Political statement on homepage

[orathaic]

Your whataboutery is not contributing.

Do you support making political statements, or do you oppose them until all oppressed groups get one?

[jmo1121109]

To quote something "perfect is the enemy of good".

Oct, you think you have a good argument, but actually you're not adding any thi g of value to the conversation.

A typical left wing strategy to shut down people who dare to have other opinions. Whether you value my contribution or not is entirely irrelevant to me. Your arrogance that you are somehow the arbiter of worthwhile opinion is astounding.

WebDip have taken to making political statements for the first time in their history, and they are limiting their statements purely to the issue on the current US bandwagon. They are supporting mass protest actions in the middle of the worst pandemic in the modern era, and the result of these protests will be a great many life changing illnesses and lost lives across the world. It is perfectly legitimate for members to be uncomfortable with this sudden and harmful change in policy.

I know you've always had a reading problem where you skip over points that don't fit your narrative, but "around the world" means we don't just support the fight against systematic racism and voilence in the US. Which on it's own is a public health issue that kills an unknown (due to lack of valid studies) but estimated over half a million people in the US a year. Higher death rates among kids, higher death rates in pregnancy, higher death rates in interactions among police officers, starvation rates, lack of health insurance, etc. And DRASTICALLY higher infection and death rates due to conronavirus because the minority and poor communities in the US cannot afford to stop their essential jobs to be safe, and we are not providing for their protection during the pandemic. Key figures in the federal gov payed people to protest against the lockdowns in states with the strongest measures to lock down to stay safe while at the same time calling the use of face masks a political statement. The system here is broken, and that brokenness is killing far more people then should have died due to the pandemic. You are blaming protests in the US for contributing to the problem, but the responsibility for that problem lies with the government, who has the power to stop all of this in under a day. Announce sweeping reform to fight racism while at the same time instituting an 8 week lockdown to actually purge this pandemic. It's a cute tactic to try and blame people fighting for the right to live and to be treated equally for making the pandemic worse, but as normal with your arguments, it's utterly absurd.

And to correct you, webdip has made actual political statements before, around Net Neutrality.

[MajorMitchell]

One question I would pose to Octavious in response to his post from say June 20 ..9 am is whether the black lives matter protests are significantly increasing the spread of the pandemic.
The evidence so far in the state in Australia, Victoria which has had significant blm protests and a possible second wave rise in cv19 cases is that the overwhelming number of new cases had no connection to protests but were family members infecting other family members.
That's in a place that has done well in fighting CV19.
If you take Trumptoad's USA, where the failures to control cv19 are catastrophic, I'm suggesting that the blm.protests are having no significant effects compared to the failures by federal government & Trump.
Trump just tried to get 60,000 plus supporters to gather at his big rally in Tulsa, but only 15k to 20k persons turned up..
So this blm protests are dangerous during cv19 is in my opinion a politically, and possibly racist motivated deflection using an exaggeration of the actual risk. I accept that you Octavious are not making your arguments for racist reasons.
Particularly when state police take a cooperative approach with protest organisers as happened in my home state, and that's occurred in Germany as just another example then I think you will find it most difficult Octavious to demonstrate a significantly​ dangerous increase in cv19 transmission transmission vis a vis no blm protests.

[MajorMitchell]

Thanks jmo for putting webdiplomacy's position on the blm protests and other issues with clarity in a helpful post

[Octavious]

A fair point, Major. I would argue that the very few cases of coronavirus in Australia mean that the risks there for a protest are minimal. For the same reason you can have crowds at sporting events in New Zealand with very little risk.

This is very much not the case in the Americas, and indeed the UK, where there are still areas with a lot of cases of the virus. If you look at new coronavirus cases in the US you not only see large numbers in the tens of thousands each day, but you see that the trend over the last couple of weeks is for the numbers to increase significantly.

It is impossible to attribute these numbers directly to the protests, but unless you take a view that the entire lockdown and social distancing advice over the last few months was a completely unnecessary you can't not conclude that they have been a significant contributing factor. In the UK, where the virus has killed around 50,000 people this year, and the total number killed by the police is 2, the idea of risking the virus to protest police killings is utter insanity. To have webDip officially supporting this insanity is deeply disturbing and is nothing less than the support of actions that will kill people.

[jmo1121109]

A fair point, Major. I would argue that the very few cases of coronavirus in Australia mean that the risks there for a protest are minimal. For the same reason you can have crowds at sporting events in New Zealand with very little risk.

This is very much not the case in the Americas, and indeed the UK, where there are still areas with a lot of cases of the virus. If you look at new coronavirus cases in the US you not only see large numbers in the tens of thousands each day, but you see that the trend over the last couple of weeks is for the numbers to increase significantly.

It is impossible to attribute these numbers directly to the protests, but unless you take a view that the entire lockdown and social distancing advice over the last few months was a completely unnecessary you can't not conclude that they have been a significant contributing factor. In the UK, where the virus has killed around 50,000 people this year, and the total number killed by the police is 2, the idea of risking the virus to protest police killings is utter insanity. To have webDip officially supporting this insanity is deeply disturbing and is nothing less than the support of actions that will kill people.

Ignores every point made.

[Octavious]

Ignores every point made

Pot and kettle springs to mind. Still, if you insist I will address your points.

but "around the world" means we don't just support the fight against systematic racism and voilence in the US.

Agreed. You support the BLM protests in the UK which is what I particularly object to. It is somewhat bizarre, however, that you claim this international outlook and yet try to define what is and isn't political based on a very narrow US centric view.

Which on it's own is a public health issue that kills an unknown (due to lack of valid studies) but estimated over half a million people in the US a year

Estimated by whom? I have no interest at all in arguing that there's no racial problem in the USA. You figures may even be true, although I'm not going to accept them before looking into it properly. I do have an interest in arguing that protesting against it in the middle of a pandemic is bloody stupid, regardless of the reliability of your figures.

Key figures in the federal gov payed people to protest against the lockdowns in states with the strongest measures to lock down to stay safe while at the same time calling the use of face masks a political statement

So what? Anti lockdown protests are bloody stupid, and I have said as much previously. That they exist do nothing to make BLM protests any less stupid. The use of facemasks is indeed a political statement. The evidence regarding non medical facemasks is negligible.

You are blaming protests in the US for contributing to the problem, but the responsibility for that problem lies with the government, who has the power to stop all of this in under a day. Announce sweeping reform to fight racism while at the same time instituting an 8 week lockdown to actually purge this pandemic

I have yet to see any list of demands that the protesters want, aside from some extremist bullshit from the Seattle lot, so the idea that the government would be able to satisfy them seems pretty far fetched. An 8 week lockdown to purge the pandemic would mean a ban on protests. Do I take it from this that webDip supports a ban on BLM protests until the virus is purged, or are you talking out of your arse?

And to correct you, webdip has made actual political statements before, around Net Neutrality.

I stand corrected. WebDip only extremely rarely make political statements. Remind me when the last (and only other?) one happened?

[bo_sox48]

So what? Anti lockdown protests are bloody stupid, and I have said as much previously. That they exist do nothing to make BLM protests any less stupid. The use of facemasks is indeed a political statement. The evidence regarding non medical facemasks is negligible.

It is both factually incorrect and dangerous to suggest that masks are not helpful. The study that most who make that claim cite was both statistically insignificant and biased, and while medical facemasks are indeed better by a long way than cloth masks or homemade masks, it is no longer a question that they help and are effective in preventing the spread of large droplets that are responsible for much of the spread of this coronavirus as well as other coronaviruses. Wear a mask before I make a banner for that too.

[Octavious]

So what? Anti lockdown protests are bloody stupid, and I have said as much previously. That they exist do nothing to make BLM protests any less stupid. The use of facemasks is indeed a political statement. The evidence regarding non medical facemasks is negligible.

It is both factually incorrect and dangerous to suggest that masks are not helpful. The study that most who make that claim cite was both statistically insignificant and biased, and while medical facemasks are indeed better by a long way than cloth masks or homemade masks, it is no longer a question that they help and are effective in preventing the spread of large droplets that are responsible for much of the spread of this coronavirus as well as other coronaviruses. Wear a mask before I make a banner for that too.

I have no idea what study you're referring to. The use of homemade masks create a habit for the virus directly in front of your face, lead to a marked increase in face touching, and are associated with a reduction in adherence to social distancing (which is one of the few effective ways of preventing the virus spreading). Cloth masks are ineffective in stopping the virus passing through them. The only benefit they provide is in preventing you from spreading large droplets, which is a benefit that can be matched by the use of a tissue or coughing into your elbow. The only times people should be considering wearing a mask is when social distancing is impossible.

[Octavious]

And some actual evidence to back it up

MacIntyre, C. R., Seale, H., Dung, T. C., Hien, N. T., Nga, P. T., Chughtai, A. A., Rahman, B., Dwyer, D. E., & Wang, Q. (2015). A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 5(4), e006577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577

Some current advice from the World Health Organisation
"Fabric thickness and weaving standards vary widely; hence, the barrier (filtration efficiency) against microorganisms passing through the fabric is unknown. In addition, cotton cloth masks are not fluid-resistant and thus may retain moisture, become contaminated, and act as a potential source of infection"

[bo_sox48]

The use of homemade masks create a habit for the virus directly in front of your face, lead to a marked increase in face touching, and are associated with a reduction in adherence to social distancing (which is one of the few effective ways of preventing the virus spreading).

I'm not surprised that your opposition to masks is driven by your belief that people are idiots. Obviously, many are. I live in the United States; I can attest to that. But when I want to lose weight, I both diet and exercise. Likewise, when I want to not contract coronavirus, I wear a mask and distance from others, along with practicing proper sanitation (which should be normal anyway) and handwashing. Masks not being a solution to everything all on their own is not reason not to wear one.

Cloth masks are ineffective in stopping the virus passing through them.

This is a blatant lie. Do research, or gain some common sense. Either should work here.

And some actual evidence to back it up

MacIntyre, C. R., Seale, H., Dung, T. C., Hien, N. T., Nga, P. T., Chughtai, A. A., Rahman, B., Dwyer, D. E., & Wang, Q. (2015). A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 5(4), e006577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577

Some current advice from the World Health Organisation
"Fabric thickness and weaving standards vary widely; hence, the barrier (filtration efficiency) against microorganisms passing through the fabric is unknown. In addition, cotton cloth masks are not fluid-resistant and thus may retain moisture, become contaminated, and act as a potential source of infection"

It's pretty funny to cite a study from 2015 referring to a virus that didn't exist yet, but at least the authors of that 2015 study claim that they don't have the evidence in hand to discredit their study - yet.

The WHO is a joke, but you're wrong about what they currently recommend. They wholly endorse cloth masks and provide guidelines for layering and filtration that they think will be helpful for preventing further spread from knowingly or unknowingly sick individuals. They are not going to prevent you from getting sick if nobody else wears a mask, but if someone who is sick and doesn't know it wears one around you, the odds of transmission are decreased. Feel free to not lie about what the WHO recommends to suit your factually empty argument.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item ... )-outbreak

The only benefit they provide is in preventing you from spreading large droplets, which is a benefit that can be matched by the use of a tissue or coughing into your elbow.

Do you see people using tissues to cover their face or coughing into their elbows? Wear a fucking mask. Don't be a dolt.

[Octavious]

I'm not surprised that your opposition to masks is driven by your belief that people are idiots. Obviously, many are.

I don't believe people are idiots, nor is my belief based on such an idea.

Masks not being a solution to everything all on their own is not reason not to wear one.

That was not my reasoning. I suggest that you read it again.

This is a blatant lie. Do research, or gain some common sense. Either should work here

It is a blatant lie to say it's a blatant lie. I suggest you follow your own advice.

The WHO is a joke

I wasn't expecting you to be a victim of Trumpian propaganda

you're wrong about what they currently recommend.

I am not. The World Health Organisation advise the wearing of facemasks where social distancing is not possible. This advice is consist with UK government advice. My quote from the WHO was taken from their website in the few minutes before I posted it here. It is as up to date as you can get.

Do you see people using tissues to cover their face or coughing into their elbows?

I have seen virtually no one coughing for a quarter of a year because of self isolation. Those few I see sneeze (which is a little less rare due to hay-fever) do indeed do so, yes.

[bo_sox48]

I don't believe people are idiots, nor is my belief based on such an idea.

K.

That was not my reasoning. I suggest that you read it again.

K.

It is a blatant lie to say it's a blatant lie. I suggest you follow your own advice.

K.

I wasn't expecting you to be a victim of Trumpian propaganda

K.

I am not. The World Health Organisation advise the wearing of facemasks where social distancing is not possible. This advice is consist with UK government advice. My quote from the WHO was taken from their website in the few minutes before I posted it here. It is as up to date as you can get.

I posted a link -- ...I mean, k.

I have seen virtually no one coughing for a quarter of a year because of self isolation. Those few I see sneeze (which is a little less rare due to hay-fever) do indeed do so, yes.

K.

[Octavious]

I posted a link -- ...I mean, k.

Sigh...

Yes you did, but you didn't read your link. Your link supports what I said.

[bo_sox48]

The use of masks is part of a comprehensive package of the prevention and control measures that can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19. Masks can be used either for protection of healthy persons (worn to protect oneself when in contact with an infected individual) or for source control (worn by an infected individual to prevent onward transmission).

However, the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses. Whether or not masks are used, compliance with hand hygiene, physical distancing and other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are critical to prevent human-to-human transmission of COVID-19.

That's in the easy to read summary on page 1. I read the whole thing before posting it. The majority of the information in that document is guidance on how to use a non-medical mask to prevent transmission as much as possible. It does not, however, say that...:

Cloth masks are ineffective in stopping the virus passing through them.

...nor does it say that cloth masks should not be worn for any of the other bullshit reasons you provided.

Since the WHO is a joke, here's an organization that's only a slight bit less of a joke:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... rings.html

[Octavious]

The summary deals primarily with medical masks. Let me highlight some of the important points you failed to identify in your link:

At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the
community setting is not yet supported by high quality or
direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and
harms to consider

Potential harms/disadvantages
The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people
in the general public include:
• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the
manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching
eyes with contaminated hands;(48, 49)
• potential self-contamination that can occur if non-
medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This
can create favourable conditions for microorganism to
amplify;
• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties,
depending on type of mask used;
• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant
dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for
long hours;(50)
• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;(41, 51)
• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower
adherence to other critical preventive measures such as
physical distancing and hand hygiene;
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by
young children;
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal
leading to increased litter in public places, risk of
contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;
• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on
lip reading;
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially
for children, developmentally challenged persons, those
with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive
impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or
breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or
recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot
and humid environments.

[bo_sox48]

The summary deals primarily with medical masks. Let me highlight some of the important points you failed to identify in your link:

At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the
community setting is not yet supported by high quality or
direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and
harms to consider

Woah woah woah, Octavious. Did you just omit information to try to help support your point? Here's the next paragraph.

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission

It seems that the WHO guidelines in fact support wearing masks! You speak eloquently, but your combination of stubbornness and lack of humility is causing you to argue disingenuously.

Potential harms/disadvantages
The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people
in the general public include:
• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the
manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching
eyes with contaminated hands;(48, 49)
• potential self-contamination that can occur if non-
medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This
can create favourable conditions for microorganism to
amplify;
• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties,
depending on type of mask used;
• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant
dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for
long hours;(50)
• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;(41, 51)
• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower
adherence to other critical preventive measures such as
physical distancing and hand hygiene;
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by
young children;
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal
leading to increased litter in public places, risk of
contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;
• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on
lip reading;
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially
for children, developmentally challenged persons, those
with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive
impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or
breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or
recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot
and humid environments.

I can copy and paste random things too. Here's the paragraph prior, which provides some contrast to what you posted, as anyone arguing genuinely would willingly do, but again you are not arguing genuinely and conveniently skipped it over.

Potential benefits/advantages
The likely advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in the general public include:
• reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;
• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;(70)
• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;
• reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);
• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability.

I don't care if you're uncomfortable or prone to touching your own face, have irritated skin and trouble speaking clearly, or experience "discomfort." I don't care if small subsets of people have trouble wearing them or are caused inconvenience by other people wearing them. When the coronavirus is gone, we won't have to wear them anymore. Until then, wear a fucking mask. Don't be a dolt.

[bo_sox48]

I don't know why the WHO's guidance is more important to you than your own government's. I already posted mine. They match pretty closely.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -coverings

[Octavious]

Indeed. The government clearly states:

Evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you


And goes on to advise the wearing of such coverings where social distancing is impossible as it may provide some protection for others in these situations.

[Octavious]

Woah woah woah, Octavious. Did you just omit information to try to help support your point? Here's the next paragraph.
However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission
It seems that the WHO guidelines in fact support wearing masks! You speak eloquently, but your combination of stubbornness and lack of humility is causing you to argue disingenuously.

Have you read the specific situations it refers to? Clearly not, or you wouldn't have run with this line of argument. They are the situations I referred myself to earlier, where social distancing is impossible. They specifically mention living in a slum (there may be parts of America that qualify... I don't know) and public transport, along with various other enclosed locations. Nothing in your smoking gun paragraph contradicts anything I have said before.