If this can happen, no reason this can not happen

#2
#2
You clearly dont understand why one is acceptable (even admirable) while the other is not. ;)

The two represent two different sets of voters. One, the media wants to encourage and embolden, the other, they want to discourage and make them angry with their political leadership. If you imagine someone who has no real scruples in advancing their agenda, it is not hard to fathom why they do not even see the hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey, Matt2496, Wireless1 and 14 others
#5
#5
Gandalf said:
You clearly dont understand why one is acceptable (even admirable) while the other is not. ;)

The two represent two different sets of voters. One, the media wants to encourage and embolden, the other, they want to discourage and make them angry with their political leadership. If you imagine someone who has no real scruples in advancing their agenda, it is not hard to fathom why they do not even see the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Same for major league baseball. Most newer stadiums aren't that big; they're built more for comfort. I don't understand why they don't allow 10-15,000 thousand fans into a stadium that seats 40-50,000 thousand, especially during the day in the hot sun and 90 plus degrees. Just crazy..........
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey, tbwhhs, jaybird_1981 and 1 other person
#6
#6
MontyPython said:
Equally appropriate...


View attachment 303416

and the final night of the GOP convention.

View attachment 303417
Click to expand...
Yeah... but NO.

If you think that is "appropriate" then maybe you are the person with the two studies I've been looking for over the last 2 months. One, a study showing to what degree non-symptomatic Covid positive people exhale/transmit the virus especially compared to a baseline made up of symptomatic Covid and flu carriers. I believe those studies exist since a few have slipped and said it isn't as much. When they're forthcoming with that study then we will know if it is necessary to put non-symptomatic people in masks for the protection of "others"... as we've been sold. Two, proof that putting a mask on those non-symptomatic people will significantly reduce the risks to others.

I've read a bunch of articles that amount to conjecture based off of anecdotes and studies of other viruses and circumstances. But these two VERY OBVIOUS studies are missing... Why?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and PlanetVolunteer
#8
#8
I have seen only one study of outdoor transmission. A Chinese study of contact traces in one of their severely hit areas found NO evidence of outdoor transmission.

Obviously that could change if you put people close together yelling... but outdoors and especially in the sun (where the virus survives less than 2 minutes) is one of the safest places you can be.
 
#12
#12
tennrich1 said:
Not to enter the fray here but every one of these people were tested prior to entering that area. Don't want any argument but facts do matter.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this.

If facts mattered... then it would be common knowledge that far more people have been infected than "confirmed"... and that the virus was so mild that they didn't even notice. It would be known that 370K people have been hospitalized for this new virus that doctors were extra cautious with early on... which has not yet reached the level of a typical flu season much less the 950K hospitalized for the flu 2 years ago.

If facts mattered, no one would think 180K had died in the US FROM Covid. They would understand that something less than 10K have died FROM Covid and that Covid was a comorbidity with other very serious health conditions in the rest of those cases. They would know that at least as many people die as a direct consequence of the flu each year. They would understand that A LOT more people get severely sick of the flu every year.

If facts mattered, people would be educated on the concept of viral load and how to avoid/prevent it. Air filtration would be the hot news... not masks.

If facts mattered, the economy would have never been shut down broadly.

Facts have NEVER led the narrative on Covid. The narrative has always led the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X, Gandalf, ButchPlz and 9 others
#14
#14
MontyPython said:
Equally appropriate...


View attachment 303416

and the final night of the GOP convention.

View attachment 303417
Click to expand...
There’s a lot less people at the convention though. This doesn’t help your liberal stance any since they are the ones pushing for “protests/riots” and wearing masks. How can y’all support limiting gatherings and mask wearing but be hypocritical when it comes to these people being together? It’s okay since it’s regarding race? Makes no sense whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oz615, 10nacvols, FBtime and 1 other person
#15
#15
sjt18 said:
Probably both but testing as a screen isn't very effective. Our methods are not that good.
Click to expand...
Do you have links to your studies???
Im curious because my understanding of covid is its not airborne therefore carried on saliva and such...so mask prevent the flow of salvia particle from your.mouth.
 
#19
#19
whodeycin85 said:
Do you have links to your studies???
Im curious because my understanding of covid is its not airborne therefore carried on saliva and such...so mask prevent the flow of salvia particle from your.mouth.
Click to expand...
You are asking me to disprove a negative. The burden is on those who claim that non-symptomatic people emit the virus in sufficient quantities to build a viral load that will make someone sick... by passing them in Walmart. The burden of proof is on those who say a study of flu patients with heavy mucus who are coughing and sneezing their heads off... translates directly to non-symptomatic Covid carrier.

It is airborne. There are 3 different ways it can be expelled attached to moisture and mucus. Keep in mind that studies seem to suggest that masks even under the best conditions are 30-80% effective. These are medical and N-95 masks (inhale only). So on average you MAY be reducing what you emit by 50%. Homemade masks... are far less effective on the particles that persist in the air.

One is heavy droplets that are the product of sneezing, coughing, and possibly yelling. These droplets fall to the ground pretty quickly... but you don't want to walk through a "cloud" produced by someone's cough. These droplets can be stopped by almost any mask... but they're only produced by symptomatic people.

Two is small droplets. Those stay airborne longer. They may be picked up and recycled by an HVAC system... or get caught in a filter where they may be able to multiply before being blown back into closed spaces. Masks may be somewhat effective on these. Still primarily a product of symptomatic people but may be exhaled... there seems to be an effort to look at this by researchers.

Three is aerosols. These are the smallest. They can both go around masks and through them. They linger in the air for long periods of time but are dispersed and diluted by air exchange. Some researchers do not think they're a major factor since they carry much less of the virus. Others seem to think they're a major factor.

I learned most of this while researching air filtration to protect the people in my plant. There is also a debate between medical folks and industrial hygienists about the definitions of various terms.

Either way... we are focusing on the WRONG thing. If masks are to be worn to protect "others" then it should be EXCLUSIVELY in environments where vulnerable people will be placed in closed spaces (like homes) for long periods of time with recycled air. I'm not big on "requiring" anyone to do things... but businesses should be required to install air filtration as a condition of reopening. The system I had installed to protect my guys removes 99.4% of Covid from the air in 30 minutes. It literally negates the possibility of "close contact" as defined by CDC in ALL of our indoor, closed spaces. It costs about $500 for 6 tons of HVAC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, PlanetVolunteer and malinoisvol
#23
#23
One is a public space, a football stadium is not.
As soon as you pay to enter, the stadium provider is responsible for your safety.
If the controlling authority of the stadium does not want to take responsibility for your safety, they can limit access.
You can deny it all you want, but truth.
MontyPython said:
View attachment 303417
Click to expand...
Ask Herman Cain how this can end.
I believe it is equally stupid to go to either event under current reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler Durden
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top