Ammo and knitting needles at the same place!
Am I the only person here thinking that the Chinese might be using Covid19 as a cover for a little old-fashioned ethnic cleansing, or political housecleaning?
Mass graves are mass graves.
Something brokentarded is happening here, and I cannot edit to correct a typo.
"it's generally a good idea to prevent evidence"
should read
"it's generally a good idea to preSent evidence"
I will offer you some advice here. When you are arguing with other people, it's generally a good idea to prevent evidence that supports your side of an argument, not the other side.
This article fully supports me. Read the extract yourself, I've copied it here.
Cloth masks do help prevent the wearer from spreading disease. Not as much as high end masks, but they do help, and the study you quoted proves it.
"To address the filtration performance of common fabric materials against nano-size particles including viruses, five major categories of fabric materials including sweatshirts, T-shirts, towels, scarves, and cloth masks were tested for polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols (20–1000 nm) at two different face velocities (5.5 and 16.5 cm s−1) and compared with the penetration levels for N95 respirator filter media. The results showed that cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40–90% instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols employed in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health particulate respirator test protocol at 5.5 cm s−1. Similarly, varying levels of penetrations (9–98%) were obtained for different size monodisperse NaCl aerosol particles in the 20–1000 nm range. The penetration levels of these fabric materials against both polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols were much higher than the penetrations for the control N95 respirator filter media. At 16.5 cm s−1 face velocity, monodisperse aerosol penetrations slightly increased, while polydisperse aerosol penetrations showed no significant effect except one fabric mask with an increase. Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath."
Freedom does not mean you have to be ignorant. Masks, even cheap ones, do help prevent the spread of airborne disease.
I have only masked a few times, because I am an OTR trucker, and rarely come into contact with other people as a part of my job, other than buying fuel and food. I stay out six weeks at a time.
You are right that this is a show, but just like all good stories, there is truth behind the fiction.
If the new future of widespread disease is mask-wearing, I can get behind that. Cheap masks are not a real burden to buy, and they help prevent the wearers from infecting others.
I cannot really get behind the dramatic partial shutdown of the US economy due to disease. I think we overreacted. The Democrats were simply looking for something new to panic about in order to create new victims, and, in this case, they were successful.
Stop trying to skew the argument with false accusations of ignorance on my part. I have been saying from the beginning that fluids from sneezing and coughing carry viruses.
After that, what's your point in this most recent post? Nothing you say contradicts what I have been saying, that simple masks are helpful in preventing the wearer from broadcasting fluids widely, therefore reducing environmental viral dispersion. Reducing, not eliminating. Protecting others, not the wearer.
The better the mask, the more infected liquid is trapped.
Perfection is the enemy of good enough. Do what you can, and if that includes wearing a bandana rather than a damn space helmet, so be it.
As a trucker, I'm glad you like us, but if you are one of the people who parks a little RV or a small truck in a full-size parking space for a truck, (at night), I suspect you are being cursed by pretty much every driver that passes you in the lot while looking for a place to park.
:)
Very few distribution centers these days have direct access to rail. Some do, and can load/unload directly to rail, but it's a small percentage of freight. Most 'final mile' deliveries of train freight is done by truck.
You are either lying, or you are intentionally misinterpreting the problem.
If you wear a mask, and you sneeze into the mask, it captures some fluid that holds virus.
If you are capturing some of the fluid, you are reducing the amount of virus you are broadcasting.
That is an irrefutable fact that even a third grader can understand.
Anything short of a space suit isn't going to be 100% effective, but even a crude mask can reduce the spewing of virus-infected liquids from coughs and sneezes.
If you still don't understand that, then it appears obvious why you are no longer working for that company doing PPE product development.
Please note that this study was studying the people wearing the masks, NOT the people around them. Like I said, the masks are not for you, they are for other people.
Don't make strawman arguments. Let the Democrats do that.
Simple masks do not protect YOU. They protect the OTHER people around you.
False. Provably so with a third-grade level science project. Some part of all the fluid that leaves your body is caught by the mask. Virus bodies are in the captured fluids. Therefore you are capturing some of the virus and preventing it from entering the airspace of others.
Masks are not about 100% protection. Masks are about risk reduction, and even a bandana across the face is better than nothing.
The mask isn't to protect you, it's to protect others around you. If the mask catches the results of your coughs, sneezing, and breathing, collecting droplets that are FAR bigger than 100 nanometers, then there is less live virus in the environment to infect other people.
Giving someone money is not the same as giving them items. As a truck driver, I will absolutely not give cash to anyone asking for help. If they convince me they need help, I will buy them food. I will buy them fuel. I will buy them a cheap windbreaker. Never give beggars money, EVER. And when I buy them something that can be returned, I keep the receipt.
When you give people money, they can do whatever they want with it.
As for the creep of small arms to larger arms, sure, it happens in an extended engagement when there are lots of military vehicles floating around in failed states.
A resistance movement might collect and use a few larger arms or military vehicles for special moments, but they will not be the bread and butter of the resistance movement. That's going to be small arms.
Citizens individually or communally owning large arms might be cool when you trot it out to shoot the hell out of some wrecked cars or something, but if the government goes full retard and comes for weapons, they are coming for those large arms first, and they will get most of them.
IMHO, it's just Biggus Dickus syndrome for a civilian to want to own a weapon that isn't man portable.
Now I might be wrong about this but... 1. ISIS acquired larger equipment by taking it from the Iraqis. 2. Al Qaeda, back in the far distant past when they were actually fighting Russia in Afghanistan did get aid from the US. Small arms, explosives, and man-portable stinger missiles. 3. Fast & Furious was light arms. A couple light machine guns may have been included, but I think it was all assault rifles or smaller. 4. South Korea is a nation, and pretty damn stable. They have an army and can actually make proper use of larger equipment.
If I am wrong about this, don't just say so, provide me with sources.
Aye, and when the US has supported insurgents, it's typically been with small arms. Pistols, assault rifles, grenades, and sometimes man-portable rockets/missiles.
When the US gives bigger weapons to combatants, it tends to be official militaries, not resistance fighters.
I have done so. In fact, my drill sergeants did so in 1992. That's where I learned the term. Sorry if that offends you, but those of us who aren't gun enthusiasts don't always get all the terms exactly right. Even drill sergeants or ex-Army soldiers.
The Army has need of heavier weapons and equipment because the Army is supposed to fight other armies
The Police are supposed to be able to act directly and bluntly against large groups of heavily armed people in gangs or organized crime.
The most effective way to deal with a rogue government is with scoped big game hunting rifles, or concealed weapons like pistols or carbines. Civilian resistance to government must always be asymmetrical, because civilians don't have the training, the unit tactics, the repair facilities, or the supply lines to fight in the field.
AR's don't blow entire aircraft out of the sky. We've had that happen often enough without making it easier, don't you think?
AR's can be damn useful when you live in the country where there are bears. I promise you that if an adult brown bear comes at you, you will be happy for every round you have in that weapon.
I will grab a bit of flak for this but I disagree. Guns are for either personal defense, to allow for resistance to a tyrannical government, or both.
For personal defense, you don't need anything bigger than an assault rifle. Seriously. Stop trying to compensate for a small something.
For resistance to a tyrannical regime, there won't be any direct assaults on the government. That's just a fantasyland brand of idiocy, thinking a group of civilians with military grade equipment will rise up and fight the professional military of a major nation. Guerrilla warfare will be the only viable method of resistance. The targets will be political. Destroy the head of the beast with snipers or stealthy small-team infiltrations. Owning a quad-mount .50 mounted on the bed of a pickup truck will just make you a useless target.
So, I do agree with some limits on weapon ownership. IMHO, as a general rule, if you can't carry and operate it as a single person, then it should not be legal. Stuff like stinger missiles might be technically useful in a resistance scenario, but I do not think that the danger of having them available to potential domestic terrorists in a time of peace is a good idea.
Making fun of idiots, and hoping some of them see the meme and think about what they are doing.
The Socialists and the Centrist Democrats are somehow still holding together as a political party, despite having nothing in common other than a hate of America and Trump.
Poking at them and trying to disturb that unnatural combination to try and help create the schism that will lead to a split in the current Democrat party is the end goal here.
Unfortunately, you might be right. We shall see. Hopefully China will not try a military solution, because they are strong enough that it could be a bloody fucking mess.
US politicians have been passing the buck for decades and refusing to hold China to any meaningful standards.
If we look back in history to the last time a major world power was not confronted for abusing the international community, we can see Germany abusing the appeasement policy of the UK and Europe before WW2.
Appeasement does not work. Short term changes in the face of real need is a different story.
Yes. I do. It means that it provides less than full protection. I've never said basic masks provide full protection, only that they help. This study proves that, even if you want to quibble over an adjective.