Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#110,601
#110,601
AshG said:
Careful with the name calling. Some people are making educated decisions based on their personal conditions and advice from their physicians. Unless you ask, you don't know the difference.

Better to err on the side of treating with dignity.
Click to expand...
Ok. Instead of sheep then. let's pretend I said those that are gullible and lack common sense. Is this better? Only thing masks are good for are increased CO2 levels in the body and the potential for bacterial pneumonia. Oh, and robbing banks LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and VolinWayne
#110,602
#110,602
SlingBlayde said:
Ok. Instead of sheep then. let's pretend I said those that are gullible and lack common sense. Is this better? Only thing masks are good for are increased CO2 levels in the body and the potential for bacterial pneumonia. Oh, and robbing banks LOL.
Click to expand...
So doctors will not be wearing them any longer during operations?
I guess they will no longer be required in the children's cancer ward.
Thanks for setting us straight.
 
#110,603
#110,603
SlingBlayde said:
Ok. Instead of sheep then. let's pretend I said those that are gullible and lack common sense. Is this better? Only thing masks are good for are increased CO2 levels in the body and the potential for bacterial pneumonia. Oh, and robbing banks LOL.
Click to expand...

Not really, but oh well.
 
#110,604
#110,604
luthervol said:
So doctors will not be wearing them any longer during operations?
I guess they will no longer be required in the children's cancer ward.
Thanks for setting us straight.
Click to expand...
The context of this thread and the post are related to the spread of viral pathogens. Doctors wear masks in surgery for other reasons. :rolleyes:
 
#110,606
#110,606
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and VolinWayne
#110,608
#110,608
Big Orange#1 said:
COVID Pandemic May Have Driven a Flu Strain Into Extinction
Aligns with what you’ve been saying about the flu disappearing for about 18 months @kiddiedoc
Click to expand...

"We did learn from the last season that if you were profound in your mask wearing and social distancing, staying home, closing schools, limiting travel, you could really profoundly abort the annual influenza outbreak," Schaffner said. "Some of that I think will come back, and I think we'll see more of that in conventional public health recommendations."
Click to expand...

This should be terrifying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, LouderVol, FallCreekVols and 6 others
#110,612
#110,612
McDad said:
View attachment 420199
Click to expand...
"We did learn from the last season that if you were profound in your mask wearing and social distancing, staying home, closing schools, limiting travel, you could really profoundly abort the annual influenza outbreak," Schaffner said. "Some of that I think will come back, and I think we'll see more of that in conventional public health recommendations."
What I was quoting. They want medical tyranny
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and davethevol
#110,615
#110,615
GVF said:
I personally know a person who had covid and went the ivermectin route at home and was clear in less than 3 days. He did not ingest. He diluted and rubbed on his inside forearm like lotion. I've had vet dilute ivermectin for years to give to dogs for worming and such. When you have multiple pets, vet treatment gets expensive. Breeder I got my dogs from did same thing. You buy a bottle at tractor supply, take it to vet and let him know its for the dogs. He dilutes that small bottle into about a half to 3/4 pint. I give about 1 mil per 40 pounds monthly orally. I'd bet you even have to have the proper dilution for horses, and administered by weight. You don't do ivermectin straight out of the bottle for anything. It's a concentrate. People that have reacted adversely to ivermectin apparently were not smart enough to have diluted first, then administer per body weight. Now, I seriously doubt I would ever go that route, but if you are daring and you exercise some form of knowledge of the product and it's dilutions, you more than likely would be safe from adverse reactions.
Click to expand...
That's been the common thing I've been hearing. 3-5 days...

Also, the Tractor Supply/CO-OP Ivermectin is perfectly fine for humans if they dilute it properly. The amount of fearmongering regarding that is incredible. Too many people that have been denied a prescription for "human" Ivermectin have tried it and survived just fine.

If you can skin a buck or run a trot line...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF and FallCreekVols
#110,618
#110,618
#110,619
#110,619
luthervol said:
So doctors will not be wearing them any longer during operations?
I guess they will no longer be required in the children's cancer ward.
Thanks for setting us straight.
Click to expand...

COVID is about .1 micron where the bacteria can range up to 2 microns. So to answer your question, doctors will continue to wear masks for their intended purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and NorthDallas40
#110,621
#110,621
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and NorthDallas40
#110,622
#110,622
VolinWayne said:
"It seems to me early on there was an intentional very comprehensive suppression of early treatment in order to promote fear, suffering, isolation, hospitalization, and death. And it seemed to be completely organized and intentional in order to create acceptance for and then promote mass vaccination."

Dr. Peter McCullough: We Could Have Stopped 85% of Covid-19 Deaths With Early Treatment
Click to expand...
Yes, but if you invested in Moderna, Pfizer and J&J stock in the beginning, you're a lot wealthier now;).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, SpaceCoastVol and VolinWayne
#110,623
#110,623
luthervol said:
Wouldn't open.
Give me the highlights.
And then to the cancer ward at the children's hospital.
Click to expand...
Here's an excerpt for you:

Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot “socially distance” from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask).
The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallCreekVols, VolinWayne and ButchPlz
#110,624
#110,624
SlingBlayde said:
Here's an excerpt for you:

Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot “socially distance” from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask).
The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don't think anyone disputes that there are "experts" on both sides of the issue.
Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Methods
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was consulted to report this systematic review. Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Chinese) database.
Results
A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24–0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11–0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36–0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies.
Conclusions
This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.
 
#110,625
#110,625
Big Orange#1 said:
"We did learn from the last season that if you were profound in your mask wearing and social distancing, staying home, closing schools, limiting travel, you could really profoundly abort the annual influenza outbreak," Schaffner said. "Some of that I think will come back, and I think we'll see more of that in conventional public health recommendations."
What I was quoting. They want medical tyranny
Click to expand...
I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top