USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020
- Thread starter Handyman
- Start date
- Status
Net Presence, whenever you are ready.
First Time Long Time
Rebuilding
Yes...having faith in and believing science...so controversial...
Weak Jeb...weak...
Weak Jeb...weak...
So let’s get fans in the ballparks with masks. The science is settled.
protests and rioters by the millions for weeks and months.
First Time Long Time
Rebuilding
It's not settled but you know that. Again..you don't want conversation...you want a fight.
Faith in the modeling didn’t work out so well.
So conflicted on that one? Should be pretty straight forward I thought.
Are we good here? Did this help put things in perspective just a touch for #TeamHysteria
net presence
Active member
Jeb, you posted the following yesterday at about 7AM in response to my post about the two people in Kentucky:
"Again the couple in Kentucky were given the ankle bracelets because they went out, were going out, ect. It was because they didn't sign county papers. Which is absurd and a complete waste of time and resources. Not to mention she had a negative test with no symptoms which does not mean she had covid19."
Your logic is so extreme it is actually of concern.
Jeb, the Snopes article that was linked to in regards to the story you posted, clearly says they had tested positive which, is the key point in this specific debate. Since they tested positive, they're required to quarantine for 14 days. And, if it's obvious to authorities that they can't be trusted to stay in quarantine, I have no problem with putting ankle bracelets on them. To be clear, the main reason the authorities chose to put ankle bracelets on them wasn't because they refused to sign the forms as much as it was that they couldn't be trusted to maintain quarantine. And, no one debating this with you here has argued otherwise.
"Again the couple in Kentucky were given the ankle bracelets because they went out, were going out, ect. It was because they didn't sign county papers. Which is absurd and a complete waste of time and resources. Not to mention she had a negative test with no symptoms which does not mean she had covid19."
Your logic is so extreme it is actually of concern.
Jeb, the Snopes article that was linked to in regards to the story you posted, clearly says they had tested positive which, is the key point in this specific debate. Since they tested positive, they're required to quarantine for 14 days. And, if it's obvious to authorities that they can't be trusted to stay in quarantine, I have no problem with putting ankle bracelets on them. To be clear, the main reason the authorities chose to put ankle bracelets on them wasn't because they refused to sign the forms as much as it was that they couldn't be trusted to maintain quarantine. And, no one debating this with you here has argued otherwise.
net presence
Active member
Jeb, first, here's my post you responded to regarding masks:
Yesterday, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jesus Jeb, you make it too easy sometimes....in response to this post from page 1 of this current thread:
07-19-2020, 05:42 PM
Masks (especially the ones the vast majority of the public are wearing).
https://www.technocracy.news/masks-a...f-the-science/
#StopTheFear
Last edited by Jeb2020; 07-19-2020, 05:51 PM.
Here's a link to an article from the Hartford Healthcare Website that addresses the B.S. from the garbage website you linked to above.
https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about...2&publicId=395
From the article:
"COVID-19 can kill. Now, according to a misguided Internet-fueled theory, masks can kill, too.
All it takes is a mask-wearer who inhales freshly exhaled carbon dioxide repeatedly until dizzy, unconscious or dead. That, no doubt, would be a shocking development. In the real world, the average mask user without preexisting respiratory illness has nothing to worry about — except COVID-19.
Only an airtight mask could possibly cause any breathing difficulty. That eliminates cloth masks, the preferred personal protective equipment in public. It actually eliminates N95 respirators, too, usually reserved for healthcare professionals. They fit tighter than a cloth mask but still not tight enough on the face to kill. Surgeons wear even more substantial face coverings all day without endangering their health.
But who wouldn’t want a more comfortable N95? John Xu, a research scientist at Stanford University, is developing a modified N95 mask with his colleagues that includes a small box worn at the waist with a tube extending to the mask. The box, through an electrochemical process, produces pure oxygen to compensate for the loss of oxygen caused by the mask. The researchers started their project with the assumption that an N95 mask reduces oxygen intake by anywhere from 5 percent to 20 percent.
An N95 mask could possibly cause:
Hypoxia: When body tissue does not get enough oxygen.
Hypercapnia: Elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the blood that can cause dizziness, shortness of breath, headache and, in extreme cases, hyperventilation, seizures and possible death.
But even an N95 mask is unlikely to produce such extreme reactions. A respiratory illness such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, can cause both hypoxia and hypercapnia. Those with a preexisting condition who experience breathing difficulties, of course, would almost certainly remove the mask.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention representative told Reuters that carbon dioxide, indeed, will collect between the mask and face but not in dangerous amounts and certainly not enough to cause hypercapnia. A mask is designed to trap viral droplets, much larger than tiny carbon dioxide particles. A mask, either N95 or cloth, cannot trap all carbon dioxide particles — they either go through the mask or escape along the mask’s perimeter."
You might be THE most gullible person ever.
Your response Jeb....
I'm gullible? As people run around with cloth masks, bandannas, surgical masks that do not fit properly around their mouth at all thinking that will stop a virus. ^^Pure Stupidity.
Here's what I'm talking about when I state you are changing your line of debate after being challenged. In your initial posts about masks, you were clearly saying that NO MASKS were at all useful in limiting spread and therefore, making it easier to open. With your post above, you've now changed your talking point to only cloth masks that don't work and now, that people aren't wearing surgical masks properly -- versus that they simply don't work as was your original point.
Yesterday, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jesus Jeb, you make it too easy sometimes....in response to this post from page 1 of this current thread:
07-19-2020, 05:42 PM
Masks (especially the ones the vast majority of the public are wearing).
https://www.technocracy.news/masks-a...f-the-science/
#StopTheFear
Last edited by Jeb2020; 07-19-2020, 05:51 PM.
Here's a link to an article from the Hartford Healthcare Website that addresses the B.S. from the garbage website you linked to above.
https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about...2&publicId=395
From the article:
"COVID-19 can kill. Now, according to a misguided Internet-fueled theory, masks can kill, too.
All it takes is a mask-wearer who inhales freshly exhaled carbon dioxide repeatedly until dizzy, unconscious or dead. That, no doubt, would be a shocking development. In the real world, the average mask user without preexisting respiratory illness has nothing to worry about — except COVID-19.
Only an airtight mask could possibly cause any breathing difficulty. That eliminates cloth masks, the preferred personal protective equipment in public. It actually eliminates N95 respirators, too, usually reserved for healthcare professionals. They fit tighter than a cloth mask but still not tight enough on the face to kill. Surgeons wear even more substantial face coverings all day without endangering their health.
But who wouldn’t want a more comfortable N95? John Xu, a research scientist at Stanford University, is developing a modified N95 mask with his colleagues that includes a small box worn at the waist with a tube extending to the mask. The box, through an electrochemical process, produces pure oxygen to compensate for the loss of oxygen caused by the mask. The researchers started their project with the assumption that an N95 mask reduces oxygen intake by anywhere from 5 percent to 20 percent.
An N95 mask could possibly cause:
Hypoxia: When body tissue does not get enough oxygen.
Hypercapnia: Elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the blood that can cause dizziness, shortness of breath, headache and, in extreme cases, hyperventilation, seizures and possible death.
But even an N95 mask is unlikely to produce such extreme reactions. A respiratory illness such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, can cause both hypoxia and hypercapnia. Those with a preexisting condition who experience breathing difficulties, of course, would almost certainly remove the mask.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention representative told Reuters that carbon dioxide, indeed, will collect between the mask and face but not in dangerous amounts and certainly not enough to cause hypercapnia. A mask is designed to trap viral droplets, much larger than tiny carbon dioxide particles. A mask, either N95 or cloth, cannot trap all carbon dioxide particles — they either go through the mask or escape along the mask’s perimeter."
You might be THE most gullible person ever.
Your response Jeb....
I'm gullible? As people run around with cloth masks, bandannas, surgical masks that do not fit properly around their mouth at all thinking that will stop a virus. ^^Pure Stupidity.
Here's what I'm talking about when I state you are changing your line of debate after being challenged. In your initial posts about masks, you were clearly saying that NO MASKS were at all useful in limiting spread and therefore, making it easier to open. With your post above, you've now changed your talking point to only cloth masks that don't work and now, that people aren't wearing surgical masks properly -- versus that they simply don't work as was your original point.
net presence
Active member
Jeb, here's your response to my post about California and masks...
Yesterday, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jeb, from this post on page 2...
07-19-2020, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by First Time, Long Time View Post
What do you mean hype? Nothing is hyped except by those like you who don't take this seriously.
California is imposing more lockdown type measures and is taking about even more strict measure.
They have had mandatory masks for quite sometime. So much for that.
Jeb, do you have this much trouble with other easy logic trains? Yes, they mandated masks awhile back. That doesn't mean everyone actually wore them AND, since as much as 50% of the spread is attributable to "super-spreader" events, if people aren't social distancing and wearing masks, it actually proves just how contagious the virus really is which, in turn proves that, without a vaccine, really avoiding crowds -- especially indoors -- is critical to minimizing spread/hospitalizations/deaths. You know, avoiding moving around as much as possible...
And then like magic when the virus dies out it will be because everyone was in compliance with masks, yeah that will be it.
You can hide under your bed but no one else. Get over the whole lock down thing or don't I don't care.
Jeb, please explain your... "and then like magic when the virus dies out, it will be because everyone was in compliance with masks, yeah that will be it.", statement.
Are you actually saying the virus will "magically" die out? If so, please educate us on how a virus "magically" dies out.
To be clear, just as has been the case in almost every other country that has legitimately controlled the virus -- yes...compliance with wearing masks -- along with social distancing and contact tracing are what will ultimately allow us to control the virus.
Yesterday, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jeb, from this post on page 2...
07-19-2020, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by First Time, Long Time View Post
What do you mean hype? Nothing is hyped except by those like you who don't take this seriously.
California is imposing more lockdown type measures and is taking about even more strict measure.
They have had mandatory masks for quite sometime. So much for that.
Jeb, do you have this much trouble with other easy logic trains? Yes, they mandated masks awhile back. That doesn't mean everyone actually wore them AND, since as much as 50% of the spread is attributable to "super-spreader" events, if people aren't social distancing and wearing masks, it actually proves just how contagious the virus really is which, in turn proves that, without a vaccine, really avoiding crowds -- especially indoors -- is critical to minimizing spread/hospitalizations/deaths. You know, avoiding moving around as much as possible...
And then like magic when the virus dies out it will be because everyone was in compliance with masks, yeah that will be it.
You can hide under your bed but no one else. Get over the whole lock down thing or don't I don't care.
Jeb, please explain your... "and then like magic when the virus dies out, it will be because everyone was in compliance with masks, yeah that will be it.", statement.
Are you actually saying the virus will "magically" die out? If so, please educate us on how a virus "magically" dies out.
To be clear, just as has been the case in almost every other country that has legitimately controlled the virus -- yes...compliance with wearing masks -- along with social distancing and contact tracing are what will ultimately allow us to control the virus.
net presence
Active member
Jeb, here's your post from yesterday morning in response to one of my posts that discusses why so many on your side of the fence are saying that, "we can't stay locked down forever". When "forever" will likely only be thru March of 2021 at the latest.
07-22-2020, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jeb, from another of your winning posts from page 2...
07-19-2020, 06:10 PM
4/ “We will be down about where we were with the swine flu: around 0.1-0.3% which is much lower than what we think because at the moment we are seeing the case fatality."
https://mobile.twitter.com/aginnt/st...59482544631810
From the same Tweet.... 3/ "If you follow the New Zealand policy of suppressing it to zero and locking down the country forever, then you’re going to have a problem…
Since almost even the most skeptical immunologists are now saying we'll very likely have an effective vaccine by early 2021, how in God's name does doing more stringent stay-at-home orders for 9 months meet any sane person's definition of "locking down the country forever"? Can you please provide specific rationale for how 9 months is "forever"? I'm really struggling with that because in the current context, I'd think that you'd need a lock down of at least 18 - 24 months to come close to meeting the definition of forever...
Jeb, you state... "No one is locking down for 9 months. You have to be a complete extremist nutcase to think that is the solution to anything. You can lock yourself down until there is a vaccine, go for it."
Funny, I asked how or why these people (you included) could define being locked down for about 9 months as "forever". However, instead of answering that question, you don't provide any specifics about how 9 months could be defined as forever, and then insinuate that I'm an "extremist nutcase" if I think locking down for 9 months is going to be a solution. And again, you don't provide any details about WHY that makes me an "extremist nutcase". Remember, life is about the details. So, if you're going to debate me, I'm going to hold you accountable to actually supporting your statements with facts and logic, and not just ad hominem attacks...
07-22-2020, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jeb, from another of your winning posts from page 2...
07-19-2020, 06:10 PM
4/ “We will be down about where we were with the swine flu: around 0.1-0.3% which is much lower than what we think because at the moment we are seeing the case fatality."
https://mobile.twitter.com/aginnt/st...59482544631810
From the same Tweet.... 3/ "If you follow the New Zealand policy of suppressing it to zero and locking down the country forever, then you’re going to have a problem…
Since almost even the most skeptical immunologists are now saying we'll very likely have an effective vaccine by early 2021, how in God's name does doing more stringent stay-at-home orders for 9 months meet any sane person's definition of "locking down the country forever"? Can you please provide specific rationale for how 9 months is "forever"? I'm really struggling with that because in the current context, I'd think that you'd need a lock down of at least 18 - 24 months to come close to meeting the definition of forever...
Jeb, you state... "No one is locking down for 9 months. You have to be a complete extremist nutcase to think that is the solution to anything. You can lock yourself down until there is a vaccine, go for it."
Funny, I asked how or why these people (you included) could define being locked down for about 9 months as "forever". However, instead of answering that question, you don't provide any specifics about how 9 months could be defined as forever, and then insinuate that I'm an "extremist nutcase" if I think locking down for 9 months is going to be a solution. And again, you don't provide any details about WHY that makes me an "extremist nutcase". Remember, life is about the details. So, if you're going to debate me, I'm going to hold you accountable to actually supporting your statements with facts and logic, and not just ad hominem attacks...
net presence
Active member
Jeb, here's your next post from yesterday morning where you accuse me of being "all lock down"....
07-22-2020, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jeb, page post...
07-19-2020, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by alfablue View Post
And pneumonia deaths with some kind of odd flu deaths would be super high at this point too. No covid, though....
Since these are all preventable deaths, this is very criminal.
Jeb's response to alfa... "Please explain how these are all preventable. Let’s start with the nursing home deaths. Give it your best shot."
My response to you Jeb....
Ok Jeb, this is such a stupid statement that I don't need to give it even my worst shot. If you have an actual lock down that's enforced, evidence would indicate that you'd have a hell of a lot less virus ever getting into the nursing homes to start with. Which, any normal individual would understand would significantly reduce deaths in those homes. Pretty simple really. Well, maybe not for you but, certainly for most people.
Your response yo me Jeb....
"Man you are all lockdown, that is the answer to everything. Doesn't even knowledge that very sick and old people were cut off from their family and had to go it alone which has never been done before. and in addition to that the states where nursing homes were hit the hardest had some of the poorest policies imaginable."
Jeb, first, all of us have acknowledged that some states' policies in regard to LTCFs have been very poorly executed and lead to many preventable deaths. As for very sick and old people getting cut off from their families and having to.. "go it alone which had never been done before"... Well, for the thousandth time, this is a once in a hundred year pandemic. We're all making sacrifices and, some are making far greater sacrifices than normal. It's obviously tragic that parents/grandparents are being forced to isolate from younger people but, that's the sacrifice that our society must make to get this thing under control.
Finally, as for your...."man, you are all lock down , that is the answer to everything". No, I don't feel it's the answer to everything. However, we COULD have stayed locked down for much longer than we did...even until we had a vaccine AND, without ruining the economy in a big way. And no, we wouldn't have had to bankrupt the country to do it. A number of other western democracies did it by paying both individuals/households between $3,000 - $6,000 per month, doing direct payments to small businesses, and putting holds on loan payments for homes, cars, and student loans. But, the Republicans didn't want to do that because, you know... gotta bail out those massive corporations. Anyway, I look forward to your detailed response about why/how my ideas wouldn't work.
07-22-2020, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by net presence View Post
Jeb, page post...
07-19-2020, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by alfablue View Post
And pneumonia deaths with some kind of odd flu deaths would be super high at this point too. No covid, though....
Since these are all preventable deaths, this is very criminal.
Jeb's response to alfa... "Please explain how these are all preventable. Let’s start with the nursing home deaths. Give it your best shot."
My response to you Jeb....
Ok Jeb, this is such a stupid statement that I don't need to give it even my worst shot. If you have an actual lock down that's enforced, evidence would indicate that you'd have a hell of a lot less virus ever getting into the nursing homes to start with. Which, any normal individual would understand would significantly reduce deaths in those homes. Pretty simple really. Well, maybe not for you but, certainly for most people.
Your response yo me Jeb....
"Man you are all lockdown, that is the answer to everything. Doesn't even knowledge that very sick and old people were cut off from their family and had to go it alone which has never been done before. and in addition to that the states where nursing homes were hit the hardest had some of the poorest policies imaginable."
Jeb, first, all of us have acknowledged that some states' policies in regard to LTCFs have been very poorly executed and lead to many preventable deaths. As for very sick and old people getting cut off from their families and having to.. "go it alone which had never been done before"... Well, for the thousandth time, this is a once in a hundred year pandemic. We're all making sacrifices and, some are making far greater sacrifices than normal. It's obviously tragic that parents/grandparents are being forced to isolate from younger people but, that's the sacrifice that our society must make to get this thing under control.
Finally, as for your...."man, you are all lock down , that is the answer to everything". No, I don't feel it's the answer to everything. However, we COULD have stayed locked down for much longer than we did...even until we had a vaccine AND, without ruining the economy in a big way. And no, we wouldn't have had to bankrupt the country to do it. A number of other western democracies did it by paying both individuals/households between $3,000 - $6,000 per month, doing direct payments to small businesses, and putting holds on loan payments for homes, cars, and student loans. But, the Republicans didn't want to do that because, you know... gotta bail out those massive corporations. Anyway, I look forward to your detailed response about why/how my ideas wouldn't work.
net presence
Active member
Jeb, here's your post from yesterday morning around 9AM regarding masks...
07-22-2020, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by First Time, Long Time View Post
It's a novel coronavirus meaning it is a new strain of a previously known type. So yes it is new.
In regards to masks. There is nothing new about how this virus interacts with mask wearing than viruses researched from the previous number of decades.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks…”
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids… There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.”
“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…”
OK Jeb, here's a link to an article by the University of California San Francisco...
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent
Here's a few excerpts:
"But health experts say the evidence is clear that masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people wearing masks, the better."
Why did the CDC change its guidance on wearing masks?
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said Chin-Hong.
“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”
Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.
What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?
There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.
One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.
But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”
A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.
Finally....
Does the type of mask matter?
Studies have compared various mask materials, but for the general public, the most important consideration may be comfort. The best mask is one you can wear comfortably and consistently, said Chin-Hong. N95 respirators are only necessary in medical situations such as intubation. Surgical masks are generally more protective than cloth masks, and some people find them lighter and more comfortable to wear.
The bottom line is that any mask that covers the nose and mouth will be of benefit.
“The concept is risk reduction rather than absolute prevention,” said Chin-Hong. “You don’t throw up your hands if you think a mask is not 100 percent effective. That’s silly. Nobody’s taking a cholesterol medicine because they’re going to prevent a heart attack 100 percent of the time, but you’re reducing your risk substantially.”
You asked for evidence regarding the efficacy of masks and, I believe what I've provided above proves their effectiveness. How are you going to change your argument now? Can't wait to see what type of pretzel you become...
07-22-2020, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by First Time, Long Time View Post
It's a novel coronavirus meaning it is a new strain of a previously known type. So yes it is new.
In regards to masks. There is nothing new about how this virus interacts with mask wearing than viruses researched from the previous number of decades.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks…”
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids… There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.”
“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…”
OK Jeb, here's a link to an article by the University of California San Francisco...
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent
Here's a few excerpts:
"But health experts say the evidence is clear that masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people wearing masks, the better."
Why did the CDC change its guidance on wearing masks?
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said Chin-Hong.
“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”
Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.
What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?
There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.
One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.
But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”
A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.
Finally....
Does the type of mask matter?
Studies have compared various mask materials, but for the general public, the most important consideration may be comfort. The best mask is one you can wear comfortably and consistently, said Chin-Hong. N95 respirators are only necessary in medical situations such as intubation. Surgical masks are generally more protective than cloth masks, and some people find them lighter and more comfortable to wear.
The bottom line is that any mask that covers the nose and mouth will be of benefit.
“The concept is risk reduction rather than absolute prevention,” said Chin-Hong. “You don’t throw up your hands if you think a mask is not 100 percent effective. That’s silly. Nobody’s taking a cholesterol medicine because they’re going to prevent a heart attack 100 percent of the time, but you’re reducing your risk substantially.”
You asked for evidence regarding the efficacy of masks and, I believe what I've provided above proves their effectiveness. How are you going to change your argument now? Can't wait to see what type of pretzel you become...
net presence
Active member
Jeb, on Wednesday around noon you posted....
07-22-2020, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Jeb2020 View Post
“Obesity is the root cause of so many chronic diseases in the US. It also a key factor in Covid deaths in people under 70. Obesity has skyrocketed since the 60's. CDC projects 50% of Americans will be obese by 2030. If we stay locked down, it will be sooner.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/pdubdev/s...85592664178690
In healthy people Covid19 is a virus so sneaky that the only way you know you have it or had it is to go get tested when you feel perfectly healthy.
Or you never get it period because your immune system Crushes it. Just like any of the other viruses in circulation.
Or maybe you get the sniffles.
Those 3 instances are literally fact something like 99.9 percent of the time.
Do we see people making a change for the better after Covid19? To trend towards the options above?
If not is it time to put some laws in place that look to improve health? Unhealthy people are far more likely to get sick which means they are spreading disease at a much, much, much higher rate. Which means we are all at a higher risk.
What are people’s thoughts on becoming a healthier country so we can be in a better position to fight contagious viruses?
Everyone here is so concerned about their health and everyone else’s so surely there has to be a few good ideas from #TeamPanic. Would love to hear some.
Jeb, as others have already stated in response to this post; obviously our country could use a little bit of emphasis on physical fitness. However, as others have also said, good luck trying to pass any laws that somehow hold people accountable for being "out of shape". Good luck enforcing that law!!
Originally posted by Jeb2020 View Post
“Obesity is the root cause of so many chronic diseases in the US. It also a key factor in Covid deaths in people under 70. Obesity has skyrocketed since the 60's. CDC projects 50% of Americans will be obese by 2030. If we stay locked down, it will be sooner.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/pdubdev/s...85592664178690
In healthy people Covid19 is a virus so sneaky that the only way you know you have it or had it is to go get tested when you feel perfectly healthy.
Or you never get it period because your immune system Crushes it. Just like any of the other viruses in circulation.
Or maybe you get the sniffles.
Those 3 instances are literally fact something like 99.9 percent of the time.
Do we see people making a change for the better after Covid19? To trend towards the options above?
If not is it time to put some laws in place that look to improve health? Unhealthy people are far more likely to get sick which means they are spreading disease at a much, much, much higher rate. Which means we are all at a higher risk.
What are people’s thoughts on becoming a healthier country so we can be in a better position to fight contagious viruses?
Everyone here is so concerned about their health and everyone else’s so surely there has to be a few good ideas from #TeamPanic. Would love to hear some.
07-22-2020, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Jeb2020 View Post
“Obesity is the root cause of so many chronic diseases in the US. It also a key factor in Covid deaths in people under 70. Obesity has skyrocketed since the 60's. CDC projects 50% of Americans will be obese by 2030. If we stay locked down, it will be sooner.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/pdubdev/s...85592664178690
In healthy people Covid19 is a virus so sneaky that the only way you know you have it or had it is to go get tested when you feel perfectly healthy.
Or you never get it period because your immune system Crushes it. Just like any of the other viruses in circulation.
Or maybe you get the sniffles.
Those 3 instances are literally fact something like 99.9 percent of the time.
Do we see people making a change for the better after Covid19? To trend towards the options above?
If not is it time to put some laws in place that look to improve health? Unhealthy people are far more likely to get sick which means they are spreading disease at a much, much, much higher rate. Which means we are all at a higher risk.
What are people’s thoughts on becoming a healthier country so we can be in a better position to fight contagious viruses?
Everyone here is so concerned about their health and everyone else’s so surely there has to be a few good ideas from #TeamPanic. Would love to hear some.
Jeb, as others have already stated in response to this post; obviously our country could use a little bit of emphasis on physical fitness. However, as others have also said, good luck trying to pass any laws that somehow hold people accountable for being "out of shape". Good luck enforcing that law!!
Originally posted by Jeb2020 View Post
“Obesity is the root cause of so many chronic diseases in the US. It also a key factor in Covid deaths in people under 70. Obesity has skyrocketed since the 60's. CDC projects 50% of Americans will be obese by 2030. If we stay locked down, it will be sooner.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/pdubdev/s...85592664178690
In healthy people Covid19 is a virus so sneaky that the only way you know you have it or had it is to go get tested when you feel perfectly healthy.
Or you never get it period because your immune system Crushes it. Just like any of the other viruses in circulation.
Or maybe you get the sniffles.
Those 3 instances are literally fact something like 99.9 percent of the time.
Do we see people making a change for the better after Covid19? To trend towards the options above?
If not is it time to put some laws in place that look to improve health? Unhealthy people are far more likely to get sick which means they are spreading disease at a much, much, much higher rate. Which means we are all at a higher risk.
What are people’s thoughts on becoming a healthier country so we can be in a better position to fight contagious viruses?
Everyone here is so concerned about their health and everyone else’s so surely there has to be a few good ideas from #TeamPanic. Would love to hear some.
net presence
Active member
07-22-2020, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
Jeepers, the next thing you're gonna expect is that your airline pilots are fully trained and have 1000s of hours of experience, maybe even that they flew in the Navy or Air Force. That's what's wrong with this country. You all want a bunch of thinkers and book learners and so-called "experts" to tell you what to do. If you're not shooting your own food, changing your own oil, working on your tractor on the weekends and flying your own planes, you are not the kind of American I want to live next door to.
#TeamNutJob
Jeb, you responded to "NDHockey" with....80% wore masks? Hell say it was 95% are you kidding? 10 thousands of people across many major cites and the magical little virus just took a few weeks off? I guess that could have happened Lord Fauch disappeared that entire time.
but a few people in a bar have a beer and that sets your world on fire. LMAO
Do you clowns call Daddy Government to tie your shoes every morning?
First Jeb, no, the virus didn't just take a few weeks off. And yes, there actually were close to 90% of the protesters wearing masks. Go on YouTube and watch some of the videos from the protests. Remember, video doesn't lie Jeb! Actually, no Jeb, I tie my shoes by myself big guy. I even make my own bed, wash and fold my own clothes, and cook my own meals sometimes. You learn that stuff in 23 years in the military.
Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
Jeepers, the next thing you're gonna expect is that your airline pilots are fully trained and have 1000s of hours of experience, maybe even that they flew in the Navy or Air Force. That's what's wrong with this country. You all want a bunch of thinkers and book learners and so-called "experts" to tell you what to do. If you're not shooting your own food, changing your own oil, working on your tractor on the weekends and flying your own planes, you are not the kind of American I want to live next door to.
#TeamNutJob
Jeb, you responded to "NDHockey" with....80% wore masks? Hell say it was 95% are you kidding? 10 thousands of people across many major cites and the magical little virus just took a few weeks off? I guess that could have happened Lord Fauch disappeared that entire time.
but a few people in a bar have a beer and that sets your world on fire. LMAO
Do you clowns call Daddy Government to tie your shoes every morning?
First Jeb, no, the virus didn't just take a few weeks off. And yes, there actually were close to 90% of the protesters wearing masks. Go on YouTube and watch some of the videos from the protests. Remember, video doesn't lie Jeb! Actually, no Jeb, I tie my shoes by myself big guy. I even make my own bed, wash and fold my own clothes, and cook my own meals sometimes. You learn that stuff in 23 years in the military.
net presence
Active member
Hey Jeb, from your post yesterday morning around 9AM...
Yesterday, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
I think the worst thing I hear from people, especially Conservative/Republican/Trumper coworkers, is that we should "just get it over with and get everybody sick, it has a 99% survival rate." They have zero concept of basic math and the sheer scale of 1% of the population. So I decided to do the math.
Total US Population (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/t...ate-total.html) 2019 Estimate: 328,239,523
1% of US Population = 3,282,395 (.23)
Now I could say "And that's more than the population of Chicago, Houston, or Phoenix" or even say "that's about the population of Utah" but that's no fun. You know what is fun? Wiping five states off the map. Population of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, and South Dakota combined is 3,581,014. That's the four least populous states wiped out and South Dakota left going "there's so much more room for activities..."
And mind you, that isn't even counting the likely huge number of people that would develop complications and die later. I just don''t think people can understand 3.2 million gone in a matter of weeks and affect that would have.
Jeb, here's your responses to JimJamesak.....1% of the population is not going to die of Covid in any scenario. Speaking of math...
The death rate is based on those that have had it and those that have passed away.
you don’t take a death rate of 1% and apply it to the entire population. Good Grief. Not to mention there isn’t a chance in hell the death rate is anywhere close to 1%.
And that doesn’t even get into people dying “with Covid” and from it.
Seriously Jeb, please try to use your Google skills and look this crap up before you reply so you don't make yourself look so stupid...
Link to the John's Hopkins website on Covid: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Jeb, this shows our current case fatality rate as being at 3.6%. Yes, we know it's lower as there are probably millions of unknown confirmed infections. Then again, despite the conspiracy theories you choose to believe, the vast majority of experts believe we've under-counted Covid deaths in the U.S. by 10%. Regardless, most experts believe that the final fatality rate will be between 1.4 and 2.3%.
Please explain why, "you don't take a death rate and apply it to the entire population?". That's EXACTLY what you do. At least, that's what intelligent people do. So please, provide in detail your reasoning why you/we shouldn't apply the fatality rate to the entire population. This ought to be enlightening?
Yesterday, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
I think the worst thing I hear from people, especially Conservative/Republican/Trumper coworkers, is that we should "just get it over with and get everybody sick, it has a 99% survival rate." They have zero concept of basic math and the sheer scale of 1% of the population. So I decided to do the math.
Total US Population (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/t...ate-total.html) 2019 Estimate: 328,239,523
1% of US Population = 3,282,395 (.23)
Now I could say "And that's more than the population of Chicago, Houston, or Phoenix" or even say "that's about the population of Utah" but that's no fun. You know what is fun? Wiping five states off the map. Population of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, and South Dakota combined is 3,581,014. That's the four least populous states wiped out and South Dakota left going "there's so much more room for activities..."
And mind you, that isn't even counting the likely huge number of people that would develop complications and die later. I just don''t think people can understand 3.2 million gone in a matter of weeks and affect that would have.
Jeb, here's your responses to JimJamesak.....1% of the population is not going to die of Covid in any scenario. Speaking of math...
The death rate is based on those that have had it and those that have passed away.
you don’t take a death rate of 1% and apply it to the entire population. Good Grief. Not to mention there isn’t a chance in hell the death rate is anywhere close to 1%.
And that doesn’t even get into people dying “with Covid” and from it.
Seriously Jeb, please try to use your Google skills and look this crap up before you reply so you don't make yourself look so stupid...
Link to the John's Hopkins website on Covid: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Jeb, this shows our current case fatality rate as being at 3.6%. Yes, we know it's lower as there are probably millions of unknown confirmed infections. Then again, despite the conspiracy theories you choose to believe, the vast majority of experts believe we've under-counted Covid deaths in the U.S. by 10%. Regardless, most experts believe that the final fatality rate will be between 1.4 and 2.3%.
Please explain why, "you don't take a death rate and apply it to the entire population?". That's EXACTLY what you do. At least, that's what intelligent people do. So please, provide in detail your reasoning why you/we shouldn't apply the fatality rate to the entire population. This ought to be enlightening?
net presence
Active member
Jeb, in response to this post above...
Yesterday, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by rufus View Post
Oh my. Racist ****wit Stephen Miller's grandmother died from the Covfefe-19. Her son blames Trump and the administration. White House of course denies.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...dministration/
She was 97.
I don’t know if there could be more of a collection of Looney Tunes than right here?
#TeamHysteria
Cant even calculate the IFR and think 1% of the population could die.
LMAO
seriously you guys stay at home and hideout. I think it’s best that way at this point. The rest of us will go to work and take care of you all.
Thanks anyway Jeb but, I'm actually doing OK collecting about $800 per week in unemployment...
Yesterday, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by rufus View Post
Oh my. Racist ****wit Stephen Miller's grandmother died from the Covfefe-19. Her son blames Trump and the administration. White House of course denies.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...dministration/
She was 97.
I don’t know if there could be more of a collection of Looney Tunes than right here?
#TeamHysteria
Cant even calculate the IFR and think 1% of the population could die.
LMAO
seriously you guys stay at home and hideout. I think it’s best that way at this point. The rest of us will go to work and take care of you all.
Thanks anyway Jeb but, I'm actually doing OK collecting about $800 per week in unemployment...
net presence
Active member
Jeb, in answer to this post from you above...
Yesterday, 05:57 PM
Bringing up a previous question. Scale 1 - 10, 1 no concern at all, 10 extremely concerned.
You go out to the grocery store, regular traffic, everyone is masked, cloth and surgical masks are the most in use, a few N95.
What is your concern level?
same scenario but you encounter a few people in the store no mask. What is your concern level?
Question #1 -- Concern level is around a 2
Question #2 -- Concern level is around a 4
Bottom line is, any time I'm in an indoor setting with multiple people I have some concern. Especially since two of my kids are immune compromised.
Yesterday, 05:57 PM
Bringing up a previous question. Scale 1 - 10, 1 no concern at all, 10 extremely concerned.
You go out to the grocery store, regular traffic, everyone is masked, cloth and surgical masks are the most in use, a few N95.
What is your concern level?
same scenario but you encounter a few people in the store no mask. What is your concern level?
Question #1 -- Concern level is around a 2
Question #2 -- Concern level is around a 4
Bottom line is, any time I'm in an indoor setting with multiple people I have some concern. Especially since two of my kids are immune compromised.
net presence
Active member
Jeb, in response to the following post Yesterday, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by First Time, Long Time View Post
Says the guy claiming to want genuine conversation...you are such an ***.
And you are Hollow. In so deep with your dogma that you have to buy into every word no matter how foolish and absurd it is.
OMG Jeb.... talk about the pot calling the freaking kettle black! Holy sh-t Jeb. You project as well as Trump does...
Originally posted by First Time, Long Time View Post
Says the guy claiming to want genuine conversation...you are such an ***.
And you are Hollow. In so deep with your dogma that you have to buy into every word no matter how foolish and absurd it is.
OMG Jeb.... talk about the pot calling the freaking kettle black! Holy sh-t Jeb. You project as well as Trump does...
- Status