

So his opinions become clear that they are stupid.
 

dredd

Alfrescian
Loyal
This is what you get when you try to sound smart but got caught by smarter people. Sam, the idiot, is in a catch 22 situation. His moronic "Masks don't work" argument that he carries around his neck will be his Achilles heel, a source of embarrassment for him when people will look back and mock his stupidity. Nothing else he posts from now onwards will have any credibility.

Being surrounded by equal imbeciles like laksaboy and the gang of really stupid backward-thinking anti-vaxxers in this forum won't help and will make him look worse.
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
This is what you get when you try to sound smart but got caught by smarter people. Sam, the idiot, is in a catch 22 situation. His moronic "Masks don't work" argument that he carries around his neck will be his Achilles heel, a source of embarrassment for him when people will look back and mock his stupidity. Nothing else he posts from now onwards will have any credibility.

Being surrounded by equal imbeciles like laksaboy and the gang of really stupid backward-thinking anti-vaxxers in this forum won't help and will make him look worse.

Are you 100% confident about vaccines? I'm not. But on balance, I think it is better to be vaccinated than not. :thumbsup:
 

dredd

Alfrescian
Loyal
Are you 100% confident about vaccines? I'm not. But on balance, I think it is better to be vaccinated than not. :thumbsup:
To be fair, nothing in life is 100% and one should not expect anything to be 100%. Vaccines protect 95% and if you get COVID19, they downgrade the disease to a mild form so you won't die or suffer serious illness. Those are great odds, and would have been good enough for the millions around the world lying sick in hospitals trying to breathe. So yes, it is better to be vaccinated.

Over 2 billion people are being vaccinated to date, along with over 30% of Sinkees, to protect themselves and their loved ones. People are wising up and choosing science and facts over moronic conspiracy theories and politicization of the vaccines. Facts and truth will always trump hate and lies.

In a few years time, when we look back at this time in our lives, we will not be thinking about all the crazy conspiracy theories or the politicking but about the fact that we did the right thing by protecting ourselves with the help of science and hopefully, the elimination of a dreaded disease, much like how vaccination eliminated smallpox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jw5

capamerica

Alfrescian
Loyal
To be fair, nothing in life is 100% and one should not expect anything to be 100%. Vaccines protect 95% and if you get COVID19, they downgrade the disease to a mild form so you won't die or suffer serious illness. Those are great odds, and would have been good enough for the millions around the world lying sick in hospitals trying to breathe. So yes, it is better to be vaccinated.

Over 2 billion people are being vaccinated to date, along with over 30% of Sinkees, to protect themselves and their loved ones. People are wising up and choosing science and facts over moronic conspiracy theories and politicization of the vaccines. Facts and truth will always trump hate and lies.

In a few years time, when we look back at this time in our lives, we will not be thinking about all the crazy conspiracy theories or the politicking but about the fact that we did the right thing by protecting ourselves with the help of science and hopefully, the elimination of a dreaded disease, much like how vaccination eliminated smallpox.

We are already seeing what the net effect of what a post Pandemic life looks like with raw data coming in from those countries that have 60-70% vaccinated like Israel, UK, even the USA now has 60% with at least 1 jab, 45% are fully

Businesses have reopened and life, while it will never really be the same, has gotten back to normal.

Now the issue is the unvaccinated in developed nations, and the larger global population with no access, so travel will remain problematic for some time.
 

dredd

Alfrescian
Loyal
We are already seeing what the net effect of what a post Pandemic life looks like with raw data coming in from those countries that have 60-70% vaccinated like Israel, UK, even the USA now has 60% with at least 1 jab, 45% are fully

Businesses have reopened and life, while it will never really be the same, has gotten back to normal.

Now the issue is the unvaccinated in developed nations, and the larger global population with no access, so travel will remain problematic for some time.
Yes. And thankfully, those like laksaboy and the small gang of backward-thinking, small minded anti-vaxxers are in the minority so they don't take us back to the dark ages where vaccines are viewed as evil instead of being an advancement in science. Over 33% of Sinkees have been vaccinated so we are on track to the 70-80% by end of the year and achieving herd immunity within SG...:thumbsup:
 

dredd

Alfrescian
Loyal
Hey cap and dredd

Can you guys be a bit more civil? I meanI get that you guys disagree with Sam. But do you really need to be so insulting?

I have some members here telling me they think you guys are from ISD and sent to destroy the forum and all.

I think it is fine to have good debate and be flustered when you cant convince the other against his willn but it is turning too rude and verbally violent.

It just makes the forum so unpleasant. Can we tone down the insults a bit?
I am not from ISD or whatever. Just someone who puts facts on the table to counter the ridiculous conspiracies being posted. I have been here nearly as long as you have and my debates with Sam have been many. I get that he is trying to sound like he opposes all things generally viewed as acceptable to foster and invite debates. I am only trying to make his views look stupid and "talking" to the people sharing his thoughts through his moniker. Nothing is personal. Nothing ever is on a forum like this...

BTW, masks do work, vaccines do work, PDMs are not safe, Trump lost an election, the world has always been round...
 

dredd

Alfrescian
Loyal
Firstly, Sam is only a moniker. You cannot personally insult or hurt a moniker. Secondly, the debates here are never won or lost. They will always garner opposing views and goes on and on. Don't you know?
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
I am not from ISD or whatever. Just someone who puts facts on the table to counter the ridiculous conspiracies being posted. I have been here nearly as long as you have and my debates with Sam have been many. I get that he is trying to sound like he opposes all things generally viewed as acceptable to foster and invite debates. I am only trying to make his views look stupid and "talking" to the people sharing his thoughts through his moniker. Nothing is personal. Nothing ever is on a forum like this...

BTW, masks do work, vaccines do work, PDMs are not safe, Trump lost an election, the world has always been round...

With regards to Covid and masks I'm not posting views I'm posting data and the data does not show any evidence that masks work. If they did all the masked jurisdictions would show a much lower infection rate compared to non masked jurisdictions but I just don't see that in the data. The virus carries on spreading regardless.

Lockdowns work if everyone complies and stays at home but at some point we have to emerge from our bunkers and the spread will then continue so what is the point.

New variants will continue to surface and if we lock ourselves indoors at the first sign of a new danger this will never end and the rich/poor divide will get even wider.

Many jurisdictions have opened up with zero restrictions and the world has not come to an end. In fact the difference in infection rates is so minimal that the measures all seem pretty pointless and achieve next to nothing. We'd save far more lives banning alcohol, ciggies and fast food then we will getting people to mask up and stay home.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Firstly, Sam is only a moniker. You cannot personally insult or hurt a moniker. Secondly, the debates here are never won or lost. They will always garner opposing views and goes on and on. Don't you know?

So why bother hurling insults then? You know perfectly well it has zero effect.
 
Top