I gots the Covid.

[ndayton]

This only tests the effectiveness at stopping aerosols, but that's only part of the puzzle. You can see even in the press release for this study (which is what you linked to, a press release, not the study itself) that they do acknowledge that the remainder of the aerosols are pushed to the sides. That's important because the mask is not the whole picture, it's mask+distance+hand washing. So if when you exhale the aerosols you exhale halo around you instead of six feet in front of you, you have decreased the probability of transmission over and above what is gained by merely stopping the emission of aerosols.

Combined Effects of Masking and Distance on Aerosol Exposure Potential

To quantify the efficacy of masking and “social distancing” on the transmission of airborne particles from a phantom aerosol source (simulating an inf…

www.sciencedirect.com

This being an actual publication and more important, conducted not by physicists but by medical researchers, they examined the impact of distance plus masks on total aerosol and particle transmission. It works. It's not a secret either, wearing a mask or face covering has been a part of the protective recommendations for not just healthcare workers in hospitals but parents in delivery rooms, EMTs on site, and ill people (primarily in east Asia where it is the polite thing to do to decrease the risk of passing on your illness to another).

But even if you think the Mayo clinic's researchers are shills for Big Textile trying to sell you masks, the press release you linked still confirms a reduced ability to spread disease while wearing a mask. If your takeaway is "it's not 100% so it doesn't work" then you might as well stop wearing a seatbelt, disable your airbags, and tell everyone you know to stop bothering with providing helmets and armor to our troops because they don't stop 100% of bullets.

You made a bold claim that mask work, my response was yes if done properly and cited a link from a university but I guess since it wasn't the actual study and just a news release it doesn't count?

If you cough or sneeze and your mask still allows 90% of droplets into the air then its not effective and to your analogy I wouldn't use a car that had seatbelts or airbags that had only a 10% chance of working.

Its a lie to tell people that if they wear any face covering that it will stop the spread like some magical dream catcher.
To me that's dangerous misinformation because you are giving a false sense of security to people who really think they are safe when in reality they will still spread the virus.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

You made a bold claim that mask work, my response was yes if done properly and cited a link from a university but I guess since it wasn't the actual study and just a news release it doesn't count?

If you cough or sneeze and your mask still allows 90% of droplets into the air then its not effective and to your analogy I wouldn't use a car that had seatbelts or airbags that had only a 10% chance of working.

Its a lie to tell people that if they wear any face covering that it will stop the spread like some magical dream catcher.
To me that's dangerous misinformation because you are giving a false sense of security to people who really think they are safe when in reality they will still spread the virus.

I questioned the claim that it had been proven that masks don't work. I pointed out that the press release you linked doesn't examine the effectiveness on reducing transmission, it's focused just on the amount of aerosols trapped. I think provided you with a study that specifically examines the overall effect of masking on transmissibility.

The concern over people feeling protected by masks and acting unsafely was part of the impetus for the early plea for people to stop buying every N95 mask they could find. That fear has been assuaged by the national refusal to remain distanced, avoid unnecessary exposure, avoid large crowds and gatherings, or practice any other protective steps.

At this point telling people masks don't work is the higher harm because it's validating the common behavior of refusing to wear a mask. Nobody has ever said it's 100% effective on its own or a magic dreamcatcher that protects people.

 

[KurtR]

I questioned the claim that it had been proven that masks don't work. I pointed out that the press release you linked doesn't examine the effectiveness on reducing transmission, it's focused just on the amount of aerosols trapped. I think provided you with a study that specifically examines the overall effect of masking on transmissibility.

The concern over people feeling protected by masks and acting unsafely was part of the impetus for the early plea for people to stop buying every N95 mask they could find. That fear has been assuaged by the national refusal to remain distanced, avoid unnecessary exposure, avoid large crowds and gatherings, or practice any other protective steps.

At this point telling people masks don't work is the higher harm because it's validating the common behavior of refusing to wear a mask. Nobody has ever said it's 100% effective on its own or a magic dreamcatcher that protects people.

Just because you want to live in your basement doesn’t mean everyone else has to. If you don’t want to be around people do you but I’m not scarred so I choose to live.

 

[Olympics777]

If your family members facility isn't caring for serious covid patients it is probably because they are not equipped to do so and transfer them out if they look like they are going downhill. My hospital is on the receiving end of a similar situation, ie: smaller rural hospitals that lack a true ICU or PCU send off complicated patients.

Ah interesting

 

[ferch]

I feel like the people who think that the entire world is going to get vax'd and this thing will be gone in a year are fooling themselves. This virus is going to be like the regular seasonal flu/influenza A/B stuff we see every year. To expect the rest of the world to mask up forever just doesn't seem realistic...

 

[5MilesBack]

You can't cough on someone else and give them heart disease. No, but that person you coughed on has the exact same freedom to choose to get the vaccine as anyone else. And if you listen to what the "experts" have been saying........"the vaccines work". So even coughing on someone else shouldn't be a problem if they're vaccinated.

But it's also an example of how bad we are at statistics. Who among us would buy ammo that had a 1 in 50 chance of blowing up our gun? 1:100? 1:1000 chance that it would cause erectile dysfunction? Nope.

Let's put it this way........if you had a 90% chance of winning in Vegas every time you gambled, would you gamble? And that's only 90%..........just think if your odds of winning were 98.6%. IMO that would be worth a gamble.......just like Covid.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Let's put it this way........if you had a 90% chance of winning in Vegas every time you gambled, would you gamble? And that's only 90%..........just think if your odds of winning were 98.6%.

8f there was a 10% chance of debilitating illness and a 1.5% chance of death, I would not make that gamble. Moreso if Taking that gamble also includes a chance that my wife or my other family are hurt or killed.

I wouldn't gamble it even if it were only a 1.6 chance that my neighbor would die, and we haven't said 3 words since July.

And as we've covered, the more people it infects, the more chances there is to mutate, making the vaccine less effective. It also means more people hospitalized, so if I fall out my treestand or get rear-ended on the way to work there's less space in the ED and more strain on the system.

If your decision only impacted you, I wouldn't care. But it doesn't only impact you.

 

[Mike Islander]

So the current tangential math argument is whether the survival rate is somewhere between 98.6% and 99.99799.7%? Deaths divided by reported cases omits unreported cases and understates survival, and deaths divided by total population assumes everyone has had the disease/been exposed and overstates survival. But are we arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

No, my fellow Tiger. Survival rate is based on the best data you have at any given time for those who have contracted the disease, and is the percentage or ratio of survival to infected persons. In the last two years, and based on reported cases and deaths, the survival rate is about 98.4%.

The "odds" of dying from the disease in a given time can be expressed as the number of deaths versus population. In that case, the 2021 year estimate on the chance of dying from Covid in the USA was about 0.13%, based on 2021 numbers through November and projected to the end of the year.

That's about a 1 in 800 chance of dying from Covid in 2021. Contrast that with the odds of dying from a car accident, which was about 1 in 8000.

 

[blackdog]

No, my fellow Tiger. Survival rate is based on the best data you have at any given time for those who have contracted the disease, and is the percentage or ratio of survival to infected persons. In the last two years, and based on reported cases and deaths, the survival rate is about 98.4%.

The "odds" of dying from the disease in a given time can be expressed as the number of deaths versus population. In that case, the 2021 year estimate on the chance of dying from Covid in the USA was about 0.13%, based on 2021 numbers through November and projected to the end of the year.

That's about a 1 in 800 chance of dying from Covid in 2021. Contrast that with the odds of dying from a car accident, which was about 1 in 8000.

But all these 'survival' rates are based on the government suppressing very effective and safe means of prevention and treatment. Don't be fat. Get fresh air and exercise. Don't have low vitamin D levels. Maybe throw in some C, Zinc, and a couple others. And, gasp!!!, take some ivermectin. If all that had been preached from day 1 things would look vastly different today. But that fraudulent Rueters article ran early on telling everyone how harmful ivermectin was and docs brave enough to see for themselves have been being silenced ever since.

 

[5MilesBack]

If your decision only impacted you, I wouldn't care. But it doesn't only impact you.

Viruses are going to mutate regardless of whether every human is vaccinated. Haven't you heard.......even animals are testing positive for Covid-19......it will continue to mutate. Are the animals up next for mandatory vaccines?

So what I'm taking from your post is that vaccines only work if everyone is vaccinated. I guess my flu shot was a waste of time.

 

[Mike Islander]

But all these 'survival' rates are based on the government suppressing very effective and safe means of prevention and treatment. Don't be fat. Get fresh air and exercise. Don't have low vitamin D levels. Maybe throw in some C, Zinc, and a couple others. And, gasp!!!, take some ivermectin. If all that had been preached from day 1 things would look vastly different today. But that fraudulent Rueters article ran early on telling everyone how harmful ivermectin was and docs brave enough to see for themselves have been being silenced ever since.

Yes, all the rates we see are based on the reality in which we find ourselves. But as individuals, we can do all of the preventative things you mention.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Viruses are going to mutate regardless of whether every human is vaccinated. Haven't you heard.......even animals are testing positive for Covid-19......it will continue to mutate. Are the animals up next for mandatory vaccines?

So what I'm taking from your post is that vaccines only work if everyone is vaccinated. I guess my flu shot was a waste of time.

SARS-CoV-2 mutates pretty slowly. The fewer people it runs through unimpeded, the slower it mutates, by at least an order of magnitude.

We have flu vaccines every year. We encourage everyone to get them because even if you would be over a flu in a week there's always people that can't get the vaccine. You're probably familiar with the idea of the phalanx and the need for shields to interlock, or the modern incarnation of interlocking fields of fire. The sum of interlocking defense, whether it be well-designed defensive line or a phalanx or herd immunity is greater than the individual defense.

 

[KurtR]

Seems like it mutates every time we need to redirect the news .

 

[5MilesBack]

SARS-CoV-2 mutates pretty slowly. The fewer people it runs through unimpeded, the slower it mutates, by at least an order of magnitude.

Well, since viruses weaken in severity as they mutate, it would seem that our goal would be to speed up the mutation process......not slow it down. In fact, I was just thinking the other day........we really need to get this Omicron spread quickly, so Delta goes away. Just like the variant before Delta did once Delta came around.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Well, since viruses weaken in severity as they mutate, it would seem that our goal would be to speed up the mutation process......not slow it down. In fact, I was just thinking the other day........we really need to get this Omicron spread quickly, so Delta goes away. Just like the variant before Delta did once Delta came around.

If that didn't incur a significant death toll, tie up ICUs and hospitals, and saddle millions of people with long-term health effects the human wave approach might work. Of course, in addition to that you run the risk that it never becomes harmless enough to stop being a risk, and becomes an endemic disease like polio, measles, or smallpox.

Sweden tried the human wave approach and it didn't work for COVID either.

 

[MattB]

Current death toll TOTAL since the “pandemic” (recording) began is the 800,000ish number. So if we go by anniversary dates of March when lockdowns began, we are approaching the end of year 2. Im just saying that a running 1 year average seems to be around ~500,000 deaths. So if we ignore timeframes in doing numbers, it skews it to look worse of course. That was my point - we need averages. If we dont tie it to a yearly rate, then it just becomes another jumbled statistic. I still think even that is being generous with all the co-morbidities given the “covid death” title.

Not at all, that’s just an attempt to further skew bad analysis in a direction that suits your agenda. The “Case Fatality Rate” is a commonly referenced and easily understood measure, and it has no concept of timeframe nor should it.

 

[Okhotnik]

I questioned the claim that it had been proven that masks don't work. I pointed out that the press release you linked doesn't examine the effectiveness on reducing transmission, it's focused just on the amount of aerosols trapped. I think provided you with a study that specifically examines the overall effect of masking on transmissibility.

The concern over people feeling protected by masks and acting unsafely was part of the impetus for the early plea for people to stop buying every N95 mask they could find. That fear has been assuaged by the national refusal to remain distanced, avoid unnecessary exposure, avoid large crowds and gatherings, or practice any other protective steps.

At this point telling people masks don't work is the higher harm because it's validating the common behavior of refusing to wear a mask. Nobody has ever said it's 100% effective on its own or a magic dreamcatcher that protects people.

 

[TBHasler]

8f there was a 10% chance of debilitating illness and a 1.5% chance of death, I would not make that gamble. Moreso if Taking that gamble also includes a chance that my wife or my other family are hurt or killed.

I wouldn't gamble it even if it were only a 1.6 chance that my neighbor would die, and we haven't said 3 words since July.

And as we've covered, the more people it infects, the more chances there is to mutate, making the vaccine less effective. It also means more people hospitalized, so if I fall out my treestand or get rear-ended on the way to work there's less space in the ED and more strain on the system.

If your decision only impacted you, I wouldn't care. But it doesn't only impact you.

Valid point on the inter-connectedness of things (decisions/actions) but it doesn’t just start and stop with this vaccination issue. In todays societies, most things are connected in ways that aren’t readily appreciated. Either way, life still has risks and rewards and the connectedness issues don’t trump freedom

 

[fwafwow]

No, my fellow Tiger. Survival rate is based on the best data you have at any given time for those who have contracted the disease, and is the percentage or ratio of survival to infected persons. In the last two years, and based on reported cases and deaths, the survival rate is about 98.4%.

The "odds" of dying from the disease in a given time can be expressed as the number of deaths versus population. In that case, the 2021 year estimate on the chance of dying from Covid in the USA was about 0.13%, based on 2021 numbers through November and projected to the end of the year.

That's about a 1 in 800 chance of dying from Covid in 2021. Contrast that with the odds of dying from a car accident, which was about 1 in 8000.

This is helpful - thank you. I don't know if I've seen, or perhaps I have and have forgotten, mortality expressed in terms of chance of dying. I must admit that I worry much more about my 23 year old daughter driving than I do of her getting Covid. (But I suspect the 1:800 may be lower, and perhaps the 1:8000 might be higher, due to her age?)

In my post I was merely trying to point out that the two "sides" were "only" ~1.1% apart. (Whether 1.1% is small or large is another topic.) Despite the intensity of the back and forth, they weren't that far apart.

I love the decapitation comparison btw.

What part of the Lowcountry?

 

[TBHasler]

But all these 'survival' rates are based on the government suppressing very effective and safe means of prevention and treatment. Don't be fat. Get fresh air and exercise. Don't have low vitamin D levels. Maybe throw in some C, Zinc, and a couple others. And, gasp!!!, take some ivermectin. If all that had been preached from day 1 things would look vastly different today. But that fraudulent Rueters article ran early on telling everyone how harmful ivermectin was and docs brave enough to see for themselves have been being silenced ever since.

Not just silenced but actually reimbursed at a lower $ if they don’t follow fda approved treatment protocols for EUA therapeutics - which specifically exclude HQL and ivermectin. They are not only publicly shamed they are financially penalized for it.