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/clot
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-to-
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-evidence-
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/conta
ct-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html>
“Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/conta
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.