just when you thought you knew what stupid was

[ovrszd]

You are very welcome. Thanks is not necessary, but appreciated.

The idiots (of the criminal type) are job security. 18 years in probably 17 to go.

I have always said two careers have great job security. Military and Law Enforcement.

Then we started hearing Defund Police. WTH???

Retired military here. 40 years and 9 months. I too always appreciated public support and always thanked them for it. Never thought it necessary, just greatly appreciated

Thank you very much for your service. Back The Blue.

 

[ovrszd]

Funny if you look at these exchanges and wonder, who you would like to have a conversation with at a dinner party or BBQ.

That's easy. MoMower and James.

 

[MossRoad]

That is exactly what I知 saying. Officer discretion. There are hundreds of laws that are properly codified and not enforced. The chances of a mask mandate turning into actual law, is slim to none, at least in PA.

Very slippery slope, and I will not add any lube to it.

Business owner says leave, a person refuses, it痴 no longer about a mask, it痴 trespassing.

I wear one when required by the property owner. Absolutely refuse to do so outdoors. Also avoid people so....

I've been given the benefit of officer discretion on several instances in my life. I've seen officers use discretion in many cases. I agree with the concept of officer discretion.

Choosing to give someone a pass, a warning, or guidance VS a stop, a ticket, or arrest is officer discretion.

Refusing to apply a law because an officer doesn't agree with a law is not officer discretion.

 

[Citydude]

I've been given the benefit of officer discretion on several instances in my life. I've seen officers use discretion in many cases. I agree with the concept of officer discretion.

Choosing to give someone a pass, a warning, or guidance VS a stop, a ticket, or arrest is officer discretion.

Refusing to apply a law because an officer doesn't agree with a law is not officer discretion.

If it’s a frivolous law, like lawn clippings blown into the street, thank goodness our officers see that as such.

Defunding the police and expecting them to chase down the shameful non wearing masked outlaws is brainless to say the least.

 

[k0ua]

Refusing to apply a law because an officer doesn't agree with a law is not officer discretion.

How do you feel when an entire state chooses to disobey and not assist in enforcing the law such as Sanctuary cities? or non enforcement of existing federal laws on drugs?
How about when a City Mayor allows Violent protesters to overrun a police station and burn it? Even though the police didn't want to leave? How do you feel about those sort of discretion?
Or how about when the prosecuting attorney desides to bring charges against a white couple for standing on their front porch with firearms when rioters threaten them on their lawn in their gated community after the rioters tore the gate down? AND the governor of the state says she is doing wrong and will pardon them if they are convicted? How do you feel about a prosecting attorney of a city (Chicago) dropping the charges on a certain actor that fostered a lie and said two MAGA hat wearing guys put a noose around his neck and beat him when a costly police investigation says he orchestrated and paid for the whole thing himself?

Yes, sir, this law enforcement thing is Black and White, and people at all levels should enforce the law as they are written correct? Either that or we are going to have anarchy, correct?. Oh WAIT, in some places in our country we DO have anarchy now don't we?

Yeah, you walked square into that buzzsaw didn't you?

 

[RSR]

"They're dealing with anxiety, stress, and depression, but staying in shelters is simply not an option for some people. During the pandemic, homeless shelters have had higher rates of coronavirus than outdoor encampments...

Maybe if they just wore masks, everything would be better for them..

I'm confused. That statement (unreferenced that is is) proves my exact point. Indoors with poor air circulation leads to increased transmission. Outdoors with separation decreases it. Yes, if they work masks in shelters and practiced social distancing (likely very difficult to do in reality) it would decrease transmission.

Maybe I misunderstood your initial statement, but it seemed you were saying that airborne spread wasn't a problem because homeless people weren't getting sick. Then you went and posted a quote that exactly refuted your statement.

 

[MossRoad]

How do you feel when an entire state chooses to disobey and not assist in enforcing the law such as Sanctuary cities?
My family on my dad's side are all immigrants. I'm 2nd generation American. Family brought in relatives, sponsored jobs for them, all legal, etc... I don't agree with sanctuary cities. But I do agree with compassion.

or non enforcement of existing federal laws on drugs?
States rights VS fed law... pot is illegal federally, legal in some states. Majority of people want recreational pot legalized nationwide. I don't particularly, but to each their own. They should work for federal change in the law, but abide by the current laws until it is changed.

How about when a City Mayor allows Violent protesters to overrun a police station and burn it?
That's just a bizarre situation. I'm glad I don't live there. It's an illustration of my thoughts that 1/3 of the country is polarized to the left, 1/3 to the right, and the middle 1/3 is screwed because they can't get a simple majority of common sense because neither of the far sides will budge.

Even though the police didn't want to leave?
How do you feel about those sort of discretion?
I don't think that was discretion. They were ordered to leave.

Or how about when the prosecuting attorney desides to bring charges against a white couple for standing on their front porch with firearms when rioters threaten them on their lawn in their gated community after the rioters tore the gate down?
I don't know about you, but when I see a riot, I stay in my house. I don't go out on the lawn with guns and taunt the angry mob. That couple has a long history of anti-social behavior. As far as I know, nothing of theirs was damaged. They're idiots.

AND the governor of the state says she is doing wrong and will pardon them if they are convicted?
See above.

How do you feel about a prosecting attorney of a city (Chicago) dropping the charges on a certain actor that fostered a lie and said two MAGA hat wearing guys put a noose around his neck and beat him when a costly police investigation says he orchestrated and paid for the whole thing himself?
Once they found out it was all a hoax, the guy should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He did a tremendous disservice to the entire community by stirring up racial trouble, wasting police time and putting them at risk with the community, etc... just to further his career. He's a bum.

Yes, sir, this law enforcement thing is Black and White, and people at all levels should enforce the law as they are written correct?
Mostly. It all started with me when I was 5 or 6 and was taught rules are rules. Then the rules changed. Even as a little kid, I realized that meant the rules must have been flawed. It's a religious thing, so I'll leave it at that.

Either that or we are going to have anarchy, correct?.
It's looking that way. Reminds me of the race riots and Vietnam War when I was a kid. I don't remember a time more volatile.

Oh WAIT, in some places in our country we DO have anarchy now don't we?
See above. I agree.

Yeah, you walked square into that buzzsaw didn't you?
What buzzsaw? I'm probably in agreement with you on 90% of things. People should abide by the law. If they don't agree with a law, they still have to abide by it. They can work to change it through legal means, but they have to abide by it until it is changed, or we have chaos and anarchy.

That's a lot of questions, so I'll try and answer them in bold in your quote. All fair questions, by the way.

 

[MoMower]

I've been given the benefit of officer discretion on several instances in my life. I've seen officers use discretion in many cases. I agree with the concept of officer discretion.

Choosing to give someone a pass, a warning, or guidance VS a stop, a ticket, or arrest is officer discretion.

Refusing to apply a law because an officer doesn't agree with a law is not officer discretion.

You’re playing semantics games. But by all means, have at it.

 

[MossRoad]

There's no semantics in there. It's pretty clear. If you don't agree with the law, and choose not to enforce it because of that, it's not officer discretion.

 

[RSR]

"Overwhelming evidence" to what degree?...what the "evidence" does prove is that distancing (from the point of dispersion) is more important than a mask...and then there is the question of what kind of mask/filter, material type ?...

I've never said social distancing isn't effective. Masks, however, are effective. The question of which is more effective is going to depend on the situation. If you're outdoors and can stay 6 feet apart to avoid direct droplet impact, then masks are highly likely to be very unnecessary. If you're going to be in an enclosed indoor space for any length of time, aerosol concentration can quickly build up. At that point, social distancing won't do much for you at all. Again, read the studies I have cited. There are a litany of examples demonstrating these exact points.

To get any real insight into the degree of effectiveness wearing a mask provides (in dealing with the spread of the COVID virus) test subjects both mask wearers and non mask wearers would have to be studied over periods of time...knowing the number of mask wearers that still become infected would be paramount in determining the effectiveness of (identical) masks...

Knowing that masks can be effective in limiting disbursement of droplets and may filter microbes...is not evidence of limiting the spread of COVID per se...

I think you misunderstand how science works, similar to CalG's posts that "Science is just observation." You don't have to touch a stove to know it is going to be hot and hurt you. There are many other ways to establish that. For example, you can determine the human threshold for pain as a function of temperature, and then measure the temperature of the stove to determine if it will hurt to touch or not." Just because you don't directly touch it, doesn't mean that's the only way to learn something. Similarly, just because you aren't aware of other methods for assessing something, doesn't mean they don't exist. That's ignorance. Having those additional approaches pointed out and explained to you, and still refusing to believe? That's willful ignorance.

As I've already mentioned, yes, an ideal study would be place infected and non-infected individuals together, allow no contact, and observe if they get sick. That will never get approval from an IRB board. However, this exact experiment has already been performed indirectly in society. I will post, for the THIRD time, an article that looked at infection rates before mask mandates and after mask mandates. This is an effective way at determining if masks work in the general public. Guess what? After mask mandates were implemented, infection rates decreased. (https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/fu...aff.2020.00818)

I don't think there is anyone contesting that masks help by controlling the disbursement of droplets...but IMO of all the precautions the public has been advised to heed ( i.e., distancing, don't touch face, wash hands etc., etc...)...wearing a mask is by far the least important...other than when close proximity is unavoidable...
[\quote]

It seems there are actually many people on this thread, and in society, contesting that masks help control disbursement of droplets, and ergo, virus transmission. I honestly don't know which one is most effective. If you know of any studies that have compared them, I'd be happy to learn. However, without this information, statements like "wearing a mask is by far the least important ... other than when close proximity is unavoidable" are wrong. The data available proves they do make a measurable difference. As previously discussed regarding aerosol spread in environments, statements like "when close proximity is unavoidable" are also misleading. Think of it like when restaurants used to have smoking and non-smoking sections. Sitting adjacent to a smoking table with a pony wall between you meant you were sitting in the smoking section. You want to think about airborne spread in terms of concentration, not distance. Concentration will decrease with distance, but if there is poor/no circulation, distance does nothing, because the concentration level continues to build up. Again, this is why if you are outdoors, and can maintain 6-foot distance (to avoid direct contact from larger droplets) then aerosolized droplets are likely not of concern.

citing all the studies has really nothing to do with the actual subject...some peeps want the public to think wearing masks is as good as a vaccine...

I would say those individuals are similarly misinformed. I've never come across a single person that has expressed that, although that doesn't mean they aren't out there. Again, the best approach to combating spread is a multi-pronged approach. Hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing, and developing a vaccine.

BTW...just curious...how many of those studies you cited are funded in by private sector entities and how many by public resources??...and finally, just who are the entities in the private sector?

Well, you could look just as easily as me. If there is funding, it will be disclosed at the end of the paper in the "Acknowledgements" section.

To save you the time, I went through all of them. As I said in a post a few days ago, the vast majority of work is federally funded. In the articles I quoted there was not a single one funded by private sector. There were: 14 that were federally funded (various countries, predominantly US), 6 with no funding (meaning they do it on their own time and at their own expense), 2 funded by their own University, and 2 funded by Foundations. Note, some were funded by multiple (e.g., federal and University). 1 Foundation was the Chan Zuckerberg foundation, I don't remember the other one, and I'm not going to go back through all of them again to find it ... I believe all foundations are considered charitable organizations.

BTW...ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand...LoL...but some peeps (or is that profs) will believe anything...:laughing:

[\quote]

Yes, I realize that. But in spite of that, it is commonly used vernacular to express the sentiment of someone that wants to hide and ignore the peril around them. It's called an idiomatic expression. Kind of like "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." I don't know of many people that are capable of catching flighted birds by hand, but it is used to express a sentiment. Trying to use that to disparage me? Well, that just reflects poorly on you.