It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: underwerks
Wearing a yellow star didn't hurt anyone, right?
It was a minor inconvenience for the safety of everyone.
Before you know the government will be demanding everyone is forcibly exposed to diseases to "build immunity".
But they already do that with vaccinations.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Brotherman
Its ok if your kid pee's in the pool cause the other guys kids are protected by bathing suits.
Did you actually just compare breathing to urinating?
I'm... speechless...
TheRedneck
Calm down bro I was just making a bit of a joke
Why didn't that city council limit attendance if they were so concerned about people?
Why didn't that city council hold an online meeting allowing the public to speak if they were so concerned about people?
Why didn't that city council hold the meeting at an alternate venue if they were so concerned about people?
Because they didn't want to listen to the people,
originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: underwerks
Wait, what?!?!
You believe there’s a virus out there and it’s sooper deadly and we need to use masks and social distancing to protect ourselves from a 99.96% survival rate?
Save some kool aid for the other morons
It would be one thing if the anti-mask people were only putting themselves in danger but that is not the case here.
They have no right to do public harm (i.e. spreading infection in the community). Therein lies the difference.
Arson is a crime because it hurts the community at large. Going without a mask hurts the community at large.
Just because people are ignorant of the facts is no excuse for trampling the rights of others.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: American-philosopher
It would be one thing if the anti-mask people were only putting themselves in danger but that is not the case here.
They have no right to do public harm (i.e. spreading infection in the community). Therein lies the difference.
Arson is a crime because it hurts the community at large. Going without a mask hurts the community at large.
Just because people are ignorant of the facts is no excuse for trampling the rights of others.
Wearing masks is not about keeping the wearer safe, it's about keeping everyone around the wearer safe. If everyone wears a mask in public and at work and at parties, the infection rates would plummet.
“What you want is 100 percent of people to wear masks, but you’ll settle for 80 percent,” said Rutherford. In one simulation, researchers predicted that 80 percent of the population wearing masks would do more to reduce COVID-19 spread than a strict lockdown.
The latest forecast from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that 33,000 deaths could be avoided by October 1 if 95 percent of people wore masks in public.
Even if you live in a community where few people wear masks, you would still reduce your own chances of catching the virus by wearing one, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford.
From University of California San Francisco, a medical sciences only university so few know of it.
www.ucsf.edu...