On the train. Man takes off mask, places it on chair,sips coffee,puts it back on. He is later sure to touch surfaces.
This is typical behaviour & more or less unavoidable when eating and drinking. But in the extremely unlikely event he had the virus, it is a grt way to spread it.
Any empirical evidence of the effect of mask use *in the community*? No. Any empirical evidence about the negative effects of requiring their use *in the community* on viral transmission? No.
And yet not only is this required, our (taxpayers’) money is spent subsidising employees on a dying train network to spout dishonest statements about masks ‘protecting’ others, while paying for other propaganda that is crippling the revenues of these essential services.
This is obviously rather like a broken record, but the degree of unthinking and uncomprehending compliance makes it necessary to continue asking these questions.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Francis Hoar

Francis Hoar Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Francis_Hoar

22 Sep
We have had two comparable pandemics in the last 100 years: in 1957 and 1968/69. Both HK & Asian Flu killed more British ppl per million.
GDP grew by 2% in 1957, 5% in 1968 and over 2% in 1969. As opposed to the greatest depression in the history of the United Kingdom in 2020.
An economic collapse affects not just livelihoods but lives and communities. It is one of many considerations that should have informed every decision about restrictions to have been imposed, on economic activity (directly) and otherwise.
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep
First misleading statement from the PM: use of raw data without the context of the rising number of tests.
Second misleading statement: ignoring the possibility of residual (T-cell) immunity.
Third misleading statement: hospitalisations have doubled in a fortnight, without stating that hospitalisations have plateaued in the last week.
Read 23 tweets
21 Sep
Vallence is being deeply and culpably misleading. Ignoring false positives which cuts right into his.Stating that the proportion of increased testing isn't of any concern but failing to provide the data which shows the rise to be tiny relative to the increase in February & March.
He then completely ignored T-cell immunity,about which there have been numerous studies suggesting that is up to 50%,with a huge impact on transmissibilty.He is a public official with public duties.Misleading the public is a serious matter, esp when the consequences are so grave.
Now the @CMO_England is misleading the public about exponential growth. There was no exponential growth in February or March. The growth tailed off until the infection rate peaked on around 16th March, regardless of government intervention.
Read 16 tweets
18 Sep
This country is not a circuit. Nor is it a laboratory. And we are not lab rats for the testing of quack remedies.

msn.com/en-gb/news/cor…
And what is the answer to this? Use these outbreaks to close down the country and discharge infected patients into institutions with the most vulnerable people in the country.
Read 5 tweets
17 Sep
A brilliant article by @MichaelPSenger on the genesis of the lockdown movement in perhaps the quickest and most successful - and one of the most destructive - propaganda campaigns of all time.
tabletmag.com/sections/news/…
@SteveBakerHW @MarcusFysh @EdwardLeighMP And please circulate among your colleagues.
Note what even the WHO said in late January: Image
Read 4 tweets
14 Sep
Adam continues to provide a valuable service given the inexcusable publication of these regulations just before they are made. The justification for using the emergency procedure (and so no Parliamentary scrutiny for a potentially indefinite period) is held by a gossimar thread.
It is a potentially indefinite period because it lasts for 28 days but only those days during a period in which Parliament is sitting. Regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, on the other hand, must be approved by Parliament within seven days irrespective.
One small (but not insignificant) observation. This appears to ban friendly sports matches or kicks-abouts. However, that would not be the case if one member set up a limited company and organised the matches. This is the level of absurdity to which this government has stooped.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!