Bad News Thread

espola said:
There is nothing the vaccination that inhibits the virus from entering your body or for it to spread from there to others. The vaccination makes it less likely that the virus will grow well enough in your body to make you ill.
Click to expand...
Actually that is false. So far they have found that vaccinated people are not spreaders of the virus.

fortune.com

It's official: Vaccinated people don't spread COVID-19

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky this week declared that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus."
fortune.com fortune.com
 
dad4 said:
Yes, Osterholm’s projection was way off, and epidemiologists are not the type to have a feud on national TV.

I take it you keep posting this because you want to undermine anything else we hear from epidemiologists.

India had a similar reaction. They decided that the eggheads clearly don’t know what they are talking about. Here’s an article from a month ago, explaining that epidemiologists predictions are all wrong, and that Indians have nothing to worry about.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Covid-19 in India: Five predictions that turned out to be false | India News - Times of India

India News: NEW DELHI: It has been a year since India announced one of the most stringent nationwide lockdowns in the world to curb the spread of Covid-19.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Five weeks later, India has the world’s worst case spike and is in desperate need of medical help. Maybe those eggheads knew a little bit after all.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should flip a coin?
 
watfly said:
I've never worn a mask outside exercising, but I do step away from the trail or path a few feet to let people pass (mask or no mask) just out of courtesy and to avoid confrontation from the Chicken Littles. Irrational fear othen leads to irrational behavior.
Click to expand...
This is my behavior and thought process as well.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Maybe we should flip a coin?
Click to expand...
Just think about where you want to be, given that you have imperfect information and will slightly miss your target. You can try to ride the edge of just enough caution to avoid a giant wave, but you will sometimes get it wrong. That is Michigan last month, or India today.

Being overcautious is simple. Being careless is easy. Staying one inch below disaster is difficult, if not impossible.

And you have advocates for each. Overcautious (me). Careless (hound). One inch below disaster (Grace)
 
espola said:
Nothing I posted was false. From the article you linked --

" very unlikely to spread it to other people"
Click to expand...
Yeah so they don't/or are unlikely.

As such ditch the mask.

We don't vaccinate people for other diseases and then tell them to mask up, etc.

Especially in light of the fact that as of now the research cannot show a benefit in wearing a mask.

So time to move back to life as normal.
 
Desert Hound said:
Yeah so they don't/or are unlikely.

As such ditch the mask.

We don't vaccinate people for other diseases and then tell them to mask up, etc.

Especially in light of the fact that as of now the research cannot show a benefit in wearing a mask.

So time to move back to life as normal.
Click to expand...

Just because you have posted an error many times does not make it true (except in your own head, I admit).

I know pretty well how vaccines work. I am interested in listening to your personal theory.
 
Desert Hound said:
Let me rewrite for you.

Paranoid (@dad4) looking at data and realizing there is really no risk (me), in the same ballpark...ie looks at data and does cost benefit. (Grace)
Click to expand...

There an infinity of ways how a cost-benefit analysis can work out. Such an analysis should not, however, be based on falsehoods.
 
dad4 said:
Just think about where you want to be, given that you have imperfect information and will slightly miss your target. You can try to ride the edge of just enough caution to avoid a giant wave, but you will sometimes get it wrong. That is Michigan last month, or India today.

Being overcautious is simple. Being careless is easy. Staying one inch below disaster is difficult, if not impossible.

And you have advocates for each. Overcautious (me). Careless (hound). One inch below disaster (Grace)
Click to expand...

Once again, you misconstrue and assume the worst, just like you always do, like you did assuming I go off and party indoors all the time. Once again, you neglect that your overcautiousness has led you to be consistently wrong.

I've never advocated no restrictions. Even Sweden doesn't have no restrictions. I've advocated an approach more like Sweden/Florida, but with periodic restrictions reserved for when things get really bad. Like Florida and Japan, I thought we needed to do a better job of protecting seniors. I wasn't opposed to indoor mask mandates, but I thought the restrictions were too severe with children and the handicapable, I thought we should have been honest about what they could actually accomplish, and I thought outdoor mandates were stupid. And I opposed restrictions on schools and sports. I thought even Trump's travel ban and airplane restrictions were too weak. And unlike you, I never was a hypocrite by agreeing to go to a high risk hotel.

In the end there's a record of which one of us was more right than the other and it's not you. And again, you really should look at the company you are keeping.
 
dad4 said:
Just think about where you want to be, given that you have imperfect information and will slightly miss your target. You can try to ride the edge of just enough caution to avoid a giant wave, but you will sometimes get it wrong. That is Michigan last month, or India today.

Being overcautious is simple. Being careless is easy. Staying one inch below disaster is difficult, if not impossible.

And you have advocates for each. Overcautious (me). Careless (hound). One inch below disaster (Grace)
Click to expand...

BTW "scared" is another word for "overcautious"
 
espola said:
Such an analysis should not, however, be based on falsehoods.
Click to expand...
The data I pull are from the CDC, WHO, the EU version of the CDC, etc.

That is the problem you and others have. You don't actually go look at the data and the studies.

So you are stuck listening to the news and some talking head say wear a mask they work. Or recently Fauci was saying there were no studies on a certain issue, despite the fact that the CDC just a few weeks ago had came out with one that contradicted his point.
 
Desert Hound said:
The data I pull are from the CDC, WHO, the EU version of the CDC, etc.

That is the problem you and others have. You don't actually go look at the data and the studies.

So you are stuck listening to the news and some talking head say wear a mask they work. Or recently Fauci was saying there were no studies on a certain issue, despite the fact that the CDC just a few weeks ago had came out with one that contradicted his point.
Click to expand...

Your suggestion that masks do not work is one of those falsehoods.
 
espola said:
Your suggestion that masks do not work is one of those falsehoods.
Click to expand...
Actually it isn't. You just choose not to pay attention.

Just last week I posted a study from the National Institute of Health. To remind you that is our nations medical research center. This study just came out recently as well.

What did they say regarding masks?

"Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established."

"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]."

So...no @espola I am not spreading falsehoods. I am telling you what the science is saying.

Because you are a true believer or have not actually bothered to read the studies, means that you still think masks are effective.

If you want me to post again...I can post recent studies form the EU CDC and the WHO who both also state that they don't know if masks work and want more studies to see if they do.

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 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
espola said:
Your suggestion that masks do not work is one of those falsehoods.
Click to expand...
And the last quote from the study above said the following:

"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]."

I know you want to believe....but I am not spreading falsehoods.
 
Desert Hound said:
And the last quote from the study above said the following:

"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]."

I know you want to believe....but I am not spreading falsehoods.
Click to expand...

It appears you started with a preferred conclusion and went looking for publications (or, as in this case, a "hypothesis") that support it.

I'm still waiting to hear your description of how vaccines work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top