|
Replies: 44
| visibility 762
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
So the viral thing today is Flight Attendants tearing up and
Apr 19, 2022, 8:59 AM
|
|
taking off their masks. I feel bad for them, and other workers who have been forced to wear masks, as they were just a charade the entire time.
The saddest part is that the people are praising the government for lifting the mandate. This is battered wife syndrome laid bare.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6314
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: So the viral thing today is Flight Attendants tearing up and
Apr 19, 2022, 9:20 AM
|
|
The government DID NOT lift the mandate. A single Federal judge in FL made this ruling. I love her! No one is prohibited from wearing a mask. Requiring folks to wear a mask in an airport when one can go into a crowded indoor concert maskless makes no sense.
There are masks and there are masks. Most of the masks being worn protect nothing more than one's identity.
Things may change for me personally depending on what COVID does in the future, but come Friday I'll be flying free of a mask.
I have to admit I have now reached common ground with Fauci.
Fauci-April 10th 2022 on This Week-ABC, "You know Jon, I think Dr Wen articulated that pretty well.There will be a level of infection. This is not going to be eradicated and it's not going to be eliminated, and what's gonna happen is we're going to see that each individual is going to have to make their calculation of the amount of risk that they want to take..."
Exactly, we do not share the same risk levels or risk tolerance. If you're at a higher degree of risk or are risk averse, avoid crowds and mask up properly.Others can choose a different course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37215
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I haven't read the ruling, but do you celebrate...
Apr 19, 2022, 10:31 AM
|
|
the decision because you like the outcome, or based on the law of the situation?
I'm not saying it was out of line or not, but on the surface, it sounds like a good chance of judicial activism. As a conservative, I tend not to like the court stepping in on things like this...without a really good reason. Were you satisfied with the court's reasoning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34620]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41433
Joined: 4/20/01
|
yes, the CDC has overstepped their "authority"***
Apr 19, 2022, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6314
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: I haven't read the ruling, but do you celebrate...
Apr 19, 2022, 11:19 AM
[ in reply to I haven't read the ruling, but do you celebrate... ] |
|
The CDC has traditionally acted in an advisory role and is only able to assume control from local authorities if local authorities ask them them to do so or under authority of the Insurrection Act, if there were a total breakdown of law and order related to disease.
Previously the CDC tried to extend the moratorium on rental evictions which was a gross overreach.
I'm not a lawyer. If the Administration wants to contest this ruling it has every right to do so. Since this is a Federal transportation matter, I don't know if the judge is way over her skis or not?
The mask mandate was to have ended on May 3rd anyway. The excuse of the CDC was to further study the effects of Omicron BA-2. The data from Europe shows BA-2 is more transmissible than the original Omicron, but no more likely to cause severe disease or death than Omicron. The vulnerable should continue to take precautions.
I like the outcome. Individual airline and train carriers can make their own decisions re: masks. Local and state authorities can continue to do the same.
I do not know enough about the law to have an well informed opinion on the actual merit of the decision from the judge.
The CDC does have the authority to detain to detain persons entering into the U.S. to protect us. They have not been doing that on the border.
Typically the CDC implements public health laws passed by Congress by issuing Federal Regulations. I'm unaware of Congress passing a law related to masks or vaccines. Again, lawyers can litigate over a dried beet, but on the surface, my very ignorant legal rationale leads me to think perhaps her reasoning had some merit. I could certainly be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37215
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Up until now, the courts agreed that the CDC...
Apr 19, 2022, 2:11 PM
|
|
had the power under Public Health Service Act and 42 Code of Federal Regulations sections 70.2 and 71.32.
§ 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control.
Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.
§ 71.32 Persons, carriers, and things.
(a) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that any arriving person is infected with or has been exposed to any of the communicable diseases listed in an Executive Order, as provided under section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act, he/she may isolate, quarantine, or place the person under surveillance and may order disinfection or disinfestation, fumigation, as he/she considers necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of the listed communicable diseases. Executive Order 13295, of April 4, 2003, as provided under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and as amended by Executive Order 13375 of April 1, 2005, contains the current revised list of quarantinable communicable diseases, and may be obtained at http://www.cdc.gov CDC Works 24/7 As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health, safety, and security threats.
(b) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that any arriving carrier or article or thing on board the carrier is or may be infected or contaminated with a communicable disease, he/she may require detention, disinfection, disinfestation, fumigation, or other related measures respecting the carrier or article or thing as he/she considers necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.
I'm no lawyer either, but, on the surface, I don't like the court overruling the power of the Exec that was granted it to the Exec by Congress...seemingly because they don't agree with the decision based on not believing the CDC provided enough justification for the extension. I read a summary of the decision at lunch (not all 59 pages)I think that has the opportunity to become dangerous...and I say that as someone who will be flying next week and really glad I won't have to wear a mask in the airport especially and also on the airplane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155986]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65847
Joined: 5/6/13
|
How do either of those apply?
Apr 19, 2022, 2:26 PM
|
|
"Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection."
It doesn't say "including but not limited to", it says "including". That's the scope of the measures they can take. Forcing every individual to wear a mask from the minute they enter an airport or are on a flight does not fall under those measures.
(a) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that any arriving person is infected with or has been exposed to any of the communicable diseases listed in an Executive Order, as provided under section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act, he/she may isolate, quarantine, or place the person under surveillance and may order disinfection or disinfestation, fumigation, as he/she considers necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of the listed communicable diseases. Executive Order 13295, of April 4, 2003, as provided under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and as amended by Executive Order 13375 of April 1, 2005, contains the current revised list of quarantinable communicable diseases, and may be obtained at http://www.cdc.govCDC Works 24/7 As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health, safety, and security threats.
By what basis does the director have reason to believe that literally every single "arriving person" (note the arriving part is directed towards those arriving from outside the US, but I'll ignore the blanket domestic travel bastardization of it) is infected with or has been exposed to a communicable disease?
It was an absolute overreach for the Executive Branch to use these regulations in this fashion...as a conservative the adjustment in the power balance should be something you embrace, much like when using OSHA to force every private company with 100 employees or more to have 100% vaccination was similarly rectified judicially.
Message was edited by: Obed®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37215
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Ok, but if I'm not mistaken, the court already ruled that...
Apr 19, 2022, 3:07 PM
|
|
the CDC had the power. I'm not in a position to search for that right now, but I will.
"The court" ought to move somewhat in unison...at least in this short of a time span. If the CDC had the power to issue this order, then they should have that power. If not...not.
Don't get me wrong...I'm all for restrained government and especially restrained federal government. But if there was any place that the federal gov "might" have this power, it's in interstate travel by plane. Now airports...that's a completely different argument.
Either way, it's not near the over-reach that the OSHA regulation was...in my opinion. That one was WAY out of bounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155986]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65847
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I could be wrong, but I knew it had been in the process of
Apr 19, 2022, 3:21 PM
|
|
being legally challenged (by 20+ states in addition to this case), but didn't think it had any rulings on the record yet.
I thought it was congressional mandate that had allowed the measure to go through. Interestingly enough, a bill had just passed in the Senate with a few (D)'s joining in to repeal the mandate, so it probably had a limited shelf life anyway.
It does seem like, much like with the OSHA case, it takes some creative interpretation of the regulations to make these actions fit under their regulatory allowances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I haven't read the ruling, but do you celebrate...
Apr 19, 2022, 7:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: I haven't read the ruling, but do you celebrate... ] |
|
Thank you, Rons1 for pointing out the contradictory 'health enforcement' practices of the CDC.
(1) CDC requires use of a mask to reduce the risk of Covid-19 spread.
(2) CDC refuses to exercise its authority to detain persons at the border (who may or may not be infected with Covid-19).
(3) CDC refuses to comment on the wisdom or folly of Fed. Gov't transporting these un-detained immigrants throughout the USA.
(***) The Centers for Disease Control ... follow the (political) science, baby!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83135]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80163
Joined: 11/29/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
LOL***
Apr 19, 2022, 9:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111779]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73811
Joined: 9/10/03
|
You know what stops COVID dead in its tracks
Apr 19, 2022, 9:41 AM
|
|
Tom, And I am only telling you, and not the liberals, because you are a true Patriot. But the idea is that you insert this UV bulb rectally and feed it all the way through until it makes it into your lungs, then you plug it in. It cures covid, like immediately.
it s smart of you not to listen to Mayo Clinic, run by liberals, they have no clue..
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31520]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10212
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: You know what stops COVID dead in its tracks
Apr 19, 2022, 10:04 AM
|
|
Tom doesn’t believe in the germ theory of disease. Allopathic medicine is part of the pedophile cabal. Keep holding on for the storm brothers, I’m sure it won’t be long now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: You know what stops COVID dead in its tracks
Apr 19, 2022, 8:07 PM
|
|
"Allopathic medicine is now part of the pedophile cabal?"
Since when did the pedophilic LGBTQ start promoting use of UV light bulbs ... inserted rectally and then snaked up through their excretory systems before turning on the power?
Or is it that the LGBTQ pedophile crowd ... so frantic to sex up children and promoting the practice of getting young boys to 'tuck their tinkle-sticks' between their legs and encourage them to manually practice testicular retraction ... have forgone the 'grooming' of children in exchange for the excitement about the process by which UV light bulbs are used to cure Covid-19?
Gotta admit, you caught me off guard with the UV light / pedophile comment. Good observation, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111779]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73811
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Just make sure you read the label
Apr 19, 2022, 11:01 AM
|
|
and correct dosing information or you could die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
You could eat that entire tube and not die. Remdisivir(sic)
Apr 19, 2022, 12:01 PM
|
|
on the other hand will kill you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97772]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64902
Joined: 7/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111779]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73811
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37215
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23591
Joined: 1/29/05
|
I am on the fence here
Apr 19, 2022, 9:36 AM
|
|
While I am finally unmasking at stores and out in public, these announcements made on flights and people cheering while ripping off their mask like they were some sort of repressed slave in all of this is... weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155986]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65847
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Masks flat out suck.
Apr 19, 2022, 9:42 AM
|
|
I’m not arguing their efficacy, we can debate that later. I’m saying that wearing one, whether you believe in them or not, universally sucks.
If you enjoy wearing them, you’re a masochist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23591
Joined: 1/29/05
|
But what sucked about them?
Apr 19, 2022, 9:50 AM
|
|
My biggest inconvenience was if I ever went somewhere and forgot to grab one from the car before going into a store. That was it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83135]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80163
Joined: 11/29/99
|
The biggest negative for me is that they make my glasses fog
Apr 19, 2022, 10:19 AM
|
|
up at times, and it's hard to read on flights with the mask on...not impossible just harder to read.
Though wearing one doesn't keep me from going to sleep on a flight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6314
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: The biggest negative for me is that they make my glasses fog
Apr 19, 2022, 10:38 AM
|
|
Joe, if your your glasses are fogging up, that means you do not have a good seal and aren't really well protected. To be clear, I absolutely do believe that a high quality mask, properly fitted and worn does provide protection to the person wearing it.
I also believe that even a cloth mask may decrease expression of the virus and therefore protect others, but probably offers little to protect the individual wearing such a mask.
Since the virus is always going to be with us, much like influenza, I again would advocate for those who are vulnerable to protect themselves and let others make their own choice. If I were truly worried about COVID at this point, I would wear an N95 mask.
We are now being told that those over 50 are eligible for a second booster if their booster was > 4 months ago. I've taken 3 shots. I will probably take a 4th at some point, but at this point even though I'm just past 65, since I am very healthy, I'll wait for now.
My point is not to criticize masks or vaccines as a tool to fight COVID, but to give individuals the right to assess for themselves what their risk is and what their risk tolerance is. Otherwise, we will be masked up forever and potentially facing very frequent vaccinations.
The virus at this point is not particularly lethal to healthy folks, in fact it never was for healthy younger folks. We may have to revisit this should the virus mutate into a more virulent form.
Until then, wear a mask if you choose to, but if you do, if your glasses are fogging up, you aren't doing much.
Message was edited by: rons1®
Message was edited by: rons1®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11963]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12224
Joined: 11/9/04
|
So ... people say this all the time and it bothers me.
Apr 19, 2022, 1:38 PM
|
|
You said this
Joe, if your your glasses are fogging up, that means you do not have a good seal and aren't really well protected. To be clear, I absolutely do believe that a high quality mask, properly fitted and worn does provide protection to the person wearing it.
and this...
Until then, wear a mask if you choose to, but if you do, if your glasses are fogging up, you aren't doing much.
Can you quantify what it means to be "really well protected"? or how much is or is not being "if your glasses are fogging up, you aren't doing much"?
Because, it's easy to make subjective statements like this with no facts. To me, the seal on glasses is BETTER when I breathe in than when I breathe out, thus, the chances of me breathing in filtered air is higher. Air is going to flow through the path of least resistance - which is directly below my nose. That is the OPPOSITE direction of my glasses. So if you were to have said, "if you can feel air blowing down the front of your shirt" OR, even better, "...feel air flowing across your chin while wearing a mask", then I'd agree that this is a sign that the mask isn't "doing much"
but your argument is the counter to that. Yet you state is so emphatically. So yeah. numbers. charts. something. or stop stating things as facts as if you have done lab tests and on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155986]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65847
Joined: 5/6/13
|
It seems like basic science.
Apr 19, 2022, 2:07 PM
|
|
Glasses fogging equates to moist air from one's exhalations meeting the glass lenses, which are outside of the mask. It's indicative of unfiltered air from the lungs easily making it past the mask, onto one's glasses (and into the proximity of those around the exhaler as well). It doesn't seem controversial or challenge-able.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6314
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: So ... people say this all the time and it bothers me.
Apr 19, 2022, 2:23 PM
[ in reply to So ... people say this all the time and it bothers me. ] |
|
I certainly can’t give you specific data to support what I said. I wear reading glasses and have flown frequently during COVID. My masks fit well and my glasses do not fog.
I will concede that upon exhalation if your glasses fog, you are sharing your exhaled air with those around you. Upon inspiration the mask may well retract and minimal outside air above the nose may be inhaled.
However, I’m unaware that any health agencies are stating not to worry about the fit of the mask above the nose and furthermore most people are not wearing high quality masks to begin with.
Sorry you’re annoyed, but without any personal scientific research, my opinion is that a well fitted mask is more protective than one that is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Masks = component of the "Swiss Cheese Theory"
Apr 19, 2022, 8:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: The biggest negative for me is that they make my glasses fog ] |
|
Masks are a small component of an overall 'strategy' for reducing the risk of contracting an airborne infectious disease.
A buddy of mine called masks one part of the "Swiss Cheese" approach for reducing risk of Covid-19.
Each 'layer' of the Swiss Cheese has holes. I.e., an imperfect barrier by itself.
However, stacking several slices of Swiss Cheese on top of other slices covers up more and more holes. Eventually, you get 'cover up all the holes' when you stack up enough pieces of Swiss Cheese.
Back to the mask (layer 1 of the Swiss Cheese stack):
Operating room personnel wear masks in part to minimize the transmission of bacteria (via their spit of nasal 'mist') and in part to interrupt spurts of blood that are always at risk of happening during surgery. So masks are good at reducing the risk of getting sick via getting blasted by 'big droplets.'
Masks for Covid-19 help to catch the 'sneeze aerosol' which comes FROM the wearer of the mask.
Masks for Covid-19 help to protect mask-wearer from the 'sneeze aerosol' which comes from another person who is not wearing the mask.
Each sneeze droplet from a person who is seriously infected Covid-19, will have millions of Covid-19 viral particles. If just one such droplet happens to get into your nasal or oral cavity, then its game on.
Masks, by themselves, are only incrementally effective in helping to prevent the spread of Covid-19. There are holes, and therefore far from perfect.
Other 'layers of Swiss Cheese':
(*) Social distancing (when you can do it reasonably). The less you are in close proximity to others, the less risk that you have of catching the virus.
(*) Daily vitamin & mineral doses which include D, C, zinc.
(*) Use of 'nasal wash' saline + dilute hydrogen peroxide) after being out in public. This reduces the viral count in the nasal orifices, if viral count goes ~ below 10,000 particles, then you are far less likely to actually contract Covid-19 if some had gotten in through your nose.
You all get the picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40941]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42957
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21954]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8606
Joined: 9/11/11
|
I'll admit
Apr 19, 2022, 11:21 AM
[ in reply to But what sucked about them? ] |
|
and not sure if you traveled a lot during all this, but it was a total PITA to have a mask on while trying to hump it around Hartsfield, MSP, SLC, etc.
The whole concept of wearing masks in stores and what not has been long gone in this neck of the woods haha. Only time I wore them was for travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
the fact that tyrants mandated them and sheep wore them
Apr 19, 2022, 12:02 PM
[ in reply to But what sucked about them? ] |
|
even though there's 100 years of science saying they don't do anything to airborne influenza or coronavirus
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23591
Joined: 1/29/05
|
Find me a scientific article from 1922 discussing
Apr 19, 2022, 1:57 PM
|
|
the efficacy of masks in preventing influenza and coronavirus. I'd love to poke a few holes in that data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Even with all the censorship and Orwellian re-writing of
Apr 19, 2022, 2:52 PM
|
|
history, it took me about 10 seconds to find this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862337/ The U.S. Military and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918–1919 The American military experience in World War I and the influenza pandemic were closely intertwined. The war fostered influenza in the crowded conditions of military camps in the United States and in the trenches of the Western Front in Europe. The virus ...
I'm sure there's more, but it's not worth my time as I'm also sure you will just dismiss whatever I link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3520]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4253
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: So the viral thing today is Flight Attendants tearing up and
Apr 19, 2022, 9:48 AM
|
|
Yes…how they were able to survive in the face of such great personal suffering will never be forgotten…forced to walk up and down the aisles of a plane with a piece of paper strapped to their faces…
…From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that wears a paper mask with me shall be my brother…
Greatest Generation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97772]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64902
Joined: 7/13/02
|
THEY ARE STILL MANDATED TO WEAR SEAT BELTS
Apr 19, 2022, 2:48 PM
|
|
AND SMOKING IS BANNED! THEY MAKE YOU TURN OFF ELECTRONIC DEVICES TOO! AND FORCE YOU TO BRING YOUR SEATBACK UP AND CLOSE YOUR TRAYS DURING TAKEOFF AND LANDING. AND...YOU HAVE TO REMAIN SEATED AT TAKEOFF AND LANDING! AND THEY CUT YOU OFF AFTER 4 DRINKS!! WAIT, THEY MAY HAVE BANNED DRINKS. NOT SURE. LOUD NOISES.....
But at least the mask is history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Which is also dumb. Like a seatbelt is going to help, lol.
Apr 19, 2022, 2:54 PM
|
|
The people inside a plane turn into a blended up smoothie upon impact, so the entire safety protocol is a charade honestly. Especially the electronic devices thing lol. They wouldn't allow cell towers near airports if that actually was a safety measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3520]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4253
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: Which is also dumb. Like a seatbelt is going to help, lol.
Apr 19, 2022, 3:08 PM
|
|
True to a degree…but you ever experience severe (like really severe) turbulence while on a flight? Wearing that belt could be the difference in staying in your seat and breaking your neck on the bin/ceiling above you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37215
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Dang man...is there anything you're not ignorant about?....
Apr 19, 2022, 4:34 PM
[ in reply to Which is also dumb. Like a seatbelt is going to help, lol. ] |
|
the seat belt on airplanes isn't there primarily to keep you safe in a crash. Good lawd
The seat belts are there to keep you in your seat during turbulence or quick maneuvers (like might happen during landing).
Anyone who has ever flown much knows turbulence can toss you around pretty good if you don't have your seatbelt on.
And as for the cell phone signal...it's not really an issue anymore, but at one time it could, under certain circumstance, cause some trouble for pilots by effing with the navigation system. It wasn't the cell signal itself, but signals at altitude bouncing off multiple towers and the phones would ramp up their power to compensate for poor signal strength. At least what I remember about it.
So again...not everything is stupid or a grand conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15076
Joined: 8/6/10
|
I understand the rationalizations, I just don't agree.
Apr 19, 2022, 6:22 PM
|
|
I fly quite a bit, and can tell you turbulence is rarely anything above a slight jostle, and it's usually apparent that you're going to get into turbulence well before it gets bad. I'm also not saying that there's no use for seatbelts, just that they aren't preventing people from dying. It's a good idea to fasten the seatbelt, but it shouldn't be required by law.
Also cell phones cannot "ramp up power" to a point that is problematic for nav systems. I don't even think that is accurate as to how cell phones work to be honest. When they can't find signal I know they keep pinging to find towers but the signal itself isn't any stronger. Mobile radios are weak, far too weak to cause problems with any sort of shielded electronics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37215
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Well, that's just not true (cell phone power)....
Apr 20, 2022, 8:28 AM
|
|
there are certain systems (which used to be all systems some years ago) that ramp up phones radio power when it can't find a signal or has a weak signal. It's still a problem for some phones, but used to be almost universal that battery life would shorten in areas of weak signal...that's the reason above. No one was making up the concern about cell phone interference with plane navigation systems. As I mentioned previously, it's no longer seen as an issue because the shielding/technology is better on modern nav systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34620]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41433
Joined: 4/20/01
|
Masks dont work...***
Apr 19, 2022, 9:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5694]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12170
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: So the viral thing today is Flight Attendants tearing up and
Apr 19, 2022, 5:25 PM
|
|
I was flying today. Almost no one on two flights was wearing a mask. Maybe 5 people on each flight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40941]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42957
Joined: 11/30/98
|
nice, I'm flying next week***
Apr 19, 2022, 5:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 44
| visibility 762
|
|
|
50
