Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Webmaster

Recommended Posts

Just now, kingseanjohn said:

The biggest difference that I’ve seen is that one group of protesters mostly wore masks and the other didn’t really at all, assuming we’re talking about the same thing. 

This seems to be the biggest factor i've seen.  Places where masks are worn, case counts are stable.  Places were masks are not being worn, are seeing upticks.  Regardless of protests.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theJ said:

This seems to be the biggest factor i've seen.  Places where masks are worn, case counts are stable.  Places were masks are not being worn, are seeing upticks.  Regardless of protests.

And, by extension, it's completely reasonable to treat a protest that is specifically trying to get people to stop wearing masks differently than a protest that isn't.

People are digging for hypocrisy that isn't there.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said:

The biggest difference that I’ve seen is that one group of protesters mostly wore masks and the other didn’t really at all, assuming we’re talking about the same thing. 

This is just a flat out lie, looking at pictures of the protests in Lansing a couple months ago and the protests happening now you'll see the same thing... Some people wear masks, some don't.

The only real difference is the wording used by the media...a couple months ago it was "about X amount of people many not wearing masks descended upon" blah blah blah, with these protests it's "about X amount of people many wearing masks descended upon" blah blah blah. 

Just look at pictures from the different protests and you'll see the ratio of those wearing masks vs those without is not a significant number at all.

Edited by rob_shadows
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rob_shadows said:

This is just a flat out lie, looking at pictures of the protests in Lansing a couple months ago and the protests happening now you'll see the same thing... Some people wear masks, some don't.

The only real difference is the wording used by the media...a couple months ago it was "about X amount of people many not wearing masks descended upon" blah blah blah, with these protests it's "about X amount of people many wearing masks descended upon" blah blah blah. 

Just look at pictures from the different protests and you'll see the ratio of those wearing masks vs those without is not a significant number at all.

Very scientific and accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

Very scientific and accurate.

Scientific? There is no scientific data on who did and didn't wear masks at the protests.

However after looking up pictures of the protests in Lansing it does look like I was wrong the ratio definitely looks like there are a lot more people not wearing them. Probably got confused with other protest images... We see so damn many these days it's not hard to do.

I have no problem admitting when I was wrong though and that one definitely looks like I was.

EDIT: Okay I'm going to sleep I'm too tired for these serious conversations and I've had to edit every one of these posts for numerous typos, lol. 

Edited by rob_shadows
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rob_shadows said:

This is just a flat out lie, looking at pictures of the protests in Lansing a couple months ago and the protests happening now you'll see the same thing... Some people wear masks, some don't.

The only real difference is the wording used by the media...a couple months ago it was "about X amount of people many not wearing masks descended upon" blah blah blah, with these protests it's "about X amount of people many wearing masks descended upon" blah blah blah. 

Just look at pictures from the different protests and you'll see the ratio of those wearing masks vs those without is not a significant number at all.

For a guy preaching common sense, you're arguing that a mask-neutral protest and an anti-mask protest would have the same percentage of protesters wearing masks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

For a guy preaching common sense, you're arguing that a mask-neutral protest and an anti-mask protest would have the same percentage of protesters wearing masks. 

Wait there were seriously anti mask protests? Where did those happen? I was referring to the anti lockdown protests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, just realized I can't go to sleep because I have to go the store😭

Did that need to be posted here? No... But the thread was open and I felt like complaining.

However just to make the the post is technically on topic...

... Coronavirus sucks!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

And, by extension, it's completely reasonable to treat a protest that is specifically trying to get people to stop wearing masks differently than a protest that isn't.

People are digging for hypocrisy that isn't there.

Yeah.  I acknowledge that a protest probably does have some increased risk for getting the virus, even if there are masks.  But so does things like going to the grocery store, or to Lowes, or to work, but I do those things anyway, because they're really important.

So I agree.  No hypocrisy there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2020 at 3:41 PM, bucsfan333 said:

It's a simple dress code. 

I get the idea that some may fear that it may open the door to other more strenuous or ridiculous rules in terms of what to wear.

But it's a ******* mask. That prevents the unknowing spread of (essenially) the plague by about 70%.

The plague, that is a new one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2020 at 5:09 PM, skywindO2 said:

Couldn't government basically require masks without passing any laws by ruling that businesses are liable for customers/employees getting catching Covid?

You'd think businesses would start mandating and enforcing mask policy if that was the case. 

Seems like a slippery slope no?  Are they then going to be liable for other illnesses, accidents, etc?  How exactly would one go about the burden of proof in such a situation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2020 at 7:41 PM, bucsfan333 said:

A lot of the country opened three weeks ago or so. And we're now seeing the effects of it.

Three months ago all we had to do was flatten the curve and help out the hospitals. O.o This was inevitable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...