TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: Spinachcat on December 23, 2020, 05:22:55 PM

Title: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Spinachcat on December 23, 2020, 05:22:55 PM
HERE IS YOUR MASK PROTOCOL:

Step 1: Throw away your damn mask.
Step 2: Stop living like a fucking cuck.

This is America. Land of the free and home of the brave. That's not a slogan. That's how your ancestors built this nation under FAR greater dangers, challenges and stress than 99% of you have ever faced. Respect their sacrifices by growing a pair now.

And masks were always a joke. The new studies with real math proves the mask mandates are worthless and the old studies pre-Corona repeated the same thing. Ever smell a fart? That's because that's dudes' poo-poo flew out of his ass through his jeans across the room and into your nose. Yes, every fart you smell is SHIT particles in your nose.

But I have co-morbidities!!! I'm in danger!

Here's your special snowflake protocol:
Step 1: accept that most people with co-morbidities survive CoronaChan.
Step 2: do something about your co-morbidities. Do you smoke? Stop. Are you a giant fat fuck? Drink water, eat healthy and move your fat ass. No more excuses. Time for you to see your dick again. You don't need a gym. Walking is free and breathing fresh air and getting Vitamin D from the sun is vital for your immune system.
Step 3: if you either can't (or won't) do something about your co-morbidities, then accept the risk and live your damn life while you still can. You ain't gonna live forever and living in fear won't extend your life one day.

The overwhelming majority of us have 99.8% or greater survival chance from the China Virus. The world is a dangerous place. Cars, trains, planes all crash. Cancer causing crap is always nearby in the modern world. Totally healthy humans die of weird shit all the damn time. Innocent people die of violence every day. The time to live is now. Hiding from the sniffles ain't living.

As the old saying goes, if you ain't busy being born, you're busy dying.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 24, 2020, 03:01:54 PM
HERE IS YOUR MASK PROTOCOL:

Step 1: Throw away your damn mask.
Step 2: Stop living like a fucking cuck.

This is America. Land of the free and home of the brave. That's not a slogan. That's how your ancestors built this nation under FAR greater dangers, challenges and stress than 99% of you have ever faced. Respect their sacrifices by growing a pair now.

And masks were always a joke. The new studies with real math proves the mask mandates are worthless and the old studies pre-Corona repeated the same thing. Ever smell a fart? That's because that's dudes' poo-poo flew out of his ass through his jeans across the room and into your nose. Yes, every fart you smell is SHIT particles in your nose.

But I have co-morbidities!!! I'm in danger!

Here's your special snowflake protocol:
Step 1: accept that most people with co-morbidities survive CoronaChan.
Step 2: do something about your co-morbidities. Do you smoke? Stop. Are you a giant fat fuck? Drink water, eat healthy and move your fat ass. No more excuses. Time for you to see your dick again. You don't need a gym. Walking is free and breathing fresh air and getting Vitamin D from the sun is vital for your immune system.
Step 3: if you either can't (or won't) do something about your co-morbidities, then accept the risk and live your damn life while you still can. You ain't gonna live forever and living in fear won't extend your life one day.

The overwhelming majority of us have 99.8% or greater survival chance from the China Virus. The world is a dangerous place. Cars, trains, planes all crash. Cancer causing crap is always nearby in the modern world. Totally healthy humans die of weird shit all the damn time. Innocent people die of violence every day. The time to live is now. Hiding from the sniffles ain't living.

As the old saying goes, if you ain't busy being born, you're busy dying.
Feel better now, nutter? You're a sad, silly little bitch.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Shasarak on December 24, 2020, 05:36:25 PM
I prefer the under the nose mask protocol so you can look good while getting less side effects.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: moonsweeper on December 24, 2020, 07:35:54 PM
...stuff...

As a slightly overweight, late-middle-aged diabetic, I endorse this message...

I'm just pissed that I can't go to the gym on a daily basis anymore thanks to Governor Mikey.  >:(
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Snowman0147 on December 24, 2020, 07:52:06 PM
HERE IS YOUR MASK PROTOCOL:

Step 1: Throw away your damn mask.
Step 2: Stop living like a fucking cuck.

And they say on this day Spinachcat's balls grew three sizes.  The Spinachcat had a strength of ten Spinachcats plus two.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 24, 2020, 08:34:09 PM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 24, 2020, 08:39:01 PM
HERE IS YOUR MASK PROTOCOL:

Step 1: Throw away your damn mask.
Step 2: Stop living like a fucking cuck.

And they say on this day Spinachcat's balls grew three sizes.  The Spinachcat had a strength of ten Spinachcats plus two.
So stunning. So brave. We have a real Caitlyn Jenner among us.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: EOTB on December 24, 2020, 11:46:53 PM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on December 24, 2020, 11:59:00 PM
I'm just waiting for the CDC, WHO, et al ., to push a mandatory solution to the masks:
PLASTIC! Plastic is better than paper machete.
So to prevent COVID, place a plastic bag over your head and tie it off around your neck with razorwire. This way, the virus won't get in AND no one will want to come within 6 feet of you and your blood spurts!
Also, the media will reiterate: And radiation is good for you too!
 ::)
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 25, 2020, 02:05:45 AM
I'm just waiting for the CDC, WHO, et al ., to push a mandatory solution to the masks:
PLASTIC! Plastic is better than paper machete.
So to prevent COVID, place a plastic bag over your head and tie it off around your neck with razorwire. This way, the virus won't get in AND no one will want to come within 6 feet of you and your blood spurts!
Also, the media will reiterate: And radiation is good for you too!
 ::)
I guess we should all be thankful you're not an advisor for the outgoing president.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 25, 2020, 02:12:03 AM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.

Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: moonsweeper on December 25, 2020, 03:49:43 AM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

Thanks for that article.

Its nice to know that since I cover my nose and mouth when I cough or sneeze, like any human being over the age of five with a reasonable upbringing, I won't be spreading droplets that way.

...and since I am antisocial and don't talk to people, I won't be spitting on them, and the only virus I'll be spreading is from normal exhalation.  Since masks don't stop that transmission, I will continue to go mask-free in good conscience.

Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Snowman0147 on December 25, 2020, 08:24:39 AM
Man I wasted a good Dr. Seuss reference.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on December 25, 2020, 09:33:15 AM
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
By that rationale, you could argue that the government can do literally anything, as long as it can be argued that it in some way contributes to public health. It requires no action on the part of the so-called aggressor, no direct evidence of harm, no clear standard of evidence, and no measure of the harm caused by the restrictions. That's far beyond the scope of even the most totalitarian regimes in history.

The traditional standard during epidemics is that the government can quarantine people or otherwise impose behavioral restrictions on people who are showing symptoms, in order to protect the wider public. Flipping that, and imposing great harm on the entire public in order to protect against something that affects only a tiny percentage of the public at any time, and which is less dangerous than the seasonal flu to the vast majority of the school and working age public (everyone under the age of 49), is cartoonish, mustache-twirling villainy, even if we ignore the science and assume that masks work.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: VisionStorm on December 25, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.

Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.

We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.

BREATHING!!!

Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 25, 2020, 09:54:06 AM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.

Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.

We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.

BREATHING!!!

Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
A mask does not inhibit breathing (nor speaking). In a similar way, while we don't stop you from shitting yourself in public, we do have laws that require you to wear pants while doing so.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: VisionStorm on December 25, 2020, 10:28:13 AM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.

Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.

We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.

BREATHING!!!

Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
A mask does not inhibit breathing (nor speaking). In a similar way, while we don't stop you from shitting yourself in public, we do have laws that require you to wear pants while doing so.

Exhaling is not the same fucking thing as shitting, you fucking mongoloid! Do you fucking subhumans speak in anything other than false equivalencies?
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 25, 2020, 12:13:29 PM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

Thanks for that article.

Its nice to know that since I cover my nose and mouth when I cough or sneeze, like any human being over the age of five with a reasonable upbringing, I won't be spreading droplets that way.

...and since I am antisocial and don't talk to people, I won't be spitting on them, and the only virus I'll be spreading is from normal exhalation.  Since masks don't stop that transmission, I will continue to go mask-free in good conscience.

That's not what it says. It says you spread it by exhaling and talking as well.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 25, 2020, 12:15:05 PM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.

Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.

We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.

BREATHING!!!

Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
A mask does not inhibit breathing (nor speaking). In a similar way, while we don't stop you from shitting yourself in public, we do have laws that require you to wear pants while doing so.

Exhaling is not the same fucking thing as shitting, you fucking mongoloid! Do you fucking subhumans speak in anything other than false equivalencies?
Subhuman? Please tell us all about your master race theory and how you're planning to win the impending genocide.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 25, 2020, 12:16:40 PM
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
By that rationale, you could argue that the government can do literally anything, as long as it can be argued that it in some way contributes to public health. It requires no action on the part of the so-called aggressor, no direct evidence of harm, no clear standard of evidence, and no measure of the harm caused by the restrictions. That's far beyond the scope of even the most totalitarian regimes in history.

The traditional standard during epidemics is that the government can quarantine people or otherwise impose behavioral restrictions on people who are showing symptoms, in order to protect the wider public. Flipping that, and imposing great harm on the entire public in order to protect against something that affects only a tiny percentage of the public at any time, and which is less dangerous than the seasonal flu to the vast majority of the school and working age public (everyone under the age of 49), is cartoonish, mustache-twirling villainy, even if we ignore the science and assume that masks work.

What I outlined is from John Locke and the basis of the Founders thinking in drafting the Constitution. It's the source of almost all our laws.

There is no standard regarding symptoms only. The Government quarantined entire cities back when the Founders were around, regardless of symptoms.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 25, 2020, 12:18:50 PM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.

Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.

So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.

We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.

BREATHING!!!

Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.

Smoking is just exhaling as well. And you're whining like a little fucking baby over wearing a simple mask. It's not an illusion of safety - I linked to a study proving it does drastically enhance safety. But you don't want to do that, because you're a fucking immature child throwing a fit over a little mask because you have this delusion it's linked to some core freedom when it is not.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: EOTB on December 25, 2020, 01:46:56 PM
People have died from contagious airborne diseases since the moment of the founding.  The logic used requires masks in perpetuity, if it is applicable here.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: VisionStorm on December 25, 2020, 02:07:25 PM
People have died from contagious airborne diseases since the moment of the founding.  The logic used requires masks in perpetuity, if it is applicable here.

Exactly. And airborne diseases have been a thing since before our species even existed. But people suddenly want to become hysterical about them after tens of THOUSANDS of years (and HUNDREDS of thousands of years of our species existing), and pretend that this is a reasonable worldview somehow. This is fucking retarded! This is a height of neuroticism!
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on December 25, 2020, 02:21:53 PM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

Thanks for that article.

Its nice to know that since I cover my nose and mouth when I cough or sneeze, like any human being over the age of five with a reasonable upbringing, I won't be spreading droplets that way.

...and since I am antisocial and don't talk to people, I won't be spitting on them, and the only virus I'll be spreading is from normal exhalation.  Since masks don't stop that transmission, I will continue to go mask-free in good conscience.

That's not what it says. It says you spread it by exhaling and talking as well.
Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks. It was originally believed that COVID-19 was spread by droplets. This was wrong. In fact, the research led them to realize the concepts of aerosolization they were using to model diseases were wrong. It's not that airborne diseases fall into two well-defined categories: Aerosolized and non-aerosolized. It's that aerosolization is a spectrum, and all airborne diseases are aerosolized to a greater or lesser degree. More than that, the novel coronavirus is far more aerosolized than they initially believed. In fact, that's the leading explanation for why masks don't work -- the disease is largely spread by tiny, airborne droplets that pass through masks as if they weren't there, and which quickly fill any room. This is why all those bus riders caught the disease, from someone who was facing the other direction and almost 10 meters away. That's why they were detecting the particle in hospital ducts. That's why ventilation is important, because you can't stop the spread with simple barriers, but you can with airflow.

That's why the study you linked is garbage. It hasn't been published or made available, so we can only rely on quotes and summaries by journalists. But if that statement about reducing 90% of the disease is correct and not a fabrication or misinterpretation by a reporter, or taken horribly out of context, the engineering students who conducted the experiment don't even know the first thing about the disease. Large droplets are not the primary transmission mechanism, and thus can't be responsible for an order of magnitude difference.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 25, 2020, 07:33:42 PM
Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.

Again, not what it says. This would go so much easier if you read the thing you're responding to.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 25, 2020, 07:36:07 PM
People have died from contagious airborne diseases since the moment of the founding.  The logic used requires masks in perpetuity, if it is applicable here.

Exactly. And airborne diseases have been a thing since before our species even existed. But people suddenly want to become hysterical about them after tens of THOUSANDS of years (and HUNDREDS of thousands of years of our species existing), and pretend that this is a reasonable worldview somehow. This is fucking retarded! This is a height of neuroticism!

It's because of the number of people dying and being hospitalized by this one. Obviously. Your argument is akin to saying we shouldn't be bothered by nuclear blasts because we're being irradiated by the sun every day. Orders of degree are critical to any kind of discussion like this. Our hospitals are literally full. Zero ICU beds left. Almost zero normal hospital beds left. More people dead this year than in any year of your life. USA deaths from Covid are now at 330,034. Acknowledge orders of magnitude are relevant, and then we can discuss if this order of magnitude warrants a simple mask until the vaccine is distributed enough.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Snowman0147 on December 25, 2020, 08:14:47 PM
Can we just ignore HappyDaze and Mistwell already?  They don't want a discussion, or add anything to these discussions.  They just want to give us the same bullshit which was proven to not be true in prior threads.  They want us to shut up.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 25, 2020, 08:28:42 PM
Can we just ignore HappyDaze and Mistwell already?  They don't want a discussion, or add anything to these discussions.  They just want to give us the same bullshit which was proven to not be true in prior threads.  They want us to shut up.
Have I asked you to shut up? I'm perfectly fine with you continuing to embarass yourself through stupidity that you want to call patriotism. However, if you want to ignore me, feel free, but I'll still call out your idiocy for others
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: SHARK on December 25, 2020, 08:33:43 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 25, 2020, 08:44:30 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on December 25, 2020, 09:11:09 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on December 25, 2020, 10:16:45 PM
Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.

Again, not what it says. This would go so much easier if you read the thing you're responding to.
I didn't say the article said that. I was pointing out why the article is based on faulty science.

This would go much easier if you read the rest of what I said, where I explained that in detail.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: rawma on December 26, 2020, 02:21:01 AM
Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.

Again, not what it says. This would go so much easier if you read the thing you're responding to.
I didn't say the article said that. I was pointing out why the article is based on faulty science.

This would go much easier if you read the rest of what I said, where I explained that in detail.

It would help if you would provide a link to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. The World Health Organization seems to consider both; if masks reduce the one significantly, that should still have a useful effect. Nobody is suggesting that masks alone are sufficient steps.

While experimentation in laboratories is certainly important, I am more encouraged by observed results in the real world, such as the differing experience of Kansas counties with mask mandates versus those without.
https://apnews.com/article/health-kansas-virus-outbreak-f218e1a38cce6b2af63c1cd23f1d234e
This could be for other reasons, of course; a mask mandate might include or at least encourage other steps to reduce transmission, or people in counties who resist mask mandates may also resist other steps to discourage transmission.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on December 26, 2020, 03:00:22 AM
Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.

Again, not what it says. This would go so much easier if you read the thing you're responding to.
I didn't say the article said that. I was pointing out why the article is based on faulty science.

This would go much easier if you read the rest of what I said, where I explained that in detail.

It would help if you would provide a link to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. The World Health Organization seems to consider both; if masks reduce the one significantly, that should still have a useful effect. Nobody is suggesting that masks alone are sufficient steps.

While experimentation in laboratories is certainly important, I am more encouraged by observed results in the real world, such as the differing experience of Kansas counties with mask mandates versus those without.
https://apnews.com/article/health-kansas-virus-outbreak-f218e1a38cce6b2af63c1cd23f1d234e
This could be for other reasons, of course; a mask mandate might include or at least encourage other steps to reduce transmission, or people in counties who resist mask mandates may also resist other steps to discourage transmission.
I've provided many links in the coronavirus thread. I agree that real world examples matter more than theory. So here are few focused more on pragmatics. The first is the most significant recent study on masks. It's a large, randomized study, so unlike many of the sloppy, limited, and biased studies at the start of the pandemic, it meets very high standards of evidence.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Slightly older, but surveys of the evidence on masks, from the CDC and Oxford:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

I can also link to dozens of other analyses of areas with and without mask mandates, and before and after mandates, around the world. Some do better, some do worse. When you have that many areas, you can always find one that supports your theory. Not to mention, it's really hard to control for all other factors. But when looked at in toto, there doesn't seem to be much if any effect, overall. Here are some charts that suggest masks don't work, though remember I'm arguing they don't really tell us anything:
https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/

Aerosolization:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: VisionStorm on December 26, 2020, 12:43:03 PM
Can we just ignore HappyDaze and Mistwell already?  They don't want a discussion, or add anything to these discussions.  They just want to give us the same bullshit which was proven to not be true in prior threads.  They want us to shut up.

TBH, from what I've seen from the times I've been active in this section of this forum, jhkim is the ONLY ONE from the "other side" of these discussions that makes any type of meaningful contribution or attempt to properly substantiate what they say. Everyone else is just a disingenuous POS or some rando (like Bren) that just pops in to throw a few pointless jabs and blanket assertions about everyone on the "right" (which includes EVERYONE who's not a SJW or supports the corporatist warmongering "Democratic" party) and not address anything.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 26, 2020, 12:46:57 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!

Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?

OK. You're officially creepy now.

Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 26, 2020, 01:44:53 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!

Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?

OK. You're officially creepy now.

Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on December 26, 2020, 06:13:01 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!

Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?

OK. You're officially creepy now.

Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...
Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 26, 2020, 06:32:27 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!

Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?

OK. You're officially creepy now.

Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...
Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...
Yes, keep on deflecting. Others won't have to wonder much longer, and no one has to label you when we can just point at the labels you've put on yourself.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 26, 2020, 07:07:34 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!

Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?

OK. You're officially creepy now.

Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...
Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...

What does the phrase "zionist scum" mean to you, and why do you think it applies specifically to me?
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on December 26, 2020, 09:01:46 PM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!

Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?

OK. You're officially creepy now.

Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...
Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...

What does the phrase "zionist scum" mean to you, and why do you think it applies specifically to me?
A "ZIONIST" SCUMBAG:
There are those who claim to be true zionists but are NOT. They despise Israel, observant Jews, and Christians who support them. They HATE GOD, and they believe MEN can be AS GODS. They are ashamed of themselves, their heritage. They want to be just like "EVERYONE ELSE". They support U.N.  Resolution 3379 ( See https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24893 ), for example. I place the Rothschildes and others in this EXACT category. They worship the mountain, not the God who created the mountain. They supported the German Nazis, and were the harshest torturers during that time of those who are true to themselves. They are the followers of evil, NOT of the laws. They hate all laws and consider themselves superior to them. They say they love, but they only hate. They have broken their oaths and care not for their kin. They think they are superior, when they are the worst upon this earth.  They call themselves ZIONISTS to confuse others.
That is what I believe you to be.
Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on December 26, 2020, 09:18:58 PM
That is what I believe you to be.
Prove me wrong.
Isn't that special. Nobody is going to prove anything to you because you'll never admit you're wrong, so you just go on thinking what you want about others, and I'll keep thinking your real name appears on the sex offender registry. Oh, and...prove me wrong, bitch.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: SHARK on December 26, 2020, 10:29:58 PM
Greetings!

Consolcwby has mentioned that he is Jewish--and he has championed the security and rights of Israel, and Christians alike. That is not the attitude of people that hate Jews or Christians, or who are anti-Semitic. Trying to paint him as anti-Semitic or anti-Christian is being disingenuous and wrong.

Mistwell is Jewish as well. So, he can't be anti-Semitic either, and I don't think Mistwell is anti-Christian, either.

Zionists? I may be out of the loop here in this particular, but I was under the understanding that Zionists were elements of Jewish partisans, politicians, and lobbyists, amongst other advocates, for the official establishment and recognition of a Jewish State--the historical land of Israel--before World War II, when they were arguing with the British Empire, which at the time occupied Israel as a protectorate and had not at that time yet, recognized Israel as a state, or had given them independence. Their work eventually led to the British Empire organizing the nation of Israel, and recognizing them as an independent nation state, and relinquishing any political or military claims to the land, as agreed upon and set out by the UN in 1948 or so, when Israel became an independent nation state again. Zionists were also supported and encouraged by American Christians as well--and have been supported financially, morally, and politically by American Christians ever since--as well as of course by American Jews.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 27, 2020, 12:16:35 AM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!

Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?

OK. You're officially creepy now.

Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...
Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...

What does the phrase "zionist scum" mean to you, and why do you think it applies specifically to me?
A "ZIONIST" SCUMBAG:
There are those who claim to be true zionists but are NOT. They despise Israel, observant Jews, and Christians who support them. They HATE GOD, and they believe MEN can be AS GODS. They are ashamed of themselves, their heritage. They want to be just like "EVERYONE ELSE". They support U.N.  Resolution 3379 ( See https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24893 ), for example. I place the Rothschildes and others in this EXACT category. They worship the mountain, not the God who created the mountain. They supported the German Nazis, and were the harshest torturers during that time of those who are true to themselves. They are the followers of evil, NOT of the laws. They hate all laws and consider themselves superior to them. They say they love, but they only hate. They have broken their oaths and care not for their kin. They think they are superior, when they are the worst upon this earth.  They call themselves ZIONISTS to confuse others.
That is what I believe you to be.
Prove me wrong.

I don't have to prove shit to you. I have never once mentioned my views on Israel or religion to you, or to anyone here. not one time. And your assumptions about my views are quite wrong.

Which means you're lying. Poorly.

Sometimes antisemites use the cover of "I don't hate Jews, I just don't like Zionists" as their excuse for their behavior. They talk about how they don't like the policies of Israel, but view that as separate from Jews in general. You see that kind of talk on some white power message boards and such.  It's bullshit, but it's a plausible deniability tactic to escape being caught being actually antisemitic.

But, I think you fucked up. You used that old dog whistle cover, probably because you've used it before and seen it used and talked about elsewhere. But you failed to remember it had to only be used with someone who had actually said something about Israel.

I hadn't. All you knew about me was my family members had been killed in the Holocaust, and that perhaps I was Jewish. But you don't know a single thing about my views on Israel or religion. But you went to "Zionist Scumbag" as an attack anyway. Because that's your usual cover for you to express your hatred of Jews without being caught, while still sending a dog whistle message to fellow supremacists that you're one of their tribe and think Jews are scum of the earth.

Except, you were just plain too dumb to use it right. You fucked up. And now you're caught.

I'm sure you're going to scramble and bluff and bluster now. You'll pretend they were safe assumptions because I act like X and Y and so of course I must be a Zionist Scum. But it's going to be obvious flailing. Because you still have no idea, no idea at all, what my views are on Israel and religion. You never had any basis for any assumptions about those topics. And your bluster will be apparent to anyone who sees it. Because you fucked up. Because you're caught, and you know it, and now you're desperate to try and find cover for fucking up with your first attempt at cover. And everyone will see that desperation in your tone. Because when someone's back is against the wall and they're faced with the curtain being pulled down, there isn't much choice other than to react in desperation.

Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Snark Knight on December 27, 2020, 09:09:27 AM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Ehhh, I recall back when the pandemic was really kicking off around Feburary that it was largely a right-wing stance to push for lockdowns, closing borders, taking the virus seriously, etc. The Left by contrast were the ones talking about how it was just "the flu" and that the whole virus was being blown out of proportion by evil nazi fascist bigots as an excuse to be xenophobic towards Chy-nah.

At some point between Feburary and April some switch got flipped and both sides did a total 180.

The whole thing has looked like such a politicised/partisan farce as an outsider looking in on the US.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Trond on December 27, 2020, 10:36:49 AM
Forget about the masks, I just wish everything could reopen again. I can live with the mask.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: rawma on December 27, 2020, 01:10:18 PM
It would help if you would provide a link to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. The World Health Organization seems to consider both; if masks reduce the one significantly, that should still have a useful effect. Nobody is suggesting that masks alone are sufficient steps.

While experimentation in laboratories is certainly important, I am more encouraged by observed results in the real world, such as the differing experience of Kansas counties with mask mandates versus those without.
https://apnews.com/article/health-kansas-virus-outbreak-f218e1a38cce6b2af63c1cd23f1d234e
This could be for other reasons, of course; a mask mandate might include or at least encourage other steps to reduce transmission, or people in counties who resist mask mandates may also resist other steps to discourage transmission.
I've provided many links in the coronavirus thread. I agree that real world examples matter more than theory. So here are few focused more on pragmatics. The first is the most significant recent study on masks. It's a large, randomized study, so unlike many of the sloppy, limited, and biased studies at the start of the pandemic, it meets very high standards of evidence.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Slightly older, but surveys of the evidence on masks, from the CDC and Oxford:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

These don't seem to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. An interesting limitation in the first study:
Quote
no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others

Masks have generally been presented as primarily protecting people other than the wearers, but providing some protection to the wearer (among the conclusions, "The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."). I suspect that mask mandates may be helpful where rates of infection are very high.

Among the problems with masks that are not addressed by mask mandates: people wear them incorrectly, they use masks of materials that are less effective, and they don't wash the cloth ones as they should.

But mask mandates address other issues: remind people to take other appropriate actions (social distancing, not touching their faces, avoiding large gatherings), reduce pressure not to wear masks, and reduce feelings that individuals have no control. And, if the protection is primarily for other people, it works against the free rider problem.

Quote
Aerosolization:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798

They don't seem to be advocating against masks, which are not mentioned but may be part of what they describe as droplet precautions (presumably also sneezing into your elbow and such). And it doesn't support that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission, although it may be that if we defend against every other mode of transmission it will account for more infection.

Ventilation was also a goal in the 1918 pandemic, apparently affecting heating system design:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/the-curious-history-of-steam-heat-and-pandemics
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: rawma on December 27, 2020, 01:35:53 PM
Ehhh, I recall back when the pandemic was really kicking off around Feburary that it was largely a right-wing stance to push for lockdowns, closing borders, taking the virus seriously, etc. The Left by contrast were the ones talking about how it was just "the flu" and that the whole virus was being blown out of proportion by evil nazi fascist bigots as an excuse to be xenophobic towards Chy-nah.

At some point between Feburary and April some switch got flipped and both sides did a total 180.

The whole thing has looked like such a politicised/partisan farce as an outsider looking in on the US.

I remember this:
Quote from: Joe Biden on Twitter in October 2019
We are not prepared for a pandemic. Trump has rolled back progress President Obama and I made to strengthen global health security. We need leadership that builds public trust, focuses on real threats, and mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores.

I remember Trump mishandling travel bans (allowing 40,000 people in from China afterward and having no provision for quarantining travelers anyway; the Europe ban was way too late and just panicked people into overloading airports, which probably did more to spread the virus than not). I remember Trump not wanting an infected cruise ship to land because it would increase "his numbers" and I also remember them making no provision to quarantine anyone from that ship when they finally allowed it in. I don't remember people on the right advocating for closed borders since 2016, but not for anything else like lockdowns.

I remember Nancy Pelosi visiting Chinatown to discourage attacks on Asian Americans which were being whipped up by blaming China for the coronavirus. I remember Matt Gaetz mocking concerns by wearing a gas mask into the House of Representatives. I remember Trump praising Xi's efforts and transparency, back when he hoped the Chinese would help his reelection.

I remember Trump's repeated comments that the numbers would soon drop to zero, that it would disappear in warm weather, that it was no worse than the flu, that he was handling it better than the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. The only honest statement he seems to have given in the early days was privately to Bob Woodward.

I remember that the Trump administration chose to respond less to the pandemic because it seemed to be a problem for "blue states" and therefore politically advantageous to let them suffer. Did Jared Kushner ever sue as threatened over the Project Lincoln billboard that quoted him as saying "[New Yorkers] are going to suffer and that’s their problem"?

I don't remember anybody significant on the left saying it was "just the flu".

It is interesting that even you recall that the right's attitude to the pandemic changed away from strong measures in the time period that it became obvious it was a huge problem; if you were correct about an opposite change in  the left, it would be like the right acts against actual evidence and the left responds appropriately to new evidence.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on December 27, 2020, 11:24:58 PM
It would help if you would provide a link to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. The World Health Organization seems to consider both; if masks reduce the one significantly, that should still have a useful effect. Nobody is suggesting that masks alone are sufficient steps.

While experimentation in laboratories is certainly important, I am more encouraged by observed results in the real world, such as the differing experience of Kansas counties with mask mandates versus those without.
https://apnews.com/article/health-kansas-virus-outbreak-f218e1a38cce6b2af63c1cd23f1d234e
This could be for other reasons, of course; a mask mandate might include or at least encourage other steps to reduce transmission, or people in counties who resist mask mandates may also resist other steps to discourage transmission.
I've provided many links in the coronavirus thread. I agree that real world examples matter more than theory. So here are few focused more on pragmatics. The first is the most significant recent study on masks. It's a large, randomized study, so unlike many of the sloppy, limited, and biased studies at the start of the pandemic, it meets very high standards of evidence.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Slightly older, but surveys of the evidence on masks, from the CDC and Oxford:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

These don't seem to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. An interesting limitation in the first study:
Quote
no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others

Masks have generally been presented as primarily protecting people other than the wearers, but providing some protection to the wearer (among the conclusions, "The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."). I suspect that mask mandates may be helpful where rates of infection are very high.

Among the problems with masks that are not addressed by mask mandates: people wear them incorrectly, they use masks of materials that are less effective, and they don't wash the cloth ones as they should.

But mask mandates address other issues: remind people to take other appropriate actions (social distancing, not touching their faces, avoiding large gatherings), reduce pressure not to wear masks, and reduce feelings that individuals have no control. And, if the protection is primarily for other people, it works against the free rider problem.

Quote
Aerosolization:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798

They don't seem to be advocating against masks, which are not mentioned but may be part of what they describe as droplet precautions (presumably also sneezing into your elbow and such). And it doesn't support that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission, although it may be that if we defend against every other mode of transmission it will account for more infection.

Ventilation was also a goal in the 1918 pandemic, apparently affecting heating system design:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/the-curious-history-of-steam-heat-and-pandemics
Different degrees of certainty. The empirical evidence suggests masks have little or no effect. But why? Large droplet transmission can't explain it, aerosolization can. That doesn't mean it's the right answer, just it's the one answer that seems to fit the displayed behavior. I don't know of any studies that have empirically measured the primary mode of transmission, but we still have to make a best guess.

It's worth remembering that we still know relatively little about COVID-19, and that it's a very strange virus.

Interesting link. I wonder whether, a century from now, any changes we make in response to sars2 will be recognized to have negative effects.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Kiero on December 28, 2020, 08:08:43 AM
I've never worn one.

Asymptomatic transmission is a fiction, the entire premise for mask-wearing is a fraud.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: rawma on December 28, 2020, 03:48:17 PM
Ventilation was also a goal in the 1918 pandemic, apparently affecting heating system design:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/the-curious-history-of-steam-heat-and-pandemics
Different degrees of certainty. The empirical evidence suggests masks have little or no effect. But why? Large droplet transmission can't explain it, aerosolization can. That doesn't mean it's the right answer, just it's the one answer that seems to fit the displayed behavior. I don't know of any studies that have empirically measured the primary mode of transmission, but we still have to make a best guess.

It's worth remembering that we still know relatively little about COVID-19, and that it's a very strange virus.

Yes, and that experts change their advice as more is learned should not be overly criticized. Doing nothing at all while waiting for complete knowledge is fair to criticize.

I recall reading past discussions of another bit of safety advice: wearing a bicycle helmet. There are accidents that it would help in, but unfortunately the bulk of bicycle accidents involve motor vehicles and the helmets would mostly be irrelevant. And like masks people wear helmets incorrectly and don't maintain them. If bicycle accident injuries preventable with helmets threatened to overwhelm hospital capacity, I think there would be a lot more mandatory bicycle helmet laws. But as it is there are still mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the US, although most are aimed at children.

Quote
Interesting link. I wonder whether, a century from now, any changes we make in response to sars2 will be recognized to have negative effects.

To an extent, it's surprising that that change persisted so long. If people stopped shaking hands in favor of bowing to each other or anything else, that would probably be a welcome change. Working remotely seems like it might persist, at least for part of the time and in jobs most compatible with it, and that might increase an existing trend for people to be isolated and lonely.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Mistwell on December 28, 2020, 03:52:20 PM
I've never worn one.

Asymptomatic transmission is a fiction, the entire premise for mask-wearing is a fraud.

1) Pre-symptomatic transmission is real and proven.
2) A lot of people don't recognize something is a symptom, or write it off as something else.

When a stomach ache is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just having eaten the wrong thing.

When sniffles is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just seasonal allergies.

When a headache is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just a headache perhaps from stress or lack of caffeine or lack of sleep.

When loss of smell is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people simply never notice.

If you don't recognize you have a symptom, then it's not asymptomatic transmission, but you might not wear a mask because you don't know you have a symptom.

And of course you don't know you're going to show a symptom tomorrow, but are contagious right now.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Kiero on December 28, 2020, 04:53:45 PM
1) Pre-symptomatic transmission is real and proven.
2) A lot of people don't recognize something is a symptom, or write it off as something else.

When a stomach ache is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just having eaten the wrong thing.

When sniffles is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just seasonal allergies.

When a headache is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just a headache perhaps from stress or lack of caffeine or lack of sleep.

When loss of smell is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people simply never notice.

If you don't recognize you have a symptom, then it's not asymptomatic transmission, but you might not wear a mask because you don't know you have a symptom.

And of course you don't know you're going to show a symptom tomorrow, but are contagious right now.

Good job I've had none of those besides the odd sniffles. In any case, the one that really matters as far as transmitting goes is a cough, which I haven't had.

And you can shove your mask where the sun don't shine. I didn't wear one in any year previous to this and I'm not about to start.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on December 29, 2020, 12:10:14 AM
Yes, and that experts change their advice as more is learned should not be overly criticized. Doing nothing at all while waiting for complete knowledge is fair to criticize.

I recall reading past discussions of another bit of safety advice: wearing a bicycle helmet. There are accidents that it would help in, but unfortunately the bulk of bicycle accidents involve motor vehicles and the helmets would mostly be irrelevant. And like masks people wear helmets incorrectly and don't maintain them. If bicycle accident injuries preventable with helmets threatened to overwhelm hospital capacity, I think there would be a lot more mandatory bicycle helmet laws. But as it is there are still mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the US, although most are aimed at children.
Yes, they're bound to make mistakes at the start. I'm far more critical when they don't reassess. But I think one of the greatest failures of public health is conveying ambiguity. We need less reassurance and confidence, and more discussion of the limits of our knowledge.

It's been ages, so I could be misremembering, but I've seen bicycle helmets listed as one of the contributing factors that's led to childhood becoming much safer over the last 40 years.

I'm not sure I believe that. It could be true. But it could just as easily be false. People are terrible at statistics, and there's a lot of incentive for advocates and public officials to claim the measures they promoted or enacted really do work. All they need is a few sob stories to support their cause.

But figuring out what works is important. We can waste a lot of money and other resources if we listen to the emotional pleas, and ignore the numbers. Worse, we have limited resources. So when we spend them on things that don't help, we're not spending them on things that will help. It's a lost opportunity cost.

To an extent, it's surprising that that change persisted so long. If people stopped shaking hands in favor of bowing to each other or anything else, that would probably be a welcome change. Working remotely seems like it might persist, at least for part of the time and in jobs most compatible with it, and that might increase an existing trend for people to be isolated and lonely.
The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: rawma on December 29, 2020, 01:59:32 AM
It's been ages, so I could be misremembering, but I've seen bicycle helmets listed as one of the contributing factors that's led to childhood becoming much safer over the last 40 years.

I'm not sure I believe that. It could be true. But it could just as easily be false. People are terrible at statistics, and there's a lot of incentive for advocates and public officials to claim the measures they promoted or enacted really do work. All they need is a few sob stories to support their cause.

I don't know what the story is on bicycle helmets. I just recall it as a surprising discussion because I had not thought about them; sort of, "of course bicycle helmets are good! but they don't really do much in practice because the problem is from motor vehicles", and I am probably not doing it justice.

The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"

I suspect that will be true, but it shouldn't all be blamed on the pandemic.
https://www.hrsa.gov/enews/past-issues/2019/january-17/loneliness-epidemic
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: oggsmash on December 29, 2020, 03:01:16 AM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.

  If am curious about that statement.  What does conservative mean, and list some of your conservative positions.  I think with all the post shifting I am not sure what conservative, liberal, progressive, left wing extremist,  or right wing extremist mean.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: SHARK on December 29, 2020, 05:10:21 AM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.

  If am curious about that statement.  What does conservative mean, and list some of your conservative positions.  I think with all the post shifting I am not sure what conservative, liberal, progressive, left wing extremist,  or right wing extremist mean.

Greetings!

Hey there, Ogg! Well, as for Conservative, I would say it embraces a number of aspects for myself. Being an advocate of free-market Capitalism, generally, a *smaller*, restrained Federal government, strongly supporting Constitutionalism, our Constitutional Republic as our system of government; Strongly supporting Freedom of Speech, being pro-gun and supporting the 2nd Amendment; Advocating for our traditions, history, and culture, and supporting nationalism as opposed to Globalism; Generally, supporting traditional values, Christianity, being Pro-Life, a strong work-ethic, being independent and self-reliant. Opposing racialist, "Intersectionalism", Critical Race Theory, Feminism, Progressivism, Leftism, Globalism and Marxism. I think that serves as a good summary, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: VisionStorm on December 29, 2020, 09:45:33 AM
Greetings!

I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.

  If am curious about that statement.  What does conservative mean, and list some of your conservative positions.  I think with all the post shifting I am not sure what conservative, liberal, progressive, left wing extremist,  or right wing extremist mean.

It's all completely subjective and it's only gotten more undefinable over the years--particularly over the past few years, when "right-wing" has become a slur, and anyone from the anonymous dregs of social media to the far reaching stench of the mainstream media networks can just assign it to you, regardless of what your views actually are. They're also just pointless labels because at the end of the day what people should do is assess every situation on a case by case basis and address the issue based on what's actually going on there and what actually could help fix a problem, rather than working backwards from a set of prescriptive ideological precepts on how to view the world or manage every social or political circumstance.

I don't care about "Left" or "Right", I care about the massive economic devastation that the lockdowns are bringing and the long term effects that it will inevitably have on society in general, along with the change in culture that will happen (and has already been happening for decades, since 9/11) as a result of most of the population just automatically accepting and defending every authoritarian edict that comes from the government, or even ANY perceived authority figure, including the mainstream media.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on December 31, 2020, 01:39:53 PM
The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"

I suspect that will be true, but it shouldn't all be blamed on the pandemic.
https://www.hrsa.gov/enews/past-issues/2019/january-17/loneliness-epidemic
I'm more worried about the kids. A lot of development for babies is about recognizing faces, and for school age children it's about socialization with their peers and developing interpersonal skills. Kids tend to be quite resilient, but we also know that things like strong trauma has lasting negative effects. With luck, they'll bounce back. But who knows?
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on December 31, 2020, 10:53:22 PM
The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"

I suspect that will be true, but it shouldn't all be blamed on the pandemic.
https://www.hrsa.gov/enews/past-issues/2019/january-17/loneliness-epidemic
I'm more worried about the kids. A lot of development for babies is about recognizing faces, and for school age children it's about socialization with their peers and developing interpersonal skills. Kids tend to be quite resilient, but we also know that things like strong trauma has lasting negative effects. With luck, they'll bounce back. But who knows?
That's all true. Now that Jeffery Epstein is alive, those poor kids have even MORE to worry about! Fun Fact: Will J. Epstein become the new Chuck Norris?
My guess is this: Epstein will be the cure to the virus! He'll abuse it to death! What the HECK! Wouldn't THAT be kick in the NECK??
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: DocJones on January 05, 2021, 02:04:07 PM
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)

The study focused on particles larger than 170 microns in diameter -- roughly two to four times the width of a human hair.
Aerosol particles, which tend to follow currents in the air, are generally described as smaller than 20 or 30 microns.


Study is worthless. 
Corona virus is aerosolized and can survive up to 30 feet.  Masks cannot save you. 
Corona has set you up the bomb. Make your time now.



Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: DocJones on January 05, 2021, 03:35:06 PM
The masks are just a trial run for us to accept this:
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/750x445/816010.jpg)
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on January 05, 2021, 06:03:55 PM
---snippp---
Corona has set you up the bomb. Make your time now.
A Despair-inducing and Esoteric-sounding sentence ~ please elucidate!
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/d0d1fe477d88acd6e6aed9941b630eb6/tumblr_p1h23dgF5Y1qjkre8o3_400.png)
We shall protect you in this thread!
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: TNMalt on January 06, 2021, 02:23:06 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: moonsweeper on January 06, 2021, 03:06:26 PM
I know 11 that have tested positive (and had symptoms)...some others were maybes earlier this year but couldn't get tested.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: shuddemell on January 06, 2021, 03:38:22 PM
As an "essential" worker, I've had it (in fact I was the first person to contract it at my plant). That was in June, and since then 76 people here at the plant have been infected with various outcomes. So far we have had no deaths but about 1/2 dozen hospitalizations. I myself had minor flu like symptoms (fever, body aches, bad headache and a few chills. For reference, I am 55 and have no real underlying health issues aside from being overweight). I contracted it from my brother (another essential worker) who was exposed at his job.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: HappyDaze on January 06, 2021, 05:21:10 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
On a personal level, know several people that have had it and one that has died. If you include professional contacts, those numbers are both considerably higher, but as I'm a nurse, that's not likely to be surprising (unless you're one of those nutters that's in total denial about COVID).
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on January 06, 2021, 11:22:16 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
Several immediate family members, a few more distant relatives, and a close family friend who's still in the step down unit after spending more than 4 weeks on a ventilator. Professionally, surprisingly few given I'm healthcare-adjacent.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 07, 2021, 08:08:53 AM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
Several immediate family members, a few more distant relatives, and a close family friend who's still in the step down unit after spending more than 4 weeks on a ventilator. Professionally, surprisingly few given I'm healthcare-adjacent.
This bug acts like it rolls on an RPG table for effects. One person will get it and never even notice, another gets mildly sick. a third winds up in the hospital, and a fourth keels over.

It's why I can't shake the notion that it was engineered specifically to cause paranoia and chaos. I know, I know, tinfoil hat, but damn.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: TNMalt on January 07, 2021, 08:57:22 AM
Mother nature can be a big evil troll when it comes to viruses. Sometimes out to kill us, other times rolling on the random effects chart to see what happens. Plus, more encouragement not to eat strange stuff from the local market anymore.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Zirunel on January 07, 2021, 12:49:07 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

I have not had it, nor do I know anyone who has. But there is very little COVID in my neck of the woods, so not surprising.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Zirunel on January 10, 2021, 02:06:21 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

I have not had it, nor do I know anyone who has. But there is very little COVID in my neck of the woods, so not surprising.

In fact, after posting mostly single-digit daily new cases through the second wave, we just posted our first zero-new-cases day since November. Hopefully we can continue that trend.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Daztur on January 10, 2021, 04:08:17 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

I know zero people who have had it, the closest link between me and it is that the teacher of a different class of my secretary's daughter's kindergarten has it so her family is all home for a government-enforced quarantine.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: KingCheops on January 11, 2021, 11:01:48 AM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

I have not had it, nor do I know anyone who has. But there is very little COVID in my neck of the woods, so not surprising.

My boss got it.  Same age as me (40) but healthier (although he always gets a bad flu every year) and he said it was the worst flu he's ever had but he didn't even need to go to the hospital.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Zalman on January 11, 2021, 12:29:14 PM
Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population.
(Emphasis mine)

My understanding is actually that 99.8% is the absolute worst survival rate, exhibited only in the 80-and-over age category (with an average of 2.5 co-morbidities). Everyone else's survival rate is significantly higher.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2021, 12:51:39 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

I think I might have had it just before March of last year. I was out sick a whole week, and it was the strangest thing. My tongue turned purpleish and I had trouble swallowing, while having mild cold/flu symptoms. I got better and when I made it back to work, the lockdowns started and we went to work from home. So I figured since I felt better, and was self-isolating, getting a test would be pointless. My brother/roommate did not get sick from me so that wasn't an issue.

But since I never got tested, I can't verify that it was Covid-19.

Other than that, I do not know anyone in person or any friend or family member that has gotten Covid.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Premier on January 11, 2021, 02:48:31 PM
My understanding is actually that 99.8% is the absolute worst survival rate, exhibited only in the 80-and-over age category (with an average of 2.5 co-morbidities). Everyone else's survival rate is significantly higher.

I'm curious what your sources are for that. That would be a 0.2% fatality rate in the worst age category. However, all sources (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality) I'm pulling up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country) at random (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/) show much worse fatalities - and in national averages, not just the most endagered category. Are you sure not repeating this old canard (https://factcheck.afp.com/misleading-claim-circulates-online-about-infection-fatality-ratio-covid-19-us)?
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on January 11, 2021, 08:25:59 PM
Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population.
(Emphasis mine)

My understanding is actually that 99.8% is the absolute worst survival rate, exhibited only in the 80-and-over age category (with an average of 2.5 co-morbidities). Everyone else's survival rate is significantly higher.
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 12, 2021, 08:31:39 AM
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.

Like I said, very tinfoil hat territory. But let's be honest, we could all easily see the CCP doing this.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: KingCheops on January 12, 2021, 12:43:31 PM
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.

Like I said, very tinfoil hat territory. But let's be honest, we could all easily see the CCP doing this.

Best theory I heard back in the before times was that this was an attempt to come up with an AIDS vaccine or treatment (not a doctor) that went awry.  Hence the international funding and involvement in the facility -- the AIDS epidemic is a million times worse and something the whole world is concerned about.  It also could explain why some places were successful in treating it with said drugs.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Arkansan on January 12, 2021, 12:50:16 PM
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.

Like I said, very tinfoil hat territory. But let's be honest, we could all easily see the CCP doing this.

Best theory I heard back in the before times was that this was an attempt to come up with an AIDS vaccine or treatment (not a doctor) that went awry.  Hence the international funding and involvement in the facility -- the AIDS epidemic is a million times worse and something the whole world is concerned about.  It also could explain why some places were successful in treating it with said drugs.

I recall hearing that theory. The idea was that someone botched containment or safety procedures and several people were exposed at once, leading to the outbreak.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: KingCheops on January 12, 2021, 01:10:57 PM
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.

Like I said, very tinfoil hat territory. But let's be honest, we could all easily see the CCP doing this.

Best theory I heard back in the before times was that this was an attempt to come up with an AIDS vaccine or treatment (not a doctor) that went awry.  Hence the international funding and involvement in the facility -- the AIDS epidemic is a million times worse and something the whole world is concerned about.  It also could explain why some places were successful in treating it with said drugs.

I recall hearing that theory. The idea was that someone botched containment or safety procedures and several people were exposed at once, leading to the outbreak.

Yup.  While it is fun to engage in conspiracy theories about a massive Maoist plot (especially given their own strategic literature on the topic) 999 out of 1000 times its just plain old human incompetence.  The CCP is just willing to kill millions of people to keep their economy going whereas the baizuo claim that no one should die.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 12, 2021, 01:33:29 PM
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Shasarak on January 12, 2021, 02:53:26 PM
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

My favourite theory is that the lab workers sold the bodies of their infected experiments so they could get a few more RMB.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: oggsmash on January 13, 2021, 12:33:12 AM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

  about 12 people.  7 fairly well, and the other 5 in passing.  7 of them are over 70.  4 are in their 20's and one is a 40+ with some pre existing health issues.  No fatalities, one hospitalization (pre existing conditions, over 70, and though the research is not solid yet, a susceptible blood type).   
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: spon on January 13, 2021, 05:33:57 AM
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

A friend of mine visited a nuclear facility there (he has an interesting story about the journey there involving swapping taxis in the middle of a field). He said that it was possible to see in to the core of the reactor. (For those who don't know, this is a very bad thing). He didn't do it himself and he reckoned that either the whole thing was a sort of Potempkin Village or that none of the radiation alarms were switched on and the workers there would die very painful deaths.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Daztur on January 13, 2021, 06:08:40 AM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

  about 12 people.  7 fairly well, and the other 5 in passing.  7 of them are over 70.  4 are in their 20's and one is a 40+ with some pre existing health issues.  No fatalities, one hospitalization (pre existing conditions, over 70, and though the research is not solid yet, a susceptible blood type).

Yeesh, this sort of thing makes me very happy I'm living in Korea. I'm in contact with all kinds of people through my work and ZERO of them have even come into contact with anyone with the virus, at least as far as Korea's very active contact tracing can tell. Like I said upthread the closest I've got to a link to the virus is a worker at my secretary's daughter's daycare who was working with a different batch of kids.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on January 13, 2021, 06:35:18 AM
Ignoring the crazy tinfoil hat theorizing, there's a decent case to be made that COVID-19 is the same disease that infected some miners in 2012, samples were transported to Wuhan for study, and later released in a lab accident.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Brad on January 13, 2021, 11:17:55 AM
Other than that, I do not know anyone in person or any friend or family member that has gotten Covid.

I personally know two people who tested positive. One didn't even have any symptoms, the other one got the sniffles for a few days. First person is 35, healthy male, second one is a 70 year old woman.

So whatever.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 13, 2021, 11:23:31 AM
A friend's family member was positive and passed away recently after being intubated.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: shuddemell on January 13, 2021, 11:28:32 AM
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

The problem is the idea that stupidity is less dangerous than malice, but it's far worse...

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: moonsweeper on January 13, 2021, 01:40:14 PM
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

A friend of mine visited a nuclear facility there (he has an interesting story about the journey there involving swapping taxis in the middle of a field). He said that it was possible to see in to the core of the reactor. (For those who don't know, this is a very bad thing). He didn't do it himself and he reckoned that either the whole thing was a sort of Potempkin Village or that none of the radiation alarms were switched on and the workers there would die very painful deaths.

I can't speak to their science or energy sectors, but personal experience with the manufacturing sector leaves me unsurprised by these accounts.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Zirunel on January 14, 2021, 06:49:10 AM
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on January 14, 2021, 08:12:56 AM
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: TNMalt on January 14, 2021, 10:37:21 AM
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

A friend of mine visited a nuclear facility there (he has an interesting story about the journey there involving swapping taxis in the middle of a field). He said that it was possible to see in to the core of the reactor. (For those who don't know, this is a very bad thing). He didn't do it himself and he reckoned that either the whole thing was a sort of Potempkin Village or that none of the radiation alarms were switched on and the workers there would die very painful deaths.

For the nulcear power sector, depends on plant designs. If based on old Soviet designs, then the safety measures are people, no automatic safety measures to prevent a meltdown. Three Mile Island was a case of people turning off the safety measures that would have prevented it.

I can't speak to their science or energy sectors, but personal experience with the manufacturing sector leaves me unsurprised by these accounts.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 14, 2021, 11:10:00 AM
Someone passed this along to me.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/18/antibody-dependent-enhancement

Dr. Lowe is not exactly a tinfoil hat nutter, and the prospect of this worries me on several levels.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 14, 2021, 11:14:08 AM
Quote
At this point, I would say that the main worry for any ADE effects would be if the coronavirus mutates to the point that the antibodies generated by the current vaccines become non-neutralizing. And honestly, I don’t see that happening (it certainly doesn’t seem to have happened yet).

I hope so too.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Zirunel on January 14, 2021, 12:35:46 PM
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.

Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into  different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).

EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: rawma on January 14, 2021, 07:19:46 PM
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!

Influenza reportedly killed 675,000 Americans in 1918. We're in a similar situation now with 383,000+ dead of Covid-19.

This almost certainly misses indirect deaths, where people can't get hospital care for an unrelated serious health issue because hospitals are too full, or people who hesitate to seek medical care where capacity exists that would save them because they're afraid of being exposed. White room comparison the two diseases is false comfort, even for people who don't care about anyone older than 50.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Zirunel on January 14, 2021, 08:33:57 PM
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!

Influenza reportedly killed 675,000 Americans in 1918. We're in a similar situation now with 383,000+ dead of Covid-19.

This almost certainly misses indirect deaths, where people can't get hospital care for an unrelated serious health issue because hospitals are too full, or people who hesitate to seek medical care where capacity exists that would save them because they're afraid of being exposed. White room comparison the two diseases is false comfort, even for people who don't care about anyone older than 50.

Yeah, I do think you can make the case that Covid is a deal because of hospitalizations rather than mortality, and we can get to that in time but first things first.  Let's not muddy the waters here. The American influenza of 1918 was in a league of its own, but we are not being asked to compare Covid to  1918, we are being told that Covid is a piffle compared to the seasonal flu of 2019-2020 (a flu season characterized as atypically severe specifically for the 18-49 age cohort).

But is it?  Pat's own citations suggest no, Covid mortality is an order of magnitude more severe than the 2019-2020 flu season for that very cohort. Can we address that first?
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: jhkim on January 14, 2021, 09:08:19 PM
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.

Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into  different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).

EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!

Without any rate calculation, from the CDC numbers: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

2019-2020 Flu Season, ages 18-49 -> 2,669 deaths

2020 Covid-19 pandemic, ages 25-44 -> 13,090 deaths

That's about five times as many deaths, but just to get there, we have to add in that there is a smaller age range for covid-19. The covid-19 numbers should be roughly 1.5x higher, or about 7.5x as high as the flu.

However, I think there is good reason to think that last year's flu season, people were far less careful about being infected, and so there were more people infected with the flu than with covid-19. I knew a lot more people who got the flu last year than who got covid-19 this year. However much the infection rate is greater for the flu, that indicates that covid-19 is that much deadlier if it is caught.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on January 14, 2021, 09:28:26 PM
Did any of you miss what the Dems are saying? Don't worry about the COV! I mean, it's 2021 ~ Orange-man Gone ~ Time to RE-OPEN! FUCK THE SCIENCE! ITS RAY-CIS'd ANYWAY!
https://twitter.com/cbschicago/status/1349778522240389124
One of many instances where your dear leaders now say: To Protect the Public, we need the Public Outside! Out~and~about NAO SHEEPLE!!!!
DO
AS WE
COM
MAND
!
(the whiplash effect will hurt ~ but c'mon! do it! DO IT! I WANNA SEE! DO IT NAO!!!!)

As for VAX~EENZ: https://www.tmz.com/2021/01/14/janice-hahn-la-county-supervisor-enraged-health-department-covid-19-vaccines-thrown-our/
BWHA-HAHAHAHAHAH! Is this... wait for it... BIDEN'S FAULT?!  MIGHTY JOE WHITEY BAD!
Can you just FEEL that DESPAIR???
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Pat on January 15, 2021, 03:24:56 PM
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.

Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into  different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).

EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
I get that number as well, but I'm not terribly confident without looking over the data a lot more closely. As you noted, the pages aren't terribly friendly or easy to compare.

But that conflicts with other sources, which suggests the flu has an IFR of 0.1% (the CDC's 38 million infected/22K deaths for the last season is 0.57%, i.e. within in a factor of two but not the same) and that COVID-19's is only a few times larger.
0.15‐0.20% global https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13423
0.26% US/Indiana https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352
0.32% Switzerland/Geneva https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3/fulltext
0.01% Kenya https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.27.20162693v1
0.82% Spain https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.06.20169722v1
... and a lot more. The range is typically 0.1% to 0.5% or so in developed countries -- Africa as a whole is an anomaly (along with other countries like Japan), and Spain is a case where there was a collapse of the healthcare system (NYC and Italy are even higher).

So I suspect we're misreading the CDC data. Wish I could find those Tweets.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: EOTB on January 15, 2021, 04:32:37 PM
While everyone is sword-fighting with statistics, I wonder why the SCIENCE crowd is so quiet about the latest political decisions and just-released lockdown studies?

The lag between linking to favorable science is usually measured in nanoseconds, so the absence is noted
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on January 15, 2021, 06:33:15 PM
While everyone is sword-fighting with statistics, I wonder why the SCIENCE crowd is so quiet about the latest political decisions and just-released lockdown studies?

The lag between linking to favorable science is usually measured in nanoseconds, so the absence is noted
What else did you expect from LIARS, THIEVES,  AND MURDERERS?
Their getting their communism now, so it's all good!
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: moonsweeper on January 15, 2021, 06:41:47 PM
While everyone is sword-fighting with statistics, I wonder why the SCIENCE crowd is so quiet about the latest political decisions and just-released lockdown studies?

The lag between linking to favorable science is usually measured in nanoseconds, so the absence is noted

The scientists are waiting to get orders from the government on how to spin it.
They can't go overboard too far in one direction or the other.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 08:34:57 PM
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)

Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into  different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).

EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
I get that number as well, but I'm not terribly confident without looking over the data a lot more closely. As you noted, the pages aren't terribly friendly or easy to compare.

But that conflicts with other sources, which suggests the flu has an IFR of 0.1% (the CDC's 38 million infected/22K deaths for the last season is 0.57%, i.e. within in a factor of two but not the same) and that COVID-19's is only a few times larger.

22k deaths out of 38 million is 0.057%, not 0.57%. But that is the rate for the flu among all ages - including the very elderly. The rate for those under 50 is much lower.

The 22K deaths from the 2019-2020 flu season is parallel to the 390K total deaths from covid-19.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 11:26:00 PM
The 22K deaths from the 2019-2020 flu season is parallel to the 390K total deaths from covid-19.

2017-2018 Flu season caused an estimated 80k deaths so it looks like 2019-2020 was a very good year for preventing deaths.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/health/flu-deaths-2017--2018-cdc-bn/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/health/flu-deaths-2017--2018-cdc-bn/index.html)
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: oggsmash on January 15, 2021, 11:39:13 PM
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!

Influenza reportedly killed 675,000 Americans in 1918. We're in a similar situation now with 383,000+ dead of Covid-19.

This almost certainly misses indirect deaths, where people can't get hospital care for an unrelated serious health issue because hospitals are too full, or people who hesitate to seek medical care where capacity exists that would save them because they're afraid of being exposed. White room comparison the two diseases is false comfort, even for people who don't care about anyone older than 50.
  US population was 103.2 million in 1918.  That is a massive proportional difference.  Add in the average life span in 1918 was a bit over 50 (far fewer elderly and sick people to die from the flu) and tossing numbers like that around sort of makes it look like you are attempting to manipulate facts. 
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 11:43:15 PM
The 22K deaths from the 2019-2020 flu season is parallel to the 390K total deaths from covid-19.

2017-2018 Flu season caused an estimated 80k deaths so it looks like 2019-2020 was a very good year for preventing deaths.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/health/flu-deaths-2017--2018-cdc-bn/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/health/flu-deaths-2017--2018-cdc-bn/index.html)

Fair enough. I think the average is somewhere in the middle. 2019-2020 was unusually low, but 2017-2018 was unusually high. Your own link says Overall, the United States experienced one of the most severe flu seasons in recent decades. Severity is based on flu activity, hospitalizations, and deaths from pneumonia or influenza, explained Nordlund. She added, "across the board, last year was definitely bad."

Here's a graph I found. (It shows the 2017-2018 deaths as 61,000 rather than 80,000 which is also what I see on the CDC website.)

(https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5f7d7869fcc2cf4e2922009a/960x0.jpg)

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/10/07/how-many-americans-die-from-the-flu-each-year-infographic/?sh=5b36aee713ea
cf. also https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden-averted/2017-2018.htm

So, let's call it 40,000 average.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: oggsmash on January 15, 2021, 11:48:58 PM
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?

  about 12 people.  7 fairly well, and the other 5 in passing.  7 of them are over 70.  4 are in their 20's and one is a 40+ with some pre existing health issues.  No fatalities, one hospitalization (pre existing conditions, over 70, and though the research is not solid yet, a susceptible blood type).

Yeesh, this sort of thing makes me very happy I'm living in Korea. I'm in contact with all kinds of people through my work and ZERO of them have even come into contact with anyone with the virus, at least as far as Korea's very active contact tracing can tell. Like I said upthread the closest I've got to a link to the virus is a worker at my secretary's daughter's daycare who was working with a different batch of kids.

  In fairness I have a pretty broad net of people I know or who have crossed paths with, all across the USA.  I did leave a fellow out, who I think also got hospitalized, but is out now and headed to full recovery.  He was also 70+ and had a list of health issues.  So 13 total (and in fairness, he is still having breathing issues, so no way to be certain of how his story ends).
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 16, 2021, 07:22:27 AM
Did any of you miss what the Dems are saying? Don't worry about the COV! I mean, it's 2021 ~ Orange-man Gone ~ Time to RE-OPEN! FUCK THE SCIENCE! ITS RAY-CIS'd ANYWAY!
https://twitter.com/cbschicago/status/1349778522240389124

I didn't. I'm so used to horseshit about Covid I'm not surprised.

I wonder if masks are next? Who knows what tomorrow's right-think about Covid will be...
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: SHARK on January 16, 2021, 07:36:07 AM
Greetings!

Golly, isn't it so wonderful that we have Biden and Kamala leading the way for America in the Covid era? Just bow down and suck Kamala's ass, and give thanks to the ever-wise and benevolent Democrats.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Garry G on January 16, 2021, 06:22:28 PM
Greetings!

Golly, isn't it so wonderful that we have Biden and Kamala leading the way for America in the Covid era? Just bow down and suck Kamala's ass, and give thanks to the ever-wise and benevolent Democrats.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

To be fair it's got to be better than the last shower of glaikit shite.
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: Catulle on January 16, 2021, 09:55:16 PM
Greetings!

Golly, isn't it so wonderful that we have Biden and Kamala leading the way for America in the Covid era? Just bow down and suck Kamala's ass, and give thanks to the ever-wise and benevolent Democrats.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

To be fair it's got to be better than the last shower of glaikit shite.

<3
Title: Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
Post by: consolcwby on January 16, 2021, 11:35:20 PM
Greetings!

Golly, isn't it so wonderful that we have Biden and Kamala leading the way for America in the Covid era? Just bow down and suck Kamala's ass, and give thanks to the ever-wise and benevolent Democrats.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Now, now, let's be fair! Biden and Kamala won fair and square! I know it's true! CNN, MSNBC, and PBS told me so, why would they lie??  ::)
And in other news: Leading weather reports state that once the current ice age ends, the flying pigs and their cat waifus will drown in all the fresh water! HAH! Like water has ever been anything other than salty! What a conspiracy theory! It's like what Cinderella told me yesterday: There's a sucker born every half millenia or so!