Pro-Maskers, you gonna keep wearing them?

(bulkbiker) #81

How do we “know” that for sure though?

So why was there more than one case of COVID…?

(bulkbiker) #82

But out of the 27-28,000 people who die in India every day anyway…

#83

why does anyone here think we can control an pandemic viral issue thru a mask or shut down or any darn thing truly cause it is going to run its course and it is going to mutate maybe and it is going to wreck havoc on humans point blank.

real life people!

it will what it will be. It will destroy as it will and WE can only DO so much. And it will be locally easy for some or devastation for others in some countries and elderly and unhealthy for sure.

real life and as much as we live in a our personal bubbles of humanity that suit us and it is all we know…real life here! real realities and real issues and real total life thru this but as hard as that may be truly with so many loved ones being lost…keep reality a truth on this natural Earth!

(GINA ) #84

There is really no way to know what masks have actually done, because we don’t know what would have happened without them. California is one the hardest hits states with the most restrictive mask mandates and biggest shut downs. Does that mean masks and shut downs don’t work? Or would it have been even worse without them? We don’t know. We can’t know.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #85

It’s just the way a few people are wired. Kinsey estimated that about 1% of the population was exclusively attracted to the opposite sex and not at all to the same sex, and that another 1% of the population was exclusively attracted to the same sex and not at all to the opposite sex. Most people, of course, fall somewhere in between.

(Ethan) #86

Not true at all! It took a while, but the cdc changed its view and says Covid spreads by aerosolized droplets, even through standard speaking. The flu is by larger droplets from coughed.

(GINA ) #87

Did you read the link to the CDC titled “How Flu Spreads” that I posted? It says flu spreads by droplets when people with the flu cough, sneeze, or talk. Just for kicks I opened the same article on covid. The only substantial difference between the two is they added ‘very small’ droplets and breathing in the covid article.

Maybe that’s the difference- the size of the particle of spit each virus can live in.

(GINA ) #88

I can’t hazard a guess about what is going on in India. A different strain? High rates of rural poverty and lack of infrastructure?

They have BY FAR the greatest percentage of vegetarians and the lowest levels of meat consumption in the world, according the UN. I would be interested to know why we haven’t seen that headline. If I thought of it and took 45 seconds to check google, surely a journalist has.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #89

Because, as I stated in my earlier post, the rate of infections greatly slowed when the precautions were instituted, went up again when the precautions were first relaxed, and went down again when precautions were tightened again. In this case, Bradford-Hill’s criteria for establishing causality are met (magnitude of effect, dose and response, plausible mechanism, etc.).

Because the precautions instituted were not sufficient to prevent all cases of the disease. Nor were they intended to be. I have now stated in several posts that the purpose of the precautions in Connecticut was simply to make the rate of cases slow enough to avoid overwhelming the hospitals and morgues in this state; it was never to prevent people from becoming infected at all. I know no way to state that point any more clearly.

The authorities here have always stated that their long-term goal was a population sufficiently protected against the disease, both by natural spread and by vaccination, that the disease would no longer be a threat to our healthcare system. We never wanted to keep people from getting sick, only to have the resources to keep them alive when they did get sick. We seem to have mostly achieved that goal.

The authorities recognised that measures sufficient to prevent the entry of the disease into the state would have had to be so Draconian and so long-lasting as to be impossible to implement. There are legal and practical problems with trying to seal the borders of an entire state, even one as small as Connecticut. So we aimed instead for a controlled rate of infection.

(bulkbiker) #90

So we are still “guessing” … it may be plausible but not necessarily correct?

Could there be other factors at play like time of year?.. I have no idea when or exactly what the Connecticut precautionary measures were but we have enough negative evidence from around the world that masks and lockdown are “effective” that I’d happily question anyone claiming causality even with BH criteria being met.
Negative proofs are always far stronger evidence than apparently supportive ones.

(Ethan) #91

The evidence is that masks are effective, but only minimally so. An infected person in a room with poor circulation for 8 hours will make that room highly infectious, regardless of mask. However, that infected person wearing a mask for a 5-minute visit into a home probably has a much better improvement on spread when wearing a mask relative to not for the same visit.

(bulkbiker) #92

So if they are “minimally effective” then they cannot be said to be “effective”.

Also of course filtering particles through a cloth mask (that most in the UK seem to wear) simply makes them smaller and less likely to be impacted by gravity so they simply float around airborne for longer.
Hardly a good thing.

#93

I think you need glasses maybe? I’ll start crowdfunding you a pair! C’mon everybody!

#94

All I needed to read… most intelligent reply in the whole thread!

#95

I know that we’re not all in agreement on this thread, but this ^ kind of clarity and nuance is what makes this forum a really good place to be.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #96

It’s a technical term. Are you familiar with Dr. Austin Bradford-Hill, who devised the criteria for being able to say that the correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer was causal?

  1. Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
  2. Consistency (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
  3. Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.
  4. Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
  5. Biological gradient (dose-response relationship): Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.
  6. Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
  7. Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that “… lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations”.
  8. Experiment: “Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence”.
  9. Analogy: The use of analogies or similarities between the observed association and any other associations.
  10. Some authors consider, also, Reversibility: If the cause is deleted then the effect should disappear as well.
#97

Yes, sorry, I had missed that. My impression is that there are few folks in the US that haven’t had access to the vaccine. I think we were expecting a flood in mid April but it seemed that most Americans who were eager to get the shots did so earlier in the spring.
You seem to have reason to think otherwise- what am I missing?

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #98

As far as I can tell, it would require completely rewiring my brain. Conversely, I know a few heterosexual men who feel the same way about men’s bodies as I do about women’s. As already noted, most men fall somewhere on the spectrum between.

(Ethan) #99

That isn’t how statistics work. Minimally effective can still be statistically significant, Masks may not prevent a ton of spread from longterm exposure, but they can help for shorter exposures, which is my worry with going out anyplace.

Children have not had the option yet, especially children who have conditions like autoimmune disorders or cancers. These are actually vulnerable children. My 9-year-old son has 5 autoimmune disorders. Things have been severe over the years with some infections, and we have had escalation plans for asthma when he gets sick. It does need oral steroids sometimes. Between asthma risk and covid interactions with autoimmune disorders, I think we should give the opportunity to protect children like my son.

#100

That makes them lucky, they have more wiggle room before society tries to force barely tested vaccines into them that we have no idea what they’ll do long term. Especially the mRNA ones. You couldn’t pay me enough to put one of those into my kid. MAYBE J&J, but that’s even a maybe. You can’t name a single instance absent of the intentinoal fear that the mainstream media pushes with this that anybody would do that with a virus this high of a survival rate, yes, I know your situation, but it doesn’t change the numbers. I also have an autoimmune issue and thats (one reason) why you couldn’t get me near those mRNA ones, if your kid has that much going against him you should look into the other view of those things from professionals in the field, you know, the “conspiracy theorists” simply because they’re not going along with the narrative.

Up until the vaccines were “approved” for the older kids, the younger kids weren’t a concern, even when this was way worse than it is now. It’s only since the older group has been ok’d that they’ve changed the story and started “worrying” about the younger kids. Open your eyes, this is simply to reinforce the vaccine giving you the reward of no mask, it’s nothing more than that. The CDC directors view changed literally overnight on this. She’s on camera the night before and the night of the change saying totally opposite things. Conveniently that was the night after Biden was hammered for wearing a mask after being vaccinated and him refusing to answer why he continued to do that if the vaccines worked or not, next day the CDC director had a change of heart I guess!