The situation has changed. At this point masks do little against Omicron–but respirators (N95, KN95, KF94–we commonly refer to them as masks but that’s not the right name) still do.
The only situation that has changed is that more people have finally resigned themselves to accept the fact that masks do little.
2 Likes
Do you think James Damore’s memo was anti-woman?
I don’t think I ever read the guy’s memo, because I really don’t care about some workplace dispute at Google.
But that really isn’t material to whether Prager is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense.
At first masks were of considerable value when worn by everyone. (Sick or not–most spread is before you show symptoms.) It has become infectious enough now that masks are of minimal value but respirators still work.
So nice of them to allow us to now discuss on their platform that “the situation has changed” now that they have determined that the situation has changed. Kinda of a shame that we weren’t allowed to discuss how the situation was changing throughout the whole time the situation was changing though, don’t you think?
2 Likes
I would like world peace, among other things. In regards to this particular thread, I would like for you to answer at least one of my questions, before expecting me to answer more of yours.
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. HA HA HA! Thank the good Lord that it was not infectious enough in 2020 to warrant shutting down the economy and making up insane phrases that mean the exact opposite of what they say. We can also be thankful that everyone wore masks as they were designed. Otherwise, our population would be close to zero. 
Yeah, my jaw dropped when I read a couple articles talking about how the current variants are so bad now while casually dismissing the initial version’s infectiousness as being “about the same as any other disease”. Talk about rewriting the propaganda “history”.
1 Like
I would like for you to answer at least one of my questions, before expecting me to answer more of yours.
You seem to have me confused with someone else.
Did you think you were quoting harish?
In 2020 everyone wearing masks provided a lot of protection. Now the only real protection is from respirators. The virus has changed!
Do you not understand the concept of evolution? It started out with an R0 similar to many other diseases and generally required sustained exposure to become infected. Now it’s the most infectious disease known and minimal exposure is enough to infect.
Except for the fact that from day one, it was being sold as the worstest most contagious virus we’ve ever seen. That’s the whole reason the entire world shut down in the first place.
Anyone who dared to point this out 2 years ago was a science denier who was spreading misinformation and just wanted to mass slaughter everyone’s grandmas.
You clearly completely missed my point. Or, more likely, intentionally ignored it. While the virus may have evolved over time, it evolved to finally fit [some of] the propaganda that’s been used as the basis for policy decisions all along.
2 Likes
No. Neither claim was made in 2020 except possibly by some idiot reporters. Things shut down because the virus was the worst non-contact virus in a century and spread before symptoms showed. We were originally looking at about a 1% mortality rate, crashing the healthcare systems and for a while rising to the #1 cause of death in developed countries.
It took a while to figure out the details but you weren’t marked as a denier for saying this. What you’re missing is that in an area with a lot of people indoors you likely had sustained exposure. You might only have passing contact with any one person, but it adds up.
I have been paying attention to what the epidemiologists say, not what the reporters say. The only place I see them getting it wrong was at first about saving masks for the sick–a reasonable mistake as they were in short supply and we didn’t realize most transmission was before symptoms.
You’re right that I was confused, and thanks for sussing out the source. In response to your question …
I am trying to say that I find a great number of opinions offensive, idiotic, and yes, even ridiculous. Should I choose to spend time on a response, I will try to respond with facts or logic based reasoning as opposed to emotional based arguments/tactics.
2 Likes
Where is the cake taking emoticon. 
My hat is off to you sir.
Keep on keeping on. 
ETA: And thank you for making what’s been a troubling night a lot lighter.
1 Like
And it was those “experts” who had people afraid to ride past someone on a bike path without both persons being in full hazmat suits.
2 Likes
The latest on the gender deforming care that these hospitals and doctors claimed they weren’t offering to minors.
—-
→ How about the TERF Archetype? This week, LibsofTikTok’s proprietor Chaya Raichik continued her ongoing detective work. Posing as a mother seeking a gender affirming hysterectomy for her 16-year-old daughter, Raichik phoned the Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. and captured audio of two different hospital employees saying that their their specialized gynecologic care program for children has provided “gender-affirming hysterectomies” for kids that age and younger. It was not clear that Raichik was talking to employees who were expressing official policy, and the hospital denied doing the procedure for kids that young.
I’m not the biggest fan of Libs of TikTok. Her taste for low-hanging, woke fruit too often makes the account a neighborhood watch patrol for self-parodic social justice excesses. But you’ve got to hand it to Raichik: She’s doing the work actual reporters should be doing by picking up the phone and asking questions. We know from the reporting of Suzy Weiss and others, that teens as young as 15 are getting double mastectomies. Abigail Shrier wrote in these pages about the genital surgery done on Jazz Jennings at age 17.
The mainstream press should be taking an interest in what is actually happening at children’s hospitals too.
Under any other circumstances, the discovery that the healthy body parts of even a tiny handful of children were being intentionally removed by world class medical institutions would be non-stop national news. But the forcefield of denial and magical thinking around trans issues makes it so the removal of healthy organs is actually life-saving surgery performed by doctors carrying the banner of the next civil-rights movement. The media, of course, plays along or pretends there’s nothing to report here.
After the Children’s National Hospital story blew up last weekend, NPR wasmore interested in anti-trans threats against hospitals than in looking into what was actually going on. A since-deleted statement on CNH’s website indicating that gender affirming hysterectomy was available to patients “between the ages of 0-21” was charitably waved off by The Washington Post as “an error that has been corrected.” Yes, well, mistakes happen.
—
4 Likes
Names, I can understand. It’s no different than Alexandria preferring to be called Lexi, or a student going by their middle name rather than first name. You generally respect that. But you can’t force anyone to participate in your charade, pretending to be something you are not.
Although it is rather sad when you need to resort to characterizing biological fact as “religion”.
“We know from research, long term, very powerful research, that affirming a young person’s gender leads to better health and well-being,”
This is completely true. Which begs the question, why are they so dead set against affirming a child’s gender when that child decides they prefer to be something other than what they are, something that they’ll never be?
Actual “gender affirmation treatment” would be simply telling a boy that he has balls therefore he’s a male, no matter how much he thinks he’d prefer to be female. Indulging one’s fantasies is the opposite of affirming their reality.
4 Likes
Whose substack is that from? The link didn’t make it into your post.
, I will try to respond with facts or logic based reasoning as opposed to emotional based arguments/tactics.
The response to the article OneNote linked was to simply point out that the article, itself, was one long emotional appeal, devoid of actual fact, with the intent to stir up the ire of a particular sort of individual already inclined to agree with it.
1 Like