kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Eh, no problem by me. I get my second this Sunday.
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
Glitterhater
SILVER ELITE
Meanwhile, India is getting hammered.
Other places like Thailand that escaped the worst of it too. South Korea has accelerated past 600 now (remember they are the ones that had it under control) and is relying on the Sputnik vaccine.
Glitterhater
SILVER ELITE
The photos coming out of India are just awful. IIRC, wasn't the Sputnik the one that had the very low efficacy rate? If so, they are in big trouble.
QUOTE="Grace T., post: 390805, member: 2423"]
Other places like Thailand that escaped the worst of it too. South Korea has accelerated past 600 now (remember they are the ones that had it under control) and is relying on the Sputnik vaccine.
[/QUOTE]
The smiles at the beginning say's it all Grace. New wave and the surge that is coming with this new kind of wave with a strain and we need to be shot with more fear. WTHU!!!!
Other places like Thailand that escaped the worst of it too. South Korea has accelerated past 600 now (remember they are the ones that had it under control) and is relying on the Sputnik vaccine.
[/QUOTE]
The smiles at the beginning say's it all Grace. New wave and the surge that is coming with this new kind of wave with a strain and we need to be shot with more fear. WTHU!!!!
The China vaccine had a low response. Sputnik is Russia. Russia claims Sputnik is 90% effective but there’s not a lot of non Russian data to verify.
Glitterhater
SILVER ELITE
Ah, ok. So not a lot of non-Russian data would make me very skeptical...
Desert Hound
DA
Now I know for many of you this is beating a dead horse...but so be it.
@dad4 clings to masks. Frequently stating they are 70-79% effective.
He claims news to the contrary is Brietbart kind of stuff.
But it is not just him. We keep hearing various gov officials say wear masks. We keep hearing various news outlets saying wear masks. Schools and biz have notices saying wear masks.
And yet major government centers point out that they cannot PROVE masks work.
Recently I have posted from the EU version of the CDC and the WHO who both state there is little evidence showing masks work. Both say more studies need to be done.
If we are going to be bombarded with warnings to wear masks, shouldn't there be a scientific basis for this recommendation? You know...DATA?
Here is one from our own National Institute of Health. Note that they say scientific evidence supporting facemask efficacy is lacking. They also say bad things associated with masks ARE KNOWN.
From the first paragraph.
"Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making."
-
"SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death [3], [9]. It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14]."
-
"Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]."
-
"Efficacy of facemasks
The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25]."
-
"A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29]."
-
Read the full study below.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
@dad4 clings to masks. Frequently stating they are 70-79% effective.
He claims news to the contrary is Brietbart kind of stuff.
But it is not just him. We keep hearing various gov officials say wear masks. We keep hearing various news outlets saying wear masks. Schools and biz have notices saying wear masks.
And yet major government centers point out that they cannot PROVE masks work.
Recently I have posted from the EU version of the CDC and the WHO who both state there is little evidence showing masks work. Both say more studies need to be done.
If we are going to be bombarded with warnings to wear masks, shouldn't there be a scientific basis for this recommendation? You know...DATA?
Here is one from our own National Institute of Health. Note that they say scientific evidence supporting facemask efficacy is lacking. They also say bad things associated with masks ARE KNOWN.
From the first paragraph.
"Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making."
-
"SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death [3], [9]. It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14]."
-
"Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]."
-
"Efficacy of facemasks
The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25]."
-
"A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29]."
-
Read the full study below.
Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis - PMC
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
With all due respect I disagree with you on this one. The pandemic is ongoing so I believe its appropriate to reflect total numbers. It's unlike the flu which effectively starts and ends in within a year or season. Pandemic's have traditionally been counted in total and not annually. But yes the fear porn industry does appreciate the fact they can preach the total.
Along these lines SD County shows an interesting trend with the ongoing Covid cases. SD County appears to have a baseline infection rate, which I characterize as "the water finding its path". SD seems to have a floor of 250-300 infections a day and then peaks and goes back down to 250-300. In the late summer and fall, about 3 months, the rate stayed flat at 250-300. It then peaked at over 5,000 during the winter and then precipitously dropped and bottomed out at 250-300 where its been for the last 6 weeks. To me this means we can do whatever we want (other than vaccines) and it may impact the timing of the peaks but otherwise the virus isn't going to go away until it runs out of viable hosts.
Desert Hound
DA
That is a good and fair point.
Desert Hound
DA
I think we will be living with covid for years to come.
Here is how those who understand the bigger picture and have a normal risk tolerance look at the Covid mortality rate:
Here is how those with an abnormally low risk tolerance and are susceptible to "fear porn" look at the Covid mortality rate:
Both graphs' data is 100% accurate. It's all a matter of interpretation.
Here is how those with an abnormally low risk tolerance and are susceptible to "fear porn" look at the Covid mortality rate:
Both graphs' data is 100% accurate. It's all a matter of interpretation.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You mean presentation.
That’s a given...but how will we live is the bigger question.
Desert Hound
DA
Indeed it is.
That is why for instance it is important to fight against nonsensical rules.
To fight against safety theater.
To fight for instance against masks. As I posted from the WHO, the National Institute of Health, the Euro CDC...all state they cannot actually show masks work.
Our politicians and experts are too quick to make up rules that do nothing to stop the spread of the virus but do hurt biz, education, etc.
I am not willingly going along with made up rules that infringe on my freedoms/rights.
To be honest, the time for that discussion has past. Most seniors have, by this point, been offered a vaccine.
Back the question was valid, we disagreed about how to protect seniors, not whether. Some believed that it was possible to draw a circle around seniors and keep them isolated from the virus in the community. Others believed that such a barrier is inherently leaky, and the best way to protect seniors was to reduce overall transmission.
We could look at the data to see whether anywhere managed to protect seniors without fighting the virus. It would show up on worldometer as states and countries with high cases and low deaths.
If multiple countries have high cases and low deaths, we should have done what they did.
If no one has high cases and low deaths, then the only (pre-vaccine) way to protect seniors was to fight cases.
The closest we have to "protect seniors" is Florida which took early steps to isolate nursing homes. Japan is also relatively close but they had mask mandates, curfew, lockdowns too (though less robust than Europe) and f'd the pooch when it comes to testing and vaccines. Some chose foolish policies with respect to seniors (including NY and Sweden). But pretty much everyone else was in the unsustainable lockdown boat with some exceptions (you know the ones).
