« First « Previous Comments 35 - 74 of 103 Next » Last » Search these comments
mell saysThey don't protect for sure as they still let 5% in, plus the size of virions may be just below the filters.
And this is the standard for health professionals (I know you meant microns FYI). Yet we're supposed to cut up t-shirts and strap them to our face? It makes zero sense to an intelligent person. And I agree, there is a certain percentage of blockage and protection, but at the end of the day it's minimal at best and most likely useless. We've literally shut down mass gatherings everywhere and we're still seeing an uptick WITH exponentially more mask wearing. They don't work. There's no other data or evidence I've seen showing otherwise.
The problem is the mask pushers would have to admit we're testing at a substantially high level. That would mean Trump is doing it right. So they focus on the fact we have more cases and voluntarily omit the fact we're testing more than...
Yeah Trump did it right and the mask pushers are in the wrong, any outdoor mask wearing mandate should have been struck down immediately as unconstitutional and cops should voice to never supports such bullshit.
Just last week, the Netherlands announced it would not be instituting a face mask mandate, arguing that research shows social distancing rules prove more effective at combating the virus than masks.
“Because from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks, the Cabinet has decided that there will be no national obligation for wearing non-medical masks,” The Netherlands’ Minister for Medical Care Tamara van Ark said.
Decades of science are not wrong. They just don't necessarily apply to a new virus. Plus, data scientists looking at generic (non-coronavirus 19) data back in March concluded that masks would be helpful. Fauci was reconsidering masks at that time. I'll take the data scientist over the naturopath.
WookieMan saysDon't get the point. Data points to these safety items and laws working. The evidence (AKA DATA) does not point to masks working for THIS virus. You're comparing apples to centipedes.
The point is you do multiple things to cut down risk. If masks help contain some virus particles of a sick person who does not know they are sick, then the masks will help cut down on spread of the virus. Masks don't have to work 100% of the time to be a sensible safety device just like a seat belt doesn't have to save you 100% of the time for it to be a sensible device to use.
We don't have lots of cases because we test too much. We test a lot, because we have lots of cases
If you decide not to take any other precautions for coronavirus, because you are wearing a mask, it might increase your odds of dying.
a sick person who does not know they are sick
mell saysThe level of testing is insane, in fact we're testing too much now,
We don't have lots of cases because we test too much. We test a lot, because we have lots of cases. Positivity rates are still too high and testing takes too long for the testing regime to effectively prevent infections in locations where most of the cases are. Some states have too many tests, and some states have way too few.
Here's an easy to digest article:
mell saysThere is no such thing as not enough testing currently anywhere, we're overtesting.
WHO and CDC recommend lower than 10 percent positivity rate.
We have lots of states with higher than 10% https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/states-ranked-by-covid-19-test-positivity-rates-july-14.html
That means, we are testing a lot, because we have lots of cases in those states, and it also means that we are not testing enough for the current case load. We would be testing too much if we didn't have raging spread. If you scroll down to the testing area in the following link, you will see positivity rates for US and Spain are about 10 percent. For UK, Germany, it is under 1 percent. For France, it's about 2 pe...
A lower positivity rate
mell saysA lower positivity rate
My wife has tested negative twice now. I wonder how this is calculated in the statistics?
The major big change was that lockdowns ended, and people increased activity.
mell saysThat has nothing to do with testing.
So, you think that the US has a high positivity rate, because people keep retesting positive people? FL has a positivity rate of 17%. The woman who used to run their data analytic program quit, because she was being asked to fake the data to make it look better. FL gov is definitely not trying to make itself or Trump look bad.
I'm sure we get false positives, but Germany, France, and UK also get false positives, and their positivity rates are less than 1%.
I do agree that our case numbers / actual infected numbers are much higher now than back in April. You can see this by the case / death rate. That means we are testing much better than in the beginning. OTOH, deaths are hovering at around 1K per day, which is within a factor of 2 from where they were at the peak in NY. Mell, what do you make of the high death rate in the US?
We are currently at 52 deaths per 100K. There are only 3 countries that are worse than that: Peru, Italy, and Chile. We will pass Italy soon despite Italy getting hit hard early on before realizing how bad things were and despite their aging population. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Confirmed flu deaths each year are around 7-15K. Imputed flu deaths are around 50K in US. Imputed Coronavirus deaths so far have been 210K. Confirmed are 167K and counting. That's with major lockdowns and social distancing. Some people make comments based on the assumption that social distancing doesn't reduce deaths. If people went about life as normal, the death count would be much higher.
WookieMan saysYou don't have an answer for that
Some people get coronavirus while being very careful, and some don't get it despite being reckless. Same can be said for driving or lung cancer or anything else for that matter.
That's how stochastic processes work. Most people don't understand this, but if you regularly do research and work with numbers, these things become 'common sense,' because you see it so frequently.
Some people get coronavirus while being very careful, and some don't get it despite being reckless. Same can be said for driving or lung cancer or anything else for that matter.
That's how stochastic processes work. Most people don't understand this, but if you regularly do research and work with numbers, these things become 'common sense,' because you see it so frequently.
It's not about doing the right thing. It's about having the appearance of doing the right thing, which right now is masks.
awaiting moderation
The only cure for COVID is RALLY! and nuking the Post Office.
The coronavirus is much deadlier than the flu
You keep lying. Surgical masks reduce aerosolized coronavirus from positive people. P=0.02, which means 2% probability it was by chance. This link was in post #60.
You're projecting your motivations onto other people, and it reveals who you are. The economy is in the shitter and people are dying. Some people ask what they can do to help fix the problem. Wearing the mask is likely to help and is pretty easy. Some people refuse to be helpful, because FREEDOM!
I'm not particularly worried about myself as a health individual under 50. But wearing a mask is an easy way to help, and I'm not a selfish douche bucket.
WookieMan saysAnd this is where you are wrong. A bad flu year can kill 80k people WITH a "vaccine"
Look up infection fatality rate for flu and coronavirus. Coronavirus IFR estimates are much higher than for the flu, so if the average person gets Corona, they are much more likely to die than if they get the flu. Therefore, it is much more deadly.
A vaccine is available for the flu and if more healthy people took it, it would slow the spread and save lives. Most healthy people don't bother with the flu vaccine, because the risk to them personally is small. However, if everybody took the flu vaccine, the flu would spread more slowly, and less people would die. It's pretty simple, but most people don't bother thinking about that. Every year, loads of healthy young people get the flu and pass it on to some geezer in line at the grocery store. The healthy young person recovers just fine and...
WookieMan saysYou just keep ignoring the fact we have more cases with mask mandates and most everything shut downThat's a single correlation with no control and obvious flaws. It is only convincing to someone who is desperately hoping to find a cause and who is willing to ignore all of the more compelling evidence pointing in the other direction.
WookieMan saysAll you have to say is we're testing more, but that checks a positive box for Trump and you don't want to.Jesus Christ, I already wrote that. That's one of the obvious flaws that I referenced in your single correlation. You are correlating measured cases instead of actual cases, and the measured cases are now a higher percentage of actual cases. This can be inferred from the positivity and death rates. But that's not the only reason. Other reasons that ...
mell saysBy your logic everybody not interesting in driving a car or without drivers license should be able to mandate that all people stop driving cars to reduce their risk of killing them. That's the height of selfishness.
I'm not suggesting that flu vaccine should be compulsory, and frankly hadn't considered the benefit of a real flu once in a while versus yearly vaccine. But, getting a vaccine that has very minimal risk (if that is the case) is a very minor imposition. That is not like not driving, which is a huge imposition. I would say it's more like not driving drunk, which does seem like a huge imposition to a subset of the population.
I've seen people arguing that the infection rates of 20-25% or so may be enough for herd immunity. I believe it's enough for to lower Ro below 1 when most people are social distancing. I don't think many epidemiologists think it's enough for peo...
enough hospital beds
« First « Previous Comments 35 - 74 of 103 Next » Last » Search these comments
And on and on, many scientific papers.