bluefrogguy

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

They had a culture of wearing masks long before COVID-19 was a thing.  We didn't.  That means they had supply, and we didn't.

Come on.

But you just switched argument. We were talking about whether there was no need to wear them or not. Not about supply. Those are two separate arguments.

He didn’t say, “they may help a little but we need to save them for those in need.” He said there’s “no reason.”

Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Backdoor Slider said:

But you just switched argument. We were talking about whether there was no need to wear them or not. Not about supply. Those are two separate arguments.

 

They're not when you're the foremost public official whose words can affect whether people start hoarding N95s.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonycpsu said:

 

They're not when you're the foremost public official whose words can affect whether people start hoarding N95s.

So he fibbed. To protect supply. It’s one or the other man. That’s fine, but that’s what happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and re: the unsupported assertion that "Sweden is approaching herd immunization (sic)":

1. The evidence that herd immunity can be reached anywhere near the infection rates being seen in Stockholm is scant.  Most epidemiologists still believe that herd immunity for COVID-19 will require well north of 50% infected before the R0 value goes below 1, and even that's not a sure thing, because we don't know how long an infection confers true immunity.

2.  Here is a thread that makes a compelling case that the real infection rate in Stockholm is nowhere near the reported 25%, and much closer to 10% -- nowhere near even the lower threshold that a small number of epidemiologists speculate could possibly begin to drag numbers down.

3. Sweden's one week average new cases number is actually on the way back up in the last week or so.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

So he fibbed. To protect supply. It’s one or the other man. That’s fine, but that’s what happened. 

 

No, he cited the very real concerns about mask wearing among those who don't do it regularly, like... the people in the country he was talking to, and the very real supply concerns.  He made both points in the exact interview you selectively quoted from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

Oh, and re: the unsupported assertion that "Sweden is approaching herd immunization (sic)":

1. The evidence that herd immunity can be reached anywhere near the infection rates being seen in Stockholm is scant.  Most epidemiologists still believe that herd immunity for COVID-19 will require well north of 50% infected before the R0 value goes below 1, and even that's not a sure thing, because we don't know how long an infection confers true immunity.

2.  Here is a thread that makes a compelling case that the real infection rate in Stockholm is nowhere near the reported 25%, and much closer to 10% -- nowhere near even the lower threshold that a small number of epidemiologists speculate could possibly begin to drag numbers down.

3. Sweden's one week average new cases number is actually on the way back up in the last week or so.

“Sweden’s top epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, says fighting Covid-19 is a long-term undertaking, meaning temporary lockdowns will ultimately backfire. He says once they’re lifted, infection rates will again rise.

Instead, Tegnell says moderate restrictions that allow much of normal life to continue are more likely to help guide a society through a pandemic that has a protracted lifespan.”
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-infection-rate-drops-in-denmark-after-lockdown-relaxed

But there are apparent successes, too. In a Friday briefing with journalists, Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, said the country has been “very much alert and saw cases very early on,” enabling a degree of control over transmissions. Countries to Sweden’s south suffered, he said, “partly because they didn’t see the slow beginning of the epidemic” and started “testing too late.”

Tegnell pointed to “the slow decline of cases in Stockholm,” the country’s capital, which he now attributes “to a level of immunity in the population.” Possibly a third of Stockholm’s residents may have already contracted the virus, according to Sweden’s public health agency — marking a process toward “herd immunity” that may make the country more resilient should a second wave strike.
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/05/12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-is-not-what-it-seems/%3foutputType=amp
 

I’m just listening to epidemiologists, Tony.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

No, he cited the very real concerns about mask wearing among those who don't do it regularly, like... the people in the country he was talking to, and the very real supply concerns.  He made both points in the exact interview you selectively quoted from.

He said, “there is no reason...” None. Zero. That’s what that means. And yes, he also addressed the shortage concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

He said, “there is no reason...” None. Zero. That’s what that means. And yes, he also addressed the shortage concern. 

Correct, and Fauci wasn't the only one pushing the "don't wear masks" message either. Like you said, they could've just been honest and admitted that they wanted to conserve masks for healthcare workers, without telling people that masks don't do anything. Apparently there are some people that have an issue admitting that Fauci has made mistakes for some reason. It's okay to value the man's opinion and expertise, while still acknowledging that he hasn't been perfect during this. That's okay too, he's human and this is a novel virus. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

He said, “there is no reason...” None. Zero. That’s what that means. And yes, he also addressed the shortage concern. 

 

We're going in circles here, as I already pointed out that a limited supply means what may be a good reason for an individual to use a mask is a bad reason for the head of the COVID response to be telling people to use masks when certain individuals need them more.  Either you're stubbornly refusing to make that connection or I'm doing a bad job demonstrating it, but either way, I think we have to disagree here and leave room for others to engage in a more productive discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ Post linking to outdated information removed.  Always check your dates, people, especially you, @tonycpsu ]

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masks are more for protected others than yourself. If you sneeze or cough less particles in the air than if you didn't have one on. 

Viral infectious dose

Common Sense

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MrBrett said:

Masks are more for protected others than yourself. If you sneeze or cough less particles in the air than if you didn't have one on. 

Viral infectious dose

Common Sense

 

No one suggested otherwise.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

No one suggested otherwise.

My post wasn't directed to anyone in particular. Many who don't wear masks have a reason that is selfish. Freedoms come with responsibilities.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masks help everyone.  It's not just to protect others.  It can be a conscious reminder to not touch your face.  It's also a barrier which can limit your exposure to infectious droplets. N95 masks are highly effective in blocking these small particles and droplets.  Those are being reserved to healthcare workers but if they were widely available it would be recommended to have one.  We don't have N95 but somethings better than nothing.  Face coverings are being mandatory right now to protect others though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 layer cloth masks with a paper towel as a filter can be made at home, and are effective against droplets, maybe not quit as effective as the 95's, but resourceful minds figured this out back in March to help relieve the shortage and to protect themselves without taking from the front line responders: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/03/21/coronavirus-ohio-sew-masks-home-help-doctors-fight-covid-19/2892098001/

Too bad the experts didn't think of this, they were needed earlier. Been wearing mine since late March( Family member is a nurse and told us about making masks in March)

That said, I do have respect for Fauchi and heed his warnings and expertise in his field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully one positive to come out of this is improved personal hygiene from most people. It's amazing the number of people that just cough or sneeze into the air without covering their mouth in a public setting without any regard for the people around them. Even worse you have the people that don't wash their hands after using a public restroom. We had our draft in early March at a pool hall, and some dude passes me in the bathroom after taking a dump and doesn't even glance at the sink before walking out. Granted that was before stuff really got crazy, but it's like dude, have you been paying attention to what's going on at all? So some unfortunate soul got to use the same pool cue that this guy was using probably. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AnonymousRob said:

What agenda is being pushed other than a lot of people are dying who didn't need to die if this had been handled better?

Also, now that you're back can you clarify your insistence states have no plan despite your home state literally having a plan? I was trying to give you benefit of the doubt on what you consider a plan but would like to better understand if you simply were mistaken in thinking nobody has a plan as you repeatedly claimed, or if we fundamentally disagree on the definition of the word.

 

 

If you can’t see that the majority of the mainstream media has an agenda then I don’t know what to tell you.

I didn’t reply to that comment because as I said in a separate post it was getting nowhere and was a waste of time. However, we clearly disagree on the definition of the word. Writing things with no timelines doesn’t work for me and a lot of other people. So maybe my wording wasn’t the best. There is a plan. Its just a terrible plan. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gohawks said:

Well I think the context matters. It’s not to marginalize the deaths by any means. However, it’s also unfair to say the USA is doing worse because of our deaths when we carry the third largest population size.

Yes, it is a more important number. Of course deaths per capita doesn’t change how much people died. However, the US will have more deaths than France when there’s like 270M more people for instance. It’s important when deaths are used by the media to push a certain agenda. 

Well I mean even per capita the US is 13th worst. That’s if you include the Isle of Man, Sint Maartin, Andorra, and San Marino ahead of them. It’s not like we are doing well via ANY metric in this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

Well I mean even per capita the US is 13th worst. That’s if you include the Isle of Man, Sint Maartin, Andorra, and San Marino ahead of them. It’s not like we are doing well via ANY metric in this. 

No I agree with this. the US has not handled the spread of this well. Personally, my biggest issue is our lack of testing availability even now.

However, there is a difference between the US has not handled this well and the US has handled this the worst out of everyone and then citing deaths as proof of it. 

Edited by Gohawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

No I agree with this. the US has not handled the spread of this well. Personally, my biggest issue is our lack of testing availability even now.

However, there is a difference between the US has not handled this well and the US has handled this the worst out of everyone and then citing deaths as proof of it. 

I’ve never seen anyone say the US has handled this the worst. But honestly with our high death count coupled with underreporting deaths, and extreme lack of testing compared to almost every other first world country I can see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

Well I mean even per capita the US is 13th worst. That’s if you include the Isle of Man, Sint Maartin, Andorra, and San Marino ahead of them. It’s not like we are doing well via ANY metric in this. 

Yeah...Deaths per capita in the US is 257 per million...Sweden is 343 deaths per million.

Spain , Italy, France, Belgium, UK, and Netherlands are higher as well so the UK and some European Union countries are worse than us. Germany has much better health scientists than we do so they are the exception not the norm

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

I’ve never seen anyone say the US has handled this the worst. But honestly with our high death count coupled with underreporting deaths, and extreme lack of testing compared to almost every other first world country I can see it. 

What do you mean by lack of testing? Our tests per capita is now higher than Canada and we have over ten times more people

Do people ( not you ) think we need to test 330 million people everytime they go out? That is a lot of cotton swabs

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Whom said:

Yeah...Deaths per capita in the US is 257 per million...Sweden is 343 deaths per million.

Spain , Italy, France, Belgium, UK, and Netherlands are higher as well so the UK and some European Union countries are worse than us. Germany has much better health scientists than we do so they are the exception not the norm

 

 

And? US is still the 13th worst country in terms of per capita deaths despite having an undercount. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Whom said:

What do you mean by lack of testing? Our tests per capita is now higher than Canada and we have over ten times more people

Do people ( not you ) think we need to test 330 million people everytime they go out? That is a lot of cotton swabs

Tests per capita. US is currently ranked 38th. That’s not gonna do it. 30,949 per million in population. Most major first word countries are significantly higher. Spain and Portugal average almost double the tests per capita... what we need is the ability to just be able to test those with symptoms. They still cannot do that and instead just tell people to self isolate, which considering nobody gives two ***** about this because they think it’s minor, that becomes a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.