Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

The wider issue, of course, is just how useful/pointless/damaging all these arbitrary restrictions have been in the long run.
3
@stephenconway2468 Not at all. Boris and his crew are guilty of the most horrible offences against decent, moral behaviour - having jollies while people are forbidden to attend the funerals of loved ones, visit them in hospital etc. Clearly the people who made up the rules had no faith in them. Why should anyone else?
2
@errorswillmultiply1697 So considering contrary points of view is a waste of time is it?
1
@KTo288 I am tired of this absurd analogy, as well as comparisons with blackouts in the Blitz. A neater comparison would be to suggest that men carrying red flags should walk in front of motor vehicles, and the lanes on roads be divided by ten feet high reinforced concrete walls.
1
@PanglossDr To extend it. I loathe and despise Boris Johnson and all he represents.
1
@errorswillmultiply1697 An education?
1
@stephenconway2468 How reasonable? They have been a complete hodge-podge created for reasons of political expediency and - even more egregious - almost certainly in order to prepare a path for a vastly profitable vaccines marketing exercise. It's just as easy to deduce that great harm has been done by many of them, as it is to see benefits. It's going to be essential that a fully detailed examination of all that has gone on is carried out . But I don't hold out much hope. (I am not an anti-vaxxer per se, but profit comes streets ahead of public health in the corporate mind of Big Pharma.)
1
@stephenconway2468 Of course you can - if by validity you mean effectiveness. We were told that these rules were for our protection. If the people who instigated them chose to ignore them it can only mean that they had no faith in their effectiveness - either that or they were completely indifferent to their fate and the fate of their families and loved ones. The first is far more likely, don't you think?
1
@stephenconway2468 Your faith in masks is deeply touching but entirely misplaced. Only a fully fitted mask of N95 standard or above is any use, and that is pretty limited. They are just a psychological prop designed to give you the illusion that you are doing something to help -as indeed are a great many of the measures that have been put into place. No real-world study of mask usage has shown a statistically significant reduction in transmission due to their use.
1
@stephenconway2468 I'm afraid you need to make yourself clearer.
1
@stephenconway2468 I understood you exactly. Masks other than those of the highest standard protect neither the wearer nor those around them Even the CDC now says cloth masks are ineffective and other experts include the commonplace blue disposable masks in this category. It was you who introduced the topic of masks.
1
@stephenconway2468 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNI2ocgosgA
1
@stephenconway2468 I fully accept your quote, which clearly implies that cheap cloth masks are virtually useless. I have tried to provide links to the studies which Prof Henegan mentions, as well as others which actually use science to come to their conclusions, rather than the meaningless waffle in the CDC quote. All are removed by the YouTube algorithm and only Prod Henegan's video has got through. "Conclusions: We did not observe association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states. COVID-19 mitigation requires further research and use of existing efficacious strategies, most notably vaccination." The above from one such study. Frustratingly I can only try to direct you towards it by subterfuge, which I will attempt in another post.
1
@stephenconway2468 International Research Journal of Public Health.
1
@stephenconway2468 Lead authors David and Damien Guerra.
1
@stephenconway2468 But where is the science which backs up the CDC claim that any mask is better than none? How can this possibly be so? Only close fitting masks of N95 standard and above are of any use, and these have to be worn more or less all the time. The CDC is backpedalling because there is no study which demonstrates that cloth masks or disposable masks have any effect on viral transmission. They are comfort blankets - no more.
1
@stephenconway2468 Your interpretations seem far wider of the mark than mine. My case remains that only high standard masks worn semi-permanently have any effect worth speaking of. There is no evidence to the contrary. The CDC's position is entirely clear from the quote you yourself supplied and the Guerra paper simply proves that masking, as it is generally practiced, has no effect. I resent being accused of lying. The CDC has backtracked and the Guerra paper and several others, finds no evidence of efficacy in real-world situations. Your interpretation is facile and childish and takes no account of the political and financial background to the authoritarian insistence on masking.
1
@stephenconway2468 You're floundering. The CDC case is clear and so are the results of studies based on real world data. I think you are getting confused between what science says OUGHT to happen and what actually does happen in reality. A good recent example of this is the recent UK Dept of Education report on masking in schools. After a lengthy preamble assessing various studies and opinions which point to the benefits of masking it references an actual real world study in October which shows no statistically significant reduction in infections in the masked group. Needless to say, masking has been introduced. It is beginning to look more and more like an obsession.
1
@stephenconway2468 And nor will you. As I think I said earlier we can but hope that a properly objective and detailed assessment of the response to the pandemic will take place. In my mind there is no doubt that knee-jerk reactions and strategies designed to make profits and to reduce individual liberties have taken precedence over considerations of public health. We will be suffering from the consequences of the measures taken long, long after the effects of the virus itself have been absorbed and forgotten.
1
@stephenconway2468 The conspiracies exist. Are you so naive that you believe the authorities' actions are motivated purely by altruism? Experience says otherwise. The vast profits being made from vaccines, facemasks et etc say otherwise. The fact that people are prepared to accept all sorts of inconveniences and indignities based on guesswork pretending to be science says otherwise.
1
@stephenconway2468 Isn't that what most people do? You seem to. We can each find evidence to support our instincts. As I say, your instinct seems to be that science is being objectively and benevolently used. Mine is that it is being used to manipulate and make profits.
1
@stephenconway2468 As are you, of course. Do you agree with me then that science is not necessarily being used benevolently in this instance?
1
@stephenconway2468 To try to give them meaning? To learn?
1
@stephenconway2468 I thought it was a perfectly simple question. You obviously needn't answer it if you don't wish to. It doesn't even require a yes or no . Your point about assessing information puzzles me somewhat. If one has enough information to reasonably convince one of something, then one should try to assess contrary views. This is why I go to channels, such as this one, where I can meet holders of such contrary views. It is then up to them to convince me of my errors, should they wish to. You seem to support these various attempts to mitigate the spread of the pandemic and I assume you have some justification for doing so - other than a natural tendency to comply with authority, that is. I am curious to know why. Lectures on semantics and philosophical rigour are not particularly helpful in this regard, especially when you appear to insist that none of your statements are capable of interpretation but are, like the ten commandments, set in stone and hold rigid meanings of which you are the sole arbiter.
1
@stephenconway2468 Wriggle wriggle.
1
@stephenconway2468 How do you reconcile the accusation of my narrow-mindedness with my declared willingness to consider views which conflict with my "preconceptions"? Or is that a leading question?
1
@stephenconway2468 It seems impossible for you to deal with the concept that I understand what you say - but disagree with it. If I reframe your questions it is simply in order to discover if I have understood them. Normal procedures of discourse would next involve you in confirming or denying whether or not I have understood you correctly.. Instead you simply deny me the right to seek further clarification. A similar lack of understanding on your part is to refuse me the right of contradiction. A normal dialectic sequence is for one party (you) to make a statement of a position and then another (me)to offer a refutation. Thesis and antithesis, in other words; a synthesis whereby an approximation of truth might be reached is impossible when you describe the first stage as "binary" and refuse to go beyond it. How can you possibly hope to enter the realms of complexity and nuance when you won't open the door? AS to the mask debate - I do not ignore my own evidence but merely disagree with those parts of it which are unproven and which can be attributed to political and financial expediency. This is about the 3rd or 4th time I have explained this.
1
@stephenconway2468 My word you are conceited! Not ready for discourse?! I'm beginning to think you are incapable of it. What do you mean "the wrong channel"? As I've already said I come here in the hope of having intelligent and fruitful conversations with people whose views are contrary to my own - perhaps to our mutual benefit. It doesn't happen very often and it doesn't look as though it's going to happen with you.
1