Quote:
Originally Posted by jethrod3
Actually, the hypocrisy lies completely with you. You probably didn't read the whole paper. You cite quotes from an abstract and you don't even understand the meaning behind what you are quoting. Because "further studies are needed" doesn't mean that the effects are harmful. Standards are set in industry below what is envisioned to be the harmful level, and if there is uncertainly in risk estimates, levels are set even lower. But...there you go, taking a "sky is falling" approach to rationalize your choice. That's fine. There's no public mask mandate so do what you want and without regard to other people. And keep using terms like "face diaper" in an attempt to belittle those that wear masks. You could save the extra letters when you type, and call them masks; that's what they are. And if you're going to pretend that you've done your own research, then at least admit that you didn't read the whole paper and that you have no evidence that the CO2 levels are harmful. There would appear to be much more prima facie evidence from the thousands of professionals that wear masks (and the millions that have worn them in the past for their jobs) that indicate that those levels are not harmful.
|
I didn't said it is more harmful. I said I'm not going to be an experiment to determine if it is or isn't. Common sense says, if we aren't supposed to breathe in CO2, having an elevated CO2 level for an extended period of time will be harmful, at least over time. I'm glad you've studied each individual person to determine every short term and long term effect of masks in their profession to tell me they're safe.
I'm sorry you're offended by the term "face diapers" when describing a symbol of rising suicide rates, child development issues, economic issues, tyranny, etc.
You do you. Don't tell me how to live. That's the bottom line. And given the past couple of years of mandates, the pushback in discussions like this is needed to make sure that line isn't crossed again.