The Army and Navy have been here longer than the country itself. The Marines was part of the Navy and the Air Force part of the Army, but in both cases each had its own history and a fairly independent structure and mission before they were spun off. The Coast Guard goes back to the beginning as well.
More importantly, any person who dons the uniform of any of those services is making a decision to potentially give up life for country, if required. All the services have dangerous positions, in times of peace and in war. I spent my time on a submarine, doing cold war stuff, and danger was understood to be part of who we were.
The Space Force does not deploy its members anywhere outside of the office. There is no significant risk, over and above OSHA violations or whatever. There is no tradition to look back upon and no mission that won't require one of the other services to finish off.
The Air Force Space Command meant that the people staffing it had gone through the ranks of the Air Force, facing whatever dangers are common to that service. (among the Services, the Air Force gets the most heat for not having it rough, but they do face risk and are committed to the fight if required.)
Pretending that the Space Force is a branch of the armed services really diminishes the role and accomplishments of the rest.
I guess changing my mind would have to be about what the role of Space Force might become, or that I've got the definition of an armed service wrong somehow.

Disclaimer:
This is a work in progress on a work of fiction set within someone else’s high fantasy world that may or may not mirror the historical reference point of Medieval Western Europe. Having said that, I am writing this in an attempt to refine my perspective and understanding of the dynamics inherent to my claim after having had the honor of writing lore for it for several months now. Presently, I am not content with both the quality as well as the continuity in which I have so far written as the claimant of Magnar.
As such, I have decided to sit down and pool together some of my musings on the subject. This has branched into a lengthier discussion than I originally anticipated, but I found it highly illuminating and wanted to share it with the community in the hopes that you also find it interesting and it helps all of us understand both Skagos within the ASOIAF setting as well as the separate Skagos within the CoB setting for the two are similar but share key differences. Finally, I hope this encourages others to similarly pursue a more historically relevant understanding of their claim while preserving the ASOIAF/CoB setting.
Estimated Land Area: 32,625 square miles
If we evaluate Westeros with the commonly held land area estimate of 3.6 million square miles, then the CoB hexadecimal size must be roughly 19 square miles (or 50 square kilometers). This would give an approximate CoB Westeros size of 3.7 million square miles. There is another belief that Westeros is the size of South America due to comments made by GRRM in interviews. In fact, GRRM’s comments outside of the book series have placed Westeros at anywhere from 1.7 million square miles to 6.9 million square miles. However, the land features and distances described within ASOIAF give a more accurate estimation at around 3.6 million square miles or roughly the size of the European subcontinent (3.9 million square miles).
The Skagosi archipelago is made up of 78 hexadecimals in the CoB game map. This equates to a CoB Skagosi total land area of 1,482 square miles or 3,900 square kilometers. Unfortunately, this is incredibly unrealistic. In the 21st century, there is no equivalent landmass in terms of both size and latitude that has a permanent population. It would have been even more improbable in the Middle Ages. Add in the terror of winters that last for multiple years and Skagos becomes all but untenable for human habitation.
However, not all is lost. Adam Whitehead, creator and writer of the “Atlas of Ice and Fire” blog has placed the size of Skagos at much larger, closer to the size of Ireland or around 32,625 miles, using the Wall as a reference point. He estimates the size of Westeros (south of the Wall) as roughly 3 million square miles. This is significantly less than our 3.6 million square miles but if anything, that would shrink his estimate of Skagos’ size as well, however his estimate is much larger than our CoB estimate. As we shall demonstrate below, Whitehead’s estimate allows for historically accurate population and climate estimates and so that is the land estimate we shall settle on.
Estimated Population: 35,000 people
GRRM has stated that his historical reference point for his ASOIAF setting is medieval Western Europe. To avoid confusion, we define the Middle Ages as the timeframe from approximately 500 AD to 1500 AD to coincide with (roughly) the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Renaissance or alternatively, the rise of the Ottoman Empire. This timeframe shall serve as our timeframe historical reference point.
Similarly, we must define Western Europe. This is a more difficult endeavor than would originally appear because the classical definition of “Western Europe” does not account for countries such as Spain, Switzerland, or Norway, which clearly have influences in GRRM’s world in Dorne, the Vale, and the Iron Islands respectfully. Therefore, knowing that there may be some modern-day inaccuracies to our definition, we propose the use of the 1054 East-West Schism of Christianity as the demarcation point for Western Europe as this event split Europe in two, with Western Europe primarily under the Catholic Church. Effectively, southern Scandinavia, the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, France, Burgundy, Croatia, the British Isles, and the Iberian Peninsula form Western Europe during the Middle Ages. This land area shall serve as our geographic historical reference point.
Next, let us begin to drill down. GRRM has stated that he views Scotland as his reference point for the North. Medieval Scotland had a population density of 4-8 people per square mile. Note that this is extremely sparse but makes sense as White Harbor, the largest city in the North during the ASOIAF book series has roughly 40,000 people. Separate estimates of the North’s population place it between 4 to 4.5 million people. With a historically realistic 2% urbanization, the rest of the North’s urban areas, to include small hamlets and communities, put together would roughly equate to the size of White Harbor. At initial value, this may seem light but keep in mind, London only reached roughly 80,000 by 1300 before getting decimated by the Black Death. In 1100, the population was only roughly 15,000. Nothing in Scotland came close to the size of London during the Middle Ages .
Now we turn specifically to Skagos, a land considerably less hospitable and urbanized than the North, a land which is already renowned for its general barren and harsh terrain. If the North has a population density of 4-8 people per square mile, then Skagos would be more similar to a population density model of Medieval Norway; 1-4 people per square mile.
If we apply our above estimated land area, then we have a population that ranges from 32,625 to 130,500. Straight off, it appears unlikely that there are 130,500 people living on Skagos. This would give Skagos a population density roughly equivalent to mainland North, something we have already discounted. Instead, we postulate that the population is closer to the lower limit, between 30,000 to 40,000. We shall split the difference evenly at 35,000.
Estimated Military Strength: 1,500 Levies (split among various clans), 100 Men at Arms, 300 Freeriders (Professional fighters split among the other three main settlements/clans on Skagos)
To begin with, it should be noted that we have very few data points to work off when it comes to estimating the professional militarization of Westeros, let alone a remote location like Skagos who does not enjoy the same abundance of canonic references as say, Winterfell. The only two sources we do have are the CoB’s data which is itself an estimate based partially on canon and partially on game balancing efforts as well as the reports of a rebellion that ended in the year 209 AC.
In the CoB setting, Skagos enjoys an initial 1450 total musterable forces with that number currently sitting at 1,550. Presently, the CoB world is 19 years before Aegeon’s Conquest which occurs in GRRM’s ASOIAF setting in 1 AC. We also know that in 209 AC (228 years from present day CoB), Skagos rises in rebellion. This rebellion would last for years and claim the lives of thousands including a Stark King before being put down. Therefore, we can surmise that this was a significant occurrence.
We must now ask the question of whether a protracted war using CoB’s estimates could realistically claim the lives of “thousands” and last “years.” Again, we do not have a great deal of the details of this conflict; how many years exactly did the conflict last, how many times did Stark forces land on Skagos, how many forces were lost in treacherous sea conditions, were civilians counted in the casualty reporting, did the Skagosi raid the mainland, etc. and so it is impossible to accurately describe the event to estimate military strength levels.
If we ignore CoB’s combat mechanics as they surely are not dynamic enough to devise such a scenario, we can use the Great Heathen Army as a historical reference. From that reference, one can extrapolate that a tribal-based society could maintain a fighting force for many years and be roughly the size of the current Skagosi musterable forces. There is no known approximate strength estimate on the Great Heathen Army, only that the mass graves left from their forces were approximately 80% male and held a fighting population anywhere from a thousand to “the low thousands.” Almost certainly, it did not encompass significantly more forces (than “low thousands”) as there are no archeologic indications of a Danish/Norse force that large during that time period in that location. This rough historical estimate is comparable to current Skagosi strength. It is also conceivable that within the canon, as also occurred historically, the actual death toll and military strengths were exaggerated in the sagas and stories that followed the actual events. Certainly, GRRM famously almost always overexaggerates both the number of forces available in his conflicts as well as the actual death tolls. Therefore, in the lack of other details, the CoB military strength estimate of Skagos passes the sanity check initially.
According to CoB mechanics, this would entail a professional army of 350 fighters (Men at Arms) which would make up 1% of the Skagosi population with the ability to mobilize the civilian populace with an additional 1,000 fighters (Levies). This temporary fighting force would be 2.86% of the population. Overall, a force of 1,550 represents 4.4% of the population well within acceptable limits of a militant society such as Skagos. The professionalization of this army is where I do have some critiques.
There are some references in the ASOIAF setting, but it is clear that most of the fighters in Westerosi armies are not full-time professional soldiers. Including freeriders, 550 out of a force of 1550 would mean that the fighting force was 35% professional fighters. We do not believe that this was accurate by either a Westerosi or historical perspective, even for a more militant society such as Skagos.
Again, we look for a historical perspective. It is not known what percentage of Scandinavian nations were mobilized to collectively form the Great Heathen Army so we must look to the other side of the battlefield, to the Anglo-Saxons, for historical context. It is recorded that probably a fifth of the adult male population of Wessex (27,000 men) would have been mobilized during the time of the Great Heathen Army though certainly not for the entirety of the 14-year conflict. Instead, these would have seasonal and event-based mustering’s of levies.
If a fifth of the adult male fighting population could be mustered during Medieval times in Western Europe for temporary national defense (i.e. not raids, assaults, or offensive military operations), we come to the conclusion that Skagos can raise roughly 1,500 levies, albeit only temporarily. The math for this is fairly straight forward. In a population of 35,000 there will be roughly 17,500 total men. Under Medieval Western European demographics charts found online, roughly 36% of that population will be an adult, military-aged male. This gives us a total of 6,300 total adult aged fighting men on the archipelago split amongst the various clans and jarls of Skagos. If we accept that 1/5 of the adult male, military-aged population can be raised for purely defensive military operations, then that gives us 1,260 men available. Looking back at our historical reference point which stated that the Great Heathen Army was about 80% male, that allows for an additional levy pool of 252 females. Historians debate the validity of shieldmaidens in Norse culture, but there’s enough historical data arguing for their inclusion as well as the general high fantasy setting of ASOIAF that I feel comfortable including them in my depiction of Skagosi military strength. Additionally, within GRRM’s ASOIAF setting, shieldmaidens are well documented among the free folk. As the most Wildling-influenced of the Westerosi houses, it is very reasonable this tradition is also practiced in Skagos. All told, this gives Skagos a maximum available levy limit of 1512, about 50% more than CoB estimate.
However, these forces would act differently than CoB mechanics currently allow. CoB mechanics allow levies to be used for offensive operations. Our research suggests a) there should be vastly more levies per claim b) they should only be used sparingly in offensive operations only and be primarily a defensive, reactionary force and finally, that c) there should be a more significant cost to them, signifying that they are a seasonal or temporary force.
To provide game balancing and ensure overall integrity of forces, we posture that Skagos can raise 1,500 levies. We also posture that the actual standing army ability of Magnar is greatly diminished to around 100 Men at Arms. This would give a professionalism percentage of 6.25% to a maximumly mustered all-Magnar army as well as maintain a roughly tight coupling with current CoB force projections.
Further, if we use Freeriders as CoB mechanics envision, that is to say, as individual sellswords/hedge knights only mustered and aligned to the claim when they are receiving pay, then it is not a stretch of the imagination to envision this force operating on the Skagosi islands instead as potentially rival clans that Magnar has to bribe or pay for their fealty, and by extension, their warriors. It would also give the rival clans roughly equal military strength to Magnar’s professional forces.
We are not recommending these changes to CoB as that would represent a vast overhaul of military strength across the claims, but according to both canon and historical references, this represents our best guess at the actual military strength of Skagos.
Climate: Combination of Tundra and Ice Cap Climate
There are two main climates to Skagos: coastal and high country. There are also two main seasons, winter and summer with shortened springs and autumns compared to more southern locations. During the summers, the sun rises early in the morning and sets late at night, giving a quasi-midnight sun. During the winter, the sun rises late in the morning and sets early in the afternoon, leaving only a few hours of sunlight per day.
Coastal Skagos has a maritime-influenced tundra climate with cold, long, snowy winters and cool, short summers. This would mirror the Köppen climate classification of ET: tundra climate. Mainland or high country Skagos would have a much harsher climate, similar to Köppen EF: Ice Cap Climate. The main differences between the two climates are the levels to which snows and ice recede as well as the amount that the permafrost thaws during the summer months.
During the summer months, seasonal snows and ice melt but Skagos is still marked with permanent snows and ice as well as massive glaciers that cover huge swaths of land and extend into the oceans as well. Vegetation is composed of dwarf shrubs, sedges and grasses, mosses, and lichens. Scattered trees grow in some regions of Skagos as overall tree growth is hindered by low temperatures and short growing seasons. Skagos is not located north of the treeline. Instead, the estimated latitude of Skagos is 61.34 degrees N.
The soil is generally rich in nitrogen and phosphorus. During the summer, the top layer of seasonally-frozen soil melts, leaving the ground very soggy. Without the cover of ice and snow, the terrain is covered in marshes, lakes, bogs and streams during the warmer months. This is due to the permafrost thawing just enough to let plants grow and reproduce, but the ground below is still frozen and so the water cannot sink any lower. Instead, the water forms the lakes and marshes found during the summer months. The appearance of marshland during the summer months is only in lower altitude areas as the permafrost stays permamently unthawed above the treeline. Skagos also tends to be very windy, with winds often blowing upwards of 50–100 km/h (30–60 mph).
Finally, the biodiversity of Skagos is low: there are only a few species of vascular plants and land mammals found on the rocky archipelago, although millions of birds migrate seasonally for the summer marshes. Despite the harsh conditions, a few species of mammals still maintain large populations. Notable animals in Skagos include reindeer (caribou), musk ox, Arctic hare, Arctic fox, snowy owl, lemmings, and even the last of the unicorns only found in the high country. Skagos is largely devoid of poikilotherms such as frogs or lizards.
Religion: A regional variant of the Religion of the Old Gods of the Forest
According to TWOIAF, an admittedly biased perspective, the Skagosi “are the subject of many a dark rumor. It is claimed that they still offer human sacrifice to their weirwoods...” While steeped in bias and malignant prejudice, this does offer us at least the possibility that Skagos has multiple weirwood trees. With the presence of multiple weirwoods, and the fact that the Skagosi may or may not make sacrifices to them, we are left with the very real, although not 100% confirmed, possibility that there exists a godswood on Skagos. In the CoB setting, I have interpreted this to designate a godswood on Skagos but that it doesn’t lay within a castle or settlement as there simply wouldn’t be enough space for an extravagant feature such as that. Instead, I have placed it outside of the primitive Kingshouse but still within a rudimentary walled in area. Ultimately, it still provides the space for prayer and worship of the old gods, whatever form that may take on the island.
If there is a godswood, and the Skagosi may offer blood sacrifices to it, it is more likely that they would make sacrifices to a heart tree, a weirwood marked with a face in the center of the godswood, instead of some nameless, faceless weirwood tree. It is for that reason that I also include a heart tree in the Skagosi godswood.
This is all important to note because Skagos is an island. More than that, it’s an island named after its supposedly most striking feature, stone. And weirwoods largely do not grow in remote, rocky terrain separated from the Weirwood Network (trademarked) especially over open water. They need soil and a connection to the other weirwoods (and possibly blood). This is why there are no weirwoods in the Eyrie or on the Iron Islands. Hell, we don’t even have confirmation that there are weirwood trees on Bear Island although we can safely assume so because the Mormonts worship the Old Gods and because I do not want to be rude to Porg.
The worship of the Old Gods on Skagos is canonically based on rumor and hearsay however it would be accurate to say that their worship of the Old Gods is a darker, older variant than their mainlander peers. As such, here are my interpretations of their worship.
Uniquely, the Skagosi venerate the drinking of animal blood. This mirrors historical Inuit beliefs towards seals specifically. Skagosi believe the consumption of raw animal blood and flesh generate a strong flow of blood, a condition considered to be healthy and indicative of a strong body. Skagosi believe animal blood is seen as fortifying human blood by replacing depleted nutrients and rejuvenating the blood supply. It is considered a necessary part of the Skagosi diet. The Skagosi believe that it is the combination of animal and human blood in one's bloodstream that creates a healthy human body and soul. As such, sacrifices to the Old Gods mirror this belief. There is, accordingly, a healthy mixing of human and animal blood that is regularly sacrificed to the Old Gods to keep them as “healthy” as a Skagosi.
However, human sacrifice to the Old Gods/Weirwoods is still usually reserved for only very select circumstances or for ritualistic killings. The most common cause would be of a criminal found guilty of a high crime. They are hoisted alive into a Weirwood tree and their entrails are spread about over the branches. They die an excruciating death and are left there, their remains to be picked apart by crows.
Animal sacrifice to the Old Gods/Weirwoods is much more common. These sacrifices are tied to seasonal or annual events. They are also used to gain favor with the Old Gods. These rituals are closely associated with agricultural practices. Both bull oxen and horses are commonly sacrificed to the Old Gods and their meat is consumed raw as part of the feast ceremonies
There are no priests or shamans who speak for the Old Gods similar to how the faith works in ASOIAF. Largely, the Old Gods are silent watchers of the world. Occasionally, jarls and important members of the society will call upon the populace for willing sacrifices to the Old Gods. Skagosi live under the belief that if they do not follow the alliance with the Old Gods that their ancestors have laid out, their way of life will disappear.
At the same time, the Skagosi respect, worship and fear the Old Gods. They ask commonly for bountiful harvests or for the health of a child but they also often ask mercy and to be spared from their bloody wrath.
Important ceremonies such as marriages and oaths are taken in front of weirwood trees. There is a common belief throughout the North that it is impossible to lie in the presence of a heart tree.
Culture and Customs
“[O]n Skagos ... well, only heart trees ever see half of what they do on Skagos.”
-Roose Bolton
The Skagosi are renowned across the Westerosi world for being a savage and cannibalistic society. Hardened sailors such as Saan or Davos avoid its waters and there is a general dread reputation to the island of stone. And while there is almost certainly some truth to these rumors, the Skagosi are also a fiercely independent people, who have a vested interest in keeping alive this fear of their 'cannibalistic' traditions if it affords them freedom from the yolk of superior mainlander power.
Let us first touch on perhaps the most famous quality of Skagos; cannibalism. And indeed, cannibalism is mentioned seemingly every time the Skagosi are mentioned in canon. But what exactly is the truth or extent to these rumors. Largely, I believe cannibalism takes place in ritualistic ceremonies as well as a measure of last resort during winter.
Cannibalistic rituals could be performed on both willing and unwilling participants. After a battle, the Skagosi are recorded as descending upon the defeated host and massacring them in a gluttonous and depraved feast of flesh. Reports of this have not been validated but within CoB, I have written the Skagosi to have done this on two occasions. Rituals that are part of a sacrifice to the Old Gods could be made with a willing participant who wishes to sacrifice themselves so that others may survive. Altruistic behavior is observed in ASOIAF, particularly during winter months, and so a twisted version of this altruism would not be unrealistic in the Skagosi culture.
Another act of reputable behavior is the use of lights to trick seafaring ships. As recorded in canon, the Skagosi “lure passing ships to destruction with false lights.” This is both a common practice in the ASOIAF worldspace as well as in historical context. The use of false lamps to lure ships is reprehensible, but provides an opportunity for the isolated populace to scour the wrecks for valuables and supplies.
Adding to the list of sins against humanity, within my rendition of Skagos, incest is not as frowned upon in Skagos as it is in Westeros. As I will suggest below, the population of the Kingshouse cannot number above a few hundred with the other settlements on the islands surely significantly fewer than that. With a small pool of potential candidates, it becomes more likely that people begin seeking relationships with individuals who share their same bloodline and over the years, any faux paus about such a practice will have washed away.
It is also suggested that the practice of First Night is still practiced on Skagos. I have not pursued this in my writings as it doesn’t seem to add anything meaningful to the story I wish to tell.
Borrowing heavily from Inuit culture, Skagosi have a uniquely reverent but non-religious relationship with seals. According to the Skagosi sagas, hunters and seals have an agreement that allows the hunter to capture and feed from the seal if only for the hunger of the hunter's family. Through this alliance both hunter and seal are believed to benefit: the hunter is able to sustain the life of his people by having a reliable source of food, and the seal, through its sacrifice, agrees to become part of the body of the Skagosi.
As saltwater animals, seals are always considered to be thirsty and are therefore offered a drink of fresh water as they die. This is shown as a sign of respect and gratitude toward the seal and its sacrifice. This offering is also done to please the Old Gods to ensure food supply.
Skagosi often blame their sicknesses on the lack of seal in their diet. Upon receiving seal meat, the Skagosi claim to feel better within hours and that their quick recovery was due to the consumption of seal meat and blood. Whether this miraculous relationship between seal and Skagosi is based in legend or truth is left up to the reader.
Finally, the use of sagas and song is incredibly important to the Skagosi. Being a more tribal society, they do not have much in the way of written history. Instead, they rely upon skalds to maintain their legends and stories. Throughout the years, these stories grow into the stuff of legends and it becomes difficult to discern the difference.
Skagosi Cuisine
Skagosi dietary habits mirror those of Norse and Inuit cultures. Because the climate of Skagos is ill-suited for agriculture and lacks an abundance of forageable plant matter for much of the year, the traditional Skagosi diet is lower in traditional carbohydrates and higher in fat and animal protein compared to the Westerosi average. Because some of the meat the Skagosi eat is raw and fresh, or freshly frozen, they can obtain more carbohydrates from their meat, as dietary glycogen, than Westerosi can. This does not mean that a Skagosi diet relies regularly on human flesh, raw or otherwise, despite what the most learned maesters of the Citadel claim. Instead, it relies mainly on hunted meats and fish with a healthy supplement coming from foraging native plants, animal husbandry, and limited agricultural means.
The Skagosi heavily hunt both wild animals and fish the nearby waters of the Shivering Sea. The Shivering Sea has hundreds of varieties of fish, including salmon, wolf fish, sand lances, grey skates, lampreys and other eels, whitefish, char, shark, herring, mackerel, and cod. Crabs and lobsters are found everywhere along its shores. Seals, narwhals, walruses, and sea lions have their rookeries and breeding grounds on and around the countless rocky islands and sea stacks of Skagos. The sea is also home to many whales, including grey whales, white whales, humpbacks, spotted whales, and leviathans. The westernmost reaches of the Shivering Sea, from Skagos and the Grey Cliffs to the delta of the Sarne, are the richest fishing grounds in the known world.
On Skagos, whale meat is highly sought after and generally comes from a variety of whales that include the narwhal, beluga whale and the bowhead whale. The latter is able to feed an entire community for nearly a year from its meat, blubber, and skin. Skagosi hunters most often hunt juvenile whales which, compared to adults, are safer to hunt and have tastier skin.
Ringed seal and bearded seal are the most important aspect of a Skagosi diet. Depending on the season, Skagosi hunt for different types of seal: harp seal, harbour seal, and bearded seal. Ringed seals are hunted all year, while harp seals are only available during the summer. Because seals need to break through the ice to reach air, they form breathing holes with their teeth and claws. Through these, Skagosi hunters are able to capture seals. When a hunter arrives at these holes, they set up a crude seal indicator that alerts the hunter when a seal is coming up for a breath of air. When the seal comes up, the hunter notices movement in the indicator and uses his harpoon to capture the seal in the water.
Walrus’ are hunted during the winter and spring since hunting them in summer is much more dangerous. A walrus is too large to be controlled by one man, so it cannot be hunted alone. In Uqalurait: An Oral History of Nunavut, an Inuit elder describes the hunt of a walrus in these words: "When a walrus was sighted, the two hunters would run to get close to it and at a short distance it is necessary to stop when the walrus's head was submerged... the walrus would hear you approach. [They] then tried to get in front of the walrus and it was harpooned while its head was submerged. In the meantime, the other person would drive the harpoon into the ice through the harpoon loop to secure it." Skagosi hunters use a similar technique
Large whales are captured by harpoon. The hunters use a passive approach when hunting whales. Hunters would harpoon the whale and instead of pursuing it, would "wait patiently for the winds, currents, and spirits to aid him in bringing the whale to shore."
On land, Skagosi hunters pursue caribou roaming the tundra in small herds. Caribou have excellent senses of smell and hearing so that the hunters must be very careful when in pursuit. Often, Skagosi hunters set up camp miles away from the caribou crossing and wait until they are in full view to attack. There are many ways in which the caribou can be captured, including spearing, forcing caribou into the river, using blinders, scaring the caribou, and stalking the caribou. When spearing caribou, hunters put the string of the spear in their mouths and the other end they use to gently spear the animal.
While there is not an abundance of native edible plants, there are a variety of plants that can be gathered from the harsh terrain. Berries include crowberry and cloudberry. There are herbaceous plants such as grasses and fireweed and in the softer coastal soils, there are tubers and stems including mousefood or roots such as tuberous spring beauty and sweet vetch. High in the tundra, roots of various tundra plants are cached by voles in burrows and can be gathered easily. Finally, seaweed is another common supplement to the Skagosi diet.
On limited farms, the Skagosi have small quantities of cattle, goats, and sheep. Milk cows provide dairy products, which are consumed fresh, but more importantly, they are turned into foods such as cheese, butter, and skyr, which can be stored over the winter months when cows stop producing fresh milk. On a few larger farms near the main settlements, beef from the cattle is a regular part of the diet. Pigs and chickens are not native to Skagos nor are they found on Skagosi farms. The climate is too difficult on them and there is not enough hay to maintain the less hardy livestock through winter. Instead, sheep and goats are preferred as they are significantly tougher.
Crops that can grow in a relatively historically similar climate include grains such as barley, rye, and oats. Depending on the local climate and soil conditions, vegetables such as beans, peas, cabbage, and onions are also grown but less abundant.
The Skagosi believe that their diet has many benefits over Westerosi food. They are adamant that their diet will make one stronger, warmer, and full of energy. Skagosi also believe that eating raw meat keeps them warmer and stronger. They say that raw meat only takes effect on one's body when eaten consistently. This is why Westerosi do not enjoy the benefits of eating traditionally Skagosson cuisine.
Alcoholic Drinks
Skagosi beer is simple ale made from barley, with hops sometimes being added for flavor. There are no mead or wines made on Skagos as the island lacks the prerequisite honey and fruits respectfully to make them.
Harder Skagosi alcohol is similar to blaand. First, sour buttermilk is held over a gentle heat until the whey separates from the curds. This whey is then left to ferment with a sugar source over the course of hours or days. At this stage, it has a very low level of alcohol, comparable to beer. Skagosi then strengthen the drink through freeze distillation. Once it is ready for consumption, it has a white or yellowish color, a slightly yeast-like aroma, a somewhat tart and refreshing taste, and is often of a thick consistency. The milk of goat will produce a sweeter drink, while cow’s milk provides a more full-bodied drink. Sheep’s milk is another option as well. The drink is very regional with seemingly each family having their own unique way of making it.
On Skagos, it is common to serve alcohol in drinking horns made from cattle. Since a drinking horn can’t be put down while there’s still drink inside it, its contents have to be drained quickly or passed around a table. When Skagosi want to set down their drinks over the course of a meal, they use wooden cups rather than drinking horns.
Foreign Affairs
Before falling under Stark control, the Skagosi “were accustomed to crossing the Bay of Seals to trade or, more oft, raid.” It is said that King Brandon IX Stark “broke their power once and for all, destroyed their ships, and forbade them the sea.” Similar to the Ironborn on the other side of Westeros, the Stoneborn were a sea-fearing people with an economy largely based around the sea, trading, and raiding. Tas already touched upon, the Skagosi are entirely reliant upon their access to the sea.
But when King Bran IX limited the Skagosi to their semi-barren stone island, he effectively committed economic genocide. That coupled with their proximity to the Wall and the harsh winter weather, and it is a wonder anyone survived at all. It also makes it clear how cannibalism came to prominence. People will do anything to survive, especially when they’re hungry. In the end, the result of King Bran IX’s economic embargo was an impoverished bitter isolated people. It is no wonder then that they have been branded “an isolated, backward, savage folk, as like to murder those who land upon their isle as to trade with them” by the rest of the North.
GRRM likes to write about the prejudice against “savage” peoples with a more nuanced viewpoint and if he ever releases TWOW, we will undoubtedly get a better viewpoint of these Stoneborn. For the time though, I would describe the Skagosi as an economically impoverished, isolated harsh populace that has less scruples with the more unsavory ways of surviving their harsh environment. They treat mainlanders with suspicion and distrust but are not the bloodthirsty savage cannibals the Citadel would have you believe.
Although historically, “Skagos has often been a source of trouble for the Starks—both as kings when they sought to conquer it and as lords when they fought to keep its fealty,” I have chosen to play a more loyal perspective than would be evident from a population that has been condemned to economic death. I attribute this to the fact that Skagos has a fleet within the CoB setting. Clearly, at some point, the Starks allowed the Skagosi to return to the sea and indeed, the current Stark King has allowed Skagosi reaving parties to raid specific locations. In light of this, the Skagosi would be long to forget or forgive the Starks for King Bran IX’s harsh treatment but are content for the time being with their return to the seas.
When discussing Skagos’ relationship with Wildlings, it is important to note that there are canonically hundreds of tribes and so it is possible to have good relations with specific tribes and poor relations with other tribes. Moving forward, in ASOIAF, it is all but confirmed that Osha takes Rickon to Skagos. She may be a wildling, but she isn’t negligent. She took him there because she knew Ramsay wouldn’t follow her to the dread island and because as a wildling, it is conceivable that she has heard of trade relations with Skagos. A good portion of Skagos lies north of the Wall. If wildlings can sail around the Wall and into Umber lands, they certainly can sail east into Skagosi seas as well. If they can manage to brave the coastlines is another matter altogether but it is very conceivable that over the centuries, Skagos and the lands beyond the Wall have developed a complex relationship that includes raiding as well as trading.
Next we turn to the relationship between the Wall and Skagos. Not much is written about Eastwatch, let alone its relationship with Skagos. However, as trading ships to Eastwatch can travel by way of Skagos, it is clear there are at least minimal communications and trade routes between the two. Additionally, it’s noted that “some Skagosi have served in the Night’s Watch as well. ..., a Crowl (...) was even Lord Commander for a time, ... a Stane (….) rose to become First Ranger ....” and at the time of ASOIAF, there are reportedly multiple “Skagosson” at Eastwatch who speak about a Lord Magnar. So there are Skagosi serving the Night’s Watch. This also means that taking the Black may or may not be a punishment in Skagos. Only two recorded Skagosi in positions of leadership in the Night’s Watch over the course of hundreds of years doesn’t imply a large flow of Skagosi to the Wall however or merely that represents the lack of trust by others in these savage islanders. It may also be that joining the Night’s Watch was a voluntary decision as the Wall isn’t any more northern than Skagos and represented an opportunity for better supplies and provisions than found on a backwater island.
[m] continued in the comments as this write-up is too large for reddit...

A long story short, but while qualified as a "Competent Person" by OSHA by the definition of "one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them" I discovered a safety issue at my place of employment.
​
If they remove my authorization to take prompt and corrective measures to address this issue (So that they can turn a blind eye) am I personally on the hook for any potential damage and injuries seeing as I'm aware of the situation?

According to a survey done in 2019, there were an average of 2.8 deaths a day from construction sites. Making construction one of the top ten most dangerous jobs. With over 6,000 non- fatal injuries. One of the most common injuries on the construction site is falling objects. Yes, falling objects, from mistakes like dropping your hammer, a brick or cement block, to something small as a bolt, can and more than likely will cause great harm or injury to its victim. That’s why innovation, and laws were placed so that everyone must wear protective gear such as hard hats. Which can aid in preventing something like a falling object from crushing or cracking your scull open. However, the hard hat is not absorbing the energy of the “blow” (falling object). So what is absorbing the energy? YOUR NECK.
32 feet
At Earth's surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 meters (32 feet) per second per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 meters per second. At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 meters per second per second
www.britannica.com › Science › Astronomy>
Chronic and acute injuries. Injuries to the neck are injuries to the spinal cord. Such injuries can cause permanent damage like paralysis, fatigue, decreased range of motion, disability, and even death. These type of injuries can ruin a household, cause poverty on families, displace someone out of work forever, and even bankrupt people. Also, the companies feel the pain. From OSHA fines, insurance claims, or just imagine someone’s boss having to console a family because their husband, wife, son, daughter, cousin, nephew, whomever had a fatal or non-fatal accident while at work.
Yes, your neck/spinal cord, and back, is where primarily most of the energy is absorbed.
R&D Investors Functional prototypes

Location: South Dakota
I work for an art studio - my boss pays us hourly but hasn’t been paying our payroll taxes, he claims we are 10-99 contractors but us employees have a set schedule, set hours, and are by all definitions EMPLOYEES. He gives us direction on what to do and when, again we are employees but he will not W2 us.
The electricity on site is appallingly dangerous, live wires exposed, constantly shorting out, outlets have burn marks on them and is definitely not up to code.
Us employees have been repeatedly forced into unsafe situations, like standing on a pallet while our boss raises us 50ft+ in the air on a boom lift to cut branches off trees with no fall protection at all, we weren’t harnessed in or anything.
Now the boss is outsourcing our art from China, rather than us doing the work he has pieces shipped in and raises the price 15x what he paid and passes it off as our handmade work, if it doesn’t come from China it’s made on CNC machinery and shipped to us 90% completed which we then “rough up the appearance” to make it seem like we made the carvings in house. I can’t stand lying to customers or quoting prices knowing we bought them for pennies on the dollar and sell them at astronomical markups. What they’re buying isn’t made by us.
He has a stockpile of art pieces done by previous employees who were not legal citizens, paid under the table, and have moved out of the country, and I recently found out he’s done this because he’s planning on firing all current employees and will be replacing us with foreign workers, he’s planning on paying them cash under the table and will be paying them half of what we are currently making. He’s done this in the past and prefers hiring foreigners which he uses as much as possible then fires them.
Our worksite has no heat/protection from the cold in the winter, other than a propane burner that burns 8hrs a day in an enclosed tent that’s not weather proofed at all. In the summers we are standing in the sun with no amenities to cool off.
Another employee split his hand open and required stitches, the boss told him to say to the hospital that his injury was not work related and did not pay for that employees bill.
Working with a skid steer he ran over an employee and almost killed him - and now is threatening that employees job, calling him a liability to keep around.
The man himself is an absolute psychopath and has a severe personality disorder or multiple disorders, I’m not saying this as an insult, I’m saying this because the man is unstable. Another employee and I regularly get reprimanded for not getting tasks done that we were never told to do, that the boss is adamant that conversations occur that never have occurred.
He’s had ex-employees steal from the shop or show up inebriated, and his response to them is to not only fire them, but threaten to kill them, bury them in the woods, etc. he stalks their houses and even hired a private investigator to watch one of them and to figure out how much he has stolen.
I’m not wanting to get revenge or hurt him for a shoddy job, I do however want this man held accountable for what he does.
Is there an agency that can handle all these IRS/OSHA/workplace/immigration issues?

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 63%. (I'm a bot)

Employers have a duty to keep workplaces free from known hazards-including coronavirus-related dangers-under Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.
Although the agency hasn't implemented any coronavirus-specific workplace safety standards, employers still must comply with existing standards that cover pandemic-related safety risks.
All employers must provide a work environment that is "Free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm," according to the Occupational Safety and Health Act's general duty clause.
Employers should review applicable state laws in addition to federal guidelines, as many states now require employers to provide COVID-19 workplace safety training to employees.
Even in states where training is not explicitly required, employers should consider providing all employees COVID-19 workplace safety training that is consistent with guidelines from OSHA and the CDC. Employers that provide up-to-date training can demonstrate their concern for employee safety and minimize the risk of government enforcement actions, workers' compensation liability and employee litigation.
The CDC advises most employers to send employees home when they've had a risk of COVID-19 exposure under the agency's "Close contact" definition.

Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: employed^#1 Safety^#2 employee^#3 COVID-19^#4 standards^#5
Post found in /news.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.

In the past I mentioned my biggest problem with Mira wasn't their price, but their misinformation.
Here are some "answers" I took from their website on P3 filter. Some of them are so bad that I just can't stand reading them.
​

So am I understanding this correct that you could use each filter one time and then you must put a new filter on it the next day if you're using daily for short periods of time?
Yes, that is correct. As mentioned in other Q&A's, filters become toxic waste once they come into contact with live agents. If there is a chance that you came into contact with a live agent while wearing a mask/filter combo, it is recommended to dispose of the filter after you decontaminate.

​

Hi, I have read through all the questions, and just want to make sure I am understanding this right. My wife is a medical nurse on call, so if for example she puts the mask on at the beginning of the day and takes off the mask at the end of the day with this P3 viral filter (just to be clear I am asking this due to COVID 19 viral disease spread), does she have to replace the filter every day then, or can it be used for several days until she notices difficulty in breathing?
She would have to replace it every day as it is not safe to re-use a filter.

​

Viruses can only survive on surfaces for a period of a few days maximum. So if the only concern is only viruses like the coronavirus (and I don't have to worry at all about exposure to chemicals, etc.), why is it that gas mask filters cannot be reused after a few days, when any viruses that were on/in it will no longer be a danger?
For safety reasons, we cannot recommend reusing any filter. This would go against all safety standards set out by regulatory agencies all over the world.

​

How long can this be used before it needs to be replaced? Does one filter last a day or weeks etc? How do you know when to swap it? Thanks
Filter use time depends on atmospheric conditions, the concentration of particles, along with your breathing rate. You will know to swap the filter when it becomes harder to breathe. If this filter is used with viral particles, it can only be used once. If it is used with standard particles, it can be used and reused for an extended period of time (that period would be determined by the factors outlined).

​

What exactly does "disposable, one-time use product" mean? If in home quarantined and Convid-19 was the concern, would I have to discard after each 1-2 hour trip out to get gas and supplies? Or is there a procedure I could follow to leave attached and reuse? A direct answer or reference to procedure is appreciated. Thanks
For safety, yes, you would have to discard after each use. You cannot decontaminate the inside of a filter, so after one use, it becomes toxic waste. When you come back home from a supply run, you would have to fully decontaminate and learn proper doffing procedure (the industry term for removal of personal protective equipment). As part of decontamination, you would dispose of the filter in accordance with local laws.

​

just bought the cm-6m. If I took the mask off in a controlled environment and left the filters in the mask after I had used it would they be okay? N95 masks are reusable until they are not structurally sound.
That depends on if the filters were used with live agents. If they were, they are considered toxic waste and must be disposed of for safety. N95 masks are only reusable so long as they are used with simple particulates (not viral, biological, CBRN, etc).

​
So basically, Mira claims you can't reuse P3 filter against virus, even saying it's against all safety regulation all over the world. They "recommend" people discard filter even just going grocery which is ridiculous
This is definitely false. You could reuse HEPA particle filter per NIOSH recommendation until grossly contaminated or breathing resistance greatly increased. P3"R" literally means reusable on their filter.Equivalent NIOSH P series (like P95, P100) are designed to be functional for at least 40 hours(or 5 shifts) in extreme environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qkXV4kmp7c&feature=youtu.be&t=1550
(Extreme environment as like I once worked in fire evac zone with PM2.5 over 500ug/m3 using a PAPR, which indeed killed my filters with just more than a week)
Even chemical filters are not single use nowadays anymore, US Army manual says modern filter are reusable even from chemical warfare agents. Current practice is replace filter "once a month during chemical warfare". Scott and other companies states ABEK2P3R can function under normal chemical environment for 50 hours, no way it's just single use. (obviously concentration is still a factor)
Mira states virus are travel by aerosol, which is correct yet implies filter can "re-release" virus aerosol later. This is impossible since aerosol would dry out in seconds once captured by the filter, rendering virus immobile and disable virus itself quickly after.
Only exception I can think about is against radiation fallout, which still emits radiation after being capture by filter medium. So it would be wise to set them away from living quarter in a shelter.
Basically, Mira is trying to scare people using their particle filter only once, so they have to buy more. In the current crisis where filter is always in short supply, it is very immoral sell tactics IMO, that people are throwing away many perfectly fine filter because of Mira's misinformation
-----------
​

Will this filter work against deterrents used by LE such as tear gas or pepper spray. If not all, which ones are not covered?
No, it will not, as this is just a particle filter. We would suggest the DOTpro 320 or NBC-77 SOF for riot control agents.

Only partially correct, riot control agents are actually particles. A particle filter would actually capture most of it unless in very high concentration, so a P3 filter will be effective against riot agents.
Riot dedicated filter like Avon CTCF50 only has a very thin layer of charcoal to remove riot agent particles too small to be captured.
-----------
​

Will this filter work for wildfire smoke?
No, it will not. You would need the VK-450 filter. Unfortunately, it is currently unavailable. we are expecting the next batch to arrive at the end of September.Once it comes, we will fill all backorders, and then do an email blast for remaining stock. The ParticleMax P3 filter is only recommended against biological threats (not suitable for other CBRN threats).

​
Another bluntly false information. This is wild fire, not structural fire.
While fire will release various harmful chemical including carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide. You will almost never going to encounter harmful level of them outdoor unless you are very close, downwind from a massive wild fire with prolonged exposure. If you are working so close to a major fire, you probably should request your job for OSHA/NIOSH/NFPA PPE information, not from Mira (basically only people should be that close are wild land firefighters)
Majority of air pollution from wild fire, as for general public's concern is actually PM2.5, which can easily blocked by regular HEPA filter. (PM2.5 stands for particle at 2.5 micron btw)
Even if you were working in an evacuation zone as a first responder, regular combination filter, even a recently expired one is more than enough to block out remaining trace chemicals
Again, Mira is trying make people buy fancy $90 CO filter from them rather than regular HEPA filters. BTW, did Mira mention CO filter are generally single use "escape" only device, with 20 mins service life? If you are so close to fire that needs a CO filter, you probably made many wrong decisions before that.
There are some others, and I haven't even go through Q&A on their other products, but you probably already get the idea here.

Masks
CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks https://www.cdc.gov/mmwvolumes/69/wpdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
Analysis https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
"To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks." https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Here is the study
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers (2015) http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751
Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health. https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfilerapporte2020/should-individuals-in-the-community-without-respiratory-symptoms-wear-facemasks-to-reduce-the-spread-of-covid-19-report-2020.pdf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
"There is no reliable evidence of the effectiveness of non-medical facemasks in community settings"
Dr. Brosseau, US expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
"Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE"
Jenny Harries, UK deputy chief medical officer. http://archive.vn/7z5B1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
“For the average member of the public walking down a street, it is not a good idea” to wear a face mask in the hope of preventing infection
Dr Jake Dunning, head of emerging infections and zoonoses. https://archive.vn/Vex3H?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app#selection-6161.12-6171.101
There is “very little evidence of a widespread benefit” in members of the public wearing masks.
Anders Tegnell, Sweden's chief epidemiologist: https://nypost.com/2020/08/19/swedens-tegnell-wearing-face-masks-may-be-very-dangerous/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Evidence about the effectiveness of face mask use is “astonishingly weak.”
Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitale. https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/face-mask-photo-op-adds-to-bewilderment-over-non-use-in-denmark?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
“All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies,”
Tamara van Ark, Dutch Medical Care Minister. https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
"From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation,"
Coen Berends, spokesman for the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. https://theliberal.ie/hollands-top-scientists-start-debate-by-claiming-theres-no-evidence-face-masks-work-in-fighting-the-pandemic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
"Face masks in public places are not necessary, based on all the current evidence" [...] "There is no benefit and there may even be negative impact."
Professor Carl Heneghan, Oxford Epidemiologist. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QNI2ocgosgA&utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
"Cloth masks [...] may actually increase your risk of infection". "Not clear they work"
Harvard Study published May 21, 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
CDC study on the use of personal protective face masks against viral influenza transmission found no significant protection against or reduction of viral transmission of influenza among infected and uninfected individuals.
We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Review of scientific data on facemasks and Covid-19 https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Masks are to protect other people from the wearer, not the other way around.
Virus particles are smaller than masks pores, meaning that they penetrate the mask and the virus is not airborne, so all measures are pointless and only a false sense of security...
But its cool to see how many people fell for that “protect the others” narrative... you can be told whatever by the so “called” experts and would believe it.
"Masks don't work, a review of science relevant to Covid-19 Social Policy" https://web.archive.org/web/20200502231610/https://researchgate.net/publication/340570735_Masks_Don't_Work_A_review_of_science_relevant_to_COVID-19_social_policy?fbclid=IwAR1kWm3Bqh_969mgBnaGgMr1QdAiOyz_lB6Zfl3fhPMX4EskGSIDkiOxlDc
Backup http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Rancourt-Masks-dont-work-review-science-re-COVID19-policy.pdf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
This contradicts the above https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
A new study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health concludes that densely populated spaces aren’t actually linked to higher infection rates.
Even more confounding, the study’s analysis indicates that crowded, dense locations are associated with lower coronavirus death rates.
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2020/urban-density-not-linked-to-higher-coronavirus-infection-rates-and-is-linked-to-lower-covid-19-death-rates.html
The below information discusses cloth / face masks for generalized use in public as a proposed means of preventing viral infection.
Please don't conflate this with filtration masks like N95 respirators and higher intended for use by medical professional in hospital or similar environment.
Cloth/surgical face masks overview:
Cloth masks designed to protect wounds, blood splatter etc. Not designed as respiratory protectors - no viral filtration - for context one requires an electron microscope to view viruses. A cloth mask trying to filter viral particles is the equivalent of a soccer net trying to filter sand. No fit or seal on the face Prevents regular filtration through the nose due to imposed new breathing habits when wearing a mask. https://omft.info/en/news-posts/nasal-breathing-as-a-defense-against-the-corona-virus/
No regulation of quality of cloths Inconsistent guidelines for cloth/surgical mask wearers.
Other issues and opinions
Issues:
Mask get filthy and end covered in germs and viruses Largest randomised trial ever done and meta analysis done 2011 - 2015 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422121724.htm
Leads to self contamination Self-contamination – breathing in from cloth mask surface – higher risk with long period of use.
https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/6547584
More harmful side effects / immune health and other general health issues and complications: 1.Side effects of masks - see part 6 especially important and not understood or known by the vast majority (by Antonio I LazzarinoMedical Doctor and Epidemiologist) https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-40
2014 paper showing increased nasal resistance upon removing masks hints at immune system interference http://medcraveonline.com/JLPRJLPRR-01-00021.pdf
3.Risk of skin infection
https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2020/04/08/beware-of-skin-infections-caused-by-coronavirus-masks.html
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/preventing-skin-damage-due-to-face-masks
4.Comments on Oxygenation and possible hypercapnia - Deoxygenation from surgical / cloth masks http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf
Opinions from experts: note interview headline - quote from expert: cloth face masks are useless - Overview 2 from US leading respiratory experts https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
Follow up interview with respiratory experts https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/mask-respirators/cloth-masks-are-useless-against-covid-19
2nd story, cloth and surgical masks useless for Covid-19 http://archive.fo/cBH4G?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Overview from Oral hygienists viewpoint - review of data https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/
The WHO official statements before and after political u-turn
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-need-for-healthy-people-to-wear-face-masks-2020-4?r=US&IR=T
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/491725-who-no-evidence-wearing-a-mask-can-protect

World Health Organization guidance advised there is limited evidence that masks for healthy people are beneficial.

Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from an infected person to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets. 13 There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventive measure. 14-23 However, there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Masks make people feel a false sense of security

Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take symptoms. The true extent of asymptomatic infections will be determined from serologic studies. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance -2- masks away from those in health care who need them most, especially when masks are in short supply.

There are no studies that show the effectiveness of non-medical masks

The use of masks made of other materials (e.g., cotton fabric), also known as nonmedical masks, in the community setting has not been well evaluated. There is no current evidence to make a recommendation for or against their use in this setting. WHO is collaborating with research and development partners to better understand the effectiveness and efficiency of nonmedical masks. WHO is also strongly encouraging countries that issue recommendations for the use of masks in healthy people in the community to conduct research on this critical topic. WHO will update its guidance when new evidence becomes available.

The WHO says that wearing a mask puts healthy people at risk of getting infected or having other medical problems.

-self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated mask
-depending on type of mask used, potential breathing difficulties
-false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
-diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of mask for health care workers
-diversion of resources from effective public health measures, such as hand hygiene
Source
Ex Surgeon General https://postimg.cc/5H5zPz7K?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
*Co2 levels behind masks and tests:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04767.x
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1906671
*Even the N95 does this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4647822/
*What happens when CO2 overload hits the blood:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199454/
*What happens to a cell when Oxygen is lacking:
https://sites.google.com/site/ganodermareview/the-root-cause-of-cancer
https://mnoncology.com/about-us/practice-news/acid-alkaline-balance-and-cancer-the-truth-behind-the-myth/
*What happen with cells when electormagnetic stimulated:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001016073704.htm
*GPS Accuracy - required for measuring and controll groups through Social distancing:
https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/
https://www.gpsworld.com/how-to-achieve-1-meter-accuracy-in-android/
Oxygen flow measured.
https://youtu.be/cXQM09Ayn5M?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
NZ guidance on masks links to studies that say they are more dangerous than wearing nothing https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/review_of_science_and_policy_around_face_masks_and_covid-19-15may2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3BWOQuK9ILr_-iZEZ0D1WbYTP74QgC4ztyrdAVdOBrUMal2J45mbFQ0ZU&utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Masks are, by design, meant to restrict air flow. What good would they be if they did not? JUST FUCKING THINK!
If air flow is the same with and without a mask, then why even wear one?
I know most of the idiots out there wearing masks cant think because in addition to giving you a head ache, lower O2 levels and higher CO2 levels in your blood literally impairs cognitive function.
You are making yourself stupid if you wear a mask. And if your diet is high in sugar, which also makes you stupid, you're probably functionally retarded at this point.
The fact people think it's ok to have mandatory mask, shows you how brainwashed , and scared/manipulated people are .
These same people for 4 years ----Trump's a fascist, dictator ! No no , please , im scared , covid 19 has a 99.74% survival rate , please big government , force people to wear masks and shut down all small businesses.(literal fascism Sick sick sick people 😷.)
Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
There are few data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
"Evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
A report on the health implications of wearing masks https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344360577_Masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_Part_1_Friable_mask_particulate_and_lung_vulnerability

1. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that the optimal range of oxygen in the air for humans is between 19.5 and 23.5%. In previous times, before the COVID-19 era, OSHA required that any human-occupied airspace where oxygen measured less than 19.5% to be labelled as “not safe for workers.” The percentage of oxygen inside a masked airspace generally measures 17.4% within several seconds of wearing
   
2. As a compensatory mechanism, inspiratory flow is measurably higher in mask-wearers than in controls. The question then arises: If inspiratory flow is increased over normal while wearing a mask, is every fiber attached to one’s facemask secure enough not to be inhaled into the lungs of the mask-wearer?
   
3. Disposable surgical face masks are made of synthetic fibers, including polymers such as polypropylene, polyurethane, polyacrylonitrile, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene or polyester. Research on synthetic fibers has shown a correlation between the inhalation of synthetic fibers and various bronchopulmonary diseases, such as asthma, alveolitis, chronic bronchitis, bronchiectasis, fibrosis, spontaneous pneumothorax and chronic pneumonia. Pulmonary fibrosis is among the worst diseases that can be suffered or witnessed. It kills exceedingly slowly. The illness worsens slowly over time, and suffocates the victim very gradually. Nothing is available to the sufferer from conventional medicine. Neither nutrient, herb, nor any other known treatment can even reduce the fibrogenesis, let alone eliminate it. The 5-year survival rate is only 20%.
   

When they told you you have to wear one of these shitty face masks sold at the supermarket at very inflated prices (I heard over 10 euros for a box of 10), they forgot to mention all of the above.
Now, have you asked yourself how these face masks are manufactured ? You probably picture in your mind some modern factories, with advanced machines doing it all. Well, I have bad news for you. Here is how your face masks are manufactured in India. Do you think they ensure they comply with all the strict European standards ? I'm not sure about this. There are modern factories in China, but face masks clearly cannot all come from this specific factory. And not all factories in China are as modern as that one.
Now, here is another quote from the research report :
Surgical personnel are trained to never touch any part of a mask, except the loops and the nose bridge. Otherwise, the mask is considered useless and is to be replaced. Surgical personnel are strictly trained not to touch their masks otherwise.
When you were told to wear a face mask, you were never told to apply such precautions, were you ? The labeling on the package does not mention about all these precautions either.
This report does not mention all problems that come with wearing the face mask. It does not mention about the pathogen agents you exhale and that stay and breed in your face mask, and that you will inhale back in later on. I assume that's what the researchers plan to talk about in the second part of their research report.
There is this meme that says a lot. Official data tells us people over 70 are vulnerable. Risks for younger people are basically null. Children are not at risk. Now, anyone wearing one of these face masks, young, old, health, unhealthy, will experience the health issues highlighted in 3). We can expect lots of people to die in the coming years due to the lung infections listed in 3).
Mandatory mask wearing, both indoors and outdoors, started in May in Spain. https://m.imgur.com/a/s5Q9Rg6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

Ages ago, Rural Australia.
(If you like a roasted chicken from a big chain supermarket, maybe skip this tale. It does involve some Thermal Physics though. Which is always nice.)
Our electrical company was one of the largest in the region, installing/maintaining/repairing a wide variety of equipment and power solutions. It was common for us to get contracted by agents far-away to look at/look after gear.
This tale takes place in the Deli Department of a National Supermarket Chain (NSC). We had been sub-sub-sub contracting at this store for over 5 years.
It involves “Bryan”, the new-ish Deli Manager, and convection ovens. The two ovens in this store were commercial quality, ~$35k each, and could turn out 40 whole chickens each in about 1.5hrs. Cooked Chooks were these ovens main gig. With regular cleaning during shift, they could bake about 480 golden-browns in 12 hours. Without cleaning between cooks, that number goes to around 600.
Bryan had been the manager for about 6 months, and was out to make a name. That name would turn out to be “wanker”, but he thought he was Gods Gift. Not long after he started, the ovens went to doing the 600, and had been having issues.
I’d gotten to know these ovens well, had done the manufacturers service tech training, and was the main repairer of them. (I say ‘repairer’, because the store had decided to forego the recommended service schedule way before Bryan arrived. Chicken fat was part of my life. Delightful.)
Story
One Tuesday morning, I had a call to go look at Oven 1. I’d had a job on this oven the week before, and ended up unblocking all the steam sensor lines. (Again.) We had a standing order to inspect both ovens at any visit, for anything that might be a safety concern. Both ovens needed a deep, deep clean at the time, the cooking chambers having buildups of chicken fat in places. I’d seen worse, but these were getting there.
I made Bryan and the Store Manager (lazy dickhead) aware, took photos of both ovens for my report, and told them about the hazards of not cleaning them. (Again.) I also told them that the conditions of the ovens were maybe getting close to me padlocking/tagging them out as unsafe to operate. (This was in line with a NSC State Office directive to service contractors.)
(Cooking chickens with circulating steam will create buildups of aerosolised fat all inside the cooking chamber. This would normally be cleaned between cooks, and the whole oven thoroughly after shift. If not cleaned, and allowed to build up, it can catch on fire. On fucking fire. Yeah. Go clean your oven later.)
This visit to Oven 1 would reveal a buggered 3phase fan motor, rendering it unusable until a replacement could be fitted, in about 5 days time. Not only would it not cook 1500 chickens in that time, but the thawing chickens to go in it would be wasted too, per policy.
So, a week had gone by and the ovens weren’t cleaned. It was almost like they didn’t believe my warnings..
Me (to Bryan, while I’m finishing locking/tagging out the power isolator on Oven 1) - “You know, Oven 2 really should get cleaned right away. If it breaks down while this one is out of action, that’s .. ” (I get cut off)
Bryan (being a bit dismissive) - “We’re too busy. Mate, to keep up I’m on opens all this week. I’ll get it done when it slows down in a couple of weeks.” (He walks off to the cold room)
Me (following) - “Ok, look. Here’s what’s we can do. I’ll swing by first thing in the morning and have a look. If it’s not clean enough, I’m going to lock it out until you call and say it’s cleaned. Then I can come look and take the lock off.”
Bryan (getting chickens ready to go in the oven) - “Well mate, you do what you gotta do, and I’ll do what I gotta do.”
(Per my training, I didn’t technically have to lock it out yet. It was bad, but I didn’t think it was dangerous just yet. His comment sealed my actions though.)
Out sitting in the car, after writing my report on the iPad and getting the new motor underway, I preemptively write out 3 ‘Danger’ tags. He is, after all, like so many wankers I’ve dealt with in the past. (Also, I like writing on Danger Tags. The marker makes nice squeaking sounds.)
About 7am the next morning, with my tags and lockout kit, I go have a look. Oven 2 has finished a cook cycle and the door is open. Bryan is getting more chickens ready to go in as someone else bags the ready ones. I see it hasn’t been cleaned at all. Baked on chicken skin in the drain, the steam vent almost blocked, blackened fat deposits and bits of chicken meat in the cooking chamber. All the stainless steel has a brown patina. Fucking filthy.
(I don’t know if you’ve had to apply lockout/tagout before. Usually it’s just a straightforward affair, part of doing a job. But when I get to apply them, when I know it’s going to really piss off a wanker, I get this kind of manic glee. Especially if that wanker had to sign off during induction about locks/tags. Also, “I got the Power” plays in my head)
After I turn the isolator off to Oven 2, and the lock is ready to snap shut..
Me (in the direction of the cold room) - “Bryan! Hey Bryan!”
He comes out, sees me looking at him (it’s hard not to smile), sees the lock.. Click
Bryan (as I’m applying tags to the isolator and oven power switch) - “Mate, come on. I’ll clean it now and you can come look later.”
Me (not believing a word) - “No worries mate. Give me a call when it’s ready and I can come take the lock off.”
I head out to the big electrical switchboard and lock/tag the 3phase circuit breaker for the oven. (This wasn’t necessary for the oven lockout, but I had a suspicion about Bryan.) Then I take photos of all my handy work, and go tell Store Manager the situation. He says he’ll sort it out.
Out in the car, before I go to the next job, my suspicion prompts me to prepare an email.
About 3pm I get a call from the store. Store Manager asks that I come down. He’s vague on the details.
Standing in front of Oven 2s open glass door, I see an amazing sight. Dictionary-definition amazing.
Thermal Physics: Take an already very-hot cooking chamber. Have just the right combination of blocked/partially blocked passages air might escape the cooking chamber. Add a goodly amount fire. Open the oven door just far enough, and for just the right amount of time. This introduces the stores cold air conditioning. The fire will flash nicely. Now close the oven door..
You just made a vacuum implosion! (how cool is science) All 5 of the cooking chambers stainless steel inner walls were buckled in about 50mm/2” each. It was fucking glorious to behold. Truely. I couldn’t not take pictures of this magnificence. But, the best was yet to come.
I go and take pictures of the removed tags, cut off locks, and discarded lockout device from the circuit breaker. I add them to the email, along with the vacuumed oven photos, and some more words. Then I go and round up Bryan and Store Manager for a chat. Bryan, it turns out, went and got some bolt cutters just after I’d left the store. He was the one cooking chickens when the fire started and opened the door. I add all this to the report. (b-Ryan started the fire! Yes, I called him Bryan for this moment.)
I show them my iPad, and the list of recipients. Then hit send. The report details all the times I’ve told these guys about cleaning the ovens, the fire/safety hazard involved, and why scheduled maintenance is a thing. And the very clear pictures of everything. The list of recipients includes each step of the sub-sub-sub relationship, as well as the email addresses of the National, State and Regional Service Managers from NSC. It’s also copied to Worksafe (OSHA).
Store Manager (looking at Bryan) - “...”
Bryan (just standing there, looking like the wanker he was) - “I didn’t ..”
Store Manager - “Just shut up.”
—-
My boss said I over-stepped our role as sub-sub-sub contractors with the email. I say those fuckwits could have really hurt someone. He agrees, but I’m still in the dog house for a while. Fair enough. Fuck me, it was worth it though.
The NSC, Store Manager and Bryan all got fines from Worksafe. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in total. Worksafe made an example of them all and did ‘an Oprah’.
Store Manager and Bryan got fired.
I have some lovely photos of science in action. I also learned to lockout dirty ovens earlier than I did that day.
The manufacturers paid to have the imploded oven shipped back to them when supplying the new one. Speaking with the guy who trained me, it sits in their workshop. A now clean and gleaming testament to appliance care and preventative maintenance.
Thank you for reading.
—-
Notes:

• The science represented in this tale is my simplified version. If you would like to scientifically review it, meet me at the pub. We can have an excellent chat over some Jacks. (Please be prepared to draw pictures for me on napkins.)
  
• Thermal energy, heat transfer, convection, vacuums.. all worthy of a good Googling. There are some nice videos of Vacuum Implosions.
  
• GO AND CLEAN YOUR OVEN!
  
• Lockout/tagout has been portrayed in a light manner here. It’s not. They save lives every day. Don’t fuck with them.
  
• b-Ryan started the fire! (if you don’t know, go look at “The Office-US”, S02E04.)
  

Here is some context: I’m getting married in a couple of weeks and, as you might imagine, wedding planning during a pandemic hasn’t been easy. I’m very pro-mask because both my fiancé and I have family members who are high-risk.
Roughly two weeks ago, my aunt DM’d me an anti-mask video with no context. I actually watched it all the way through and it was infuriating. Like many people in my hometown, the speaker in the video compared mask mandates to the Yellow Star of David. Then I decided to see how much of it was factual. A lot of it wasn’t exactly correct. So I did some research and responded below.
“Hi J,
First off, so sorry for the long message. I like to group all my thoughts into one message and this ended up being a novel! LOL
I watched your video and did some research and there were a few things I noticed that are important to mention.

• The woman in this video references California OSHA Title 8, section 5144. I looked this up and all of the information she’s listed isn’t entirely correct. This OSHA regulation is specifically for workers working in a IDLH (immediately dangerous to life or health) atmosphere, meaning they’re working in conditions with dust particles, smoke, fumes, and other things that could be harmful to their lungs if workers breathed in.
  
• The ‘irreversible adverse effects” she mentions is specifically for a IDHL atmosphere, not for wearing a general mask.
  
• The only masks I’ve seen while reading this are masks for respirators or masks that are connected to air purifiers, not for general cloth or surgical masks that citizens are being encouraged to wear. If the respiratory masks were put on incorrectly or the air purifier mask had an oxygen canister not filled with the right amount of oxygen, that would be harmful to a worker’s brain because it would be too much CO2.
  
• Here’s the link for all the OSHA stuff: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5144.html
  
• Recently in Springfield, we had two hairstylists that had COVID symptoms and didn’t realize it (one was told it was allergies) and they still took on clients. When they realized they had COVID, both stylists had been exposed to 139 clients. All clients were tested and we all just found out the other day that none were exposed to COVID. Both the hair stylists and the clients all wore masks. Here’s the article for more info: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/health/coronavirus-hair-salon-masks.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes
  
• This is from the Stanford University about masks and oxygen levels: https://digitalmedic.stanford.edu/myth/myth-face-masks-can-reduce-oxygen-getting-to-the-lungs-and-bloodstream/
  
• This is from the American Lung Association about masks and oxygen levels: https://www.lung.org/blog/covid-masks
  
• Here is an Irish doctor (who is not involved or influence by American politics) showing how masks don’t effect oxygen levels: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/doctor-puts-on-six-face-masks-in-video-to-debunk-idea-that-they-lower-oxygen-levels-1.5025293
  

Look, I know we don’t agree on anything when it comes to politics. We couldn’t be more political opposites. But I love you a lot and I’d really like for you to come to my wedding.
With that said, Springfield did just pass a mask ordinance from now until October. This means that if you don’t have a mask on in public and you’re unable to prove a medical condition for exemption, you’ll get fined $100. While restaurants are exempt from this for now, that doesn’t include if you and [my uncle] decide to go picking at any of our thrift stores or decide to go to any other stores. I’d hate for you to get fined for something like this.
However, there is something I do agree with something that the woman said in your video: You do have a choice. And you do have a right to feel comfortable. So if you feel like having to wear a mask while in Springfield would infringe on your rights, I would not be offended if you decided not to come. We’re going to be live-streaming the ceremony on Youtube so people who couldn’t come can still see it. We’ll also be taking a bunch of pictures and video as well. Plus, we’re still having the wedding reception next year. A lot of things can change between now and then and by then we might even have a COVID vaccine.
Like I said, I totally understand if you decide to not come. Give it some thought and let me know what you plan on doing. You’ve got time to think about it.
Take care! -Tess”
In case you’re wondering, she did not reply. And she and my uncle decided to not attend my wedding. I definitely have mixed feelings on the matter, but there’s not much you can do at this point. I’d rather people stay home and be safe than get sick at my wedding.
It may sound silly, but I‘m really proud of myself for how I responded to her. I was angry but I kept my cool and maintained civility.

Well, the NBCI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) in conjunction with the CDC has compiled a report (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985110/)showing that within the period of 2005-2012 there were about 1552 police involved homicides. The FBI's UCR system shows an average (I could only bother to find statistics from 2010 onward) of 85 deaths per year for law enforcement personnel.
Now notice that the statistics from the NBCI report only covers sixteen states. This is because those sixteen states have a mandatory reporting requirement. The other states have voluntary reporting, which means that even if they received statistics from them, there's no way to verify their accuracy.
If we look at the country-wide FBI verified statistics for police officer deaths over a seven year period, the results come out to be about 600. In a similar seven year period, officers killed civilians at a rate of over twice that in less than a third of states combined.
If we consider that Assault is legally different in every state, but mainly considered, as Google puts it, to be "The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Physical injury is not required." then it becomes clear that cases of Assault against police officers does not mean violence against police officers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows us that only about 56 percent of injuries in the line of duty are actually caused by criminals themselves. 41 percent are made up of vehicular accidents. "In 2014, fatal work injuries to police officers occurred mostly (64 percent) on streets or highways. In 41 percent of all fatal injuries involving police officers, a motor vehicle was the primary source of injury (typically from collisions or running off the road). Another 56 percent involved a person (either the police officer or someone else) as the primary source of fatal injury. Most often this was an assailant such as a robber, suspect, or inmate involved in hitting, kicking, beating, or shooting.
Police officers experienced 27,660 nonfatal work-related injuries and illnesses that resulted in days away from work in 2014. The median days away from work for police officers in 2014 was 10 days, compared to 9 days for all occupations. The body parts most often injured in nonfatal incidents that caused police officers to miss work were the upper extremities (25 percent) and lower extremities (24 percent). The primary nature of these injuries were sprains, strains, and tears (34 percent)."
We can see from these statistics that most officers are in very little danger of actual harm. Looking directly at the charts from the BLS shows that a combination of traffic accidents, over exertion, and "falls, slips, and trips" make up about 60.7% of police injuries during this time period. Interestingly, during the same 2018 time period (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/safety-topics/assault/#:~:text=Nonfatal%20work%2Drelated%20assault%20injuries,from%20work%20and%20453%20fatalities.) there were over 900,000 worker related injuries in Amercia, with about 20,000 being the more typical concept of Assault:

• Intentional shooting by another person
• Stabbing, cutting, slashing, or piercing
• Hitting, kicking, beating, and shoving
• Strangulation
• Bombing and arson
• Rape and sexual assault
• Threats and verbal assault

This shows us that the numbers involved with police officers are fairly low. There were even 453 recorded deaths that year, fewer than the entire country's police death total for the year. And if we look back at the statistics, we can show that a good number of those officer deaths were from non crime related incidents.
The statistic from the 1920 is particularly egregious. There is no mention of the deaths caused by the poisoning of alcoholic beverages during this time. The police forces back then helped commit the equivalent of mass murder under the color of law. While it seems unintentional, thousands of people are recorded as having died due to this. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-americans/) That is at least as many deaths as the article claims police suffered during that time period. And that isn't counting the number of direct and intentional deaths actually caused at the hands of officers enforcing prohibition at the time.
The statistic from 9/11 is also a touch misleading, since it fails to mention that five times that number of firefighters died during that incident as well. There is no data I could find as to why the deaths were so much higher for the firefighters, but it is clear that the officers on scene were safer than other emergency workers. As Google says "Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. Of the 2,977 victims killed in the September 11 attacks, 412 were emergency workers in New York City who responded to the World Trade Center. This included: 343 firefighters (including a chaplain and two paramedics) of the New York City Fire Department (FDNY)"
Really, it's not that bad. If the number of 800,000 police officers is accurate (relatively) then the number of deaths involved in the profession is quite low. FBI.gov shows us (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20officers%20killed,2010%20data%20(55%20officers)..)) that only 48 officers died in 2019 due to felonious acts. The remainder were from accidents on and off the job. According to OSHA (https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats) there were 1008 construction job deaths in America in 2018, where as there were 56 felonious deaths of police officers recorded by the FBI in 2018. That is a shocking difference, especially if you consider the fuss that has been kicked up recently about police officers considering quitting in light of the protests.
All in all, while this is not a disingenuous post, it serves to hide the fact that these numbers are quite low, and that many of these deaths are accidents unrelated to any kind of actual crime taking place. It also fails to mention the things the police officers were doing at the time, such as poisoning alcohol and shutting down speakeasies/bootleggers during prohibition. Prohibition, by the way, can be directly traced to much of the animosity between the police and civilians. The war on drugs has killed and imprisoned more people than there have ever been police in the history of the country. As of 2018, there were about 456,000 people serving purely drug-related sentences in America. If we consider the number of lives ruined by arrest and incarceration for "drugs" in 2018 compared to the number of officer lives harmed during 2018 (using the above links as a guide) we can see that officers such as yourselves have actually caused far more harm than has been placed upon you during the same time period. This is true for basically any time period during recorded American history, but it is especially true today.

This is part four of a series on Engineering Ethics and Safety as it pertains to Tesla's Autopilot development program and, more generally, any autonomous vehicle development program that would potentially impact the safety of people. Again, Tesla provides for good talking points since it is the most vocal (but not necessarily open) about its market plans, safety goals and future plans.
Part 3 is here in the case that you missed it.
As always, feel free to ask questions, add insight or even challenge me on these thoughts.

Part 4

Introduction

In some of the sections, I will be touching on a recent e-mail exchange between Mr. Aaron Greenspan (aka PlainSite) and Mr. Musk. The e-mail of interest is on page 11.
I do not know if Mr. Greenspan is acting in good faith here or not, and it really does not matter for my purposes anyways. I will focus on the technical and ethical issues rather than the underlying Tesla Drama or Mr. Greenspan's personal thoughts on the exchange.
For what it is worth though, I do appreciate Mr. Greenspan's work to get more information out of the NHTSA. It really should not be this difficult, frankly. But here we are.
In any case, "the data" is sort of nebulous term and concept when it comes to continuously validating safety of these types of systems. Snapshots of data are romantic, but they are indeed simplifications. It is nice to think that some sort of spreadsheet will provide all of the answers, but it will not. The full data picture will be far more complex than that to verify safety whether we are talking Tesla Autopilot or some other system.

Priorities, Priorities

Let us talk priorities even if this path is somewhat worn.
Several weeks ago, the NHTSA 5-star rating system drama had re-emerged briefly but intensely as usual. It still does crop up every now and again.
These were my last thoughts on the matter last year based on the NHTSA response nearly a year ago and I have seen no reason to update my thinking on that.
The key statement of my post being:

The NHTSA is telling Tesla that they can only claim that the Model 3 is five-star rated. Not that it is safer than another five-star vehicle.

In my opinion, Tesla is misinterpreting the NCAP system - intentionally or not, with ill-intent or not.
And, also in my opinion, Tesla has not offered a scientifically-astute rebuttal to why they see fit to do so including the recently released exchange between Tesla's counsel and the NHTSA.
In fact, Tesla in its response has apparently only succeeded in further misunderstanding the NCAP assessment and the relevant physiological models and data science in play here and building some strawmans in the later half of their response. For an engineering organization as sophisticated as Tesla is, I am reluctant to say that they are honestly ignorant of the scientific foundations here.
In the context of Tesla's public statements today, it does not matter what Tesla thinks the NCAP rating system should be or how relevant they think it is for BEVs or their BEV designs, but rather, what it is here and now.
Perhaps the NCAP system could be refined for BEVs. Perhaps.
But there is an established, science-based way of doing that. This is not the way.
As I noted before, the NHTSA is on point to push back on Tesla and any other manufacturer that would pervert the NCAP rating system as the system's continued existence is only as good as a strict adherence to it.
Consider that while Tesla vehicles currently rate highly in terms of NCAP safety, an unchecked, long-term distortion of the system in either direction can allow a less safety-conscious vehicle manufacturer in the future to attempt to boost their rating inappropriately - possibly using the same wrong-headed justifications that Tesla is using here.
All of that said, I feel the NHTSA priorities are misplaced.
What we have in Mr. Musk and Tesla right now is a habitual habit of:

1. Flip-flopping on the proper use of Autopilot when convenient; and
2. Displaying compromising marketing material prominently on their Autopilot product homepage; and
3. Battling openly with the NTSB on correct investigative procedure and public disclosure; and
4. Utilizing the driving public (and unrelated third-parties) as a test bed in some undefined fashion for "early access" autonomy software.

Point #1 stands out in particular because it is clear that Mr. Musk at the very least is leveraging the ignorance (or negligence) of popular Internet celebrities who are operating Autopilot incorrectly to sell cars with seemingly more advanced capabilities than they have.
As an advanced society, we do not tolerate that behavior from the manufacturers of safety-critical products in other domains and so the NHTSA/FTC should not tolerate that here.
This is a Dead Simple regulatory obligation that remains unresolved to date.
Clearly, the NCAP rating system push back can wait if it must.
This really goes far beyond simply not wanting to slow progress in the autonomous vehicle space.
From the NHTSA's perspective, I am certain that enforcing rules that are already in place (like NCAP) is more palatable than new adventures like policing autonomous programs, but, if so, that only illustrates how ineffective the agency is when confronted with change. At a time when Big Changes are happening - like it or not.

Robotics Quarterly Safety Report

As I have noted on this sub before, my firm designs and builds custom industrial robots and other equipment for manufacturers. On these robots we have a variety of active safety features. We also offer custom-designed safety products for generic industrial equipment and industrial scenarios.
According to the latest OSHA statistics:

5,147 workers died on the job in 2017 (3.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers) — on average, more than 99 a week or more than 14 deaths every day.

According to my firm's Robotics Quarterly Safety Report:

In the 2nd quarter, we recorded one incident for per 1.2 million full-time equivalent workers in which factories used our robots. For those factories without our robots but with the other active safety products we offer, we registered one incident per 0.52 million full-time equivalent workers. For those factories without our robots and without our active safety products, we investigated and recorded 6.2 deaths for every 100,000 (0.1 million) full-time equivalent workers. By comparison, OSHA's most recent data shows that in the United States there is 3.5 deaths per 100,000 (0.1 million) full-time equivalent workers.

I think the data here speaks for itself.
My firm's robots are safer by a significant margin and the data is clear, it will make your factory safer than our competitors' offerings. And so it would be essentially unethical to buy our competitors' product over ours.

I Want To Believe

Conclusion is the word to remember here. Conclusions are an abstraction over the data, not necessarily data in of themselves. My firm’s Robotics Quarter Safety Report is a conclusion. Not data. The Tesla Autopilot Quarterly Safety Report is a conclusion. Not data.
Conclusions without any transparent scientific foundation can be anything the issuing party (in this case, my firm) wants them to be - from entirely accurate to completely pulled from thin air without the possibility of any scrutiny.
If you are a die-hard supporter of my firm, you will likely take our conclusion as entirely factual. If you are a die-hard detractor of my firm, you will likely say that we are lying or made it all up.
Which is it? Sitting here now, you really cannot be sure. Can you?
There is no science here. No proof. No evidence.
Just faith.
While faith might be appropriate for an investment strategy to some degree, it is simply not appropriate for the safety of the public.
It really has nothing to do with supporting a company or not, shorting a company or not or how well one makes their case shouting on Twitter one way or the other because a science-based case cannot simply be made. It is impossible.
OK. Let us explore Tesla's latest Autopilot Safety Report:

In the 2nd quarter, we registered one accident for every 3.27 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.19 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 1.41 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 498,000 miles.

Mr. Musk writes in his correspondence with Mr. Greenspan:

The data is unequivocal that Autopilot is safer than human driving by a significant margin.

Emphasis mine.
A big part of Science is asking questions. Data Science included. So let us ask a series of rhetorical questions. This list is not exhaustive.

1. What is the definition of "an accident"? Is this different than the "automobile crash" figure cited in the last sentence?
2. What was the severity of each Autopilot-enabled accident? What was the mode of failure?
3. Were any Autopilot-enabled accidents discarded during this analysis? What was the criterion for their exclusion?
4. Were there any incidents caused directly or indirectly to third-party vehicles as a direct result of an Autopilot or active safety feature issue (for example, swerving to avoid a phantom braking issue)?
5. Autopilot is frequently used in very limited contexts and driving contexts which are less-accident prone (i.e. highway driving), how was the analysis adjusted to take this into account?
6. In comparison to the NHTSA statistics, how was the analysis adjusted to account for night/day driving, fleet age and driver demographics as compared to Tesla data?
7. Tesla's Autopilot-enabled fleet likely has far fewer miles traveled per year or per quarter than all other vehicles on the road from which the NHTSA stat is based, how was this accounted for?

That should be enough to illustrate my point, although I could go on.
Clearly, we cannot answer these questions from what has been released.
Even items like the role that Tesla's active safety features play (which are likely of some safety benefit), cannot be quantified here and thus credit that Tesla might be due cannot be awarded. A tragedy when you think about it.
#2 is very important, because as I noted in my part 2, an accident is vastly different if it occurred under the direct control of an engineered system (like Autopilot) rather than entirely under human control.
Now.
If one is a die-hard supporter of Tesla (not intended as an insult), one may disagree with my aggressive probing of Tesla's Autopilot or of questioning Tesla's motives here, which is fine, but I think it is pretty hard to argue that the public is not entitled to have the answers to these questions as they are putting their lives on the line with these vehicles on public roads.
That is the punch line.
And while such questions remain unanswered to the public, at minimum, the data is not unequivocal - and far from it.
Lastly, let us have a look at this curious Tweet from Mr. Musk last week:

Autopilot active crash prevention keeps getting better, as we examine every crash for improvement & then upload smarter software. Ironically, I hope we’re never on the list!

Emphasis mine.
"Every crash" makes an appearance in Mr. Musk's statement which is possibly peculiar for a few reasons:

1. Again, Tesla's own Autopilot Safety Report does not characterize Tesla's data in terms of "crashes", yet crashes are mentioned here.
2. Given the safety claims of the Autopilot Safety Report, are there really that many crashes to extract data from that would make a substantive difference to Autopilot safety given the impossibly high amount of unique driving scenarios in the Real World?
3. From #2, assuming the crash rate is high enough and possibly unique enough to make a difference in the safety of the system, how does the Autopilot engineering team have the bandwidth to chase down the entire, end-to-end scope of each crash?

This sets us up nicely for the next section.

Improved Safety via OTA Update. Guaranteed!

Quite unfortunately, there are no guarantees in life - such is also the case with technology entrusted with human safety.
The addition of technology does not always, automatically or necessarily make a product safer.
The addition of AI does not always, automatically or necessarily make a product safer.
New Deep Learning chipsets do not always, automatically or necessarily make a product safer.
Combining the strengths of a sensor suite with the strengths of a human do not always, automatically or necessarily produce a product that is superior functional combination or product capabilities that are wholly "the best of both worlds".
Here is the first point.
OTA updates do not guarantee that the vehicle will become safer at any given time, on average or continuously.
The reason why should be somewhat obvious in some ways, but non-obvious in others.
Let us explore.
Within the context of an autonomous vehicle control system (a safety-critical system), to be sort of simplistic, we have two major elements:

1. A foundational control plane which would handle definable aspects of the vehicle such as airbag deployment, stability/traction control, driver monitoring and AEB; and
2. A machine learning system that would utilize a sensor suite along with its trained neural model to create real-time inputs to the vehicle steering, acceleration and breaking.

Right off the bat, it is obvious that #1 and #2 can contain regressions and bugs at any given time that cause unexpected, unsafe behavior - possibly harming its occupants or members of the public before they are caught by Tesla. Bugs can be introduced via an OTA update.
There is also issues around cyber-security that can theoretically impact #1 and #2. A relatively small issue today, sure, but likely not for long.
#1 is a well-understood territory in safety-critical control design.
For airplanes, for example, control system software is designed in accordance with our understanding of the airplane itself coupled with the operating environment dynamics. It is designed to handle typical flight cases and a reasonable set of extraordinary cases - like partial control hardware failure and unusual operating conditions. The non-typical cases and excess control window margins have been mostly derived from past incidents.
The software is painstaking exercised by highly-trained pilots, regulators and engineers - both for initial certification and after significant change before commercial passengers are exposed to it. During commercial operation of the aircraft, pilots are required to report any control issues and those issues are immediately investigated - possibly taking a plane out-of-service.
Incidents and even close calls that do occur are forensically investigated with the utmost care and speed in an effort to preserve life and in an effort to prevent said incident from ever happening again. Early in the process, recommendations and determinations can even be made to pull aircraft type certificates if something discovered is so dangerous that it just cannot wait for the completion of an investigation.
As a result of all of this, flight control software does not change that much as changes undergoing this level of scrutiny is costly. Costly, but worth it.
This is all fundamentally different than, say, the software in your iPhone which does not need to be scrutinized for safety nearly at all - typically only consumer convenience and satisfaction. A Night and Day difference.
The general public is largely unaware that all of these activities are happening. But they are.
For automobiles, the situation is somewhat similar in terms of the technical details, but there are key differences:

• Consumers are not "highly-trained" as opposed to pilots - quite the opposite in fact. Forensically reproducing reported issues based on consumer feedback will be difficult at best with few exceptions. This complicates the feedback loop back to the manufacturer. Time is potentially wasted on chasing shadows, while real issues remain unaddressed; and
• The NHTSA is not nearly as scrutinizing as the FAA and so it is largely left up to the manufacturer to validate their own software. This removes one-half of a system, while far from perfect, does demonstrably improve safety (but still not totally guaranteeing it).

Another key point to remember is that just because poor-quality, foundational control software in a commercial aircraft can impact hundreds while an automobile will likely impact far less, Engineering Ethics demands the same safety-oriented mindset in the control system design and testing. A life is a life and every life is important.
It is difficult to tell how Tesla internally validates #1 before an OTA update. We do have some historical clues of hopefully rare issues, but nothing recent or comprehensive on their internal process. Whatever it is, it should be extraordinarily rigorous.
#2 is trickier. Much trickier.
#2 actually seeks to replicate, indistinguishably, a human (a human-machine combination in Tesla's current case) that is an expert driver(*) in an engineered system.
That is a tall order in of itself given the complexity of the artificially intelligent system that would ultimately be required and the complexity of a completely open problem space in everyday driving. Complete validation of the system prior to an OTA update is impractical and so there can be little in the way of guarantees here.
Even within the context of an "early access" limited release, how much validation can readily be performed before the entire fleet gets the update? Some features might be so expansive as the effects may not be noticed for months.
As I noted in part 2, there is also the fact that for Level 2 autonomy, the human and machine must combine in a complex, non-obvious way and operate as a complete engineered system. As one changes the Autopilot-side of the equation during an update, one could be introducing the human-side to dangers that cannot be fully appreciated before deaths and injuries occur (like unexpectedly requiring unrealistic reaction times for newly introduced capabilities). It is therefore difficult to guarantee safety for unknown downstream effects. Any would-be investigations after an incident now become very difficult as the human-machine interface is difficult or impossible to reproduce exactly.
Artificial intelligence systems are, in essence, probabilistic in nature and do have finite scaling issues that are sometimes difficult or impossible to foresee. New training data may be introduced to a system and it is possible (and not exactly unlikely) that it could cause cases that were previously handled successfully to no longer work as well. Besides, there are very real bandwidth issues in autonomous vehicle engineering departments where each an every accident can be reproduced and handled by an engineer.
More training data does not always, automatically or necessarily equal a safer system.
What is the bottom line here?
Well one thing that I notice often is the thinking that an increase in safety is essentially "free" or "automatic". Sprinkle in some more training data from Fleet Learning and each and every day it gets better automatically. Each OTA update is guaranteed to make things safer.
Of course, that is inaccurate at best.
An high-level of safety in engineered systems as complex as autonomous vehicles will only come from a relentless and continuous pursuit of it and verifiably so. Companies, investigators and regulators all working together to quickly, scientifically and transparently handle each incident and close-call in an dedicated effort to prevent it from happening again.
We do not have that today. Tesla may or may not be acting responsibly here - we just do not know for sure. And that is a problem.
OTA updates are a dichotomy.
They can increase safety by making critical updates fleet-wide much more efficiently than a physical recall.
However.
They are at least equally capable of allowing irresponsible or clumsy manufacturers to push low-quality and/or under-validated updates that could cause immediate harm (not to suggest this describes Tesla at this stage).
This is not to suggest we should run from OTA updates in roadway vehicles as a society. We should not. But there is a give and take here. It is not a free lunch. They demand a similar caliber of scrutiny that commercial aircraft receive or, even at this point, any sort of public scrutiny.

The Public's Ethical Responsibilities

Mr. Musk continues in his correspondence with Mr. Greenspan:

It is unethical and false of you to claim otherwise [that Autopilot is unsafe]. In doing so, you are endangering the public.

Let us be honest here. The public will talk and have their opinions.
That is fine and that is to be expected.
People make comments on Twitter. People make comments on CNBC. People make comments here on Reddit. And so on.
Sometimes the comments are valuable and insightful. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes that are technically on point. Sometimes they are made by people who really do not know what they are talking about.
When it comes to autonomous systems development and the safe deployment of it in society, there are likely far less people that have actual spent time on the issues and are directly involved in, say, developing robotics, AI or safety-critical control systems than there are people who have well-intended, but misguided opinions (**).
So the public will talk and even if the opinions emanating from the public are indeed largely ignorant and misguided, it is up to the actual engineers/technical minds developing the autonomous technology, actual company management managing/marketing those developments and the actual regulators entrusted with the public's safety to watch those developments to act in the highest possible ethical manner and with the public's safety in the forefront of their minds at all times.
The general public holds no ethical cards here when they are expressing an opinion on autonomous vehicles.
A member of the public who agrees or disagrees with Tesla, Mr. Musk or myself even is not acting unethically. They are not endangering the public. They cannot possibly do so.
Even if Mr. Musk did indeed have data to support his position, someone else that takes a different conclusion or view of that data is not operating unethically per se. In fact, that happens quite a bit in Data Science.
Mr. Greenspan cannot act unethically here as there is nothing to distort. He cannot twist or omit data that is not available. He can only literally disagree with Mr. Musk's and Tesla's conclusions - which, again, is not unethical.
Mr. Musk and Tesla have made their counter point publicly several times via interviews, Tweets and the Autopilot Quarterly Safety Report. And Tesla is free to do so at the moment (***).
I disagree with the conclusions that Tesla has reached regarding Autopilot safety as described in the section above in no small part because there is no independently verifiable substance to these assertions.
I too am not operating unethically and I am not endangering the public.
The reason I am mentioning this is that it is important to push back, to question aggressively, when it comes to safety-critical systems operating in society. What Mr. Musk is seemingly doing here is deploying a strategy that I can see potentially duplicated by other autonomous vehicle manufacturers, investors and stakeholders in an attempt to recast dissent and regulatory action as "unethical".
That is preposterous.
Mr. Musk may very well disagree - which is fine. But I think his thoughts here hold no water and that is why.

Footnotes

(*) I actually think that there is actually a more elaborate capabilities/incident model that I see rarely discussed in depth. This comes into play when people state "autonomous vehicles only need to be better than human drivers". I will try to put my model on the table in Part 5.
(**) This is not to suggest that those who are not engineers cannot have an opinion. I am not the Thought Police. Your opinions and criticisms are potentially valid even if "you did not start an auto company" - in my view anyways.
(***) Assuming some sort of standardized regulatory program that all manufacturers must adhere to does not emerge at some point.

Disclosure

As many in this sub are already aware, I am generally supportive of Tesla. However, I have spoken out in disapproval of some elements of Tesla's Autopilot development program, how it is marketed to consumers and how Tesla communicates its safe usage to its customers. I do not hold any financial positions in or against Tesla. I am also relatively uninterested either way in Mr. Musk's personal affairs.