It’s not compulsory in the U.K. - apart from public transport.
Wearing a Mask
- Thread starter A.J.
- Start date
Hairdressers are working in very close proximity to others. Hairdressers in the U.K. aren’t reopened yet. However, my own hairdresser has published details of alterations they are making to the salon for when it does reopen. Each chair will have a screen between it and the chair next to them. There will be a limit in the number of people on the salon. Staff and customers must wear masks. Everyone will be temperature checked before entering etc.Yet...
U.S. airlines threaten to BAN passengers who refuse to wear masks during their flights under new rules
U.S. airlines threaten to ban passengers who refuse to wear masks
Organization representing major airlines says airlines will strictly enforce the requirements for passengers and customer-facing employees to wear masks.www.dailymail.co.uk
Costco still has you wearing a mask if you want to shop there which is why I don’t go there anymore. However..to get a haircut and a massage..masks are still required. I know it’s bogus..my hairstylist doesn’t want to wear them..but they also want to be working too. Idk how you get it to stop at this point.
I will be happy to comply because they are putting themselves and their families at risk, to cut my hair. Of course, I want to protect them. Why would I not?
Everyone in my town stopped wearing masks weeks ago, including the people working in the stores. Our cases also have doubled over the last two weeks. It is what it is. People are going to do what they want. Or not do what they want.
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
I’ve been shopping mask free since the beginning. I won’t even go to Costco anymore since they require masks. But...I do like my hair cut..I’m not so good at it myself. And I have shoulder and neck problems so I see a massage therapist for that...have to wear a mask..cause trust me if I could get away with not..I wouldn’t.
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
If the rioters can riot without masks and be in a huge mob and not get it...why would you need to do all that so you won‘t? You‘ve bought into the lie and you’re not really protecting anyone..just making a fool out of yourself like a lot of people.
I’m not doing it all, my hairdresser is? All I have to is sit in a chair and wear a mask. I’m not buying into any lie. That’s the guidance the Government here have given hairdressers to allow them to open up. If that’s what I have to do to get my hair cut, so be it.
They are in close, personal contact with lots of different people. I think, in their situation, it’s a reasonable precaution. I don’t want to put anyone at risk, anymore than I want to be at risk. It’s slightly different to going to Grocery shopping.
I could choose not to wear a mask but then I won’t get my hair cut. That would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, wouldn’t it?
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
They’ve always been in close, personal contact with people...I don’t see where this is so different that people have to mask up.
Yep..I know I wear the mask for the haircut too..but I think it’s unnecessary and ridiculous..while you think you’re doing good.
polymoog
Superstar
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2017
- Messages
- 8,213
goverment guidance. those two words do not belong in the same sentence.
no. that would be voting with your feet. if enough people made a stand and refused to go along with it, the government would be forced to comply. scaredy cats can stay home.
You clearly arent walking around with grey roots looking like Elvira lol
I don’t have any desire to make a stand against it. If me wearing a mask allows my hairdresser to re-open her business that she has very worked very hard to build from scratch, then I’m happy to support her. If wearing a mask has the potential to keep her safe - even if it’s unproven - then I’m happy to do so.
I mean when I go there, she also requires me to do other things which could be seen as robbing me of my identity. She makes me wear a gown - the same type of gown all of the other individuals getting their hair cut wear. Sometimes when I wear it, my clothes still get wet around the neck and I still get hair on them. It doesn’t always serve its purpose, completely.
It really isn’t that big of a deal. Call it vanity - but having not had my hair cut or dyed since February, I really, really want it done. At this point if she asked me to sit in the chair in a bikini, I would agree.
Awoken2
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 6,230
Frank Badfinger
Superstar
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2019
- Messages
- 15,812
No need for the cabal to do anything, seems like we are quite capable of destroying ourselves.
A Freeman
Superstar
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 6,866
Wearing a mask hasn't saved a single life, nor is it doing anyone any favors. In fact, it does nothing but threaten lives.
It not only forces the person wearing one to deprive themselves of O2, but it also sends the message to the perpetrators of this plannedemic that they can get people to do whatever they want them to do, based on whatever lie they wish to tell, because very few read anymore or question "authority", and even fewer yet have the mental capacity to discern truth from lies.
Sources from world renowned virologists and micro-biologists saying exactly the same thing could be cited, but those who have taken the time to research these matters already know the above to be true, and those who can't wait to regurgitate whatever the parasitic criminal class and their mainstream government propaganda mouthpiece tells them would't read much less believe those sources anyway.
It not only forces the person wearing one to deprive themselves of O2, but it also sends the message to the perpetrators of this plannedemic that they can get people to do whatever they want them to do, based on whatever lie they wish to tell, because very few read anymore or question "authority", and even fewer yet have the mental capacity to discern truth from lies.
Sources from world renowned virologists and micro-biologists saying exactly the same thing could be cited, but those who have taken the time to research these matters already know the above to be true, and those who can't wait to regurgitate whatever the parasitic criminal class and their mainstream government propaganda mouthpiece tells them would't read much less believe those sources anyway.
Can you prove that wearing a mask hasn’t saved lives?
I’m not doing good, necessarily. I’m not really a huge supporter of the mask theory. People here just assume that I am because of my stance.
I am just doing what my hairdresser requires me to do, to have my hair cut.
As regards the general wearing of masks. I don’t go out, unless I have to. I haven’t been wearing a mask because we are not required to here. I maintain the 2m distance and I wash/sanitise my hands.
The majority of people in my country do not wear masks. Our handling of coronavirus - in Northern Ireland, not UK - has generally been very effective. Our overall deaths stand at around 550 ( still more than South Korea). However, our population is only around 3 million. We have had no new diagnoses for the first time, yesterday. We have only had 1 death in a week.
My argument here, has never been about whether I wear a mask or not. It has always been about whether or not you should wear one, if you are required to do so.
A Freeman
Superstar
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 6,866
Can YOU prove that wearing a mask has saved ANY lives?
Even on a superficial level, i.e. someone who buys into the myth that viruses are alive, have a means of locomotion, and thus could actually spread from one human to another (even though those behaviors have NEVER been observed nor proven), viruses are reportedly 200-300 nanometers in size (about 1/500th the diameter of a human hair, or 0.1 microns). So wearing a mask , to keep viruses from being breathed in, or from breathing them out onto others, is akin to putting up a chain link fence to keep out mosquitoes.
Next, there's the myth that disease can be spread from human to human via spittle or sneezing, which not only has never been proven, but in actual fact was been ruled out as a means of conveying disease 100 years ago.
-------
Excerpt below from "The Invisible Rainbow" by Arthur Firstenberg (p. 100-105), about the testing done during the "Spanish flu":-
The Spanish influenza apparently originated in the United States in early 1918, seemed to spread around the world on Navy
ships, and first appeared on board those ships and in seaports and Naval stations. The largest early outbreak, laying low about 400
people, occurred in February in the Naval Radio School at Cambridge, Massachusetts.8 In March, influenza spread to Army
camps where the Signal Corps was being trained in the use of the wireless: 1,127 men contracted influenza in Camp Funston, in
Kansas, and 2,900 men in the Oglethorpe camps in Georgia. In late March and April, the disease spread to the civilian population, and around the world.
Mild at first, the epidemic exploded with death in September, everywhere in the world at once. Waves of mortality traveled with astonishing speed over the global ocean of humanity, again and again until their force was finally spent three years later.
Its victims were often sick repeatedly for months at a time. One of the things that puzzled doctors the most was all of the
bleeding. Ten to fifteen percent of flu patients seen in private practice,9 and up to forty percent of flu patients in the Navy10
suffered from nosebleeds, doctors sometimes describing the blood as “gushing” from the nostrils.11 Others bled from their
gums, ears, skin, stomach, intestines, uterus, or kidneys, the most common and rapid route to death being hemorrhage in the lungs:
flu victims drowned in their own blood. Autopsies revealed that as many as one-third of fatal cases had also hemorrhaged into
their brain,12 and occasionally a patient appeared to be recovering from respiratory symptoms only to die of a brain hemorrhage.
“The regularity with which these various hemorrhages appeared suggested the possibility of there being a change in the blood itself,” wrote Drs. Arthur Erskine and B. L. Knight of Cedar Rapids, Iowa in late 1918. So they tested the blood from a large number of patients with influenza and pneumonia. “In every case tested without a single exception,” they wrote, “the coagulability of the blood was lessened, the increase in time required for coagulation varying from two and one-half to eight minutes more than normal. Blood was tested as early as the second day of infection, and as late as the twentieth day of convalescence from pneumonia, with the same results… Several local physicians also tested blood from their patients, and, while our records are at this time necessarily incomplete, we have yet to receive a report of a case in which the time of coagulation was not prolonged.”
This is consistent not with any respiratory virus, but with what has been known about electricity ever since Gerhard did the first experiment on human blood in 1779. It is consistent with what is known about the effects of radio waves on blood coagulation.13 Erskine and Knight saved their patients not by fighting infection, but by giving them large doses of calcium lactate to facilitate blood clotting.
Another astonishing fact that makes no sense if this pandemic was infectious, but that makes good sense if it was caused by radio waves, is that instead of striking down the old and the infirm like most diseases, this one killed mostly healthy, vigorous young people between the ages of eighteen and forty—just as the previous pandemic had done, with a little less vehemence, in 1889. This, as we saw in chapter 5, is the same as the predominant age range for neurasthenia, the chronic form of electrical illness. Two-thirds of all influenza deaths were in this age range.14 Elderly patients were rare.15 One doctor in Switzerland wrote that he “knew of no case in an infant and no severe case in persons over 50,” but that “one robust person showed the first symptoms at 4 p.m. and died before 10 the next morning.”16 A reporter in Paris went so far as to say that “only persons between 15 and 40 years of age are affected.”17
The prognosis was better if you were in poor physical condition. If you were undernourished, physically handicapped, anemic, or tuberculous, you were much less likely to get the flu and much less likely to die from it if you did.18 This was such a common observation that Dr. D. B. Armstrong wrote a provocative article, published in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, titled “Influenza: Is it a Hazard to Be Healthy?” Doctors were seriously discussing whether they were actually giving their patients a death sentence by advising them to keep fit!
The flu was reported to be even more fatal for pregnant women.
A further peculiarity that had doctors scratching their heads was that in most cases, after the patients’ temperature had returned to normal, their pulse rate fell below 60 and remained there for a number of days. In more serious cases the pulse rate fell to between 36 and 48, an indication of heart block.19 This too is puzzling for a respiratory virus, but will make sense when we learn about radio wave sickness.
Patients also regularly lost some of their hair two to three months after recovering from the flu. According to Samuel Ayres, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, this was an almost daily occurrence, most of these patients being young women. This is not an expected after-effect of respiratory viruses either, but hair loss has been widely reported from exposure to radio waves.20
Yet another puzzling observation was that so few patients in 1918 had sore throats, runny noses, or other initial respiratory symptoms.21 But neurological symptoms, just as in the pandemic of 1889, were rampant, even in mild cases. They ranged from
insomnia, stupor, dulled perceptions, unusually heightened perceptions, tingling, itching, and impairment of hearing to
weakness or partial paralysis of the palate, eyelids, eyes, and various other muscles.22 The famous Karl Menninger reported on
100 cases of psychosis triggered by influenza, including 35 of schizophrenia, that he saw during a three-month period.23
Although the infectious nature of this illness was widely assumed, masks, quarantines, and isolation were all without effect.24 Even in an isolated country like Iceland the flu spread universally, in spite of the quarantining of its victims.25
The disease seemed to spread impossibly fast. “There is no reason to suppose that it traveled more rapidly than persons
could travel [but] it has appeared to do so,” wrote Dr. George A. Soper, Major in the United States Army.26
But most revealing of all were the various heroic attempts to prove the infectious nature of this disease, using volunteers. All these attempts, made in November and December 1918 and in February and March 1919, failed. One medical team in Boston, working for the United States Public Health Service, tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five.
Their efforts were impressive and make entertaining reading: “We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way. The patient with fever, in bed, had a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solutions, using perhaps 5 c.c., which is allowed to run into the tray; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution.
Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous surface of the throat… Each one of the volunteers…received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have described. They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed. None of them took sick.”
In a further experiment with new volunteers and donors, the salt solution was eliminated, and with cotton swabs, the material was transferred directly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using donors in the first, second, or third day of the disease. “None of these volunteers who received the material thus directly transferred from cases took sick in any way… All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three ‘shots’ as they expressed it.”
In a further experiment 20 c.c. of blood from each of five sick donors were mixed and injected into each volunteer. “None of them took sick in any way.”
“Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered it through Mandler filters. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.”
Then a further attempt was made to transfer the disease “in the natural way,” using fresh volunteers and donors: “The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patients. They shook hands, and by instructions, he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked for five minutes. At the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this expired breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out… After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five different times… [Then] he moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old… None of them took sick
in any way.”
“We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps,” concluded Dr. Milton Rosenau, “if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”27
Earlier attempts to demonstrate contagion in horses had met with the same resounding failure. Healthy horses were kept in
close contact with sick ones during all stages of the disease. Nose bags were kept on horses that had nasal discharges and
high temperatures. Those nose bags were used to contain food for other horses which, however, stubbornly remained healthy.
As a result of these and other attempts, Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Watkins-Pitchford of the British Army Veterinary Corps
wrote in July 1917 that he could find no evidence that influenza was ever spread directly from one horse to another.
-------
It should be self-evident that wearing a mask restricts the free-flow of CO2 being exhaled (particularly if the mask is of higher quality, e.g. an N95 mask), which in turn reduces the amount of O2 being breathed in. Do that for several hours a day, several days a week and you have a guaranteed recipe for actually making people sick, by thoughtlessly depriving their bodies of the O2.
So we're being told to help curb the spread of a virus that, in truth isn't what we've been told it is, and cannot be spread in the manner we've been told it can, using methods that have been proven to be ineffectual. And we've known this for 100 years.
Last edited:
No, no I cannot prove it.
There is so much wrong with your post above that I wouldn’t really know where to even start to address it.
You do realise that when they talk about viruses and locomotion, they are primarily talking about the movement of the virus around the body or plant or whatever. They are not referring to the viruses ability to move from person to person.
Viruses cannot move independently - it’s one of the reasons they have to use a host.
They don’t move from person to person themselves. They are transmitted in a variety of different ways according to where they shed.
Influenza and Covid-19 are shed in the upper respiratory tract of infected individuals and transmitted as droplets. The sneeze or the cough expels them from one person and propels them either directly into the airways of another person or onto other surfaces. The droplet is then picked up by touch and if you touch your face, mouth, eyes etc can then infect you. If you wear a mask it may reduce the risk of contamination in this way.
HIV or Hep B is transmitted through blood and other body fluids (not saliva). If you use a condom when having sex or gloves to handle body fluids etc, it reduces the risk of contamination.
Other viruses are transmitted via the faecal-oral root. Someone gets particles of poo on their hands - even tiny invisible ones. They then shake your hand and you put your hand in your mouth and hey, presto...you’re infected. Washing your hands after using the toilet should help prevent this.
That is transmission. It does not require the virus to have locomotion. I think that might be a fundamental flaw in your understanding.
Tidal
Star
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 3,803
Anyway, masks don't protect the eyes which C-19 likes to attach itself to. I had conjunctivitis (itchy red eyes) a few weeks ago for the first time in my life, accompanied by sniffly nose, headache, shivering spells and tiredness, so I presume it was a mild attack of C-19..
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
I guess that is the point then..if you are required to wear one.