I told you.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

33 minutes ago, A.steve said:

face-bra

Really. Is that what you're calling it now? Is it because you equate someone who wears a bra as somehow submissive? Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

Edited August 21, 2020 by MonsieurCopperCrutch

[Noledud]

My take on masks - they don’t do much good in stopping the spread of the virus directly but its an awesome reminder that it’s not gone away and you best wash you hands when you get home. So in fact I bet it stops a shed load of transmission.

[Tapori]

On 19/08/2020 at 23:35, A.steve said:

What would it take for you to wear a Gestapo uniform?

Would you relish helping people make efficient use of the trains to get them to their allocated concentraion camps... or is that something you would only do because you were told to do it by someone with an air of authority?  Is it acceptable to do something if you're told to do so by someone you perceive as having higher status than yourself?

The Milgram Experiment demonstrated that a lot of people blindly accept instructions from those with only the most tenuous claim to authority. The Stamford Prison Experiment, showed that a significant proportion of people relish the sadistic abuse of power when opportunity arises. I think these concepts have a lot more to do with the discussion than the 'of-the-moment' (counter to all past medical and scientific advice) idea that wearing masks (surgeons - while performing invasive surgery aside - of course) provides positive public health benefits.

Perhaps you might ponder: is it more appropriate to demonzie those who don't wear masks as selfish... or to accept that these individials have a strength of conviction and character that allows them to stand against absurd and damaging authoritarian abuses?

Do you see collective wisdom, or the madness of crowds?  What makes you sure you have a better grasp of the situation than the people who are not doing what you expected them to do?  When you meet such people, have you asked them about their choices - or were you socially isolated becaue, behind your mask, you can't effectively engage with strangers?  What sort of mask are you really wearing?  Does conforming aleviate or cause your anxieties?

 

Again, let me ask you, what would it take for you to be logically convinced enough to wear a mask?

All your other points, though valid in certain contexts, is not what I asked.

What would it take for you to wear a Gestapo uniform?

Damn those East Asian Gestapo Uniform wearers...

[Tapori]

On 20/08/2020 at 08:40, Staffsknot said:

Steve do you wear a seatbelt or is it a conformist plot to restrict your movement? If you don't wear it you get a fine.

The reason it is imposed is not just for your safety ( airbag may do that) but safety of others - rear passenger impacting front passenger and fire crews having to recover people from bizarre locations when you exit the vehicle and end up 6ft in a pine tree.

The mask is no different to a seatbelt.

Also dentists are not always engaged in 'invasive procedures' when they are wearing a mask - often just looking in your mouth with a mirror. They wear them as they are in close proximity to others.

I have worn a particle mask inside motorcycle helmets or on cycle due to the amount of car fumes on a city run too. Loads do and it is not a chore.

Last question what exactly do you lose by wearing a mask in a shop or enclosed environment? If you see someone you know you can chat outside no mask if hearing is an issue.

It's not hard I have a friend who could be exempt due to real breathing issue, but they choose to wear it anyway as it (in their professional opinion as nurse trainer) does provide benefits and reassures others. Is it really such a travesty if it makes life a bit better for others?

If you choose to not abide by shop or pub rules then don't be surprised if they refuse to serve. You are free to take custom elsewhere but would you rather buy from somewhere that values customer safety hygene or convenience?

 

Ah yes, the annual

"Do what you Feel"

Festival leads to incredible results

 

 

[A.steve]

11 hours ago, Tapori said:

Again, let me ask you, what would it take for you to be logically convinced enough to wear a mask?

It would take a coherent, reasonable, sensible and constrained justification that was proportionate to the genuine risks.

For example, I could easily be convinced to wear a surgical mask if I was about to perform a surgical operation... and I had done all the other preparations.  Of course, this is unlikely to be a scenario with which I must deal in the forseeable future... as I do not envision myself performing surgical operations.

[Staffsknot]

18 hours ago, A.steve said:

It would take a hell of a lot to have me sign up to badgering people about wearing masks - or to wear one where it is not absolutely necessary (because so doing perpetuates a pernicious abuse of authority to the serious detriment of all of society).  My reasons are broadly similar to your reasons for not wanting to wear the uniform (though I don't ask you respect my idea as a consequence of me having visited geographic locations).  I am opposed to promoting disgust. In that direction lies the change in perspective necessary for horrific atrocities.

I accept that I chose an emotive response (perhaps, if you insist, a hyperbole) to make my point - but I don't think it either irrelevant or invalid.

I don't think I'm autistic. I've certainly never been diagnosed as such.  That said, I'm aware of the argument that autism is a grey-scale rather than a label - so, in that sense, perhaps everyone - myself included - is, in some way, autistic.  I accept, but not without sadness, I probably am 'unusual'. I'm aware of many relevant social experiments... for example, the Conformity experiments by Solomon Asch. I simply can't imagine myself being swayed in the way the results suggest that 75% of the subjects were.  I've never found myself 'going with the flow' or 'taking the easy choice to avoid embarrassment'...  I can admit that I find it a little difficult to fully empathise with those who surrender their own judgement (and their own sense of right and wrong) while pursuing social approval.  I feel that it is a moral and ethical imperative to be true to yourself - to accept the consequences if you make a mistake... but to stand by your convictions if they are challenged. The alternative is to embrace cowardice... though, of course, I don't intend that as an insult... and recognise that being a coward might be in the interests of one's own health and well-being... in the short-term, at least.

(P.S. The irony of the phrase "batshit crazy" in the context of SARS-Cov-2 and its 'illegal wet market' origin story did not pass me by.  You got a wry smile from me - but you wouldn't have noticed that if you're picturing me wearing a face-bra.)

First off Steve thank you for replying.

Second the Batshit comment was intentional and a Voight-Kampf test ( Bladerunner / Philip K Dick ref) if you will. Most people would see it as general usage, some would see the irony, fewer still would comment on that it was ironic. However as my mate would you commented it was ironic, the context of the irony ( to prove understood it ) and then a sarcastic comment as I'd made you smile but we are on different sides of a debate so cannot be anything but opponents. That is the key marker I expected as was a response like his - I call the brain dumps or streams of conscious as words.

Whether you are autistic is academic to views expressed but changes how I view responses that could look tinfoil hat or trollish - like the Nazi comment which is bound to trigger folks and highly emotive. It informs how you can literally going from complying with a rule to becoming complicit in a mass murder.

I think other folks should take that onboard when replying as otherwise it just escalates - my mate literally txt'd me at 2am because I told him he'd misquoted something. He had - the txt was how language was evolving and his more grammatically correct. It was Shakespeare... the site he read it on had obviously autocorrected it.

Now back onto masks - I gave you the public toilet example and hand washing is the best expression of where we are. Your choice not to wear one impacts upon others and therefore they express the view that it's an F you to their personal safety. If that means your other personal liberties - to shop where and how you want - then that is a reaction to how that choice potentially affects others. Cause and effect if you like scientific certainties - tell the shop owner I am exercising my personal informed choice and he will exercise his and you will be buying from Amazon. Even if he or she agrees do they want their other clients going elsewhere?

As for the Gestapo leap - the thing about reading lots on the internet is you tend to attribute those facts to everything, in medical circles was called Zebra syndrome - sometimes you're actually looking at a white horse. Like Dr Google if you lookup a couple of symptoms you find a disease, you believe you have the rest right up to the point the good real Dr asks - this is only possible if you've been living in a colony of Benobos, when were you last at the zoo?

My autistic friend is very good at making such leaps - if a is true and b is true then c could be possible becomes a is true then c is a certainty regardless of anything else. He's also OCD so he's the other side of the coin atm shouting at delivery drivers and cleaning packages in the yard!

Hope this was enlightening to all and remember that standing in a queue or choosing to wear a mask is not necessarily the precursor to asking your neighbour be liquidated, if that helps you sleep a little better. Because if I'm wrong and you're not autistic then you have a distopian view and wouldn't really want to be out in the wider world anyway.

 

[Staffsknot]

3 hours ago, A.steve said:

It would take a coherent, reasonable, sensible and constrained justification that was proportionate to the genuine risks.

For example, I could easily be convinced to wear a surgical mask if I was about to perform a surgical operation... and I had done all the other preparations.  Of course, this is unlikely to be a scenario with which I must deal in the forseeable future... as I do not envision myself performing surgical operations.

Tapori - as I've said I may be wrong but I believe Steve exhibits mild autism based on responses. That is not an insult it just could explain why the social impact of his choices don't feature / harder to comprehend.

Steve a realworld justification - in Staffs we had a pub open which could neither maintain social distancing effectively, failed to take addresses properly and which individuals did as they pleased. Pub landlord charged £5 a pint to recoup his lockdown losses.

End result 22 cases of Covid, some of whom did not attend the pub and a couple unrelated to said individuals. They got it from being around where they'd been or were in some way in contact. Needed 5 days of NHS testing unit in area.

So life choices of a few impacted wider community. Likely one or two people asymptomatic or coughing spreading to those others. 

Now wearing a mask while drinking is impractical but social distancing was, but wearing one in crowds or around others not in your group likely to have lessened or stopped the spread - none of that took place and everything went Pete Tong.

Alarm was raised by folks who went to go in, saw the situation and rang police. In your world view the mask wearing new Stasi. However these people stopped wider infection and got people tested.

Pub shut, landlord in trouble and lots of people bricking it. Now imagine someone they know dies - imagine how a person who didn't go to the pub is go to the pub is feeling about those that did and infected them. A much more likely scenario than the leap you made before. That in a nutshell is why a good chunk of rational people are so intolerant of being stood in a shop, with no choice but be within 2m of someone buying some beans, who chooses not to wear a simple mask even as a token gesture.

[A.steve]

5 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

... chooses not to wear a simple mask even as a token gesture.

The question that matters is what the token gesture means.

I am also opposed to "social distancing"... in case you wondered... but I am (and always have been) entirely in favour of personal space. The distinction - in case you wondered - is that the former requires the imposition of isolation on other people - while the second merely requires respect for others' preferences.

I've posted this idea on this site once before... but it remains apt. As a teenager, I went through what I'll call 'indoctrination' by the Anglican Church.  I found it interesting, but don't think it determined my perspective.  One of the most enduring ideas that was expressed to me by the Cannon (who held sessions on a Sunday afternoon) was this (rhetorical) question and answer:

Q: If God is good and all powerful, why does God let people do bad things?

A: There is no value in doing the right thing because you must, only because you choose.

While I don't buy into the necessity of 'God' to this idea... I think it holds wisdom.  I think it illuminates something essential about the value of life... something that I feel is absent in the prevailing authoritarian climate.

I am horrified at the idea that "saving just one life" justifies any measure, no matter how draconian (as has been proposed by various prominent authority figures).  I find it abhorrent that a measure claimed to be to avoid my death could be abused to justify imposing constraints on others that undermine their pursuit of what matters to them.  If people are not free to make their own decisions about how they interact with other people... then is there a purpose to any of their lives?  What, exactly, is this "life" thing we're trying to save?  Are we trying to maximise the length of time each individual is able to eat and defacate... or is there more to living?  Should it be something more substantial that we aim for?  Shouldn't we promote actually LIVING?  That's an objective I'd find worthwhile... in fact, it's one of the few things, I think, that could ever justify any of our inevitable deaths.

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by A.steve

[satsuma]

3 minutes ago, A.steve said:

The question that matters is what the token gesture means.

I am also opposed to "social distancing"... in case you wondered... but I am (and always have been) entirely in favour of personal space. The distinction - in case you wondered - is that the former requires the imposition of isolation on other people - while the second merely requires respect for others' preferences.

I've posted this idea on this site once before... but it remains apt. As a teenager, I went through what I'll call 'indoctrination' for the Anglican Church.  I found it interesting, but don't think it determined my perspective.  One of the most enduring ideas that was expressed to me by the Cannon (who held sessions on a Sunday afternoon) was this (rhetorical) question and answer:

Q: If God is good and all powerful, why does God let people do bad things?

A: There is no value in doing the right thing because you must, only because you choose.

While I don't buy into the necessity of 'God' to this idea... I think it holds wisdom.  I think it illuminates something essential about the value of life... something that I feel is absent in the prevailing authoritarian climate.

I am horrified at the idea that "saving just one life" justifies any measure, no matter how draconian (as has been proposed by various prominent authority figures).  I find it abhorrent that a measure claimed to be to avoid my death could be abused to justify imposing constraints on others that undermine their pursuit of what matters to them.  If people are not free to make their own decisions about how they interact with other people... then is there a purpose to any of their lives?  What, exactly, is this "life" thing we're trying to save?  Are we trying to maximise the length of time each individual is able to eat and defacate... or is there more to living?  Should it be something more substantial that we aim for?  Shouldn't we promote actually LIVING?  That's an objective I'd find worthwhile... in fact, it's one of the few things, I think, that could ever justify any of our inevitable deaths.

 

Your confusing theology with science, it’s like wearing a seatbelt, god helps those who help themselves 

[A.steve]

Just now, satsuma said:

Your confusing theology with science, it’s like wearing a seatbelt, god helps those who help themselves 

I don't think I am.  I recognise that theology allows us to express philosophical ideas that are independent of "science".

I also object to the abuse of the word "science" here.  The value of the scientific method is without doubt... but we need to be aware of the prevelance of pseudo-science.  We need to avoid the assumption that any proposition dressed in the garb of "science" is necessarily scientifically justified.

I've already explained why it is not like wearing a seatbelt.

[satsuma]

11 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I don't think I am.  I recognise that theology allows us to express philosophical ideas that are independent of "science".

I also object to the abuse of the word "science" here.  The value of the scientific method is without doubt... but we need to be aware of the prevelance of pseudo-science.  We need to avoid the assumption that any proposition dressed in the garb of "science" is necessarily scientifically justified.

I've already explained why it is not like wearing a seatbelt.

Your taking social distancing as a philosophy and an imposed requirement and it’s not, it’s based on science, not pseudo science

[A.steve]

10 minutes ago, satsuma said:

Your taking social distancing as a philosophy and an imposed requirement and it’s not, it’s based on science, not pseudo science

Pseudo science is based on science.

[satsuma]

47 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Pseudo science is based on science.

The two are not the same but related, much like cargo cults where islanders pray to a bad carving of the aero planes they see flying over, the carving is based on the magnificent technological marvel overhead.  However the carving will never fly due to immutable laws, much like COVID will be passed to and between those not wearing masks due to immutable laws. 

Edited August 23, 2020 by satsuma

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

The question that matters is what the token gesture means.

I am also opposed to "social distancing"... in case you wondered... but I am (and always have been) entirely in favour of personal space. The distinction - in case you wondered - is that the former requires the imposition of isolation on other people - while the second merely requires respect for others' preferences.

I've posted this idea on this site once before... but it remains apt. As a teenager, I went through what I'll call 'indoctrination' by the Anglican Church.  I found it interesting, but don't think it determined my perspective.  One of the most enduring ideas that was expressed to me by the Cannon (who held sessions on a Sunday afternoon) was this (rhetorical) question and answer:

Q: If God is good and all powerful, why does God let people do bad things?

A: There is no value in doing the right thing because you must, only because you choose.

While I don't buy into the necessity of 'God' to this idea... I think it holds wisdom.  I think it illuminates something essential about the value of life... something that I feel is absent in the prevailing authoritarian climate.

I am horrified at the idea that "saving just one life" justifies any measure, no matter how draconian (as has been proposed by various prominent authority figures).  I find it abhorrent that a measure claimed to be to avoid my death could be abused to justify imposing constraints on others that undermine their pursuit of what matters to them.  If people are not free to make their own decisions about how they interact with other people... then is there a purpose to any of their lives?  What, exactly, is this "life" thing we're trying to save?  Are we trying to maximise the length of time each individual is able to eat and defacate... or is there more to living?  Should it be something more substantial that we aim for?  Shouldn't we promote actually LIVING?  That's an objective I'd find worthwhile... in fact, it's one of the few things, I think, that could ever justify any of our inevitable deaths.

 

Yeah it's MASSIVELY draconian being asked politely to wear a mask whenever you are indoors close to others. You really are pathetic. This would all be over for everyone the sooner complete thickos actually complied with a simple request that greatly benefits everyone. 

[A.steve]

20 minutes ago, satsuma said:

However the carving will never fly due to immutable laws, much like COVID will be passed to and between those not wearing masks due to immutable laws. 

Perhaps.  The scientific method, however, would require a testable specific hypothesis.

A major difficulty is that any plausibly testable hypothesis is much narrower than the implications of policy.

I find it entertaining that you can only see that way to relate the idea  of a cargo cult.

Edited August 23, 2020 by A.steve

[cica]

On 20/08/2020 at 09:40, Staffsknot said:

The mask is no different to a seatbelt.

I haven’t done enough studying on masks to have a strong opinion either way. Just some surface research. 
 

I do want to take issue with comparing them to seat belts. They are not analogous. It’s a dreadful analogy. 

Seat belts were not introduced for firefighters to find the bodies easier or to protect front seat passengers from unbelted rear occupants (they weren’t even mandated in the rear for a long time). Not sure where those ideas came from  

They were introduced to lower death rates of car occupants in car crashes. It was done around the time of introducing the breathalyser which drastically changed behaviour in places like the UK. Alcohol and driving are not compatible if you didn’t already know. So the data is actually not as clear as many would have you believe but irrelevant I suppose.

The main point I want to make though is that if I was being purely selfish I’d rationally want to wear a seatbelt but everyone else not wear one. There’s very strong evidence that risk compensation is real (increased safety leads to increased risks).

Seatbelts and masks are not analogous. 

Edited August 23, 2020 by cica
Grammar

[satsuma]

8 hours ago, A.steve said:

Perhaps.  The scientific method, however, would require a testable specific hypothesis.

A major difficulty is that any plausibly testable hypothesis is much narrower than the implications of policy.

I find it entertaining that you can only see that way to relate the idea  of a cargo cult.

 

2 hours ago, cica said:

I haven’t done enough studying on masks to have a strong opinion either way. Just some surface research. 
 

I do want to take issue with comparing them to seat belts. They are not analogous. It’s a dreadful analogy. 

Seat belts were not introduced for firefighters to find the bodies easier or to protect front seat passengers from unbelted rear occupants (they weren’t even mandated in the rear for a long time). Not sure where those ideas came from  

They were introduced to lower death rates of car occupants in car crashes. It was done around the time of introducing the breathalyser which drastically changed behaviour in places like the UK. Alcohol and driving are not compatible if you didn’t already know. So the data is actually not as clear as many would have you believe but irrelevant I suppose.

The main point I want to make though is that if I was being purely selfish I’d rationally want to wear a seatbelt but everyone else not wear one. There’s very strong evidence that risk compensation is real (increased safety leads to increased risks).

Seatbelts and masks are not analogous. 

Please do some more research into this before encouraging people to not follow guidance from people with qualifications in the field (chief medical officer etc).  Others have done research to keep us from more lockdown and concluded masks are important.  This included using Agar plates to test spread of virus but to be honest this is established scientific fact and was not necessary.  Regarding the post from A.Steve they used Agar plates to test the effectiveness of masks in preventing spread of virus but I went with with the cargo cult analogy.

Edited August 23, 2020 by satsuma

[Staffsknot]

On 8/20/2020 at 8:40 AM, Staffsknot said:

The reason it is imposed is not just for your safety ( airbag may do that) but safety of others - rear passenger impacting front passenger and fire crews having to recover people from bizarre locations when you exit the vehicle and end up 6ft in a pine tree.

Cica not sure if you are misreading that or being deliberately obtuse - I never said seatbelts were introduced solely for those reasons, I listed them as additional benefits besides your own personal safety - that is why they are still imposed not introduced, in the era or improved impact safety. Novel thing there are no seatbelts on many pre-60s Lannies and this is an exeption allowed last time checked.

As for breathalyser vs seatbelt protection - the testing of safety measures is done using sensors in crash test dummies. To my knowledge we have yet to get a crash test dummy drunk. However drunkeness has been shown to reduce impact injuries in falls as instead of bracing you don't react. Not volunteering for the practical exam in the Renault Twingo after 6 Glennfiddich anytime soon.

[Staffsknot]

Steve defining people as good or bad is very narrow for someone as evidently well read. Good and bad depends on perspective - in PNG have seen a missionary say those who come to church get the benefits of medicine & education. Charitable act but only if you sign up. 

Bad people can do good things ( Mafioso give to charities) and otherwise good people are capable of things that may be 'bad' given sufficient motivation / mitigating circumstance. It is not binary and the judgement of good and bad depends on perspective, society and evolves with time ( historical figures lionised at the time often less praiseworthy under modern scrutiny).

Personal space is also subjective, ill defined and I'm guessing within 1m of someone. Your idea of personal space is by definition personal and unless you have a sign saying 'keep x ft pls' is unlikely to be known to those around you. Better to adopt a standard based on empirical data than a whatever I feel approach.

Now your position is any imposition of rules that infringe on your personal liberties is wrong. But you are part of a society and taking part in that often means being part of a social bargain - if you're picking a hill to die on over personal choice I don't suggest this is the best place, where your choice impacts others you either sign up or excluded. There is freedom of speech but walking around town exerting your right to swear all passers by is likely to see your right to access town is likely to be curtailed.

You've ignored the pub realworld case where social distancing ( other pubs have been fine) and masks would have possibly preventing or restricted the outbreak + the fact those not attending were adversely affected.

You've ignored the public toilet analogy where one persons choice to not wash hands creates an impact to others.

You also bat away any science presented as fabrications by vested interests, so it begs the question how can it be possible to demonstrate the modelled facts ( based on ebola and similar Sars infections but modified specifically for Covid) that social distancing and mask wearing are protective measures.

If you are not willing to sign up to lesser protective measures you are likely to see the precious freedoms further curtailed - ironically your actions leading to a local lockdown / banning from establishments.

Another example for you - a lane in the village suffered a spate of accidents as narrow and accessed via a bend. The parish council had it closed. People in the 12 cottages complained. It became a 1 way system and though people moaned it was better than the closure. After 3 years 0 accidents there were 4, caused by people ignoring the one way. It was due to new homeowners and delivery drivers with no memory of previous accidents ( no proof it isn't ok) and thinking they'd got away with it before, besides the 1 way added 5 mins onto journey. Road closure threatened again, but compromise was a passing place, reduced speed limit on main road and note that if happens again it will be closed... 

Full lockdown is the road closure, one way is the social distancing & mask compromise that prevents full lockdown, the accidents are the virus, those flouting the one-way are folks thinking it won't happen to me + what's the harm.

12 hours ago, satsuma said:

Shouldn't we promote actually LIVING?  That's an objective I'd find worthwhile... in fact, it's one of the few things, I think, that could ever justify any of our inevitable deaths.

Above quote from Steve not Satsuma but cannot edit. Also quote by Steve 'saving just one life' missed but can't add.

And on this - the measures are to protect you and others. Given you are acting as arbiter of whether your personal freedoms and lifestyle is worth someone else's protection and life - doesn't that bring us neatly back to your Gestapo officer, your lifestyle is worth someone else's life. You'll dispute the figures I'm sure but 41,000 or at least more than 1 would tend to disagree if they could. As someone who has had to make life and death decisions and balance the safety of others vs the potential safety of one or two I can tell you that it is something not to be taken lightly and which from the other side of a keyboard is a lot easier than being a few metres away watching it unfold. I do not believe you are in any way equipped to make that call and tbh I actually think a little less of you for having expressed it in that simplistic form.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Staffsknot
Quote missed

[Si1]

Hamish McRae in the Mail calling inflation.

[Staffsknot]

15 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Hamish McRae in the Mail calling inflation.

A noble effort to get us back on track - I tip my hat.

Inflation may happen, does it push BoE to act or they bat it away as per the last few times above target

[Si1]

14 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

A noble effort to get us back on track - I tip my hat.

Inflation may happen, does it push BoE to act or they bat it away as per the last few times above target

I think the implication is this will be set in and require higher central bank rates

[A.steve]

  

10 hours ago, satsuma said:

Please do some more research into this ...

That's presumptuous...

10 hours ago, satsuma said:

Regarding the post from A.Steve they used Agar plates to test the effectiveness of masks in preventing spread of virus but I went with with the cargo cult analogy.

Then I am happy to assume the veracity of this research and applaud the use of surgical masks by Agar plates.

[cica]

10 hours ago, satsuma said:

 

Please do some more research into this before encouraging people to not follow guidance from people with qualifications in the field (chief medical officer etc).  Others have done research to keep us from more lockdown and concluded masks are important.  This included using Agar plates to test spread of virus but to be honest this is established scientific fact and was not necessary.  Regarding the post from A.Steve they used Agar plates to test the effectiveness of masks in preventing spread of virus but I went with with the cargo cult analogy.

Eh? Where did I do that? I was actually extremely clear that I didn’t know. 

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

Then I am happy to assume the veracity of this research and applaud the use of surgical masks by Agar plates.

Steve you asked for verifiable scientific facts - people provide them and you bat them away as if irrelevant, or with a pithy dismissive. That isn't a reasoned mind and being as you appear to be intelligent enough you should know agar petri dishes are standard practice. 

You also dodge quite a lot of people's answers / ignore realworld scenarios presented to you. I don't understand how an intelligent person who embraces science can dogmatically cling to a conclusion of there's no proof in the face of proof.

If you are of the notion of that inspite of that evidence, you believe your personal freedoms should override any measure even if proven to work then simply state and debate that. Don't make out the evidence of efficacy of protections is your standpoint by contradicting it.

And also take the time to read the reply I gave earlier to your 'is one life worth it' view because I really do think if you're advocating sacrificing a few others so you don't have to social distance or wear a mask you really have lost the argument and become that you say you hold in contempt / would take a lot to make you wear the uniform of