The Wuhan virus—how are we doing? - Page 54 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15129540
maz wrote:Forcing everyone to wear is mask is fucking retarded because it starts with the presumption that EVERYONE is infected with the virus!

Everyone is a covid suspect!


No, it does not work on the presumption that everyone has it. It works on the assumption that anyone could potentially be infected, and be asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, and therefore could possibly be contagious and not know they are.

Schrodinger’s virus spreader.
#15129575
maz wrote:If American science proved that masks protected from the coronawhatever, why weren't masks implemented at the very beginning?
That's because in the beginning there was no scientific evidence that it would help, but as they discovered the matter in which it transmitted, the recommendations changed.

They also had a shortage of medical PPE, which you fail to take into account. They wanted to make sure the medical professionals had what they needed in order to safely treat people with Covid-19.

That is how science works. Further information can change how you deal with things. Theories and hypotheses change as more information comes to light.

How did you not know this? :?:


Anyone CAN have it, as some people are asymptomatic... meaning they won't show symptoms.

wat0n wrote:How many here have asthma, some sort of allergy, autism or anything else that could provide at least some sort of justification for not wearing as mask?
There is no justification for not wearing a mask, as masks don't reduce oxygen intake, in any way. It's probably SAFER for people with asthma to wear it, to protect them form allergens and pollen. Doctors and medical professionals often wear masks all day.

I worked at a manufacturing plant where people wore N95 masks all day. Even those who had asthma.

I don't know how autism would affect this... :eh:
#15129606
Godstud wrote:That's because in the beginning there was no scientific evidence that it would help, but as they discovered the matter in which it transmitted, the recommendations changed.


How could they not have known? They seemed to have known everything else about the virus in advance. They knew all those other arbitrary facts immediately; that we had to stand six feet apart and that we had to remain "socially distant." They also knew that everyone could be a carrier with no symptoms (covid suspect), and they knew that the virus stayed on surfaces for a certain amount of time.

Also, there were countries that had almost immediately set mask mandates. Here's a list - https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1297 ... 11905.html

Where I live in Texas, we didn't even get a mask mandate until mid June. And that is when deaths and "cases" were said to increase!

Also, the debate moderator last night said that the science says that Americans will have to wear masks until 2022. If they work, then why are we going to have to wear them for another two years? Why is a journalist making this bizarre claim? Is she a scientist?

Where is the scientific evidence to support this claim?

And why 2022? What will happen then that will cause us to not to have to wear masks any longer, and how do they know it will be at that time?

wat0n wrote:How many here have asthma, some sort of allergy, autism or anything else that could provide at least some sort of justification for not wearing as mask? :roll:


I do. I have allergies that flare up at the beginning of spring and fall. I most certainly had more pronounced reaction because of the mask wearing. In addition to the normal sneezing and itchy eyes, I also experienced chaffed lips and nose and breakouts around my the area that the mask covers. That has never happened before and I attribute it to being forced to wear a mask because I am a covid suspect.
#15129618
I looked up the mask wearing until 2022 thing, and it's this fucking clown who made this claim.

Image

The same guy who said that covid wasn't a big deal in early March, who also said around the same time that Americans shouldn't be walking around with masks on.

They guy who seems to do nothing but appear on various daytime television programs for several hours every day. The same guy who whined on 60 Minutes that the orange bad man isn't letting him go on enough television shows.

He's the guy who didn't know anything about the virus early on, despite having been the nation's top expert. And all he does is appear on television and disparages any other medical professional who recommends some other form of treatment other than his vaccines, which he already says is not likely to even work.

Fauci: Masks, Social Distancing Likely Until 2022

Oct. 22, 2020 -- With cases continuing to rise in many states and a vaccine yet to come, Americans should prepare to wear masks and social distance for quite a while.

People will likely need to wear masks and follow social distancing guidelines through the end of 2021 and into 2022, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said during a recent meeting, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the future of COVID-19 during a virtual meeting with doctors and students at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia last week.

“I feel very strongly that we’re going to need to have some degree of public health measures to continue,” he said.

“It’s not going to be the way it was with polio and measles, where you get a vaccine, case closed, it’s done,” Fauci said. “It’s going to be public health measures that linger for months and months.”

Coronavirus vaccines -- once approved and distributed widely to the public -- won’t be a “knockout punch” that eradicates the virus, he said. Instead, he expects the process to take time and anticipates a 70% effectiveness rate for an approved vaccine. Public precautions such as face masks and social distancing will need to continue during the distribution process.

“I think we’ve got to set reasonable expectations,” Fauci said. “If I’m surprised pleasantly, so be it.”

At least one of the COVID-19 vaccine candidates will likely have enough data about its safety and how well it works to pursue an emergency use authorization from the FDA by the end of this year, he said. Full approval would come after that, and distribution would start in the first quarter of 2021.
#15129621
maz wrote:How could they not have known? They seemed to have known everything else about the virus in advance.
They didn't, but some idiots assumed they did.

maz wrote:They knew all those other arbitrary facts immediately; that we had to stand six feet apart and that we had to remain "socially distant." They also knew that everyone could be a carrier with no symptoms (covid suspect), and they knew that the virus stayed on surfaces for a certain amount of time.
No. They didn't know it all, but staying away from each other is a no-brainer. Even now they have discovered that the virus stays on surfaces far longer than they thought.

maz wrote:Also, there were countries that had almost immediately set mask mandates.
That's up to locals. Smart, but Americans always are up in arms against "smart".

maz wrote:Also, the debate moderator last night said that the science says that Americans will have to wear masks until 2022. If they work, then why are we going to have to wear them for another two years? Why is a journalist making this bizarre claim? Is she a scientist?
So you won't believe the highest medical professional in the USA/ Sad.

maz wrote: I most certainly had more pronounced reaction because of the mask wearing.
That is perception, and not fact. The opposite should happen, in that you don't get as much reaction(because the mask filters out pollens, etc.). It's in your mind, maz. People can perceive anything to be bad for them if they try hard enough.

maz wrote:I also experienced chaffed lips and nose and breakouts around my the area that the mask covers.
Try cleaning the mask. How long are you wearing it, you poor dear?

maz wrote:That has never happened before and I attribute it to being forced to wear a mask because I am a covid suspect.
I am sure this is "made up", and that it's simply an anecdote.
#15129623
Godstud wrote:That's because in the beginning there was no scientific evidence that [wearing masks] would help, ...

And as I pointed out in my earlier post (with links to the CDC), there still isn’t much evidence that wearing cloth masks provides significant benefits. To quote from the CDC again (with emphasis added): “The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly.” That’s a lot of caveats.
#15129624
Doug64 wrote: “The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly.” That’s a lot of caveats.

This is no surprise though.

This is the type of language scientist and engineers always use, as the experimental and observational data isn't going to be bullet proof, ever. Science pretty much never speaks in absolutes. They always use words like "this data suggests..." or "When done correctly.." or "under certain conditions.." etc. etc.

Caveats alone aren't a reason to completely dismiss the findings of a study, that said, it's certainly good to question the findings.
#15129627
Doug64 wrote:And as I pointed out in my earlier post (with links to the CDC), there still isn’t much evidence that wearing cloth masks provides significant benefits. To quote from the CDC again (with emphasis added): “The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly.” That’s a lot of caveats.


And as I replied, you looked at how effective they are at preventing the wearer from being infected.

I pointed out that the effectiveness lies in preventing the wearer from infecting others.
#15129629
Covid is such an obvious fascist propaganda coup, that it is now obvious that non-stop propaganda and the drop in education standards and lack of community or rich community relations have made us dumb enough to control with great ease.

That the media is owned by "particular groups" whose power is now threatened.... can't even enter the plastic-wrapped and well-masked face of the soon-to-be-poor victims of the stupidity-empowered master-like-control by private corporations.

This is obviously a fake pandemic, but the propaganda is on 11. Almost half of us respond to emotional prompts in media (those who watch a lot of TV and movies) but their grotesque lack of capacity for independent thought affects everyone else.
#15129648
Rancid wrote:This is no surprise though.

This is the type of language scientist and engineers always use, as the experimental and observational data isn't going to be bullet proof, ever. Science pretty much never speaks in absolutes. They always use words like "this data suggests..." or "When done correctly.." or "under certain conditions.." etc. etc.

Caveats alone aren't a reason to completely dismiss the findings of a study, that said, it's certainly good to question the findings.


There is sure fire way to test to see whether masks work or do not work. We could settle this stupid thing, 100%, once and for all.

The UK is doing a vaccine trial where they are intentionally going to infect healthy people with the virus. They could do a study where they also try to infect people who wear regular cloth masks and the blue disposable masks to see what kind of protection, if any, that masks provide.

UK to infect healthy volunteers in vaccine research trial

Imperial College London and a group of researchers said Tuesday that they are preparing to infect 90 healthy young volunteers with the virus, becoming the first to announce plans to use the technique to study COVID-19 and potentially speed up development of a vaccine that could help end the pandemic.

This type of research, known as a human challenge study, is used infrequently because some question the ethics of infecting otherwise healthy individuals. But the British researchers say that risk is warranted because such studies have the potential to quickly identify the most effective vaccines and help control a disease that has killed more than 1.1 million people worldwide.

“Deliberately infecting volunteers with a known human pathogen is never undertaken lightly,″ said Professor Peter Openshaw, co-investigator on the study. “However, such studies are enormously informative about a disease, even one so well studied as COVID-19.”

Human challenge studies have been used to develop vaccines for diseases including typhoid, cholera and malaria.

Imperial College said the study, involving volunteers aged 18 to 30, would be conducted in partnership with the government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust and hVIVO, a company that has experience conducting challenge studies. The government plans to invest 33.6 million pounds ($43.4 million) in the research.

Governments around the world are funding efforts to develop a vaccine in hopes of ending the pandemic that has pummeled the global economy, putting millions of people out of work. Forty-six potential vaccines are already in human testing, with 11 of them in late-stage trials — several are expected to report results later this year or in early 2021.
#15129652
Yes @maz you've shown you are ignorant and have no idea how science operates. It doesn't operate on absolutes. :knife:
#15129663
Rancid wrote:How? it's hard to create real world conditions in a lab.


How hard could it be to successfully infect one person and then stick them in a room with one person wearing a mask, then in a room with a person wearing no mask and record the results?
#15129664
maz wrote:
How hard could it be to successfully infect one person and then stick them in a room with one person wearing a mask, then in a room with a person wearing no mask and record the results?


You'd have to do this with thousands of people and many variations of room environments (temp, humidity, distance between people, time of exposure, differents air currents in the room, different mask materials, talking versus not talking, different mask wearing techniques, etc. etc.). To do it properly, you don't just throw people in rooms.
#15129665
Rancid wrote:You'd have to do this with thousands of people and many variations of room environments (temp, humidity, distance between people, time of exposure, . different mask materials, talking versus not talking, different mask wearing techniques, etc. etc.). To do it properly, you don't just throw people in rooms.


They could start by trying to recreate this scenario. You don't think that they could come to some tentative conclusion with 90 people?

CDC expands definition of ‘close contacts,’ after study suggests Covid-19 can be passed in brief interactions

The announcement from the CDC comes as scientists described in a new study how a correctional officer in Vermont appears to have contracted the coronavirus during “multiple brief encounters” with six incarcerated people who had Covid-19. The infected people were awaiting the results of their Covid-19 tests while the interactions happened.

Close contacts are those who are tracked down during contact tracing and are recommended to quarantine.


As long as they are going to try to intentionally infect people, why wouldn't they try?
#15129666
maz wrote:
They could start by trying to recreate this scenario. You don't think that they could come to some tentative conclusion with 90 people?

CDC expands definition of ‘close contacts,’ after study suggests Covid-19 can be passed in brief interactions



As long as they are going to try to intentionally infect people, why wouldn't they try?


Yes, they could try that.

Tentative is the key word here. The results of such an experiment as you stated would require just as many caveats to be attached to the results. After all, it's a tentative conclusion, no?

Anyway, my point is, all conclusions in science are effectively tentative and full of caveats. So a study that say's masks help would have as many caveats as a study that say's masks don't help.
#15129680
maz wrote:How hard could it be to successfully infect one person and then stick them in a room with one person wearing a mask, then in a room with a person wearing no mask and record the results?


We already know what would happen:

The person wearing the mask would have a slight reduction in their chance of being infected.

But if you took an infected person and out them in a room with someone, and then compared that to putting a mask on the infected person and then putting someone in the same room, the mask would provide a significant reduction in the risk of infection.
#15129682
Rancid wrote:This is no surprise though.

This is the type of language scientist and engineers always use, as the experimental and observational data isn't going to be bullet proof, ever. Science pretty much never speaks in absolutes. They always use words like "this data suggests..." or "When done correctly.." or "under certain conditions.." etc. etc.

Caveats alone aren't a reason to completely dismiss the findings of a study, that said, it's certainly good to question the findings.

Actually, that’s the kind of language scientists tend to use for predictions, the extent results of studies/experiments should be facts—the less it’s about replicable facts, the less it’s real science. There’s also the level of caveats tossed in—it’s one thing to say “wearing a mask has been demonstrated to reduce your chances of getting sick, though we can’t say exactly how much for any individual due to varying circumstances” and saying “masks might help, a little, it can’t hurt to wear them.”

Pants-of-dog wrote:And as I replied, you looked at how effective they are at preventing the wearer from being infected.

I pointed out that the effectiveness lies in preventing the wearer from infecting others.

So require those that are infectious to wear masks or even those that are known to have been exposed and might be infectious, while we run the test to see if that’s the case. But for the government to require everyone to wear masks in the off chance they might have been exposed somehow somewhere somewhen? No, not for a disease as nonlethal as this one.
  • 1
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 69
What is God?

@Wellsy , what do you think of this response? T[…]

@QatzelOk You are making "nihilism"[…]

Mainly this just involves an incubator and being […]

EU-BREXIT

On shit Qatz, you are right, protecting the right[…]