"WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"

Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
are are below and the full text can be found here:

https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-
theories

----------------- START -----------------

We argue that people are drawn to conspiracy theories in order to
satisfy or in an attempt to satisfy three important psychological
motives. The FIRST of these motives is .... the need for knowledge and
certainty and I guess the motive or desire to have information. And
when something major happens, when a big event happens, people
naturally want to know why that happened. They want an explanation and
they want to know the truth. ....

people with lower levels of education tend to be drawn to conspiracy
theories. And we don't argue that's because people are not
intelligent. It's simply that they haven't been allowed to have, or
haven't been given access to the tools to allow them to differentiate
between good sources and bad sources or credible sources and non-
credible sources.

The SECOND set of motives, we would call existential motives. And
really they just refer to people's needs to be or to feel safe and
secure in the world that they live in. And also to feel that they have
some kind of power or autonomy over the things that happen to them as
well. So again, when something happens, people don't like to feel
powerless. ... Research has shown that people who do feel powerless
and disillusioned do tend to gravitate more towards conspiracy
theories.

The THIRD set of motives we would call social motives and those refer
to people's desire to feel good about themselves as individuals and
also feel good about themselves in terms of the groups that they
belong to. ... potentially one way of doing that is to feel that you
have access to information that other people don't necessarily have
.... this is quite a common rhetorical tool that people use when they
talk about conspiracy theories, that everybody else is some kind of
sheep, but that they know the truth. ....

So people who have an overinflated sense of the importance of the
groups that they belong to, but at the same time, the feeling that
those groups are underappreciated, those kinds of feelings as well,
draw people towards conspiracy theories .... It's linked to the idea
of need for uniqueness, as well. That's another, I guess, narcissistic
notion that you have. You're in possession of information that other
people don't have. You're different to other people and it makes you
stand apart. But yes, narcissism at an individual level has been
associated in quite a few studies now with belief in conspiracy
theories.

..... In terms of age, we do. In our research, we generally find that
older people believe in conspiracy theories less than younger people
do. .... that does tend to show up pretty much all of the time. In
terms of gender, at least in the research that myself and my
colleagues have conducted, we've never found any gender differences in
terms of conspiracy belief.

...... in the literature it's often been found that if people believe
in one conspiracy theory, then they're likely to believe in others.

.... We thought people would not entertain these two conspiracy
theories at the same time, but it turned out that they did, or at
least they were prepared to entertain the idea that both of those
[contradictory] things might be true.

----------------- END -----------------

On 05/11/2021 18:54, Pamela wrote:
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>

This is a Guy Fawkes night!

Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority conspire.

I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being developed
and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who questions them.

Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those who
believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
conspiracy theorists.

The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.

In article <XnsADD9C055E70C537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"

> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:

Except when they turn out to be right.

I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
US and the EU fund virus research.

Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.

That was a conspiracy theory.

Bob.

On 05/11/2021 20:20, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <XnsADD9C055E70C537B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> Except when they turn out to be right.

Probably about once in a hundred or more times.
>
> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
> US and the EU fund virus research.
>
> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>
> That was a conspiracy theory.

It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution.

--

Fake news kills!

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

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6700ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>
> most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not.

If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
so clearly demonstrated.

They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the infection
with minimal fuss.

> That was a conspiracy theory.

Also...

2020: "Anyone claiming there's a plan to introduce vaccine passports
is a conspiracy theorist and their dangerous misinformation must be
stopped!"

2021: "Anyone opposed to vaccine passports is a conspiracy theorist
and their dangerous misinformation must be stopped!"

On 05/11/2021 22:02, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6700ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>
>> most people now know the likelihood is that
>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>> accidental or not.
>
> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
> fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
> introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
> get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
> so clearly demonstrated.

Yes, the idea of it being a bio-weapon is utterly absurd - for the
sake of argument, regardless of the actual figures because we only need
a ball-park scenario that is approximately right to make the point,
suppose it only kills, say, about 1 in 100 of the people it infects, and
kills equally randomly people in any nation of any race; would you buy a
machine gun that fired 99 blanks for every real bullet, and was equally
likely to kill the person firing it instead of the people being fired
at? Of course you wouldn't.

> They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
> well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the infection
> with minimal fuss.

Nonsense, there was never reliable evidence that any of those quack
cures did anything at all.

--

Fake news kills!

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

The biggest conspiracy theories are organised Religions of course.

I just think that it is thought to us when young, in things like Santa
Clause and other myths.
This is also tied in with a lot of advertising too.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsADD9C055E70C537B93@144.76.35.252...
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-
> theories
>
> ----------------- START -----------------
>
> We argue that people are drawn to conspiracy theories in order to
> satisfy or in an attempt to satisfy three important psychological
> motives. The FIRST of these motives is .... the need for knowledge and
> certainty and I guess the motive or desire to have information. And
> when something major happens, when a big event happens, people
> naturally want to know why that happened. They want an explanation and
> they want to know the truth. ....
>
> people with lower levels of education tend to be drawn to conspiracy
> theories. And we don't argue that's because people are not
> intelligent. It's simply that they haven't been allowed to have, or
> haven't been given access to the tools to allow them to differentiate
> between good sources and bad sources or credible sources and non-
> credible sources.
>
> The SECOND set of motives, we would call existential motives. And
> really they just refer to people's needs to be or to feel safe and
> secure in the world that they live in. And also to feel that they have
> some kind of power or autonomy over the things that happen to them as
> well. So again, when something happens, people don't like to feel
> powerless. ... Research has shown that people who do feel powerless
> and disillusioned do tend to gravitate more towards conspiracy
> theories.
>
> The THIRD set of motives we would call social motives and those refer
> to people's desire to feel good about themselves as individuals and
> also feel good about themselves in terms of the groups that they
> belong to. ... potentially one way of doing that is to feel that you
> have access to information that other people don't necessarily have
> ... this is quite a common rhetorical tool that people use when they
> talk about conspiracy theories, that everybody else is some kind of
> sheep, but that they know the truth. ....
>
> So people who have an overinflated sense of the importance of the
> groups that they belong to, but at the same time, the feeling that
> those groups are underappreciated, those kinds of feelings as well,
> draw people towards conspiracy theories .... It's linked to the idea
> of need for uniqueness, as well. That's another, I guess, narcissistic
> notion that you have. You're in possession of information that other
> people don't have. You're different to other people and it makes you
> stand apart. But yes, narcissism at an individual level has been
> associated in quite a few studies now with belief in conspiracy
> theories.
>
> .... In terms of age, we do. In our research, we generally find that
> older people believe in conspiracy theories less than younger people
> do. .... that does tend to show up pretty much all of the time. In
> terms of gender, at least in the research that myself and my
> colleagues have conducted, we've never found any gender differences in
> terms of conspiracy belief.
>
> ..... in the literature it's often been found that if people believe
> in one conspiracy theory, then they're likely to believe in others.
>
> ... We thought people would not entertain these two conspiracy
> theories at the same time, but it turned out that they did, or at
> least they were prepared to entertain the idea that both of those
> [contradictory] things might be true.
>
> ----------------- END -----------------

On 21:35 5 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:

> On 05/11/2021 20:20, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article <XnsADD9C055E70C537B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>
>>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>> Except when they turn out to be right.
>
> Probably about once in a hundred or more times.
>>
>> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
>> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
>> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
>> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
>> US and the EU fund virus research.
>>
>> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is
>> that the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it
>> was accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
>> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>>
>> That was a conspiracy theory.
>
> It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
> Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus',
> because he felt he looked better to the American people as
> flag-waving and 'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was
> diametrically counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the
> defensive, and unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US
> are still peddling this crap - apparently they just can't accept
> that the American people voted them out, and looking for scapegoats
> to blame - so the Chinese are still on the defensive. Add to
> this, it's a communist regime which is naturally somewhat secretive
> anyway, the time wasted through the final year of Trump's posturing
> and blaming China, and his withdrawing grants from the western
> collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting their work which might
> have been critically important in finding the actual path of the
> virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated on some remote
> farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to do that now
> seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
> collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
> through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood
> samples of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint
> a rather more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to
> the market with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these
> early samples already contained more than one strain. However, this
> analysis doesn't support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a
> possibility, but only a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is
> still natural evolution.

Trump knows the value of stirring up hate and his strategy was trying
to deflect attention from his own incompetent handling of the
situation by pointing to bogeymen in China. Facts don't matter to him.

I suspect the advertising came later

In article <sm5f0r$g2m$1@dont-email.me>,
Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The biggest conspiracy theories are organised Religions of course.

> I just think that it is thought to us when young, in things like Santa
> Clause and other myths.
> This is also tied in with a lot of advertising too.
> Brian

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

In article <sm49mk$a8h$1@dont-email.me>,
Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:

> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really
> hasn't fulfilled its remit very well;

That's a debatable point. MSM are now talking about "Gain of
Function" research on viruses being done at Wuhan paid for by EU and
US.

It could be argued that all the virus had to do was start the ball
rolling. I'm not claiming that, after GoF research I really don't
know what the intention was in that lab, I just know it probably came
from there.

> the virus was so weak that they had to introduce medical
> malpractice,

I wouldn't put it quite that strongly.

> bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)

That does appear to be true and still is, as revealed by people using
the freedom of information act. If I recall correctly 25 cycles is
the recommended max by WHO but we're still using over 40 which the
inventor of the test said "could find anything in anyone".

That of course leads to the asymptomatic spreader propaganda when
most asymptomatics aren't infected as such, they just have some
material.

> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths,
> to get any significant "case" and fatality numbers,

That also appears to be correct, the government was forced to change
the rules for that but not enough clearly.

> They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
> well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the
> infection with minimal fuss.

Certainly there were drugs long used for other reasons that doctors
in the US claimed helped for covid. In itself, that's just a claim
but then those drugs suddenly got banned as dangerous in many
countries around the world it then looks very suspicious to say the
least.

I'm going to get slaughtered for the next bit, what the hell, it's
just what the information I have has led me to think, not what I
know. None of us know the truth.

The one that makes me scratch my head the most is masks. The figures
I have says that the virus is 0.12 microns in size compared to a
human hair at 75 microns. An N95 mask which I've never seen anyone
wearing as an anti-covid mask has filter holes of 0.3 microns. A
surgical mask I'm told is 2-10 microns. I've seen it described as
trying to stop a fly with chain link fencing.

So are those figures wrong? I've had them a while, they could be
wrong.

I keep reading that the virus is airborne and the government changed
its story from 'there is no need for masks' to tells us that 'a mask
isn't for your protection, it's to stop you spreading it to others'.

Well possibly, I can just about see the prevention of explosive
coughs and sneezes flinging material far and wide. But it's not that
convincing when you realize that when you inhale the mask is drawn
tighter to your skin but when you exhale, the mask is pushed away.
There are videos on line showing people inhaling smoke then fitting a
mask and then exhaling. The smoke pours out on all sides in great
clouds because there is such a poor bond to the skin.

So for me, I just about accept that during a cough or sneeze the
material ejected has less momentum but I doubt that significantly
less material is ejected so how much does that actually help? Not a
lot if you're sat alongside someone, by giving some protection to
people a distance away, it may make it worse for people sat close, on
a bus or taxi or in a theatre. Concentrating the viral load.

Personally, if I was in government I would say that during the
pandemic, people with any signs of a respiratory infection should
self isolate. You could have a covid test day one, get a negative and
later catch covid the same day. You then think you have a cold but
you also have covid.

People with coughs and sneezes out of circulation would be good all
round at this time. We then come back to asymptomatics. By
asymptomatics I mean people with NO symptoms not people with very
mild symptoms. Evidence for true asymptomatic transmission is very
thin to say the least and we have an explanation (PCR cycles and the
poor labs as found by the BBC) why so many asymptomatics are declared.

Here's the rub though, masks do have one major role - fear! Seeing
people all covered in masks generates fear and the government has
done all it can to generate that fear for 18 months or more.

Never mind - BUILD BACK BETTER. :-)

Not gospel, it's just how it appears to me.

Bob.

On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
> However, this analysis doesn't
> support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
> a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution.

There was a programme on TV earlier this year. I only caught the end of
it while station hopping so I don't know where it was broadcast from or
what led up to the bit I saw.

It was a virology lab that spoke English. They had studied the Covid
Genome and its mutations and tested it against the species that would be
the most likely sources of the current mutations (which could explain
the animals imported from rural areas), and that had revealed that
natural mutations usually leave the original source still vulnerable and
other species might be additionally likely to catch it. The difference
with Covid-19 is that it is many, many times more aggressive to the
human genome that any other species tested.

Further investigation revealed that there was an on-going research
programme of identifying any viral ailments that might potentially
become a new epidemic, and genetically enhancing the virus to make it
more aggressive to humans so that available treatments can be tested for
future effectiveness and the need for research into better treatments
identified.

The Wuhan lab is one of several world wide engaged in that programme,
and the way the virus targets humans so completely fits the modus
operandi of creating that scenario as part of the programme.

They concluded that the virus almost certainly originated from the Wuhan
laboratory, but the escape into the wild was almost certainly accidental
because nobody involved in the programme would have considered such an
uncontrolled experiment with a deliberately enhanced and thus
potentially lethal virus.

My own aside is that the Chinese Government would have to stop the local
population from blaming the lab for the epidemic, hence the fake news
that it came from infected animals in the local meat market. Having
done that to avoid local protests, they are not going to allow any
foreign interference to undermine their local "solution".

Jim

In article <sm5qun$qt8$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
> > However, this analysis doesn't
> > support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
> > a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution.

> There was a programme on TV earlier this year. I only caught the end of
> it while station hopping so I don't know where it was broadcast from or
> what led up to the bit I saw.

> It was a virology lab that spoke English. They had studied the Covid
> Genome and its mutations and tested it against the species that would be
> the most likely sources of the current mutations (which could explain
> the animals imported from rural areas), and that had revealed that
> natural mutations usually leave the original source still vulnerable and
> other species might be additionally likely to catch it. The difference
> with Covid-19 is that it is many, many times more aggressive to the
> human genome that any other species tested.

> Further investigation revealed that there was an on-going research
> programme of identifying any viral ailments that might potentially
> become a new epidemic, and genetically enhancing the virus to make it
> more aggressive to humans so that available treatments can be tested for
> future effectiveness and the need for research into better treatments
> identified.

> The Wuhan lab is one of several world wide engaged in that programme,
> and the way the virus targets humans so completely fits the modus
> operandi of creating that scenario as part of the programme.

> They concluded that the virus almost certainly originated from the Wuhan
> laboratory, but the escape into the wild was almost certainly accidental
> because nobody involved in the programme would have considered such an
> uncontrolled experiment with a deliberately enhanced and thus
> potentially lethal virus.

> My own aside is that the Chinese Government would have to stop the local
> population from blaming the lab for the epidemic, hence the fake news
> that it came from infected animals in the local meat market. Having
> done that to avoid local protests, they are not going to allow any
> foreign interference to undermine their local "solution".

> Jim

Do note that the first person to go public about the virus was arrested for
spreading waht we would call "fake news". Sadly he died from the virus

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

On 06/11/2021 11:25, Bob Latham wrote:

> The one that makes me scratch my head the most is masks. The figures
> I have says that the virus is 0.12 microns in size compared to a
> human hair at 75 microns. An N95 mask which I've never seen anyone
> wearing as an anti-covid mask has filter holes of 0.3 microns. A
> surgical mask I'm told is 2-10 microns. I've seen it described as
> trying to stop a fly with chain link fencing.
>
> So are those figures wrong? I've had them a while, they could be
> wrong.
>
> I keep reading that the virus is airborne and the government changed
> its story from 'there is no need for masks' to tells us that 'a mask
> isn't for your protection, it's to stop you spreading it to others'.

It is a little more complicated than the simple difference in size. The
virus that spreads originates from the lungs, and the virus isn't
expelled alone, it is embedded in moisture droplets also exhaled (try
breathing out onto cold glass and see how much condensation there is).

I have no idea how many microns the typical exhaled moisture droplet is,
but it will be a lot bigger than 0.12 microns. I am guessing that it is
bigger than 10 microns, or the surgical masks would have a tighter
specification.

Also despite the experiment with smoke, a fair amount of exhaled air
does go through the mask and masks do get damp as a result. That
dampness also contains the virus if the mask is worn by an infected
person. The air that escapes from the sides of the mask may also
contain the virus, but the direction is away from the person you are
talking to so they are unlikely to breath it in. It doesn't protect
others in crowded places but it does offer some protection in more
normal human interactions. Hence the "Your mask protects me; my mask
protects you" message. It is partially true. Any moisture droplet small
enough to escape the other person's mask is potentially able to
penetrate yours too, but because it has already gone through the
originator's mask its velocity has reduced and you might not breathe it
in. That is what the 2 metre space takes advantage of.

If you treat the advice as sensible rather than foolproof, it isn't as
ridiculous as it first appears.

Jim

In article <sm5so5$7pr$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> It is a little more complicated than the simple difference in size.
> The virus that spreads originates from the lungs, and the virus
> isn't expelled alone, it is embedded in moisture droplets also
> exhaled (try breathing out onto cold glass and see how much
> condensation there is).

> I have no idea how many microns the typical exhaled moisture
> droplet is, but it will be a lot bigger than 0.12 microns. I am
> guessing that it is bigger than 10 microns, or the surgical masks
> would have a tighter specification.

> Also despite the experiment with smoke, a fair amount of exhaled
> air does go through the mask and masks do get damp as a result.
> That dampness also contains the virus if the mask is worn by an
> infected person. The air that escapes from the sides of the mask
> may also contain the virus, but the direction is away from the
> person you are talking to so they are unlikely to breath it in. It
> doesn't protect others in crowded places but it does offer some
> protection in more normal human interactions. Hence the "Your
> mask protects me; my mask protects you" message. It is partially
> true. Any moisture droplet small enough to escape the other
> person's mask is potentially able to penetrate yours too, but
> because it has already gone through the originator's mask its
> velocity has reduced and you might not breathe it in. That is what
> the 2 metre space takes advantage of.

> If you treat the advice as sensible rather than foolproof, it isn't
> as ridiculous as it first appears.

I can see your argument which on the face of it is reasonable and
logical if a little theoretical. Worth baring in mind even if I'm
still mask sceptical. I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
of correlation.

Bob.

On 06/11/2021 12:54, Bob Latham wrote:

> I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.
>
> Bob.
>

There is quite a difference between wearing a mask, and wearing a mask
*correctly*. How many people have you seen wearing a mask over their
mouth bit leaving their nose uncovered (because it is easier to breathe
like that!). I have also seen a mask worn as a chin strap which is
legally compliant but completely useless. As someone on the "extremely
vulnerable" list, I tend to notice these things (and keep my distance
from them).

Also there is an age limit embedded in the legislation below which masks
are voluntary at best, even though young children are some of the most
prolific infection spreaders, yet also least badly affected by Covid.
What you can't judge is whether the graphs would have shown a bigger
upsurge if the adults hadn't been instructed to wear masks.

Jim

In article <XnsADDA83F7D709437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> What correlation is there between graphs which show not wearing a
> mask is as safe as wearing one? How many such graphs are you
> referring to?

Dear me.

There are masses of graphs around showing infections rates in
countries across the globe. Some folk have dug up when compulsory
mask wearing was introduced in those countries. You might reasonably
expect to see a slow down of infections within 2 or 3 weeks but I've
yet to see a graph which shows that.

YMMV.

Bob.

On 06/11/2021 12:54, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sm5so5$7pr$1@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is a little more complicated than the simple difference in size.
>> The virus that spreads originates from the lungs, and the virus
>> isn't expelled alone, it is embedded in moisture droplets also
>> exhaled (try breathing out onto cold glass and see how much
>> condensation there is).
>>
>> I have no idea how many microns the typical exhaled moisture
>> droplet is, but it will be a lot bigger than 0.12 microns. I am
>> guessing that it is bigger than 10 microns, or the surgical masks
>> would have a tighter specification.
>>
>> Also despite the experiment with smoke, a fair amount of exhaled
>> air does go through the mask and masks do get damp as a result.
>> That dampness also contains the virus if the mask is worn by an
>> infected person. The air that escapes from the sides of the mask
>> may also contain the virus, but the direction is away from the
>> person you are talking to so they are unlikely to breath it in. It
>> doesn't protect others in crowded places but it does offer some
>> protection in more normal human interactions. Hence the "Your
>> mask protects me; my mask protects you" message. It is partially
>> true. Any moisture droplet small enough to escape the other
>> person's mask is potentially able to penetrate yours too, but
>> because it has already gone through the originator's mask its
>> velocity has reduced and you might not breathe it in. That is what
>> the 2 metre space takes advantage of.
>>
>> If you treat the advice as sensible rather than foolproof, it isn't
>> as ridiculous as it first appears.

A pretty good summary, I would precis and/or add to the above as:

* Exhalation droplets are in a spectrum of sizes from visible droplets
that fall to the ground fairly quickly through to aerosols that can
travel some distance on the air.

* The larger the droplet, the more virus particles are likely to be
contained within it.

* Larger droplets have more momentum which tends to carry them into
fabric of the mask, and therefore are the ones most likely to be
contained by it, while small enough aerosols can escape around the
edges. Nevertheless experiments linked below have shown that even a
thin cotton handkerchief is significantly better than nothing; it was
the worst thing tested, but still caught around a quarter of the load.

* They need to be worn properly, and probably 10% of the people you see
walking around with them on are not doing so, their nose or mouth is
exposed, there is too much gap along the sides of the nose, etc. Also,
the mask itself needs to be of a close woven material, so wool is a poor
material to use, denim better.

See the links below ...

> I can see your argument which on the face of it is reasonable and
> logical if a little theoretical. Worth baring in mind even if I'm
> still mask sceptical. > I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.

As has been well explained above, you wear a mask to protect me, I wear
a mask to protect you. Relatives have just returned from France, and
remarked how much safer they felt there, because everyone was wearing
masks properly, keeping safe distances from each other, etc, as opposed
the lackadaisical shambles in UK public spaces.

This first video is a convincing watch, and the other links worth reading:

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/

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <sm5v56$oi3$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 06/11/2021 12:54, Bob Latham wrote:

> > I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
> > graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> > following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> > of correlation.
> >
> > Bob.
> >

> There is quite a difference between wearing a mask, and wearing a
> mask *correctly*. How many people have you seen wearing a mask
> over their mouth bit leaving their nose uncovered (because it is
> easier to breathe like that!). I have also seen a mask worn as a
> chin strap which is legally compliant but completely useless.

I have seen those things yes but for the most part as a convenience
between environments. Folks coming out of supermarkets do it and
people prepare to go into buildings before they reach them in that
sort of way. Generally, at the time they were compulsory, people
adjusted them to fit correctly as they entered a building. Obviously
I'm not saying it never happens in the wrong places but I don't
recall seeing much of it.

> As someone on the "extremely vulnerable" list,

I'm sorry about that.

> I tend to notice these things (and keep my distance from them).

Yes, I can understand why, I hope your policy is successful for you.

> Also there is an age limit embedded in the legislation below which
> masks are voluntary at best, even though young children are some
> of the most prolific infection spreaders, yet also least badly
> affected by Covid.

True but I can't support imposing this horror on little children, I
just can't.

> What you can't judge is whether the graphs would have shown a
> bigger upsurge if the adults hadn't been instructed to wear masks.

Oh that's naughty playing that card, tut tut.

By omission, you seem to be tacitly admitting that no obvious drop in
infections happens with compulsory mask wearing.

Bob.

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5987194b36bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <sm49mk$a8h$1@dont-email.me>,
> Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>
>> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really
>> hasn't fulfilled its remit very well;
>
> That's a debatable point. MSM are now talking about "Gain of
> Function" research on viruses being done at Wuhan paid for by EU and
> US.

Certainly it made no significant impact on all-cause mortality figures
in the UK during 2020. Same story in every other country I've looked at.

Fewer deaths per 100k in the UK than there were in the year 2008.
Slightly worse figures than in 2019 but we know why -
distorted medical policies and collateral effects of lockdown.

>
> It could be argued that all the virus had to do was start the ball
> rolling.

I would argue that the *perception* of a deadly virus started a 'ball
of fear' rolling. Think back to those pictures of people in China
pretending to drop dead on the pavements - they look a bit ridiculous
now don't they.

>
>> the virus was so weak that they had to introduce medical
>> malpractice,
>
> I wouldn't put it quite that strongly.

There was medical malpractice - thousands of NHS patients with learning
difficulties, mental health problems, disabilities, and/or 'OAP' status,
were euthenised.

The government stockpiled large quantities of Midazolam drug and these
patients were discharged into care homes and given lethal doses. There
is a paper trail and other evidence.

It was done in March/April 2020 under the guise of a "population triage"
to free up the hospital beds for a coming wave of younger/fitter covid
patients (based on Ferguson's bogus predictions) which of course never
materialised.

Here is a short clip of Dr Mike Yeadon talking about it with Reiner
Fuellmich:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KIu0XdQDf46w/
at 1m10s. (bad audio - sorry)

The same horror scenario happened in other countries at the same time,
although different drugs were used to kill them.

In addition to the above, there is the matter of covid treatment
protocol - lethal doses of remdesivir (a drug for which there is
no evidence of efficacy in treating the alleged virus) are routinely
given after a positive PCR test - this invariably results in
multiple organ failure, which in turn causes fluid to accumulate
on the lungs. Doctors then label this "covid pneumonia" and put
the patient on a ventilator which, as you probably know from your
own research, is a death sentence.

US hospitals receive government payouts each time a "covid"
patient dies on a ventilator - nice little incentive there.

If you watch the Funeral Director video I linked to in another
post, he states that he has collected many patients who have
died as a result of this.

[Snipped lots as we are largely in agreement on most points.]

>> They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
>> well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the
>> infection with minimal fuss.
>
> Certainly there were drugs long used for other reasons that doctors
> in the US claimed helped for covid. In itself, that's just a claim
> but then those drugs suddenly got banned as dangerous in many
> countries around the world it then looks very suspicious to say the
> least.

Dr Zelenko (who has treated the US President and other world leaders)
has given evidence to an Israeli Rabbinical Court to that effect.
Video here if it's of interest:
https://rumble.com/vkrdx6-dr.-zelenko-speaks-to-a-rabbinical-court-in-jerusalem.html

[I agree with your take on the masks also.]

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 06/11/2021 12:54, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
>> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
>> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
>> of correlation.
>>
>> Bob.
>>
>
> There is quite a difference between wearing a mask, and wearing a mask
> *correctly*. How many people have you seen wearing a mask over their
> mouth bit leaving their nose uncovered (because it is easier to breathe
> like that!). I have also seen a mask worn as a chin strap which is
> legally compliant but completely useless. As someone on the "extremely
> vulnerable" list, I tend to notice these things (and keep my distance
> from them).
>
> Also there is an age limit embedded in the legislation below which masks
> are voluntary at best, even though young children are some of the most
> prolific infection spreaders, yet also least badly affected by Covid.
> What you can't judge is whether the graphs would have shown a bigger
> upsurge if the adults hadn't been instructed to wear masks.
>
> Jim
>

If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
like a stone to almost nothing.

On 06/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> True but I can't support imposing this horror on little children, I
> just can't.

Oh! FFS! Stop using emotional blackmail instead of argument. Children
are more adaptable than adults, and can more easily adjust to such
requirements, especially if it is explained to them that it will help
keep granny and grandad alive.

>> What you can't judge is whether the graphs would have shown a
>> bigger upsurge if the adults hadn't been instructed to wear masks.
>
> By omission, you seem to be tacitly admitting that no obvious drop in
> infections happens with compulsory mask wearing.

No, he stating that the real world is not a lab experiment where you can
vary one factor of interest while keeping constant all the other factors
that might skew the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn
from the results of varying the one factor the are valid.

You may be surprised to discover that there have been no experiments
done on whether washing your hands after going to the toilet is a good
thing, because it wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet
most of us accept that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a
good thing and do it without complaint. The situation with masks is
similar.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 06/11/2021 13:47, Tweed wrote:
>
> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
> the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
> FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
> like a stone to almost nothing.

Any useful links you could give?

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/11/2021 13:47, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
>> the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
>> FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
>> like a stone to almost nothing.
>
> Any useful links you could give?
>

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1663

https://www.medisave.co.uk/ffp3-face-mask-x20.html

We’ve been using the masks throughout. My wife works in a public facing
professional occupation and has avoided the plague, unlike many of her
colleagues. We refuse the masks by quarantining them in a bag in a warm
room for a week. Once they’ve had roughly 8 hours total use they get
binned.

Germany hands out FFP2 masks on prescription to their over 60s. (I think
that’s the correct age though stand to be corrected.) You’ll note Frau
Merkel wears one.

Forget all the stuff about protecting others with poor masks - wear a
decent one and protect yourself.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2021 13:47, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
>>> the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
>>> FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
>>> like a stone to almost nothing.
>>
>> Any useful links you could give?
>>
>
> https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1663
>
> https://www.medisave.co.uk/ffp3-face-mask-x20.html
>
> We’ve been using the masks throughout. My wife works in a public facing
> professional occupation and has avoided the plague, unlike many of her
> colleagues. We refuse the masks by quarantining them in a bag in a warm
> room for a week. Once they’ve had roughly 8 hours total use they get
> binned.
>
> Germany hands out FFP2 masks on prescription to their over 60s. (I think
> that’s the correct age though stand to be corrected.) You’ll note Frau
> Merkel wears one.
>
> Forget all the stuff about protecting others with poor masks - wear a
> decent one and protect yourself.
>
>

should read reuse the masks

On 13:09 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsADDA83F7D709437B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What correlation is there between graphs which show not wearing a
>> mask is as safe as wearing one? How many such graphs are you
>> referring to?
>
> Dear me.
>
> There are masses of graphs around showing infections rates in
> countries across the globe. Some folk have dug up when compulsory
> mask wearing was introduced in those countries. You might reasonably
> expect to see a slow down of infections within 2 or 3 weeks but I've
> yet to see a graph which shows that.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Bob.

Can you provide links to those graphs or studies you say which show not
wearing a mask is as safe a wearing one.

How well do all such studies correlate?