A short thread on how face masks work, why we wear masks *to protect other people from ourselves* and not the other way around, & why wearing face-shields without a mask, masks with valves, or masks that hang open on the bottom or sides IS ACTUALLY DANGEROUS FOR EVERYONE ELSE...
The reason you wear a mask because *you* could be a source of SARS-CoV-2.
If you wear masks that allow your breath to leave unfiltered by layers of cloth, you may as well not even wear one.
Please, for all of our health, wear a proper mask and wear it properly
More from Society
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
You May Also Like
In ancient times, our grandparents used to follow typical natural way of caring the needs of a child. All they used were more of natural products than chemical based for the growth of child.
One of major step followed was to feed Gurbach Jadd/ Vasa Kommu/ Acorus Calamus for initiating good speech ability in a child. This stem was needed to babies on Tuesdays and Sundays in mother's milk.
Vasa is feed to baby after the 1st bath on 12th day in week. Weekly only thrice it is fed and named as :
Budhwar - Budhi Vasa
Mangalwar - Vaak Vasa
Ravi Vaar - Aayush Vasa
This stem is burnt and rubbed against the grinding stone in mother's milk or warm water to get a paste
The procedure to make it is in the link
https://t.co/uo4sGp7mUm
It should not be given daily to the child. Other main benefits are
1. It clears the phlegm in child's throat caused due to continuous milk intake. It clears the tracts and breathing is effortless.
2. Digestion
For children who haven't got their speech and is delayed than usual should feed this vasa on these days in week atleast for 6months. Don't get carried away with this dialogue
"Some gain speech little late"
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?