Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if youre wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his
comments both in an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on Sunday.

The professor, head of his universitys Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, €œsaid Faucis recommendation to wear
two masks at once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,€� The College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholms
WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/

On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:07:47 PM UTC-5, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if youre wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his
comments both in an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on Sunday.

The professor, head of his universitys Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, €œsaid Faucis recommendation to wear
two masks at once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,€� The College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholms
WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/

Putting "university" at the beginning of your subject line means nothing.

Osterholm has a PhD in environmental health, and a MPH in epidemiology,
all from the University of Minnesota.

That said, his resume overall is quite impressive.

Experts can legitimately disagree. I wouldn't necessarily take this guy's
expertise over Fauci's.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2/1/2021 5:07 PM, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if you’re wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his comments both in
an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on
Sunday.

The professor, head of his university’s Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, “said Fauci’s recommendation to wear two masks at
once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,” The
College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholm’s WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/


Citing The New American as a reference source is problematic if you're
trying to influence the entire political spectrum of potential readers.
See:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/

On 2/2/2021 6:22 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/1/2021 5:07 PM, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if you’re wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his comments both
in an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press
on Sunday.

The professor, head of his university’s Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, “said Fauci’s recommendation to wear two masks at
once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,” The
College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholm’s WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/


Citing The New American as a reference source is problematic if you're
trying to influence the entire political spectrum of potential readers.
*See:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/



"Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story selection
that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to
rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques."

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:22:54 -0500, Retirednoguilt
wrote:

On 2/1/2021 5:07 PM, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if you’re wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his comments both in
an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on
Sunday.

The professor, head of his university’s Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, “said Fauci’s recommendation to wear two masks at
once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,” The
College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholm’s WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/


Citing The New American as a reference source is problematic if you're
trying to influence the entire political spectrum of potential readers.
See:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/

Hmmm, "Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story
selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting
due to rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques."

But why would I want to read anything that might disagree with what I
already think? I read for pleasure and that's not pleasure.

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:22:54 -0500, Retirednoguilt
wrote:

On 2/1/2021 5:07 PM, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if youre wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his comments both in
an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on
Sunday.

The professor, head of his universitys Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, €œsaid Faucis recommendation to wear two masks at
once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,€� The
College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholms WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/


Citing The New American as a reference source is problematic if you're
trying to influence the entire political spectrum of potential readers.
See:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
Hmmm, "Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story
selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting
due to rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques."
But why would I want to read anything that might disagree with what I
already think? I read for pleasure and that's not pleasure.

It takes most kinds. I enjoy reading George Will, even though I often disagree
with what he thinks.

Cindy Hamilton

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:57:39 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:22:54 -0500, Retirednoguilt
wrote:

On 2/1/2021 5:07 PM, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if you’re wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his comments both in
an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on
Sunday.

The professor, head of his university’s Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, “said Fauci’s recommendation to wear two masks at
once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,” The
College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholm’s WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/


Citing The New American as a reference source is problematic if you're
trying to influence the entire political spectrum of potential readers.
See:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
Hmmm, "Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story
selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting
due to rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques."
But why would I want to read anything that might disagree with what I
already think? I read for pleasure and that's not pleasure.

It takes most kinds. I enjoy reading George Will, even though I often disagree
with what he thinks.

Cindy Hamilton

FWIW, I was sarcastically representing a right-winger.

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:57:39 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:22:54 -0500, Retirednoguilt
wrote:

On 2/1/2021 5:07 PM, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if youre wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his comments both in
an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on
Sunday.

The professor, head of his universitys Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, €œsaid Faucis recommendation to wear two masks at
once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,€� The
College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholms WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/


Citing The New American as a reference source is problematic if you're
trying to influence the entire political spectrum of potential readers.
See:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
Hmmm, "Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story
selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting
due to rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques.."
But why would I want to read anything that might disagree with what I
already think? I read for pleasure and that's not pleasure.

It takes most kinds. I enjoy reading George Will, even though I often disagree
with what he thinks.

Cindy Hamilton
FWIW, I was sarcastically representing a right-winger.

Sarcasm is so difficult to convey on Usenet. I can't find the quote right
now, but it went something like this: "Any position, however extreme or
ridiculous, can find an adherent on Usenet."

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 6:43:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:07:47 PM UTC-5, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if youre wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his
comments both in an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on Sunday.

The professor, head of his universitys Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, €œsaid Faucis recommendation to wear
two masks at once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,€� The College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholms
WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/
Putting "university" at the beginning of your subject line means nothing.

Osterholm has a PhD in environmental health, and a MPH in epidemiology,
all from the University of Minnesota.

That said, his resume overall is quite impressive.

Experts can legitimately disagree. I wouldn't necessarily take this guy's
expertise over Fauci's.

Cindy Hamilton

I saw this guy on Meet the Depressed Sunday. He's been on there many times.
I was surprised how doom and gloom he was this time on what he claims is
coming. He says we are in for a huge surge, the worst is yet to come, due to
the new variants. Seemed to me he was going way out on a limb with that
prediction, especially when the curve is down about 40% from where it was just
a few weeks ago. Seems to me that if we didn't hit epic disaster last month,
there is a decent chance that we have hit the peak and it;s not going to get
worse than that. But we'll see. And dr. O wasn't saying that we might be
headed for the worst part, he said it's a certainty.

On 2/3/2021 8:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 6:43:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:07:47 PM UTC-5, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if you’re wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his
comments both in an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on Sunday.

The professor, head of his university’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, “said Fauci’s recommendation to wear
two masks at once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,” The College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholm’s
WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/
Putting "university" at the beginning of your subject line means nothing.

Osterholm has a PhD in environmental health, and a MPH in epidemiology,
all from the University of Minnesota.

That said, his resume overall is quite impressive.

Experts can legitimately disagree. I wouldn't necessarily take this guy's
expertise over Fauci's.

Cindy Hamilton

I saw this guy on Meet the Depressed Sunday. He's been on there many times.
I was surprised how doom and gloom he was this time on what he claims is
coming. He says we are in for a huge surge, the worst is yet to come, due to
the new variants. Seemed to me he was going way out on a limb with that
prediction, especially when the curve is down about 40% from where it was just
a few weeks ago. Seems to me that if we didn't hit epic disaster last month,
there is a decent chance that we have hit the peak and it;s not going to get
worse than that. But we'll see. And dr. O wasn't saying that we might be
headed for the worst part, he said it's a certainty.




The "doom and gloom" has been echoed recently by other infectious
disease and public health experts. The basis for their concern is that
so far in this pandemic, the U.S. experience has usually mirrored the
U.K. experience but a number of weeks to months later. Current thinking
is that the recent U.S. surge was directly related to year-end holiday
travel and celebrations with many people gathering closely who didn't
live in the same immediate household. U.S. numbers are now back down to
approx. their pre-Thanksgiving level.

The U.K. medical care system is overwhelmed right now due to the new
U.K. variant of the Covid virus, which is much more contagious than the
initial variant. U.S. infectious disease and public health experts
predict that the U.K. variant, which is already circulating in the U.S.
will become the predominant variant in the U.S. by mid-March and that
the U.S. number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths will all
skyrocket unless our population is more compliant with masking, social
distancing, hand-washing, and participation in the vaccination program.
There is concern about this coming weekend (the Superbowl) spawning
multiple super-spreader events. Considering both the Superbowl and the
growing penetration of the U.K. variant in the U.S. population, there is
great concern about a renewed surge that could be even worse than the
one we just endured.

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they are
the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their older
friends, co-workers, and relatives.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 6:43:30 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:07:47 PM UTC-5, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently
recommended?

Not if youre wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his
comments both in an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on
Meet the Press on Sunday.

The professor, head of his universitys Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, €œsaid Faucis recommendation to wear
two masks at once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological
sense,€� The College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholms
WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/
Putting "university" at the beginning of your subject line means nothing.

Osterholm has a PhD in environmental health, and a MPH in epidemiology,
all from the University of Minnesota.

That said, his resume overall is quite impressive.

Experts can legitimately disagree. I wouldn't necessarily take this guy's
expertise over Fauci's.

Cindy Hamilton

I saw this guy on Meet the Depressed Sunday. He's been on there many
times.
I was surprised how doom and gloom he was this time on what he claims is
coming. He says we are in for a huge surge, the worst is yet to come,
due to
the new variants. Seemed to me he was going way out on a limb with that
prediction, especially when the curve is down about 40% from where it was
just
a few weeks ago. Seems to me that if we didn't hit epic disaster last
month,
there is a decent chance that we have hit the peak and it;s not going to
get
worse than that.

The problem with that line is that there isnt
much of the new worse strains in the USA yet.

But we'll see. And dr. O wasn't saying that we might
be headed for the worst part, he said it's a certainty.

Then he is a fool given the vaccination rate.

On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 04:49:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:19:34 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:57:39 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:22:54 -0500, Retirednoguilt
wrote:

On 2/1/2021 5:07 PM, apollo wrote:
Should you wear two masks, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently recommended?

Not if you’re wise, says an infectious disease expert.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of
Minnesota and a Biden transition team advisor, made his comments both in
an interview with WCCO Radio last week and also on Meet the Press on
Sunday.

The professor, head of his university’s Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy, “said Fauci’s recommendation to wear two masks at
once to stop viral infections made no epidemiological sense,” The
College Fix, writes, reporting on Osterholm’s WCCO appearance.


https://thenewamerican.com/universit...ouble-masking/


Citing The New American as a reference source is problematic if you're
trying to influence the entire political spectrum of potential readers.
See:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
Hmmm, "Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story
selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting
due to rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques."
But why would I want to read anything that might disagree with what I
already think? I read for pleasure and that's not pleasure.

It takes most kinds. I enjoy reading George Will, even though I often disagree
with what he thinks.

Cindy Hamilton
FWIW, I was sarcastically representing a right-winger.

Sarcasm is so difficult to convey on Usenet.

True. Some people point out their sarcasm at the time. I apologize,
but I think that ruins it.

I can't find the quote right
now, but it went something like this: "Any position, however extreme or
ridiculous, can find an adherent on Usenet."

That's true. Or in Congress.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they are
the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their older
friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.
--
Maggie

On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they are
the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their older
friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They probably feel
that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal outcomes
than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they are the group
most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their older friends,
co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 05:34:38 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 2/4/2021 12:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they
are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their
older friends, co-workers, and relatives.


There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.


Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.


Who have you prevented from catching a virus?

--
Maggie

On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they
are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their
older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person from
catching a virus?

--
Maggie

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/4/2021 12:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they are
the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their older
friends, co-workers, and relatives.


There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.


Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.


Who have you prevented from catching a virus?

My kids, because they were vaccinated, stupid.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they are
the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their older
friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person from
catching a virus?

All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.

On 2/4/2021 7:00 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 12:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they
are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their
older friends, co-workers, and relatives.


There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.


Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.


Who have you prevented from catching a virus?


Many. When I have a contagious virus I stay home and do not infect
others. Pretty simple concept has been around for years. Precautions
help. Distance, masks, etc.

Probably your mother told you not to cough or sneeze on others. That is
a start.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 11:37:25 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

My kids, because they were vaccinated, stupid.

Those imaginary "kids" who refuse to contact and talk to you, you lonely
sleepless senile cantankerous cretin? LMAO

--
Marland addressing senile Rodent's tall stories:
"Do you really think people believe your stories you come up with to boost
your self esteem."
Message-ID:

On 2/4/2021 6:37 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience serious
or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate
that they are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case
to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.


There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.


Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.


Who have you prevented from catching a virus?


My kids, because they were vaccinated, stupid.


How do you know the vaccine has no side effects that will endanger them?

--
Maggie

On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience serious
or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate
that they are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case
to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person from
catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again. These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.

--
Maggie

On 2/4/2021 7:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2021 7:00 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 12:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience serious
or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate
that they are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case
to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.


There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.


Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.


Who have you prevented from catching a virus?


Many.* When I have a contagious virus I stay home and do not infect
others.* Pretty simple concept has been around for years.* Precautions
help. Distance, masks, etc.

How does you staying home prevent anyone from catching a virus? You
could have spread it before you knew you were sick. Isn't that one
argument in favor of masks?


Probably your mother told you not to cough or sneeze on others.* That is
a start.


Not coughing or sneezing on others doesn't prevent one person from
getting sick. Those people around you are still exposed.

--
Maggie

On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible
for spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience serious
or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate
that they are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal
case to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person
from catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again.** These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.

I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test. Its not like they got a
free pass after 10 people.

This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and no
safety concerns have been raised.

On 2/5/2021 12:10 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible
for spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience
serious or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to
appreciate that they are the group most likely to give a serious
or fatal case to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person
from catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again.** These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.


I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test.* Its not like they got a
free pass after 10 people.

If it's a 'pretty good test' to give an unvetted vaccine with unknown
side effects to the general population, then why aren't other vaccines
produced with testing done on the general population?


This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and no
safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.

--
Maggie

On 05/02/2021 18:38, Muggles wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:10 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible
for spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience
serious or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to
appreciate that they are the group most likely to give a serious
or fatal case to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person
from catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again.** These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.


I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test.* Its not like they got
a free pass after 10 people.

If it's a 'pretty good test' to give an unvetted vaccine with unknown
side effects to the general population, then why aren't other vaccines
produced with testing done on the general population?


This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and no
safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.

Correct "and NO safety concerns have been raised"

On 2/5/2021 12:40 PM, Bod wrote:
On 05/02/2021 18:38, Muggles wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:10 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible
for spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience
serious or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to
appreciate that they are the group most likely to give a
serious or fatal case to their older friends, co-workers, and
relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person
from catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again.** These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.


I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test.* Its not like they got
a free pass after 10 people.

If it's a 'pretty good test' to give an unvetted vaccine with unknown
side effects to the general population, then why aren't other vaccines
produced with testing done on the general population?


This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and
no safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.

Correct "and NO safety concerns have been raised"

HAHAHA! Thousands of people have safety concerns!

--
Maggie

On 05/02/2021 18:40, Muggles wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:40 PM, Bod wrote:
On 05/02/2021 18:38, Muggles wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:10 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most
responsible for spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old
cohort.* They probably feel that they are much less likely to
experience serious or fatal outcomes than those older (true),
but fail to appreciate that they are the group most likely to
give a serious or fatal case to their older friends,
co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person
from catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again.** These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.


I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test.* Its not like they
got a free pass after 10 people.

If it's a 'pretty good test' to give an unvetted vaccine with unknown
side effects to the general population, then why aren't other
vaccines produced with testing done on the general population?


This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and
no safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.

Correct "and NO safety concerns have been raised"

HAHAHA! Thousands of people have safety concerns!

There's no reasoning with you.

On 2/5/2021 1:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:10 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible
for spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort.* They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience
serious or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to
appreciate that they are the group most likely to give a serious
or fatal case to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person
from catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again.** These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.


I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test.* Its not like they got
a free pass after 10 people.

If it's a 'pretty good test' to give an unvetted vaccine with unknown
side effects to the general population, then why aren't other vaccines
produced with testing done on the general population?


This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and no
safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.


True, but it proved they work with minimal side effects. What else do
you want them to do?

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/4/2021 6:37 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they
are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their
older friends, co-workers, and relatives.


There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.


Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.


Who have you prevented from catching a virus?


My kids, because they were vaccinated, stupid.


How do you know the vaccine has no side effects that will endanger them?

Because billions have been vaccinated and there have been no side
effects that have endangered anyone with the vaccinations they got.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they
are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their
older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person from
catching a virus?

All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate their kids so
they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

Those vaccines were TESTED

So have the vaccines for this virus.

and thoroughly vetted,

So have the vaccines for this virus.

which includes learning the major side effects, too.

So have the vaccines for this virus.

These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.

Another bare faced lie. Its being tested with tens of
millions already having been vaccinated now too.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/4/2021 7:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2021 7:00 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 12:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 04/02/2021 17:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They probably
feel that they are much less likely to experience serious or fatal
outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate that they
are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case to their
older friends, co-workers, and relatives.


There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.


Quite frankly, Muggles, you say ridiculous things.


Who have you prevented from catching a virus?


Many. When I have a contagious virus I stay home and do not infect
others. Pretty simple concept has been around for years. Precautions
help. Distance, masks, etc.

How does you staying home prevent anyone from catching a virus?

By ensuring that you don’t get infected and so cant infect anyone else.

You could have spread it before you knew you were sick.

Not if you stay home you cant.

Isn't that one argument in favor of masks?

They are always worse than staying home, stupid.

Probably your mother told you not to cough or sneeze on others. That is
a start.

Bet he mother was too stupid for that.

Not coughing or sneezing on others doesn't prevent one person from getting
sick.

It does drastically reduce the risk of that.

Those people around you are still exposed.

But much less.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/5/2021 12:10 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible for
spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience serious
or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to appreciate
that they are the group most likely to give a serious or fatal case
to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person from
catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again. These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.


I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test. Its not like they got a
free pass after 10 people.

If it's a 'pretty good test' to give an unvetted vaccine

It isnt unvetted, that’s the vetting, ****wit.

with unknown side effects

The side effects are know because of that vetting, ****wit.

to the general population, then why aren't other vaccines produced with
testing done on the general population?

That hasn’t happened with these vaccines, ****wit.


This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and no
safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.

That’s what any vetting is, ****wit.

They are ALL volunteers.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/5/2021 12:40 PM, Bod wrote:
On 05/02/2021 18:38, Muggles wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:10 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 6:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2021 12:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2021 11:23 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

Recent epidemiologic data shows that the group most responsible
for spread of the infection is the 20-49 year old cohort. They
probably feel that they are much less likely to experience
serious or fatal outcomes than those older (true), but fail to
appreciate that they are the group most likely to give a serious
or fatal case to their older friends, co-workers, and relatives.

There's no way to stop or prevent anyone from catching a virus.

Must be why we didn’t stamp out smallpox, polio and
drastically controlled influenza, measles, mumps etc etc etc.

So, provide the evidence that one person prevented another person
from catching a virus?


All those parents who had enough of a clue to vaccinate
their kids so they didn’t get smallpox, polio, influenza,
measles, mumps etc etc etc.



Those vaccines were TESTED and thoroughly vetted, which includes
learning the major side effects, too.

Try again. These vaccines have NOT been thoroughly tested.


I'd think 43,000 people is a pretty good test. Its not like they got a
free pass after 10 people.

If it's a 'pretty good test' to give an unvetted vaccine with unknown
side effects to the general population, then why aren't other vaccines
produced with testing done on the general population?


This is just one company
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and no
safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.

Correct "and NO safety concerns have been raised"

HAHAHA! Thousands of people have safety concerns!

Only the fools like you.

That quote means that no safety issues were OBSERVED.

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 09:02:53 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 09:55:24 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

Get the **** out of ngs meant for humans only, you subnormal senile trolling
piece of ****!

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 2/5/2021 12:45 PM, Bod wrote:
On 05/02/2021 18:40, Muggles wrote:
On 2/5/2021 12:40 PM, Bod wrote:

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and
no safety concerns have been raised.

Thats 43K+ guinea pigs.

Correct "and NO safety concerns have been raised"

HAHAHA! Thousands of people have safety concerns!


There's no reasoning with you.

You think reasoning means I suddenly agree with you. Silly man.


--
Maggie