Fermez les frontières, un nouveau virus apparaît: La COVID-19

J’espère que ça ne sera pas at large comme en ce moment, mais j’avoue que plusieurs secteurs économiques vont se faire ramasser en automne.
 
JSEF said:
Bof si c'est vraiment appliqué, excepté l'épicerie, je vais tout commande d'Internet à partir de maintenant que ça soit local ou non.

Envoyé de mon SM-G935W8 en utilisant Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ouhh
129a59f6a963aa007c9b0edf13e0084b.jpg


Отправлено с моего CLT-L04 через Tapatalk
 
Who's up for a Halloween party in July? They said mask and acknowledge most masks don't do fuck all, they're only warn to stop large droplets..... so why not wear a clown mask next time you go grocery shopping so you can mess with the matantes while respecting the law?
 
En!vy said:
Your entire post is just additional support for what I'm saying. You haven't been wearing a mask the last 2 months ...
Click to expand...
good for you dude, you're arguing with yourself, I haven't said anything to the contrary...

En!vy said:
you don't seem to wonder why the media isn't asking the questions, but if that's the only hoop they'll make you jump through to buy groceries, herpa derp lets do as we're told. This apathetic attitude is far too prevalent.
Click to expand...

Are you drunk or high?!?! Not sure where you saw that in my post, you just mad, that's ok, but stop assuming shit I don't say or insinuate and targeting me, or if that's not clear enough, f off!
 
250Rocket said:
Who's up for a Halloween party in July? They said mask and acknowledge most masks don't do fuck all, they're only warn to stop large droplets..... so why not wear a clown mask next time you go grocery shopping so you can mess with the matantes while respecting the law?
Click to expand...

What do you think of Trump wearing one ?
 
KerplunK said:
What do you think of Trump wearing one ?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people can't comprehend that there is a time and place to wear a mask and times they are pointless. Indoors but can stay >2m, no mask. Alone in your car, no masks. However, going over to your parents house and one of them has an illness, wear a mask or don't go at all. Trump was wearing a mask walking through a hospital and I have zero issue with mask wearing for all people in a hospital, nursing home or a hospice. People who are high risk can't avoid those places but they can stay away from public spaces if they think they're unsafe.


And HOLY SHIT, Dr. Rosenberg just carpet (truth) bombed the news tonight on CTV. Basically just said in a flowery way the reason there is a major increase of cases in Arizona, California and Texas is because of Mexico, more specifically. Also said distancing is much more important than masks.
 
kahos said:
Is this really about asking questions or about not agreeing with the decision? It might not be "popular" but the science is pretty sound overall.

Individual freedom will never be absolute in a society that is as socialized as ours. That ship has sailed.

Doesn't make it any less of a knee jerk reaction, but oh well. To go province wide on this is a bit of a stretch. The government must not have had a lot of faith in the MRCs / Municipalities.
Click to expand...


How exactly is the "science sound"? WHO's initial position on masks published April 3rd, 2020 states and I quote:

Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings:
As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks. WHO offers the following advice to decision makers so they apply a risk-based approach.
Click to expand...

Link: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693


They have since amended that guidance with the following:

Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.

Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.

WHO regularly monitors all emerging evidence about this important topic and will provide updates as more information becomes available.
Click to expand...

Link: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332293


While they have changed their position on the matter ever so slightly, I don't think anyone would conclude that the science is in on large scale mask use in public.
 
Last edited:
mecbain said:
good for you dude, you're arguing with yourself, I haven't said anything to the contrary...



Are you drunk or high?!?! Not sure where you saw that in my post, you just mad, that's ok, but stop assuming shit I don't say or insinuate and targeting me, or if that's not clear enough, f off!
Click to expand...


Don't stress it my friend. Debate and discourse isn't for everyone.
 
SUBARU_WRX_STi said:
.//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200713/86012a517523c53276569c84ccec4a52.jpg

Отправлено с моего CLT-L04 через Tapatalk
Click to expand...
J'aime comment tu sembles faire un lien avec le personnel médical qui doivent suivre une procédure et qui ont des variantes de temps à respecté lors du port du masque versus Ginette qui vas le porter tout croche.

D'ailleurs, je me questionne sur le fait que le masque pourrait devenir un vecteur de contamination (covid ou autre) pour une personne qui le porte mal; puisqu'un masque est réputé contaminé des que tu lui touche.

Envoyé de mon SM-G935W8 en utilisant Tapatalk
 
CuddlyJen said:
L’article parle de subvention salariale.... pas la PCU.

Cest 2 choses differentes non?
Click to expand...

oui la subvention de 75%. Cette mesure est plus logique économiquement que la PCU. Encourage de conserver les employés ou stimule le retour au travail, une partie de la subvention aurait été versée en chomage anyway, l'employeur verse les DAS et l'employés conservent ses avantages sociaux, paie des impôts sur sa paie ça coute cher mais c'est moins destructeur que la PCU.
 
lion1 said:
oui la subvention de 75%. Cette mesure est plus logique économiquement que la PCU. Encourage de conserver les employés ou stimule le retour au travail, une partie de la subvention aurait été versée en chomage anyway, l'employeur verse les DAS et l'employés conservent ses avantages sociaux, paie des impôts sur sa paie ça coute cher mais c'est moins destructeur que la PCU.
Click to expand...

Non je sais...cest pcq il avait initialement ecrit PCU mais l’a corrigé aussi.
 
En!vy said:
How exactly is the "science sound"? WHO's initial position on masks published April 3rd, 2020 states and I quote:



Link: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693


They have since amended that guidance with the following:



Link: https://www.who.int/emergencies/dis...of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak


While they have changed their position on the matter ever so slightly, I don't think anyone would conclude that the science is in on large scale mask use in public.
Click to expand...

How is it not? " evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets."

That sounds good enough to me.

Suppose you could wait for scientist to come up with "undeniable" peer reviewed evidence. You know, the kind of good stuff where every word is weighted and no claims are made unless they can be backed up by at least 37 studies.

Maybe in a few years time they'll come to a conclusion that South Korea did in fact handle this pandemic a lot more effectively than the united states has.

They might even posit that the use of masks by healthy members of the public was a factor. Conditional on a grant and a fully staffed team of researcher they will endeavor to look into this "mask" claim and get back to us by the year 2025.

People were super gung ho to give chloroquine a try, but masks? That's a bridge too far?

I think that the timing and scope of this measure will make it grossly unpopular, to the point where it will undermine the effectiveness of such a strategy. Leave it to politicians to overdo it and shoot themselves in the foot.

I don't think that people going for coffee at timmies in St-clin clin "need" to do it if people aren't being careless. It may be better if they did, but not to the point where it has to be mandatory.
 
Mais tse mettons là le vrai dude de campagne qui vit dans un village de 800 habitants et qui a pas eu un seul cas, vas falloir qu’il alle à son marché/station service/tim hortons avec son masque ?
 
Haha félicitations les épais anti-masque/contrôle du gouvernement. À cause de vous on ne pourra pas utiliser notre bon sens et on devra avoir notre masque 100% du temps à l’intérieur.
 
RWDLover1 said:
Haha félicitations les épais anti-masque/contrôle du gouvernement. À cause de vous on ne pourra pas utiliser notre bon sens et on devra avoir notre masque 100% du temps à l’intérieur.
Click to expand...




7dfc822eee8b8d2fe326568311758bc5.gif


WTF les Anti-Masque ? ? ? C'est les pro-masque à la V.Plante et ses Covid-Anxieux du toupet qui faut remercier !!! Si le masque servait à ne pas l'attraper, les infirmières nous l'auraient dit depuis début avril au moins !!!! C'est bassement politique cette décision là, pour calmer les ginette-anxieuse et les specialisse de MR qui souhaite se masquer depuis le jour 1, mais qui aiment mieux faire ça en gang pour se sentir accepté !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top