How people dress is really a dumb thing to argue about. What is acceptable,
depends on so many factors, when, in terms of time, 1950's versus 2000's,
geographical location, kind of work, cultural background,personal inclination,
etc. When I think about what it was acceptable for women to wear in the early
60's when going to work as opposed to 2004, and I'm talking about women in
white collar or professional positions, it's amazing. We dress in order to earn
a living, but we , most of us, anyway, dress because we want the acceptance of
our peers. But there are some people who don't care about what other people
think.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 5:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Article on face masks
This was always a good topic to get students all stirred up back in the 70's
and 80's, in our "Adjustment to Blindness" sessions.
One hulking student, wearing a fuzzy beard and over grown hair shouted, "No one
is going to tell me what I can wear, or how I keep my hair and beard". He went
on to suggest that the other person should do some anatomically impossible act,
and then he stormed out of the class.
Later, in my office, I said that he had the right to dress as he pleased and
wear his hair as he chose, but if he was told that the boss would not offer the
job unless he met the expected standards, then he might as well save both the
bosses and his time, by cancelling the interview.
Although there were many hard working men who looked about the same as my
student, they were doing jobs that required eyesight. Nearly ten years later,
when I retired, he was still wearing his unruly hair and massive beard, and
wearing his black and red plaid shirt, and was still out of work.
I never liked wearing a tie. But I worked for many years for a director who
insisted that her management team, three men and two women, dress in formal
attire. We men could wear sports jackets and slacks, but we must have a tie.
I kept a tie or two in a drawer in my office, and if I received a sudden call
to come to the bosses office, I grabbed one as I headed out. With my students
it was far more proper to dress casual. So off with the tie, open the collar
button, roll the sleeves part way up and try not to drool.
For 25 years, working in the field as rehab teachers, Cathy and I always
dressed casually. When we retired this past June 30th, we received many calls
commenting on the quality of our service, but not a word regarding how we
dressed.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/14/20, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, the dress code the boss gives me makes me wear a shirt and tie
to work every day so I guess you wouldn't want to associate with me.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 3:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Article on face masks
Personally, I have never functioned in a milieu in which dressing up
was the norm. And I have never taken pleasure in seeing someone who
was all dressed up. If I see two people walking down the street and
one is wearing a suit and tie and the other is wearing jeans and a
T-shirt I know that the highest probability is that the jeans and
T-shirt guy will be the nicer guy and most probably the one in the
suit and tie will look down on me as if I was a dog turd that he had
stepped on. I never became a communist because I was some bourgeois
dressed up liberal type who thought it would be fun to go slumming.
All the people I have been surrounded by for my whole life have been
working class people who dress up by putting on a fresh pair of
overalls. I do have resentment toward some types, but it has nothing
to do with which coast they might live on. It has a lot to do with
class exploitation, but I had to put forth some effort to learn about
that and when I did I came to understand the reasons behind what I had
been resenting before. What I had been resenting before was that snobbish
attitude toward me and the people I associated with.
___
Carl Sagan
“Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our sense
of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those
who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on
human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They
avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to
explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs
profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest
mysteries.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
On 8/13/2020 1:34 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Actually I don't disagree with you, Miriam. And I don't know if any
of today's restaurants have such a dress code. It's been a long
number of years since I dropped into a fine restaurant. Until the
lock down, we would go to the Point Casino on Saturday, for the
Crab/Lobster buffet. Once in a while we would take one of our grand
daughters to either the Red Lobster or the Olive Garden in Silverdale.
Decent prices and decent food and charming service...and no tie
required.
But now? It's a break in our routine when we scoot into Sequim and
pick up a Pizza from Pappa Murphy's.
Fortunately I have had the good fortune of 40 years being married to
a woman who is half Italian and half German, raised in a family of
cooks where everything begins with, "home made" .
But I was raised at the tailend of a far more polite generation.
Dressing up was the norm for most families. Going out to dinner?
Going to the movies? Going to take a train or bus? All required
dressing up. And we were taught to address our elders as, Mister and
Missus. Ma'am and Sir were also still in common use.
Even in the mid 70's when I first went to work for the State, were
told to "use first names whenever possible. It makes you seem more
like one of the group."
Back in those days I would say to a client who called me Mister
Jarvis, "I'm Carl. When you say Mister Jarvis, I look around for my
dad".
Carl Jarvis
On 8/13/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know if there are restaurants that still do that. But there
were, and I went to them with a variety of people for years and
years, and there was nothing snobbish about them. There was a nice
atmosphere with people dressed up for the occasion because they were
going to a restaurant that served unusually fine food. This is
precisely the same conversation that took place on the BARD Talk
list a few days ago. It is, I suppose, the resentment of people in
certain parts of the country against people who live on the coasts
in urban centers. But you don't have to be rich to recognize that
there is value in education, that books can be beautifully written
or not, and that eating a beautifully prepared meal is a wonderful
experience.
When you can see, a restaurant with lovely decor and people dressed
in their finery is a pleasurable experience.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Cc: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Article on face masks
Okay, so it was a bad example. Come to think of it, I've never even
been met at the door of any restaurant I could afford, and told I'd
need a tie.
That sort of greeting would cause me to instantly lose my appetite.
My friends all referred to me as, "that cheapskate Jarvis". Maybe
so, but by tucking that money aside I'm in better health than any of
them...those still living...and enjoying this home on ten acres.
But I chuckle and tell a few Jack Benny jokes, and take them out on
the deck to listen to the sound of leaves falling...and crickets
chirping...and frogs singing...and, if they listen very carefully
they can even hear the clouds bumping against one another.
Ah...Paradise!
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/20, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
If I showed up at a restaurant and was told that I had to wear a
tie to get in I would realize that I had made a very serious
mistake in choosing a dining establishment, but I would correct
that mistake immediately by turning around and walking away and by
never again going near that joint. Anyway, I am reminded of when
Richard Nixon went to China. I was watching the coverage on
television and there was an American reporter standing on the side
of a broad street in Beijing.
Hoards of people were riding past him on bicycles and every single
one of those people was wearing a white mask that covered the lower
half of their faces. The reporter explained that it was the custom
to wear these masks as a precaution against spreading colds.
Apparently the Chinese have been used to these masks for a long
time now.
___
Carl Sagan
“Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our
sense of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really
is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a
Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts
of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But
those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the
Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and
prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
On 8/12/2020 1:00 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Mister Patrick Wood, I tried, I really tried to read your
drivel, I've seldom seen someone dragging red herring behind them,
while they beat up on Straw men. You go off dragging and grunting
all about
science and pseudoscience, while we are concerned with the rising
numbers of people contacting COVID-19, and what we can do to slow
it down or eradicate it. . We are learning of serious
complications suffered buy some who contact this virus. What we
want is to know what is working and what is not working.
Masks seem to block the spray from our breath, so some of us are
promoting it. Call it what you will, it still is one piece of
prevention. Washing our hands in approved solutions seems to be a
good idea, too. Until we know for certain how this virus is
spread, we need to take all the safe practices that we can. When
the Fox breaks into the Hen House, the Hens do not debate whether
they should use science or pseudo science as protection from the
Foxes, the hens just follow chicken logic and begin yelling their
heads off. There may be better techniques with fancy names, but
squawking is the one method they know. We're doing the best we
can, while you go about undermining our efforts, even to the point
of questioning the constitutionality of insisting people wear
masks. It's not found in the Constitution. Nor is wearing
clothes, or driving the speed limits, or stopping at red lights,
or dumping your poop pots in the gutter. Many of our laws and
regulations are set in place to protect people as best we can.
While we can't regulate carelessness or greed, we can establish
controls. It's no different than if you show up at a fine
restaurant and are told that you must have a tie in order to gain
entrance. That's not in the constitution either. Nor is the dog
leash law. Nor is running down the street in nothing but your
undershorts. We've had such regulations from our very beginnings
as a nation. So why are you trashing our efforts to protect
ourselves now?
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/20, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I rarely forward an e-mail from another list but I just wanted
you folks to see what kind of dribble folks are trying to peddle.
The far right is trading national safety for a few misguided votes.
This is sad stuff.
-----Original Message-----
From: Blind exchange and discussion <BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Rovin Customer
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 2:02 AM
To: BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Article on face masks
Hello people, Ed Lopez back here. It has been a while sense I
have been on this list. Here is an article on face masks you may
want to read very carefully. Before anybody goes on this rave
about face masks, read this first.
The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing
And Contact Tracing POSTED BY PATRICK WOOD 1033SC ON JUNE 19,
2020 In a great suppression of free speech, technocrats working
the
COVID-19 pandemic are shaming, ridiculing, bullying and
marginalizing anyone who questions their pseudo-science and
shifting positions. The state-mandated wearing of face masks,
social distancing and contact tracing are all unconstitutional
and in some cases, illegal.
By Patrick Wood, June 2020
Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included
the discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe,
etc. It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners
called scientists and engineers. They often invented cool new
things as a result of their studies, but generally they had no
primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people,
groups or even entire societies.
Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a
discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly
skewed and engineering disciplines were applied to society at
large, then they could indeed use their “knowledge” to dominate
and control other people, groups, entire societies or even,
heaven forbid, the entire planet.
The first group pursued science. The second group pursued
pseudo-science.
Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories,
assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”
The Oxford dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of
beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on
scientific method.“
Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of
Technocrats, but they soon found that scientific debate with
those promoting real science was most inconvenient to their
social engineering goals. The solution was
simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real
science, and then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to
the contrary.
In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the
three primary tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social
distancing and contact tracing.
Face masks
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website
plainly states
<https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html> that cloth
face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne
transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal
or inadequate filtration.”
But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they
“will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible
infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate
filtration.”
But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled
by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and
stated <https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html>,
OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to
wear face coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to
prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or
pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory
droplets to others.
This is known as source control.
Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) recommendation
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/c
l ot h-face-cover.html> for all people to wear cloth face
coverings when in public and around other people, wearing cloth
face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job
tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment
(PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such
equipment is needed most.
So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID,
but it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you?
OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls
“source control”
likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the
source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific
rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks.
The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.
But, what about asymptomatic carriers?
On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World
Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit
released a compilation of a number of contact tracing programs
from various nations and plainly stated “From the data we have,
it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic person
actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove
overnight at the hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day
she also furiously backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’
and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that
asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring
to a small subset of studies.”
It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively
repeated the clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s
justification for non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact,
the entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the single
pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected
neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose
Serious Risks To The Healthy,
<https://technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-
t
o- the-healthy/> he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence
that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in
preventing the spread of this virus.”
(Blaylock represents real science.)
Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness
of face masks for preventing disease,
States and municipalities are mandating that face masks be worn
by all citizens when outside their home Large and small companies
are forcing their employees to wear masks People at large are
scared to death to not wear a face mask for fear of getting sick
or being mask-shamed by others if they take it off.
Breath Is Vital To Life
Many people believe that face masks lower the percentage of
oxygen available for inhaling because you rebreathe much of your
exhausted breath.
However,
a face mask itself does not retain a significant amount of your
exhaled breath since most of it is exhaled through the mask into
the open atmosphere. Furthermore, when you inhale, most of the
air delivered to your lungs comes from outside the mask.
The real science is much more complicated than the amount of
residual air contained within a face mask.
The real problem with breathing through a mask is that the lungs
and chest muscles must exert a lot of extra energy to inhale and
exhale.
In other words, you must work harder to breathe the same amount
of fresh air that you would normally breathe without a mask.
For this reason, those who already have impaired lung functions,
minor as they may be, should never wear a mask unless it is for a
specific purpose for a very short period of time. The older you
are, especially those over 70, lung capacity and muscle strength
decline rapidly.
This writer has already encountered several retail store
employees, forced by their employers to wear a face mask during
work hours, who exhibit symptoms like headache, shortness of
breath or dizziness.
When asked if they relate their symptoms to wearing the mask,
every single one has emphatically said “Yes!”.
Workers with the most physically demanding jobs are the most
likely to exhibit these kind of symptoms. Other considerations
are age, any preexisting conditions of the lungs (like pleurisy,
COPD, chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, etc.) or chest muscles and
factors like poor physical condition and obesity. Actually, any
debilitating health condition should be a red flag. In other
words, those who are prone to get winded without a face mask will
immediately be at a disadvantage when wearing a mask. The net
effect is that the lungs receive less fresh air with vital oxygen
even as the body is under more physical stress.
Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of
face masks should be required to do two things: first, they
should carefully consider each employee as an individual to
determine their suitability for wearing a mask. All factors
mentioned above should be included, and in any case, no one
should be required to wear a mask if it puts too much stress on their
lungs.
Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of
face masks for all citizens in public places. They have fallen
prey to pseudo-science and are now putting entire populations at
risk for physical harm that has nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.
In sum, lung strength, physical condition, age, pre-existing
conditions, physical demands of the job, etc., should all be
carefully considered by all. A blanket statement that all
employees or all citizens should wear face masks it wholly
inappropriate.
Social Distancing
Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are
driven to practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at
all times.
This is practiced to excess in almost every commercial
establishment with markers taped or painted on the floor and
shopping isles converted into one-way travel only.
Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain,
Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The
Telegraph
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-eviden
c
e- support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/>
(UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.”
Their article was titled There is no scientific evidence to
support the disastrous two-metre rule.
According to these scientists,
The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies
in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This
might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective
and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their
findings. Recall bias arises in research when participants do not
remember previous events accurately, and it is problematic when
studies look back in time at how people behaved, including how
closely they stood from others.
More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported
specifically on Covid exposure and proximity with infection.
These studies included a total of merely 477 patients, with just
26 actual cases of infection. In only one study was a specific
distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index
patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting
Covid.
Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,
On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the
review, we found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical
mistakes and unsound methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over
distance were made, we could not replicate any of them.
This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in
the data, numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to
replicate results.
What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is
not to curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to
curtail economic activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are
social beings, after all, and lack of close proximity leads to
depression, anxiety and even serious health consequences.
Contact Tracing
Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It
is useful for the early stages of serious infectious diseases
like Ebola, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases like
chlamydia.
Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is
effective only up to the point of mass distribution. In other
words, during the early stages of a contagion or a slow moving or
very serious disease.
In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn.
Except to harass people, there is nothing useful that contact
tracing can accomplish.
Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging
contact tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000
tracers.
The Center for Disease Control website states that
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/co
n ta ct-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html>
“Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/co
n ta ct-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact>
(any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least
15
minutes)
of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”
Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least
15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for
asymptomatic patients,
2
days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is
isolated.
If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information
will be collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be
instructed to quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person
could have been mistaken about having contact with you. They
could be someone who just wants to get you in trouble. If you
live in Washington state, where all restaurants are now required
to record the contact information of every patron, you might not
have a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.
Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to
social distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no
effect of distance on contracting COVID” in the first place.
Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points:
first,
the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make
tracing effective and second, the criteria of six feet for
defining a “contact”
is
bogus.
So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up
for a nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again,
pursuing a path of pseudo-science, the intended outcome is
control over people.
Conclusion
The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of
pseudo-science in order to justify the wearing of face masks,
social distancing and contact tracing. Yet, the actual science
points in the polar opposite direction.
Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are
shamed, ridiculed and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.
This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are
the ones who should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.
In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to
curtail economic activity, break down social cohesion and control
people.
Moreover,
they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far
back as
1938:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific
operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and
distribute goods and services to the entire population…
It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders
understand the lack of real and verified science behind their
actions and mandates.
Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive
to our economic system, harmful to our personal health and
ruinous to personal liberty.