Masks Mandatory In ALL Indoor Public Places In Edmonton

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by ESOXangler

Any chance you live alone?

Negative. Wife 2 daughters. Our lives while important to me is not more important than yours. Sorry if you don’t see things the same.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is kwpiud udfbu rb ufy vveif icgoeni fco jedn jfveci enfce oin.....at least that what it sounds like to me.

I apologize if my comment has crossed your realm of comprehension and caused you to short circuit.

Mankind is more important than any one man. It may be a very hard lesson for people; but it’s the truth.

[CAN-do]

Walked into the bank today with my full face helmet on. Mind you, the air vents were open. Was asked nicely to remove it and I complied, of course.
I guess bank workers don’t care about potentially being exposed to the Chai-naa virus after all.

By the way, does anybody know when are the burkas to become mandatory for women? I wouldn’t want to miss that train too and pay double the price for them. Asking for my better half.

Thank you,
Can-do.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Negative. Wife 2 daughters. Our lives while important to me is not more important than yours. Sorry if you don’t see things the same.

Great answer, then wear a mask(when around others) for others sake.lol

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I apologize if my comment has crossed your realm of comprehension and caused you to short circuit.

Mankind is more important than any one man. It may be a very hard lesson for people; but it’s the truth.

It kinda sounds like you are against the idea of having to wear a mask but at the same time it kinda sounds like you are not against the idea of having to wear a mask.

Any chance you are a politician by trade?

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by sk270

I certainly won't argue with you. By the way, those articles are far from random.

However, you are the cynical one. You are suggesting that the Lancet, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Society, New England Journal of Medicine are mythical publications being written by people who don't exist. In your earlier post, you referred to them as "nobodies".

If you think that the existence of these researchers and the journals in which they publish require some sort of objective confirmation, you are operating in a world which I cannot imagine.

I see where you're going now.

I tell you you're being cynical, so you call me cynical.

You tell me you won't argue with me, then argue with me.

I give you real, local situations as examples, you tell me researchers from another country know better.

I tell you the top Doc's in Canada haven't said masks need to be mandatory, you post articles from other countries and/or continents that say they should be.

You want links? If I post some gooders will I win the internet?
Sure, I'll play. I'll bet we can go back and forth forever with this.

This one includes a study by the CDC, the very same organization you quoted as pro-mask:
https://californiaglobe.com/section-...earing-a-mask/

This one includes input not only from the CDC, but also the WHO, and shows the uncertainty from both sides:
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is...t-so-confusing

And last but not least (and incase you're a visual learner) the viral video made by a layman (yet brilliant) firefighter from Argentina.
https://youtu.be/ZqRL1GXu5DE

And for a little comic relief, here's a video of a guy that really did win the internet. In my books, anyway.
https://twitter.com/TrumpRulzz/statu...941510656?s=19

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

Farting makes social distancing easy

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I purposely Let er rip by people not wearing a mask and say how’s that Covid fart smell?

People can’t resist going in for a sniff

[enfield303]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I apologize if my comment has crossed your realm of comprehension and caused you to short circuit.

People kind is more important than any one man. It may be a very hard lesson for people; but it’s the truth.

fixed it for ya

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Great answer, then wear a mask(when around others) for others sake.lol

Am I not already when required? Did I ever say not to?

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

It kinda sounds like you are against the idea of having to wear a mask but at the same time it kinda sounds like you are not against the idea of having to wear a mask.

Any chance you are a politician by trade?

You are real close actually. I have no problem with wearing a mask. I have a problem with the state requiring me to wear a mask. Which is how I got into this fray. Because you (I think it was you) couldn’t understand that politicians will do things that they should not under the guise of saving just one life.

I have a problem with that. I believe that man is no longer evolving. We are devolving. We are protecting our idiots leading to the evolution of the idiot. This type of person requires the government to control every aspect of their life.

Has it been illegal or has anyone prevented you from wearing a mask to this point? Of course not. If you encounter a wheezing, sneezing, hacking mess will you hug that person? Of course not. Would you if they were wearing a mask? Of course not. Why do you think somebody wearing an ill fitting flap of paper will contain the 4-5 liters of air expelled in a second when they sneeze? You see, I avoid these people as the medical experts advise. Now that ill fitting mask will catch some or most of the spray expelled by that individual. However some of it will land on the can of apple pie filling I need. So now I have picked up his snot. With or without a mask I need to wash my hands before I lick them. Just like the medical experts say.

I avoid people. I interact with them as little as possible. When I’m forced to be close enough where we share the same cloud of air I wear a mask. Even if they aren’t 100% effective, much like a bullet proof vest, I still wear one (a mask not a bullet proof vest) when I deem it necessary. Much like a police officer dons their bullet proof vest.

You see I don’t need Don Iveson to pass another law that will receive zero enforcement after about a day or two from its implementation. It also puts a law in place that they will have to remove someday or we have to wear masks forever. Don’t you see it’s better to have free-will and choice instead of having the high commander tell you how to think? Let the idiots perish, allow some chlorine in the gene pool. It’s more important humanity gets smarter and stronger.

FYI I’m a field mechanic. It’s my job to figure out solutions to problems in clever ways in less than ideal conditions. I wish politicians had my capacity for abstract thought. Or the even the capacity for thought would be nice too.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by enfield303

fixed it for ya

Hahahaha sorry for my bigotry.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

You are real close actually. I have no problem with wearing a mask. I have a problem with the state requiring me to wear a mask... etc.

I think this sums up the views that many of us hold on the subject.

There is much talk about the statements of medical professionals etc.

Then there's the statement that gets parroted about "doctors and nurses wearing masks in the O.R. proves that they are effective" etc. And that's fine... But as I look around me - and I'm observing the handful of front line medical workers that I have in my circle - I haven't seen a single one of them wear a mask in public. None of them have lectured me about wearing a mask. They don't recoil in fear should we accidentally break the 6-foot rule. They aren't frantically sanitizing their hands if we handle the same object. These people live with disease and death every day - are they just being careless, or just demonstrating a pragmatic approach?

Don't think I'm minimizing how bad this can be for some people - I have my own share of ailments and know how vulnerable I could be if infected. I keep my distance (which is hard because I'm a hugger!) I sanitize my hands when I am out and about (it causes my hands to flare up, but during this time I put up with it) - just like I do if there is any other kind of bug that is "going around". Did that during SARS etc. too.

And I WILL wear a mask when required, don't get me wrong. At work, I have to be prepared to don one at a moment's notice, keep myself clean-shaven etc.

But I do have an issue with government overreach. And I know that all of us on this forum feel the same way about that. We just have varying degrees of tolerance.

[Bergerboy]

The piece that has me a little baffled is there is about the same amount of credence to saving lives by banning AR-15's and mandating masks. The firearm ban is questioned and fought and scrutinized whereas the mask order is taken in stride.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

The piece that has me a little baffled is there is about the same amount of credence to saving lives by banning AR-15's and mandating masks. The firearm ban is questioned and fought and scrutinized whereas the mask order is taken in stride.

Now it’s just easier to see how a firearms ban is so easy to accomplish. People are happy with government intervention. Many are begging for it.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

I tell you you're being cynical, so you call me cynical.

You tell me you won't argue with me, then argue with me.

You want links? If I post some gooders will I win the internet?
Sure, I'll play. I'll bet we can go back and forth forever with this.

This one includes a study by the CDC, the very same organization you quoted as pro-mask:
https://californiaglobe.com/section-...earing-a-mask/

This one includes input not only from the CDC, but also the WHO, and shows the uncertainty from both sides:
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is...t-so-confusing
]

I think you should consider the definitions of "cynical" and "argue". Nonetheless, this time I will argue.

I asked you to provide recent, primary sources. None of your links are such sources. However, they do lead to some.

Your first link is a secondary source but it does lead to CDC. This link is out of date. Currently "CDC recommends that people wear masks in public settings . . .". (Before you can point it out, I do realize that this is not a primary source.)

The article you cited leads to an Australian study dating to April which, I think, should be considered in the light of more recent research of infectivity of young people.

The article leads to a third study which was done in 2015 and deals with protection in a health care environment. If you have any, please cite primary sources dealing with mask wear by the general public.

Your second link is, again, a secondary source which links to the original. In the original the authors "recommend the use of masks combined with other measures". Your own reference recommends masks. I have to conclude that you did not read it yourself.

Your second link refers to the WHO. The most recent recommendation from WHO is "to encourage the use of fabric face masks in public places . . .". As your linked article points out, CDC recommends masks.

Your second link refers to a study that concludes surgical masks could prevent the transmission of the virus. Argumentative question: did you actually read your own citations?

The authors of your second link suggest that much research is needed. Argumentative question: have you tried to find any of this research? Quite a bit has been done and I cannot find any that say masks don't work.

In short, both CDC and WHO recommend masks, which you could have easily determined before trying to use their recommendations as reasons not to wear masks. You have not bothered to search for recent research findings. I argue that you have not cited any primary sources, nor any recent sources.

As I said, if you find any recent primary sources that show mask wearing indoors in public places is not a good idea, let me know and I will engage again.

Note:The idea is not to "win the internet", as you put it, but to do our best to determine best practices by examining the most recent, pertinent research.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by chuck

Now it’s just easier to see how a firearms ban is so easy to accomplish. People are happy with government intervention. Many are begging for it.

Exactly!

[ghostguy6]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

A few questions for the no wearers:

1 dr Henshaw just started today that masks are an important part of protection ..... why would she say this? Should she Blink twice if she’s being held hostage by the socialist government.??


2. Is the UPC government socialist?? Is it massively wasting our tax dollars on purchasing free masks for Albertans? Are McDonalds, A&W and (dare I say it) Tim’s all in league with this socialist agenda??

Who are the ‘Berta leaders that are in league with this Bill Gatetz led global communist cabal..?

And..... I gotta know.... WHY would our Alberta provincial and municipal leaders do this to us...? What’s the rights infringing end game goal here.....?

Please....?

1) She is in the public eye more then ever right now, if she said anything that would up set the pubic opinion of the sheeple she would likely loose her job once this finally blows over. After all she is a figurehead for our government and has to take things like budget into account. She might say they are a good idea but still has not mandated it yet. If they were effective then she would have mandated them long ago. As I pointed out earlier the majority of the healthcare staff I see off duty are not wearing them outside of mandated locations.


2)Our government certainly is heading in that direction. When hasn't the government wasted our tax dollars? In my opinion the masks are placebo effect to make it look like the government is doing something. Too many studies both for and against them. I'm defaulting to my training when there was a general consensus that they did not work. Id post my sources but you need a log in to view them.
Those places giving out the masks could somehow be in league with our government but those masks bring in customers to their locations. The masks may be free but customers usually spend extra dollars while picking up the masks. I walk by several of the locations almost daily. When the blue signs are out saying they are out of masks there is a noticeable drop in number of customers.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Id post my sources but you need a log in to view them.

Those places giving out the masks could somehow be in league with our government.

How about these sources that are in the public domain:
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tmaid.2020.101780 ?

How could various businesses be "in league" with various governments in various countries? That reads more sarcastically than I mean it, probably because of the tone in this thread. This is a sincere question and I will pay attention to your reply. I am curious how this would work.

[obsessed1]

Originally Posted by chuck

Now it’s just easier to see how a firearms ban is so easy to accomplish. People are happy with government intervention. Many are begging for it.

Give a person security( differed payments,CERB ECT ) and offer peace ( trust government will do what's best for you) and people gladly hand over any and all freedoms. Proven time and time again. Look where we are over a flue that hasn't had an impact on our death rate as large as car accidents/ drinking/ smoking/ obesity ECT... In fact the largest loss of human life is abortions, yet we push harder and harder to make that easier and easier. People WANT government intervention because there's a false sense of security and peace. Pur rubbish

[sk270]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

Give a person security( differed payments,CERB ECT ) and offer peace ( trust government will do what's best for you) and people gladly hand over any and all freedoms. Proven time and time again. People WANT government intervention because there's a false sense of security and peace. Pur rubbish

I think that the question of firearms restrictions is a little different from Covid-19 precautions. The recent gun restrictions were enacted by a government elected by voters in Ontario and Quebec. As far as I can tell, large numbers of those voters live in cities and have never touched a firearm or gone hunting. They only know guns through media reports of gang violence and, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, support the Liberals and their firearms OICs and promises of legislation to come. Our rights as Canadians are not considered in this at all. The Eastern voters are clutching at straws to disarm the city gangs. As you say, they're looking for a false sense of security.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sk270

I think that the question of firearms restrictions is a little different from Covid-19 precautions. The recent gun restrictions were enacted by a government elected by voters in Ontario and Quebec. As far as I can tell, large numbers of those voters live in cities and have never touched a firearm or gone hunting. They only know guns through media reports of gang violence and, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, support the Liberals and their firearms OICs and promises of legislation to come. Our rights as Canadians are not considered in this at all. The Eastern voters are clutching at straws to disarm the city gangs. As you say, they're looking for a false sense of security.

All that the government has to do , is to tell everyone that a new regulation is meant to protect the public, and many people will not question it. Just like with masks, the firearms ban doesn't bring in any revenue for the government, in fact it will cost billions, so why did they enact the ban? What did they have to gain? Quite simply, they did it to demonstrate control over the people, and to see how far they can push the citizens, before the citizens resist. Just like the firearms ban,the mask restriction is only the start, the next push will likely be for mandatory vaccinations, and down the road microchips for everyone. It will take time, just as it will take time to totally disarm Canadians, but the process has to start somewhere.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

Look where we are over a flue that hasn't had an impact on our death rate as large as car accidents

I'd appreciate a link to your data. When I searched, I found a figure of 8967 deaths in Canada to date from Covid-19 (https://covid19tracker.ca/). The most recent vehicle accident death number that I found was 1740 for all of 2018 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ons-in-canada/).

Thanks for the information.

BTW no argument about smoking but that is a risk that is "easily" controlled by the individual.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sk270

I'd appreciate a link to your data. When I searched, I found a figure of 8967 deaths in Canada to date from Covid-19 (https://covid19tracker.ca/). The most recent vehicle accident death number that I found was 1740 for all of 2018 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ons-in-canada/).

Thanks for the information.

BTW no argument about smoking but that is a risk that is "easily" controlled by the individual.

Around 45,000 people die in Canada every year due to smoking, and it is not just the smokers that die, second hand smoke kills non smokers as well. And there are also health complications with babies due to their mothers smoking.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

the firearms ban doesn't bring in any revenue for the government, in fact it will cost billions, so why did they enact the ban? What did they have to gain? Quite simply, they did it to demonstrate control over the people, and to see how far they can push the citizens, before the citizens resist. Just like the firearms ban,the mask restriction is only the start, the next push will likely be for mandatory vaccinations, and down the road microchips for everyone. It will take time, just as it will take time to totally disarm Canadians, but the process has to start somewhere.

I dislike the recent OIC as much as you do. However, I think the Liberals are simply appealing to the mainly urban voters who they see as the key to their next election. Those voters would never react negatively to gun control so I don't think the Liberals are testing them.

I grew up in a time of mandatory vaccinations. At that time, they were supported by everybody because they had seen first-hand the illness and death that vaccinations prevent.

As I have said on here already, I support mandatory seat belts, restrictions on smoking, laws against driving under the influence, Rules of the Road both land and water based, and vaccinations. As a member of society I agree to a reasonable curtailment of my absolute freedoms in order to protect society at large and myself.

I realize that extreme libertarians, and not so extreme ones, do not agree. There are countries other than socialist Canada that better match their views.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Around 45,000 people die in Canada every year due to smoking, and it is not just the smokers that die, second hand smoke kills non smokers as well. And there are also health complications with babies due to their mothers smoking.

Like I said, no argument about smoking. I put the "easily" into quotation marks because quitting cigarettes was one of the most difficult things I ever did.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Around 45,000 people die in Canada every year due to smoking, and it is not just the smokers that die, second hand smoke kills non smokers as well. And there are also health complications with babies due to their mothers smoking.

Where is it that non smokers are exposed to smokers? Catching a whiff from the street?

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Around 45,000 people die in Canada every year due to smoking, and it is not just the smokers that die, second hand smoke kills non smokers as well. And there are also health complications with babies due to their mothers smoking.

For information purposes, this has been taken right off of the WHO's own website...

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...detail/tobacco

Key facts

Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
Tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. More than 7 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 1.2 million are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

So if 1.2 million non-smokers a year are dying from other peoples smoking, why is this not a worldwide crisis? This isn't a comment on the fact covid is causing lots of deaths, but it is more about pointing out the hypocrisy. Why is one group of lives so socially unacceptable to gamble with while the other is ignored?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by tirebob

For information purposes, this has been taken right off of the WHO's own website...

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...detail/tobacco



So if 1.2 million non-smokers a year are dying from other peoples smoking, why is this not a worldwide crisis? This isn't a comment on the fact covid is causing lots of deaths, but it is more about pointing out the hypocrisy. Why is one group of lives so socially unacceptable to gamble with while the other is ignored?

Because smoking generates a great deal of revenue for the tobacco companies, and in taxes. Alcohol does the same, and it also causes many deaths, direct health results, impaired drivers, other accidents and deaths due to people committing violent acts as a result of being impaired

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Because smoking generates a great deal of revenue for the tobacco companies, and in taxes. Alcohol does the same, and it also causes many deaths, direct health results, impaired drivers, other accidents and deaths due to people committing violent acts as a result of being impaired

I don't disagree. I also think they can push the "fear" of covid to a degree they are unable to with smoking. Nobody is scared of smokers, but the are scared of a virus, even though the end result is not a lot different. Not a lot unlike covid, I can "social distance" from smokers without the government telling me I must wear a gas mask.