Football isn’t happening...

[VFL-82-JP]

...declaring that masks will prevent the spread...supposed proof. The "proof" turned out to be speculation coupled to anecdotal evidence in every single case.

Heh, SJT, earlier in this thread I linked four separate papers written by medical professionals, all of which concluded that masks help prevent the spread of covid-19. Based on your response to Abingdon just now, one of two things must be true:

(1) You missed those four papers cited. If that's the case, please go back and check them out. Then we can discuss further.
or
(2) You read the four papers, and concluded they all four offered only (your words) "anecdotal evidence" that masks help.

Okay, fair enough, you see empirical data collection under field conditions (with, acknowledged, many uncontrolled variables) and dismiss it as anecdotal (that's not the proper use of the term anecdotal, but we can use it this way nonetheless, just to avoid getting bogged down in a semantics argument).

But when the anecdotal evidence piles up, again and again, one has to start believing there might be something there.

~ ~ ~

Villager walks out into a jungle where panthers and cobras are known to be. Is never seen again.

Second villager walks out into same jungle. Is never seen again.

Third villager, same thing.

Fourth villager, same thing.

You're the guy sitting around the fire saying, "that's just anecdotal evidence, we have no scientific proof that jungle is dangerous."

~ ~ ~

One catch phrase is, "quality over quantity." Another is, "large quantities have a quality all their own."

String together enough bits of anecdotal evidence, and you start to get statistically valid empirical results.

If four separate studies from four different groups of medical professionals in four different medical journals (including two of the most renowned medical publications in the world) don't start looking like statistically valid empirical findings to you, SJT, I doubt anything would ever convince you.

You're just determined to disbelieve. Which is your right, of course. But don't imagine for a minute that the rest of us see your position as reasonable or logical.

Best, JP

 

[sjt18]

Heh, SJT, earlier in this thread I linked four separate papers written by medical professionals, all of which concluded that masks help prevent the spread of covid-19. Based on your response to Abingdon just now, one of two things must be true:

(1) You missed those four papers cited. If that's the case, please go back and check them out. Then we can discuss further.

I've had limited time to post and have only responded to those who responded to me. I will check your links.
or

(2) You read the four papers, and concluded they all four offered only (your words) "anecdotal evidence" that masks help.

Okay, fair enough, you see empirical data collection under field conditions (with, acknowledged, many uncontrolled variables) and dismiss it as anecdotal (that's not the proper use of the term anecdotal, but we can use it this way nonetheless).

But when the anecdotal evidence piles up, again and again, one has to start believing there might be something there.

It has to pile up.... but there is a difference between "field data" and anecdotes. The research has to control for other factors.

Villager walks out into a jungle where panthers and cobras are known to be. Is never seen again.

Second villager walks out into same jungle. Is never seen again.

Third villager, same thing.

Fourth villager, same thing.

You're the guy sitting around the fire saying, "that's just anecdotal evidence, we have no proof that jungle is dangerous."

No. I'm the guy asking for proof that face masks are effective in preventing attacks by panthers or cobras.

I have posted a link to an air filter that I have had installed at my plant. They offer a case study. They measured Covid in an commercial airline fuselage. They installed their machine and ran the HVAC for 30 minutes. Covid was reduced by 99.4%. That is proof of a claim that is subject to repetition and refutation. That is what I want to see for masks.

I appreciate your efforts and will make time to read your links. But one test that I have not seen that would help convince me is extremely simple.

Take a sample set of Covid positive people with a range of symptoms. Clean a 10X10 room of Covid then have each enter without a mask one at a time re-cleaning the room after each person. Measure Covid at the 15, 30, and 60 minute marks. Then repeat the same exercise with masks.

Then take the same people and measure the accumulation of Covid in a Walmart size store. To make it "fair"... don't have them move. Just look for the effect of space and air movement.

Then take the same group of people and measure the accumulation of Covid outside.

If four separate studies from four different groups of medical professionals in four different medical journals (including two of the most renowned medical publications in the world) don't start looking like statistically valid empirical findings to you, SJT, I doubt anything would ever convince you.

Depends on the studies and the data sets. There were people who got this right back in March. They weren't the majority in the American medical community. They were ignored, bullied, and even ostracized for daring to dissent.

The short answer to your attempt to introduce a fallacy of limited alternatives is that consensus doesn't make science.

You're just determined to disbelieve. Which is your right, of course. But don't imagine for a minute that the rest of you see you as reasonable.

Best, JP

And others can be just as determined to follow the herd and group think without turning a critical eye on what they've been told to think. I accept that reasonable people can disagree. I do not know how deeply you've gone into this... but you didn't make yourself look more reasonable by appealing to the the imaginations of the herd.

 

[ABINGDON VOL FAN]

It is not my job to prove your case. YOU are the one too lazy to support your argument. Post the links or else you are just not making a competent argument. If it would be "easy" for me who has not seen the articles to find them... it should be far easier for you. You have put more effort into arguing with me about the proof than it would have taken to post it.

I'm not afraid of being proven wrong. I have always preferred being proven wrong than remaining wrong. I have read TONS on this virus and listened to opinions from across the spectrum. The people you are placing your uncritical faith in... have been badly wrong at almost every juncture. These are the same people who shut down the use of hydrochloroquine though there was some data showing it might be effective (and recent data once again asserting it is effective) in part because they did not know what the extent or frequency of possible side effects. Would the treatment help Covid and cause other problems being used as a prophylactic?

Yet mask wearing has known risks and they've rushed headlong into putting 330 million in masks... without assessing the potential costs.

If you want to be a blind follower then go for it. I won't... even if you demonize me and call me names.

Lol , blind follower ? I just provided several examples how I have been researching data to make an informed decision whether I should wear masks or not. You obviously are so blinded by bias against masks that you are COMPLETELY ignoring and refusing to look at data that is contrary to your stubborn position. I have sympathy for you. Hopefully the light switch will turn on for you soon before you or someone close to you gets COVID and suffer serious consequences. That is the most important factor, that your viewpoint will change in order to possibly save someone’s life. It takes a real man or woman to admit they are wrong. A person who stubbornly refuses to accept overwhelming data which refutes their bias is a person that will never command respect or be taken seriously.

 

[HalfullVol]

Wear a mask if required, if possible. This 'mask wearing' might be mandated to allow entry into businesses, stadiums, arenas, or whatever.

otherwise live your life

you do you

Go Vols

 

[ABINGDON VOL FAN]

It is not my job to prove your case. YOU are the one too lazy to support your argument. Post the links or else you are just not making a competent argument. If it would be "easy" for me who has not seen the articles to find them... it should be far easier for you. You have put more effort into arguing with me about the proof than it would have taken to post it.

I'm not afraid of being proven wrong. I have always preferred being proven wrong than remaining wrong. I have read TONS on this virus and listened to opinions from across the spectrum. The people you are placing your uncritical faith in... have been badly wrong at almost every juncture. These are the same people who shut down the use of hydrochloroquine though there was some data showing it might be effective (and recent data once again asserting it is effective) in part because they did not know what the extent or frequency of possible side effects. Would the treatment help Covid and cause other problems being used as a prophylactic?

Yet mask wearing has known risks and they've rushed headlong into putting 330 million in masks... without assessing the potential costs.

If you want to be a blind follower then go for it. I won't... even if you demonize me and call me names.

I will address one of your arguments a 2nd time. If a Nation is in crisis like we are now, WHO CARES ABOUT THE COSTS? Do you think our leaders were concerned about costs in WW2 or the added costs in security after 911.
NO !

 

[sjt18]

@VFL-82-JP Running out of time for this right now but got through just the beginning of your first link. I am taking the time to look at the references. Did you? Within the first few paragraphs the assumption of significant asymptomatic spread was made with references. Those references themselves attempted to prove ONLY that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission was possible. And yes... they used anecdotes without attempting to cite data for several of their foundational arguments.

What they did not do or even attempt to do is provide the information relevant to masks.... the likelihood of spread by people with no symptoms. Surely you would agree that asking 330 million people to wear masks without symptoms so that (let's be generous) 4 million asymptomatic carriers would not randomly come into close contact with the MINORITY of the population that appears to be susceptible for catching the virus.... considering those asymptomatic carriers are say 20 times less likely to transmit the virus at all... is a fairly unreasonable proposition, right?

While we're focused on this ridiculousness... things that can actually help are being ignored. First in that list is educating the public on viral load and which situations are likely to endanger them and others.

Your trip to Walmart with open space and good ventilation where you do not come into close contact (within 6' for 15 minutes) with anyone is a pretty safe venture. Any restaurant that uses return air in their HVAC system has the potential to be a terrible trip unless the air is filtered. Bars are even worse. Apartments or rooms with shared HVAC are risky. Places like beaches with constant air movement and relatively good spacing... are pretty safe unless you kiss a stranger.

Think viral load. Where will it occur.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I will address one of your arguments a 2nd time. If a Nation is in crisis like we are now, WHO CARES ABOUT THE COSTS? Do you think our leaders were concerned about costs in WW2 or the added costs in security after 911.
NO !

That's not right, Abingdon.

First, because you continue to compare covid-19 to war. That's a very deceptive and error-producing analogy, best avoided.

Second, because you think that cost versus benefit was not a part of the decision making processes used by our leaders during WW II or at the start of the GWOT. It absolutely was. Leaders do not have the luxury of ignoring costs or avoiding cost-benefit analyses.

Third and finally, because you are thinking of our response to covid-19 as a battle for survival, an existential threat. It most certainly isn't. If we did absolutely nothing in response to covid-19, at most 4%-5% of our population might die. Tragic, yes. Existential threat, not even close. Especially considering that the large majority of deaths would be among the generation that was already closest to death anyway. Functionally, our nation--the world, even--would hardly even slow down. Only to mourn, then get on with our lives.

You're really coming at this problem from some bad angles, brother. And they are causing you to over-react. Yes, covid-19 is a serious disease. But it is far from the first serious disease we've had to learn to live with. It only suffers from being the first that big parts of society for some reason seem to believe we can quickly eliminate.

Which, of course, we can not. Having jumped across the inter-species boundary into human hosts, it will not jump back. It will continue to mutate, as all viruses do, and some of those mutations will continue to look to humans as hosts.

Shift frame of view. See the Wuhan Flu as a new part of the fabric of our existence, yet another risk to mitigate where we can while keeping costs and benefits in a favorable balance.

That's a far more helpful perspective.

 

[sjt18]

I will address one of your arguments a 2nd time. If a Nation is in crisis like we are now, WHO CARES ABOUT THE COSTS? Do you think our leaders were concerned about costs in WW2 or the added costs in security after 911.
NO !

The crisis is a narrative... not a reality. And EVERYONE cares about the cost/benefit analyses of EVERYTHING. The key is to objectively assess Covid risks and then compare them to the costs in both life and resources of any action we choose. The response to Covid is more than likely already going to cost more LIVES and FAR MORE YEARS OF LIFE than the virus itself. That is especially true considering the sharp decline in mortality.

But you really think the cost of lives and lost years of life due to the responses do not matter? It does not bother you that the response to Covid is VERY likely to kill more people AND cut more years of life than Covid? That is seriously warped brain-washing if you do.



Covid deaths have been MASSIVELY overcounted. I'm not all that concerned about the guy who died in a motorcycle accident being called a Covid death. I am more concerned with counting cancer deaths as "Covid" UNLESS we back up the last 70 years and count the cancer patients who died with the flu the same way. Influenza and Covid are not the same virus but when we are discussing the relative impact and our response they very naturally compare. If we counted Covid deaths the way we have ALWAYS counted flu related deaths... there would be fewer by a large percentage.

More? Two years ago 60 million people had the flu with 950,000 hospitalized. The current Covid count is under 4 million, right? I happen to believe there were many uncounted cases early on and fewer now. But even if you multiply that number by 4 we aren't going to get to 60 million. From the best data I can find, hospitalizations are not likely to reach those from the flu in a typical year.... much less that 950K.

This is relevant because CDC does not even claim to count flu deaths. They acknowledge that they undercount flu deaths. They produce estimates... based on hospitalizations. The MOST relevant comparison between the flu and Covid is the number of people going to the hospital.

 

[sjt18]

That's not right, Abingdon.

First, because you continue to compare covid-19 to war. That's a very deceptive and error-producing analogy, best avoided.

Second, because you think that cost versus benefit was not a part of the decision making processes used by our leaders during WW II or at the start of the GWOT. It absolutely was. Leaders do not have the luxury of ignoring costs or avoiding cost-benefit analyses.

Third and finally, because you are thinking of our response to covid-19 as a battle for survival, an existential threat. It most certainly isn't. If we did absolutely nothing in response to covid-19, at most 4%-5% of our population might die. Tragic, yes. Existential threat, not even close. Especially considering that the large majority of deaths would be among the generation that was already closest to death anyway. Functionally, our nation--the world, even--would hardly even slow down. Only to mourn, then get on with our lives.

You're really coming at this problem from some bad angles, brother. And they are causing you to over-react. Yes, covid-19 is a serious disease. But it is far from the first serious disease we've had to learn to live with. It only suffers from being the first that big parts of society for some reason seem to believe we can quickly eliminate.

Which, of course, we can not. Having jumped across the inter-species boundary into human hosts, it will not jump back. It will continue to mutate, as all viruses do, and some of those mutations will continue to look to humans as hosts.

Shift frame of view. See the Wuhan Flu as a new part of the fabric of our existence, yet another risk to mitigate where we can while keeping costs and benefits in a favorable balance.

That's a far more helpful perspective.

Agree with everything except the death rate. I know you said "at most"... but those were never reasonable numbers and especially based on what we now know.

 

[ABINGDON VOL FAN]

That's not right, Abingdon.

First, because you continue to compare covid-19 to war. That's a very deceptive and error-producing analogy, best avoided.

Second, because you think that cost versus benefit was not a part of the decision making processes used by our leaders during WW II or at the start of the GWOT. It absolutely was. Leaders do not have the luxury of ignoring costs or avoiding cost-benefit analyses.

Third and finally, because you are thinking of our response to covid-19 as a battle for survival, an existential threat. It most certainly isn't. If we did absolutely nothing in response to covid-19, at most 4%-5% of our population might die. Tragic, yes. Existential threat, not even close. Especially considering that the large majority of deaths would be among the generation that was already closest to death anyway. Functionally, our nation--the world, even--would hardly even slow down. Only to mourn, then get on with our lives.

You're really coming at this problem from some bad angles, brother. And they are causing you to over-react. Yes, covid-19 is a serious disease. But it is far from the first serious disease we've had to learn to live with. It only suffers from being the first that big parts of society for some reason seem to believe we can quickly eliminate.

Which, of course, we can not. Having jumped across the inter-species boundary into human hosts, it will not jump back. It will continue to mutate, as all viruses do, and some of those mutations will continue to look to humans as hosts.

Shift frame of view. See the Wuhan Flu as a new part of the fabric of our existence, yet another risk to mitigate where we can while keeping costs and benefits in a favorable balance.

That's a far more helpful perspective.

Respectfully disagree. We incurred costs during WW2 to get the job done. We were always going to do that. We should incur what ever costs necessary
during the current crisis to stabilize our country.

 

[ManboyVol]

Wow, you are either totally clueless or you have been living on the kool-aid for so long you've lost touch with reality. ICUs in southern Florida are at 127% of capacity. That's the Florida Dept. of Heath number, not the news media.

ICUs in Florida are not at 127% capacity. You liberals love to pull stats out of thin air.

 

[chrismc1000]

Heh, SJT, earlier in this thread I linked four separate papers written by medical professionals, all of which concluded that masks help prevent the spread of covid-19. Based on your response to Abingdon just now, one of two things must be true:

(1) You missed those four papers cited. If that's the case, please go back and check them out. Then we can discuss further.
or
(2) You read the four papers, and concluded they all four offered only (your words) "anecdotal evidence" that masks help.

Okay, fair enough, you see empirical data collection under field conditions (with, acknowledged, many uncontrolled variables) and dismiss it as anecdotal (that's not the proper use of the term anecdotal, but we can use it this way nonetheless, just to avoid getting bogged down in a semantics argument).

But when the anecdotal evidence piles up, again and again, one has to start believing there might be something there.

~ ~ ~

Villager walks out into a jungle where panthers and cobras are known to be. Is never seen again.

Second villager walks out into same jungle. Is never seen again.

Third villager, same thing.

Fourth villager, same thing.

You're the guy sitting around the fire saying, "that's just anecdotal evidence, we have no scientific proof that jungle is dangerous."

~ ~ ~

One catch phrase is, "quality over quantity." Another is, "large quantities have a quality all their own."

String together enough bits of anecdotal evidence, and you start to get statistically valid empirical results.

If four separate studies from four different groups of medical professionals in four different medical journals (including two of the most renowned medical publications in the world) don't start looking like statistically valid empirical findings to you, SJT, I doubt anything would ever convince you.

You're just determined to disbelieve. Which is your right, of course. But don't imagine for a minute that the rest of us see your position as reasonable or logical.

Best, JP

Just because you found a few doctors saying something to back your claim up doesn't make it true. Doctors have also said that the cloth mask is completely useless and causes more issues. Not wearing a cloth mask vs wearing one, it's actually better for your health to not wear it vs wearing one. Mildew spores grow within 30 minutes of usage and can lead to you being sick. Oh and btw the virus is way smaller than the threads of any mask you can wear.


Here is what doctors have said about surgical mask.
"this time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any type of surgical mask specifically for protection against the coronavirus, but these masks may provide some protection when N95 masks are not available."

So looks like those arent as good as people thought either oops.

Here is what they said about N95 masks

"the name indicates, the mask is designed to block 95% of very small particles. Some N95 masks have valves that make them easier to breathe through. With this type of mask, unfiltered air is released when the wearer exhales."

Wow it lest your breath escape can't use that mask bc the Chinese virus will spread.

This can be found from the CDC itself. So basically the three masks that people are talking about aren't that great.

Here is another.
“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza"


"Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle."

Here is the website with a video and many other links of proof.

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

In conclusion mask don't work and I'll post a pic to help make it all clearer.

 

[sjt18]

Two in 100 infections in S Korea came from someone outside their home... Your mask isn't saving the world like you think.

People are more likely to contract COVID-19 at home, study finds

 

[chrismc1000]

Heh, SJT, earlier in this thread I linked four separate papers written by medical professionals, all of which concluded that masks help prevent the spread of covid-19. Based on your response to Abingdon just now, one of two things must be true:

(1) You missed those four papers cited. If that's the case, please go back and check them out. Then we can discuss further.
or
(2) You read the four papers, and concluded they all four offered only (your words) "anecdotal evidence" that masks help.

Okay, fair enough, you see empirical data collection under field conditions (with, acknowledged, many uncontrolled variables) and dismiss it as anecdotal (that's not the proper use of the term anecdotal, but we can use it this way nonetheless, just to avoid getting bogged down in a semantics argument).

But when the anecdotal evidence piles up, again and again, one has to start believing there might be something there.

~ ~ ~

Villager walks out into a jungle where panthers and cobras are known to be. Is never seen again.

Second villager walks out into same jungle. Is never seen again.

Third villager, same thing.

Fourth villager, same thing.

You're the guy sitting around the fire saying, "that's just anecdotal evidence, we have no scientific proof that jungle is dangerous."

~ ~ ~

One catch phrase is, "quality over quantity." Another is, "large quantities have a quality all their own."

String together enough bits of anecdotal evidence, and you start to get statistically valid empirical results.

If four separate studies from four different groups of medical professionals in four different medical journals (including two of the most renowned medical publications in the world) don't start looking like statistically valid empirical findings to you, SJT, I doubt anything would ever convince you.

You're just determined to disbelieve. Which is your right, of course. But don't imagine for a minute that the rest of us see your position as reasonable or logical.

Best, JP

Wrong, just because you used four doctors to "back you up" doesn't make you right by any means. Lol doctors have provided you right (hence the four you said) and Doctors have proved you wrong. CDC is ran by doctors and people love using them as "proof".

CDC has stated the N95 masks are good until you exhual lol. The mask filters when you breath but that's it. So if you have it then you can still spread the virus.

The cloth mask is the worse it doesn't do anything and it's actually more harmful for you to wear it lol
Mildew spores within 30min of usage the virus actually goes through it like all other masks etc...

Surgical mask yea people it's good for nurses and doctors so clearly it's good for us!!! Well no it's not. Within 30 minutes it need to be thrown away bc it's clogged up and isn't doing anything and it becomes useless.

All masks cause you to breathe in your carbon monoxide so you get headaches and shortness of breath and feel tired. That's with any mask that the media and others are suggesting we use.

Again this is from the CDC. Also ask yourself why did it take so long for the CDC to say we should be wearing a mask. You won't like the answer if you actually find it.

Go through this link. It science says masks are useless. It has several links in it btw so make sure you look through all of them.

It even has a video from a doctor of physics...

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

 

[chrismc1000]

Also, Colorado was the first state to break down the deaths and tests of this Chinese virus. Other states followed the common thing with them all is that tests and deaths dropped by on average of atleast 25%... Just food for thought.

 

[ABINGDON VOL FAN]

Which should start with stepping WAAAAAAY back from the current Covid narrative and putting the virus in perspective. You're acting like this is the plague... it isn't. The death rates have dropped significantly with several theories out there attempting to explain why. But the media didn't even skip a beat. They likely knew those numbers were coming and IMMEDIATELY transitioned the narrative to "cases".

So let's play along...

There are currently less than 4 million confirmed cases in the US. Because there were a lot of unreported and undetected cases early and continue to be at least a significant number... let's agree there are now roughly 20 million cases past and present. If that doubles between now and the end of the year... it equals a mild flu season. Hospitalizations are under 300,000 total. Again if that doubles then you have a typical flu season. It would need to more than triple to reach the 950,000 that were hospitalized for the flu two years ago. Hospitals were strained then too... but you never heard about it because the narrative wasn't useful then... it wasn't "scary" or "interesting".

The impact of Covid is looking like a bad flu year. I'm not saying that's good. Doubling up virus deaths isn't a good thing at all. But the virus isn't worthy of the mindless panic that you are demonstrating. It never has been.

Worst yearly flu death total in the last 10/12 years is 62k. COVID death total us 135k in est 4 months. People continue to try and compare this to the flu They continue to be wrong.

 

[chrismc1000]

Worst yearly flu death total in the last 10/12 years is 62k. COVID death total us 135k in est 4 months. People continue to try and compare this to the flu They continue to be wrong.

Those numbers of the Chinese virus is overrated. This virus has a lower death rate than the flu yet we closed the world's economy. Which will do more harm than this virus will but that's another topic. So explain to me why we shut down the entire world over a virus that has a lower death rate than the common flu we all get every year. I'll wait.

 

[Bert Rechichar]

Wrong, just because you used four doctors to "back you up" doesn't make you right by any means. Lol doctors have provided you right (hence the four you said) and Doctors have proved you wrong. CDC is ran by doctors and people love using them as "proof".

CDC has stated the N95 masks are good until you exhual lol. The mask filters when you breath but that's it. So if you have it then you can still spread the virus.

The cloth mask is the worse it doesn't do anything and it's actually more harmful for you to wear it lol
Mildew spores within 30min of usage the virus actually goes through it like all other masks etc...

Surgical mask yea people it's good for nurses and doctors so clearly it's good for us!!! Well no it's not. Within 30 minutes it need to be thrown away bc it's clogged up and isn't doing anything and it becomes useless.

All masks cause you to breathe in your carbon monoxide so you get headaches and shortness of breath and feel tired. That's with any mask that the media and others are suggesting we use.

Again this is from the CDC. Also ask yourself why did it take so long for the CDC to say we should be wearing a mask. You won't like the answer if you actually find it.

Go through this link. It science says masks are useless. It has several links in it btw so make sure you look through all of them.

It even has a video from a doctor of physics...

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

Well, here is an evidence review cited in The Lancet saying they DO WORK.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscrip...r-DzBaTTIEV9kjvJiRZA7Eassb-rs75raKtOKIVKWcsFk
There is also evidence all around you, considering every other country but us has gotten a handle on this thing, and they ALL require masks but us. We could have put this behind us now and be looking forward to a football season starting on time, if it weren't for the anti-maskers. This IS the truth. You don't like it, too bad. Choke on it, because us without football is YOUR FAULT and no one elses.

 

[Dumbledorange]

Well, here is an evidence review cited in The Lancet saying they DO WORK.

Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review
There is also evidence all around you, considering every other country but us has gotten a handle on this thing, and they ALL require masks but us. We could have put this behind us now and be looking forward to a football season starting on time, if it weren't for the anti-maskers. This IS the truth. You don't like it, too bad. Choke on it, because us without football is YOUR FAULT and no one elses.

heh

The sting of Truth.

 

[chrismc1000]

Well, here is an evidence review cited in The Lancet saying they DO WORK.

Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review
There is also evidence all around you, considering every other country but us has gotten a handle on this thing, and they ALL require masks but us. We could have put this behind us now and be looking forward to a football season starting on time, if it weren't for the anti-maskers. This IS the truth. You don't like it, too bad. Choke on it, because us without football is YOUR FAULT and no one elses.

You clearly didn't take a look at the evidence I provided. So I'll have better argument with chimp. Fact is masks don't work CDC even said it, science even proves it. You think masks work cool. Answer this question then. How come women have gotten aids when the dude worn a condom and it didn't break. The condom was immediately thrown away after usage and the woman still got aids. Please explain that. Fyi it's the same concept.

 

[chrismc1000]

BuT MaSk WeRkS OmG pUt Ur MaSk On!!!

 

[Dumbledorange]

You think masks work cool. Answer this question then. How come women have gotten aids when the dude worn a condom and it didn't break.

Promiscuous?

The condom was immediately thrown away after usage and the woman still got aids. Please explain that. Fyi it's the same concept.

Masks---->AIDS-----condom failures. Sorry, does not compute.

 

[Remy]

The crisis is a narrative... not a reality. And EVERYONE cares about the cost/benefit analyses of EVERYTHING. The key is to objectively assess Covid risks and then compare them to the costs in both life and resources of any action we choose. The response to Covid is more than likely already going to cost more LIVES and FAR MORE YEARS OF LIFE than the virus itself. That is especially true considering the sharp decline in mortality.

But you really think the cost of lives and lost years of life due to the responses do not matter? It does not bother you that the response to Covid is VERY likely to kill more people AND cut more years of life than Covid? That is seriously warped brain-washing if you do.



Covid deaths have been MASSIVELY overcounted. I'm not all that concerned about the guy who died in a motorcycle accident being called a Covid death. I am more concerned with counting cancer deaths as "Covid" UNLESS we back up the last 70 years and count the cancer patients who died with the flu the same way. Influenza and Covid are not the same virus but when we are discussing the relative impact and our response they very naturally compare. If we counted Covid deaths the way we have ALWAYS counted flu related deaths... there would be fewer by a large percentage.

More? Two years ago 60 million people had the flu with 950,000 hospitalized. The current Covid count is under 4 million, right? I happen to believe there were many uncounted cases early on and fewer now. But even if you multiply that number by 4 we aren't going to get to 60 million. From the best data I can find, hospitalizations are not likely to reach those from the flu in a typical year.... much less that 950K.

This is relevant because CDC does not even claim to count flu deaths. They acknowledge that they undercount flu deaths. They produce estimates... based on hospitalizations. The MOST relevant comparison between the flu and Covid is the number of people going to the hospital.

Your quote, "The crisis is a narrative... not a reality." is correct from my perspective. Tired of conflating this coromavirus issue to that of an actual crisis. The Yellowstone Caldera about to blow, WWIII starting with us against China and Russia, a pandemic where 1 out of 2 who contract a disease expire losing their lives, a meteor the size of Delaware is on a collision course with Earth in 14 months, a Communist is elected POTUS those type things are actual crisises to me. This corona thing is blip or a pimple on the donkey of the space time continuum, hardly worthy of notice yet we have the usual pontificating and going into hysterics.

 

[chrismc1000]

Promiscuous?



Masks---->AIDS-----condom failures. Sorry, does not compute.

Yea I wouldn't wanna answer a question that completely destroys my false narrative too if I were you.

 

[sjt18]

Your quote, "The crisis is a narrative... not a reality." is correct from my perspective. Tired of conflating this coromavirus issue to that of an actual crisis. The Yellowstone Caldera about to blow, WWIII starting with us against China and Russia, a pandemic where 1 out of 2 who contract a disease expire losing their lives, a meteor the size of Delaware is on a collision course with Earth in 14 months, a Communist is elected POTUS those type things are actual crisises to me. This corona thing is blip or a pimple on the donkey of the space time continuum, hardly worthy of notice yet we have the usual pontificating and going into hysterics.

Good post.

As with too many issues, those on the other side of this one want to claim that anyone who opposes the reaction to the problem are dismissing the problem. I'm not. Even if Covid-19 is essentially the impact of another "flu" layered on top of the old flu... that's a big health issue. It is worthy of concern and reasonable efforts to mitigate and control the impact. It was NEVER worth shutting the whole country down at any point or any part of the country to the extent we have.

The same people that accuse folks like me of "not caring" about people being sick or dying... literally show no regard at all for the suffering of those being destroyed by the overreaction.

This mask thing though... takes the cake. I will read the links given by a good poster earlier when I have a little time. But I simply cannot wrap my head around people believing this: "Masks will not protect YOU because the virus can bypass the mask or go through it... BUT you should still wear one because the mask will prevent the virus from escaping to infect others." What did I miss?

The cynical me wants to say that they KNOW the masks are of very limited effectiveness and will be exposed if they tell people the masks will protect them personally. But because they want to be seen as "doing something"... they have convinced way too many of us that all those demon bugs are being sequestered in the porous mask Aunt Sally made.