Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,370
3,680
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Liberal media is anti-science?
Add Fox News to it, Sky, BBC... pick your poison. I am just saying that 6000 scientists willing to put their name on a document is a big deal.

I know your graphs are great... but the assumption is that they are correct. Any undergrad could make an argument with a graph... point is there are so many underlying issues that comprise the data that comprise the graph - ex. Countries may not properly report based on a bias. Cities, counties, etc... may diagnose someone with the standard flu as having COVID - 19. Maybe the cities and counties get more money based on the death ratio - NY wants a bunch of money - I am not going to get into the politics but government administrators are not exactly the best doctors. In the early days of this virus we did not know anything, and reporting could have been heavily skewed - one way or the other. Point is the data is only as accurate as the people reporting it. So, as I have said, we can't know everything, we can't assume motives, we can't predict the future and graphs by agencies are not the best... a financial graph, I'd stick by it, but a graph that shows covid at some level I just do not trust.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,753
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I am just saying that 6000 scientists willing to put their name on a document is a big deal.
You're not wrong - and at the beginning of the pandemic hundreds of scientists from around the world signed a letter and tens of thousands supported it, which was sent to the UK Government telling them to grow up when they were talking about herd immunity being a viable stratagem.

So who's science is better? Well, neither. It's the same science. It's ones interpretation of that science which is the key to yes/no on the Barrington thing.

Personally, I think it comes down to how much you think your freedom is worth...

Some say there is no price to personal freedom, any cost is acceptable. Some say if my freedom effects someone else's freedom, we must work towards equality (Example: Abraham Lincoln and the abolishing of slavery). In the Pandemic, there is the "Acceptable Risk" segment of opinion which states if there is a minimal risk, it must be accepted to preserve freedoms no matter how many of those minimal risk people die. There is also a "Hollistic" segment of opinion who state although there is indeed a minimal risk part of the population it is not a minimal transmission part of the population and it will find its way from those least likely to die to those most likely to die.

[personal thoughts] Do I think my freedom is worth paying for with other persons freedoms? No, never. But that's what happens when someone dies from COVID because someone else didn't wear a mask or socially distance or quarantine when they were diagnosed with COVID because 'Mah Freedumz'. You've not only removed their freedoms short term, you've removed their freedoms permanently term because you have ended their lives. It is the ultimate in anti-freedom, in terms of removing freedoms it's worse than segregation, it's worse than locking people up in a ghetto, it's worse than slavery - because the alternative of wearing a mask and keeping your distance is just so easy to do for the want of a little cooperation across a population. You want proof? New Zealand. They went early and they went hard and their record, despite a few small blips, has been exemplary. They are back to normal while the rest of the worlds leadership um's and ah's about how many dead is an acceptable number. [/personal thoughts]

Another massive problem with the Science is it is not yet complete and will not be for many years, if ever. The UK's early approach was wrong because they didn't and still didn't fully know the effects of this new virus and approached it thinking it was just like Viral Pneumonia. Well it isn't and when you base your response to something on assumptions of what you want it to be rather than what it is, you are carrying an umbrella in the sunshine and wearing flip-flops in the snow. The knowledge we have to this point says it should be minimal risk hence the Barrington reaction - but we do not know what longer terms effects are, like those still suffering months later with 'Long COVID' conditions - a known unknown. What if it turns out long term multiple exposures to COIVD-19 sterilizes the young? The Barrington concept would render whole countries with an aging population anyway a crisis unlike any known today because the population won't be able to sustain itself in any way close to what is required for economies etc to remain boyant. Unknown unknowns are shadows not to jump at, but to be wary of incase they contain an assailant who would do you harm.

We have to accept yes, there are known knowns. We also have to accept there are known unknowns. We also have to consider the possibility that there are unknown unknowns too.

Should we rely solely on the known knowns and be react when new knowns come along? Would it be too late once we know things we should have taken easy precautions on?

Should we accept the known unknowns and approach them with caution, like social distancing and masks, until they become knowns and we can react to them confidently with knowledge? We are doing that now but many refuse and rile against it.

Or with unknown unknowns, Should we throw bodies at the virus untill all the unknown unknowns and all the known unknowns are known? We've lost a million already and still don't have all the answers. How many more? We've got 7.8 billion people, at what percentage dead would we have to reconsider that strategy? And would we be able to reverse the tide once it had rolled in?
 

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,370
3,680
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Or with unknown unknowns, Should we throw bodies at the virus untill all the unknown unknowns and all the known unknowns are known? We've lost a million already and still don't have all the answers. How many more? We've got 7.8 billion people, at what percentage dead would we have to reconsider that strategy? And would we be able to reverse the tide once it had rolled in?
That is the question... again, if scientists say to do x and you want to do y... are you listening to the scientists? It is a virus (its going to do what viruses do) and we do not know the future. So you want to do x... great, wear your mask, don't go out side... because I guarantee you the mask is a crutch, a false sense of security, and, in the end it may not save you, but then again it may. I would compare a mask to a seat belt. There are vehicle accidents everyday, your chances of survival are better with a seat belt, but there is no guarantee the seat belt will save you. So, its life, I know its hard, and I know it is easier for the short term to hide and make excuses... but the long term consequences such as the economies/mental health/suicide rates also need to be factored in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
9,918
54,303
3,055
RSI Handle
Montoya
Add Fox News to it, Sky, BBC... pick your poison.
Negative.

This is not case of "both sides"

One side has been pushing for masks, for distancing, for precautions.

The other side is for fuck-it do what ever you want, its no worse than the flu, liberate Michigan.

Masks work, its not a debate.
 

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,370
3,680
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Masks work, its not a debate.
Negative, masks work most of the time, not all the time. To say all the time is a false statement, just like saying seat belts work all the time.

One side has a vested interest in scaring the shit out of the public because of politics.
 

Bambooza

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 25, 2017
5,682
17,881
2,875
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
Masks work, its not a debate.
I do find this stance to be amusing, especially when its followed by its not a debate or its not debatable. Until a few months ago the effectiveness of masks was questioned with the results being no effect or a slight effect for the wearer. It wasn't until it became politicized that mask wearing has been slated as undebatable and highly effective when in truth it could very well be no more then a security blanket. But to claim masks unequivocally work when all of the past studies have been inconclusive show little effect or show a negative effect. In fact the WHO's stance of generally not wearing masks back in March was based on these studies.

"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program.

While I am not against the wearing of masks as it is at worse is an inconvenient even if its only purpose is to make people feel safer. I am strongly against the idea that things are not debatable or somehow because its being preached from ones political party as the gospel truth and should not be questioned.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,753
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Thursday 8th of October:

- World: 36,265,982 confirmed cases and 1,057,505 confirmed deaths.

- US: President Trump claims he received a "Cure" for COVID-19 while in hospital. Questions immediately raised around the world. To this point there is no known cure. The makers of REGN-COV2 immediately apply for emergency use authorization.

- UK: Office Of National Statistics reveals COVID-19 has killed three times more people than flu and pneumonia in England and Wales to this point in 2020. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54463511

- Europe: Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic, the Netherlands and UK see record daily rises, with UK seeing 17,540 new daily cases. Germany, Portugal and Italy see highest number of daily cases since April.

- US: President announces stimulus talks have restarted. Unclear if this is in response to criticism of a tweet earlier in the week stating if he was voted in he would sign a bill to send out cheques immediately.

- UK: Contact Tracing app has been downloaded 16 million times - but various companies including GlaxoSmithKline and many of the UK's schools have told staff not to download or use the app.

- Iran: Sees another record rise in daily infections.

- Russia: Authorities recommended people stay at home this weekend and urge people to take more safety precautions as case numbers climb close to previous record.

- Sweden: Abandons plans to relax COVID restrictions as cases begin to climb in ernest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColdDog

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
9,918
54,303
3,055
RSI Handle
Montoya
Until a few months ago the effectiveness of masks was questioned
All that media that came out "questioning" masks made no sense.

What exactly is the questionable part of wearing a mask?

Why do surgeons wear masks?

Why does your dentist wear a mask?

Why doesn't your doctor just cough into your face?

Wearing a mask stops your breath from flying out all over the place.

It baffles my mind that they did "studies" with video and pictures to show how using a mask prevents your germy breath from traveling across the room when you cough.

Maybe we should fund another $10M study and "research" it a bit more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
9,918
54,303
3,055
RSI Handle
Montoya
One side has a vested interest in scaring the shit out of the public because of politics.
Nobody is scared.

Dont confuse being cautious with being scared.

Also dont assuming adopting the other side means you are brave and strong, this is a false dichotomy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,370
3,680
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Masks work, its not a debate.
Negative, masks work most of the time, not all the time. To say all the time is a false statement, just like saying seat belts work all the time.
This is a classic example of giving an inch for the sake of debate, and the other side trying to take a mile. Rational, reasonable, compromise is needed to work through these issues.

I am strongly against the idea that things are not debatable or somehow because its being preached from ones political party as the gospel truth and should not be questioned.
I think Bambooza explains it very well here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,753
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Cool I like debate, I learn things when people talk 🙂

So, participants - mark your stance:

The claim is Masks reduce Transmission. The proof backing up this claim is the before mentioned studies with video proof of exhailed breath being restricted by the mask and any potential transmission thus reduced.

Make your case to the contrary.
 

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,370
3,680
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
The claim is Masks reduce Transmission.
No the claim is masks work by Montoya.

Montoya - Masks work, its not a debate.

CD - Negative, masks work most of the time, not all the time. To say all the time is a false statement, just like saying seat belts work all the time.

Bambooza - "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program.
 

PeppaPigKilla

Admiral
Sep 15, 2019
449
1,407
800
RSI Handle
PeppaPigKilla
People getting all caught up in semantics here.

Do masks work? if the definition of "Work" in this scenario that it REDUCES the spread of your breath on exhaling then yes they do Work

Do seatbelt work as in reducing the chances of injury if wearing one as opposed to not wearing one then yes they do work.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,753
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Science - the majesty of which is that, like every species on planet earth, it evolves as time passes.

Quote from March 31st 2020 "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan

Scientific studies conducted between March 31st 2020 and now:

CNN report June 12th: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/12/health/coronavirus-mask-wellness-trnd/index.html

The Lancet medical journal: June 27th: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

Even Fox News agrees: May 20th 2020: https://www.foxnews.com/health/wearing-face-mask-reduce-coronavirus-transmission-75-percent-study-shows

The above reports, including one from backed the WHO which originally indicated there was no evidence, found evidence to indicates yes, Masks reduce transmission. In march there was no specific evidence. From May going onwards, there was.
 

Bambooza

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 25, 2017
5,682
17,881
2,875
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
All that media that came out "questioning" masks made no sense.

What exactly is the questionable part of wearing a mask?

Why do surgeons wear masks?

Why does your dentist wear a mask?

Why doesn't your doctor just cough into your face?

Wearing a mask stops your breath from flying out all over the place.

It baffles my mind that they did "studies" with video and pictures to show how using a mask prevents your germy breath from traveling across the room when you cough.

Maybe we should fund another $10M study and "research" it a bit more.
Did you not read the quote by Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program? This was posted back in March and the studies I am referring to are not new studies that are politically charged on both sides but ones from years prior. The medical consensuses going into this year was that masks might offer some limited protection but the standard vector for virus transmission has always been touch.

My stance has always been masks do not cause harm and there might be a small reduction in the virus transmission by wearing one. Its not a big deal to wear one so why not. But I do find mostly with in society the wearing of masks is more a physiological one in the perception of safety and I do call into question those who argue their perspective as undebatable.
 
Forgot your password?