In article <a6t8tght5u65amg7hivliollg2b6dccs4v@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Apparently there's just one person in Scotland in ICU with the latest
> lurgy,

Reference?

> and it's not even clear if the lurgy was the specific reason they
> were admitted, or if they were admitted for something else and were
> subsequently tested. Either way, it's just *one* person in however many
> millions live in the whole of Scotland. How scared are we still supposed
> to be, and why?

This is drifting. But since you ask, consider details like people whose
tests or treatments for other things are being delayed by factors like NHS
staff having to take time off because of a +ve test or illness. And the
people ill with covid in hospital but not in ICU...

The true cost in lives will emerge as the "excess deaths" for the period,
once time has passed and the stats are processed.

That said, one advantage of the vaccine regime is that people may become
less likely to need ICU even when ill from covid. But they still may need
NHS effort, taken away from other medical needs.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <XnsAE15ABF1AC97C37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16:29 4 Jan 2022, Chris Green said:

> > Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there
> >> > was no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
> >>
> >> News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
> >> what country she is in.
> >>
> > Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live in.

> I suspect "your government" means the "government you elected".

> As it happens, I didn't vote for Boris or any other Conservative.

Nor did I. Bob's assertion came after a comment by yourself, but not clear
who it was aiming it at because it was so vague and sweeping without an
clear context.

Oh well, it keeps usenet warm in the winter. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sr1t7b$qcf$2@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 04/01/2022 16:29, Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
> >> what country she is in.
> >
> > Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live in.

> In which case Bob should have said 'our government'.

He isn't in Scotland, and as I said I currently have no idea where Pamela
lives. Does Bob?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 04/01/2022 16:54, Pamela wrote:
> I suspect "your government" means the "government you elected".
>
> As it happens, I didn't vote for Boris or any other Conservative.

It is the way democracy works. I did not vote for Sturgeon and cannot
stand the woman but have to accept that she is head of the Edinburgh
Parliament though she has probably forgotten.

In article <59a59e1cc5bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> The left in all their glory, hunting in packs, usual suspects.

Yawn.

> The left used to care about the poor and workers rights etc. No longer,
> all they give a damn about now is their stupid ideologies that ordinary
> folk just laugh at.

Your beliefs are your problem. cf below:-)

> I can see I need to add people to JJ in my don't bother reading list.

Your established MO . The reality is that your earlier posting in
this thread simply consisted of:

Vague, sweeping, and ambiguous claims along with accusations, Thus
the uncertainty about what kind of "effectiveness" etc, etc. No sign
that you even knew this.

BUT you provided no *specific* references that anyone else could check
to see if you'd misunderstood, misrepresented, or taken any original
statements absurdly out of context.This was mixed in with your
wobbly opinions stated as if facts and claims about other nominal
events, statements, etc, again with no references or even much
relevance apart from in your opinion-world.

i.e. Your usual MO. Cherry picking in a way that destroys any real
meaning. To which you add a layer of removal of any way to
check so we can't use that to debunk your claims, as per
on previous occasions. - a la the laughable two-point paper.

Then you duly followed by your pointless but predicable
whinges about mysterious lefties, etc, that haunt your sleep.
Nice touch to add in an opinion by Starkey as if that were a
substitute for anyone here being able to check your reference-free
'facts'.

None of it miraculously turned your ramblings into being sensible, or
checkable.

TBH I doubt JJ cares any more about if you read him than I do
about if you read my responses to the drivel you post. I make
a response in case it may help others. I've concluded you are
past help, alas.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

[Rant snipped]

Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
be all over the media and it isn't.

Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
Look at the logic not the agenda.

"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to be
questioned.

Bob.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 11:27:40 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[Rant snipped]
>
>Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
>quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
>be all over the media and it isn't.
>
>Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
>and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
>crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
>Look at the logic not the agenda.
>
>"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
>Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
>questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to be
>questioned.
>
>
>Bob.

Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work either.
Some of them won't get the mesage. Some of them won't understand the
message. Some of them won't be able to afford to follow it, some won't
follow it correctly, and some will simply forget or not bother. Maybe
some will have moral, cultural or religious objections too; religion
has a track record of objecting to all manner of things on the basis
of no logical reasoning whatever. Also, the very fact that the command
is in the form of a draconian edict of dubious legality given to a
population accustomed to democratic freedoms that their parents or
grandparents fought and died for will cause many to protest on that
basis alone, alarmed at the threat of those freedoms being lost by
stealth. Therefore whatever you command will not be done by 100% of
the population and it will be folly to base any calculations on an
assumption that it has.

The trouble with scientific "experts" is that they're often
specialists as well, so if you ask them for advice on something they
may only consider it on the basis of their own narrow range of
expertise. They may fail to take into account any collateral results
of the advice they give, as if other medical conditions, loss of
livelihood, inflation, crime, mental health, police thuggery, and all
the other societal changes we're seeing now were somehow not part of
the same universe, and therefore Not Their Fault. But considered as a
whole, it now looks as though the cure is worse than the disease, so
it's time to try something else instead of continuing with the same
blinkered flogging of the same dead horse.

Rod.

In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> [Rant snipped]

> Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
> quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
> be all over the media and it isn't.

In yesterday's Times, there is reference to a South Korean study showing
masks reducedtransmission by more than 90% on public transport during peak
periods.

> Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
> and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
> crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
> Look at the logic not the agenda.

Vaccine Passports show that you have received jabs.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <59a606735acharles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> > Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > [Rant snipped]

> > Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
> > quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
> > would be all over the media and it isn't.

> In yesterday's Times, there is reference to a South Korean study
> showing masks reducedtransmission by more than 90% on public
> transport during peak periods.

I don't believe that for 1 second.

Oh there are stories like that but look at Germany where N95 masks
have been mandatory for months and look at Wales. If masks did
something then these countries wouldn't be having the waves like us
but they do.

It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.

> > Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting
> > infected and they don't stop you giving it to someone else.
> > Therefore meeting crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't
> > safe, it's nonsense. Look at the logic not the agenda.

> Vaccine Passports show that you have received jabs.

Which as regards spreading the virus means nothing. I'm happy to
believe FOR NOW that vaccines reduce risk of serious illness if you
get infected.

In reality there is very little you can do to stop the spread, the
virus will do its thing and man can't do much about it.

Probably the most effective thing would be better patient isolation
in hospitals and care homes because that is where most infections
occur. I'm not saying I know how to do that.

Bob.

On 05/01/2022 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Rant snipped]
>
> Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
> quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
> be all over the media and it isn't.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED YET AGAIN!

AFAIAA, there is no quality data from anywhere that shows that
hand-washing works, because the practice is so widely accepted to be
beneficial that it just wouldn't be considered ethical to run such a
study, yet most of us accept without question that we should wash our
hands after going to the toilet, before preparing food, etc. Similarly
with masks, the only difference being that because this is a new
'normal', selfish bolshy bastards like you won't do what is already
widely considered socially desirable, and in a few years time may well
have come to be considered just normal good manners, like not talking
with your mouth full of food, and covering your mouth when you cough or
sneeze.

I suggest also that you watch this year's Christmas Lectures, where they
did a demo on the effectiveness of masks ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pmbqq/episodes/player

.... though you've also been given the following links often enough,
including previously in this very thread, to be left in no doubt as to
the effectiveness of masks if you were a rational person, the trouble
being, as everyone here knows, that you are not a rational person. So
here yet again for the benefit of others who may step in your shit is
the debunking of your mask denialism:

Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/

BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40

More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby boom
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-pandemic-update-evidence

> Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
> and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
> crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
> Look at the logic not the agenda.

By your pathetic attempts at logic, driving tests can't ever work -
they don't prevent some people driving badly and causing accidents
involving injuries and death to others, therefore we should just allow
anyone, now matter how irresponsible and/or incompetent at the wheel, to
drive on our roads. But of course we don't do that, and similarly
vaccine passports are a reasonable measure that ensure that the people
you are mixing with in a public place have taken reasonable precautions
and are behaving as responsible adults.

> "Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
> Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
> questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to be
> questioned.

On the contrary, here a dodgy stat about face masks is debunked:

More or Less
Does wearing a mask halve your chances of getting Covid-19?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2dl0

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <pn1btg1lv6od7gdl9rfm93889m33v567gc@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work
> either. Some of them won't get the mesage. Some of them won't
> understand the message. Some of them won't be able to afford to
> follow it, some won't follow it correctly, and some will simply
> forget or not bother. Maybe some will have moral, cultural or
> religious objections too; religion has a track record of objecting
> to all manner of things on the basis of no logical reasoning
> whatever. Also, the very fact that the command is in the form of a
> draconian edict of dubious legality given to a population
> accustomed to democratic freedoms that their parents or
> grandparents fought and died for will cause many to protest on that
> basis alone, alarmed at the threat of those freedoms being lost by
> stealth. Therefore whatever you command will not be done by 100% of
> the population and it will be folly to base any calculations on an
> assumption that it has.

> The trouble with scientific "experts" is that they're often
> specialists as well, so if you ask them for advice on something
> they may only consider it on the basis of their own narrow range of
> expertise. They may fail to take into account any collateral
> results of the advice they give, as if other medical conditions,
> loss of livelihood, inflation, crime, mental health, police
> thuggery, and all the other societal changes we're seeing now were
> somehow not part of the same universe, and therefore Not Their
> Fault. But considered as a whole, it now looks as though the cure
> is worse than the disease, so it's time to try something else
> instead of continuing with the same blinkered flogging of the same
> dead horse.

Now there's a guy who looks at the data and thinks for himself.

Bob.

In message <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes

>
>It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
>using chain link fencing to stop flies.

But it might when the virus (a fly) is being carried by an elephant (an
exhaled water aerosol).
>
>

--
Ian

In article <bXtBQ6JmpZ1hFwl6@brattleho.plus.com>,
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes

> >It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
> >using chain link fencing to stop flies.

> But it might when the virus (a fly) is being carried by an elephant
> (an exhaled water aerosol).

:-)

Bob.

On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <59a606735acharles@candehope.me.uk>,
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
>>> quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
>>> would be all over the media and it isn't.
>
>> In yesterday's Times, there is reference to a South Korean study
>> showing masks reducedtransmission by more than 90% on public
>> transport during peak periods.
>
> I don't believe that for 1 second.

Because it goes against your religion.

> Oh there are stories like that but look at Germany where N95 masks
> have been mandatory for months and look at Wales. If masks did
> something then these countries wouldn't be having the waves like us
> but they do.

As already debunked in this thread, Germany have controlled the pandemic
much better than the UK. Wales is pretty much the same country as rUK,
so unsurprisingly their stats are similar to ours.

> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
> using chain link fencing to stop flies.

Lie reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t.

>>> Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting
>>> infected and they don't stop you giving it to someone else.
>>> Therefore meeting crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't
>>> safe, it's nonsense. Look at the logic not the agenda.
>>
>> Vaccine Passports show that you have received jabs.
>
> Which as regards spreading the virus means nothing.

AFAIAA, the accepted understanding is that the jabs reduce the
probability of becoming infected as well as the probability of serious
disease, so where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim.

> In reality there is very little you can do to stop the spread, the
> virus will do its thing and man can't do much about it.

FALSE! As has been explained to you countless times over the last year
or so, the single most important control over a disease such as this is
human behaviour, and as humans can modify their behaviour, the claim
that "man can't do much about it" is dangerously misleading fake news.

> Probably the most effective thing would be better patient isolation
> in hospitals and care homes because that is where most infections
> occur. I'm not saying I know how to do that.

There is something that you *CAN* do, stop posting proven lies and
disinformation about the pandemic.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 05/01/2022 13:10, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <pn1btg1lv6od7gdl9rfm93889m33v567gc@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> But considered as a whole, it now looks as though the cure
>> is worse than the disease, so it's time to try something else
>> instead of continuing with the same blinkered flogging of the same
>> dead horse.

It's easy enough to criticise, especially a government that has handled
the pandemic as badly as has ours, but I note that you don't actually
suggest anything useful to try instead, so, until you can, I'd rather
stick with the scientific experts.

> Now there's a guy who looks at the data and thinks for himself.

More truthfully, there's someone given to inconsequential rants just
like yours, only less extreme and somewhat more honest.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <59a606735acharles@candehope.me.uk>,
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> > Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> > > Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > > [Rant snipped]

> > > Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
> > > quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
> > > would be all over the media and it isn't.

> > In yesterday's Times, there is reference to a South Korean study
> > showing masks reducedtransmission by more than 90% on public
> > transport during peak periods.

> I don't believe that for 1 second.

I didn't think you would.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Some more damning information:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/IINEncLH3hk1/

By analysing US VAERS data, the uploader has found
sinister patterns in the deployment of toxic
"Covid" "vaccine" batches.

I would also recommend people listen to the recent
Joe Rogan interviews with Dr P McCullough and
Dr R Malone (both available on Spotify - each are
3 hours long).

I don't personally agree with everything they say,
but their dire warnings against the safety of these
coerced and experimental injections, should be
shared widely.

Needless to say, I remain gratefully unjabbed.

In article <59a60cefc3charles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> I didn't think you would.

:-)

Bob.

In message <59a609f261bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
>In article <bXtBQ6JmpZ1hFwl6@brattleho.plus.com>,
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
>
>
>> >It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
>> >using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>
>> But it might when the virus (a fly) is being carried by an elephant
>> (an exhaled water aerosol).
>
>:-)
>
But does the smiley mean that you now actually understand how masks can
help to reduce the spread of the virus?
>

--
Ian

On 05/01/2022 14:00, Alexander wrote:

Disinformation and fake news that has been reported to:
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b er . o r g

As far as analysis of VAERS figures goes, Alexander keeps making the
same mistake of ascribing causality to what is merely coincidence. He
doesn't seem to understand that such figures contain *EVERY* 'event' to
a person that has been vaccinated, but the vast majority of such
'events' are merely coincidence and entirely unrelated to receiving a
vaccine. So, for example, a person may have a vaccine, and three days
later die in a car accident, and that may be recorded in these figures,
but no-one is trying to claim that the vaccination caused the car
accident. Similarly, three days after receiving a vaccine someone might
die of heart failure, but people die of heart failure in their thousands
every year, and some of these people will have received a vaccine
recently, but it doesn't mean the vaccine caused the heart failures.

Here's a previous debunking of fake figures quoted by Alexander:

"Here are the VAERS numbers: Over 17,000 Americans are reported dead
from this vaccine -- mostly from strokes, heart attacks and blood clots.
[...]
This information is all publicly available and provided by the CDC. This
cannot be called "misleading" by anyone in the media. The very
definition of "misleading" would be to either disparage or ignore VAERS
and not report on it daily to your readers."

But you can go to the link below and try and replicate the claims, using
an online search form, and, contrary to the dubious figures quoted, on
one example search I tried, there were no deaths at all reported for
'HEART INJURY' following a covid-19 vaccine:
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=AEC0344A2CEC1C2B9D175F30D60E

That's all I could check going forwards, but we can also go backwards:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total

The US population is just under 330m, and currently the proportion of
those vaccinated is ...
1 Dose 67%, this is the correct proportional figure to use
2 Doses 58%, these will be a subset of above
Booster 11%, these will be a subset of above

.... while 100,000 people die of blood clots every year, and 67% of that
is 67,000 ...

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/infographic-impact.html

.... and 659,000 people die of heart attacks every year and 67% of that
is 442,000 ...

https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

.... and 137,000 people die of strokes every year, and 67% of that is 92,000.

Adding up these figures, we have that in a normal 67% subset of the US
population ...

67,000 +
442,000 +
92,000
-------
= 601,000

.... would die of blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes in a normal
year, which is 1,647 people a day, or over 46,000 in any given four week
period, such as in the four week period after receiving a vaccine. The
misleading figure of 17,000 claimed in the article is thus entirely
explained away as being merely coincidence.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
> using chain link fencing to stop flies.

The virus is carried on water droplets.

Bill

On 13:00 5 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>
> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
> using chain link fencing to stop flies.

That sort of simplistic science is suitable only for a 10-year olds and
Covidiots.

There's never a single naked virus floating in the air. Even if there
were, charged fibres in a respirator and Brownian motion play their part.

You should have stayed awake in physics lessons.

In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
> > It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
> > using chain link fencing to stop flies.

> The virus is carried on water droplets.

Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
no difference.

Bob.

In article <sRVsRwEGMc1hFwSj@brattleho.plus.com>,
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <59a609f261bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
> >In article <bXtBQ6JmpZ1hFwl6@brattleho.plus.com>,
> > Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> >> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
> >
> >
> >> >It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks.
> >> >Like using chain link fencing to stop flies.
> >
> >> But it might when the virus (a fly) is being carried by an
> >> elephant (an exhaled water aerosol).
> >
> >:-)
> >
> But does the smiley mean that you now actually understand how masks
> can help to reduce the spread of the virus?

No, certainly not.

Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
that in the real world, they do nothing.

Bob.

On 19:06 5 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>> > It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
>> > using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>
>> The virus is carried on water droplets.
>
> Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
> no difference.
>
> Bob.

Do graphs show respirator masks or surgical saliva masks?

FFP3 respirators are so widely available that I use only those now.