Yes, quite a laugh Joan. The author is an expert, but the blowhards on the forum, many of whom say we should believe all experts, denigrate him.

But we live by John Stuart Mills dictum here that even “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Intriguingly, some of the wrong on this forum want to silence mankind, so the quote is even a little prophetic.

What the data, rather than the propaganda, shows is that, in ideal controlled conditions, masks can be shown to be of value. Using the highest quality masks, in conditions where they are discarded and renewed every 3 hours, are not touched or adjusted once they are put on and are fitted such that there are no gaps anywhere around the mask (a surgeon friend told me that if your mask doesn't leave creases on your face because it is so tight, then it is useless) - if all of theses conditions are met, then and only then do masks work well.

But in the real world, where people wear the same mask for a full day or more, use cheaper low quality masks, regularly touch it to adjust it to make it more comfortable, adjust it to take a bite or a drink, and don't have it tight fitting all around their face (good luck if you're bearded), then masks are either useless or indeed detrimental to health.

This is what the science shows. But as usual, the believe-in-science crowd only believe the science that suits. On the other hand they believe whatever their gurus tell them with slack-jawed alacrity.

Dear Graham,

You wrote:

“Intriguingly, some of the wrong on this forum want to silence mankind, so the quote is even a little prophetic.”

What pious bilge I'm afraid. This bloke with his tortured statistics and out there perspectives is happy to sing whatever tune he wants and if OLO is happy to give him a perch then fine.

But when a couple of criticisms from others has you saying he is being silenced, instead it is really you attempting to silence that criticism that any serious instance of the other.

For a nursing home to lose nearly a third of its residents within a month in Victoria and to then have this bloke effectively claim it was mainly due to pneumonia is just bonkers.

He is blithely painting a picture that Covid even for the elderly is no big deal: “Even for elderly, vulnerable people, the likelihood of dying of Coronavirus (COVID-19) is still quite low.” but that hardly reconciles with the fact that the fatality rate in NSW for those over 80 who contracted Covid was standing at 23%.

If his messaging drives complacency then it is indeed dangerous for our elderly and therefore deserves to be challenged.

If I'm "trying to silence" your criticism Steele then it is clear that you are trying to silence me, on your own criteria. But then I explicitly said you should be allowed to speak, so your criticism is bunk, and should colour how people view the rest of your post.

I'll see if the good doctor wants to answer your criticism directly, but name-calling him when he knows a lot more than you is a bit rich, given your level of non-expertise.

Dear Graham,

Some circular arguments there old chap which is probably inevitable on this topic.

To cut to the chase criticism is not in and of itself silencing. I have not said the good doctor shouldn't have a platform. But you elevated criticism to frame it as an effort to silence therefore by extension of your own argument (which I don't agree with) you were attempting to silence me.

It is a kind of hypocrisy employed by both sides and it does get a little tiring, but there is a strong case to say the hard right employ it to a greater degree than most.

Friendly Jordies did a recent piece on this which has a real ring of truth about it.

https://youtu.be/lnFblVQkigY

And now you are accusing me of calling the good doctor names. You are going to have to point out where I did such a heinous thing.

I was certainly derisive of his arguments but calling him names? Nope.

Finally I'm not contending that I know more that he does, but I do contend that many highly skilled pandemic and health experts have taken a different perspective on the data, the disease and the ethics of this and I find nothing in the article which decently challenges their take.

Perhaps it really just comes down to a values thing. I am grateful for the path the country took in saving tens of thousands of Australian lives through the pandemic. I am certainly not confident those numbers would have held if the good doctor had had his way.

SR all those nursing home deaths were due to a two bob, shifty ALP sponsored security mob literally from Kings X! They caused all the infections and deaths but you have to blame everyone but your ALP girlfriends! The Andrews judge who oversaw the total whitewash was in on the joke too!
You love dishing it out but cannot take it!