Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread

[Bambooza]

View: https://youtu.be/1LVt49l6aP8


Joking aside I did pick up your point on mental health being a linchpin for physical health from the rest of your post.

I don't believe you are wrong.

Mental health and physical healths are both as important aspects as each other and I don't believe I've advocated for suffering either physically or mentally, the assumption one leads to the other is just an assumption based subjectively on what one does or does not what to be subject to - we speak of choice but those with Long COVID are having a hell of a time with it mentally and had no choice as to be subject to it, and those who have lost close family and friends are also wondering if they passed them the virus also had no choice in the matter. Although I don't deny removal of basic freedoms and economic fallout of precautions are also to be factored, they can be catered for if ones governing body is inclined to use resources doing so and can, importantly, be reversed and countered if they happen - as has happened in some places which have removed the pressures of restrictions by implementing things such as furlough which blanket removed one of the biggest stress factors of the pandemic - how am I going to put food on the table and a roof over my head. I was put on Furlough. It wasn't a magic Fell Better Button, but it was a hell of a lot better than if I'd lost my job and believe me, I was aware of that.


I am not sure if I have explained myself properly when I say "Precaution" - I am talking about a base level of precautions to extend the time a country can then have to counter an epidemic/pandemic, not blindly wielding a Ban Hammer on anything that moves. To use your examples, they all have basic precautions in them which do lead to fewer deaths and less harm:

Swimming -
Basic precautions come include a strong system of mainly swimming in authorised places called "Swimming Pools", which include poolside attendents, life guards, and chemically treated water to make sure any risk to bathers is at a minimum. Many beaches offer life guard patrols telling people not to swim outside of an authorised monitored area and spaces of open water such as reservoirs and abandoned quarries have signs warning of unexpectedly cold water and submerged machinery saying not to swim. These are all basic precautions. Yes, people do still die swimming, but a hell of a lit less than if we didn't take any basic procautions. Where I'm from we also get taught water saftey in schools, and the UK's Lifeboat charity the RNLI spent 2 million pounds of charity money in Bangladesh teaching kids not to jump in open water because up to that point 40 kids a day were drowning there. Where precautions worked, they were sent to benefit those elsewhere.

RNLI Statement Regarding Donations Being Spent Overseas: 'There Has Been No Sleight Of Hand'. - Emergency Services News

The RNLI has been forced to defend their lifesaving overseas work after some sections of the mainstream media criticised the life-saving charity. Over the weekend, both the Mail Online and The Times published articles that criticised the charity for its overseas work, at a time when UK-based...

emergency-services.news

Drinking Alcohol -
The production and sale of alcohol itself is a basic precaution as it is strictly licenced, heavily monitored and has an entire industry of regulation to make sure the substance being delivered into the hands of a consumer is as safe as it can possibly be. There are also limits to the strength, type and style of alcohol which can be obtained by any given person. There are also Public Service Announcements to warn of the dangers of alcohol abuse and indeed the bottles themselves carry warnings in certain countries. As with water safety, the spectre of substance abuse is taught in many school systems around the world. These precautions do not remove the risk of alcohol harm, but they certainly reduce the level of it by an order of magnitude.

Eating Hamburgers -
As with alcohol production, Hamburger production has a huge raft of food industry set of regulations which are basically a set of precautions to ensure the finished product is safe to consume. Other procautions include cooking instructions on the packet and also use-by dates on the packaging. It even goes so far as to have traceable batch-codes so if a fault is found with a batch produced, they can be recalled and the consumer protected from threats and defects. Although eating too many kills thousands around the world a year, a hell of a lot more would and indeed used to die if we didn't have these basic precautions.

Influenza -
Basic precautions for Influenza are similar to basic precautions for many other types of illness, such as washing hands, not touching the face, sterilizing areas and with the invent of vaccines using them as a preventative measure before the most contagious season hits. As has been seen with Flu season remaining at base levels this last Pandemic season, the precautions used to counter COVID-19 have been extremely effective against 'Flu too. 'Flu isn't going away just as COVID isn't, but with the right precautions it has been knocked on its ass for a year and a half.

I'm not saying we should ban anything, I'm saying we should have a set of blanket precautions which everyone in the world can live with ready to roll when the next Pandemic hits, and can then be tailored to what is actually required for any given situation. With COVID-19 we started with nothing, ramped it up to 11 and then pulled it back down gently. With the next one I'd like to think we could turn it up to 5 immediately, see what happens then if need by turn it up to 7 in some specific vectors and reduce it to 2 in others and retain some semblance of public life without having to shut everything down for months on end.

You are not wrong in that a reasonable amount of precaution is beneficial to the safety and wellbeing of society. The issue always comes back to what is a reasonable amount of precaution. At what point is it effective and at what point does it become rejected and create tension with in a community? Different communities will have different levels all the way up to different countries will have different tolerances to what they will do or attempt to do. We really have to look no further than the past year and how each country dealt or ignored the virus. It was also interesting to see how other reacted to it as it very much was a macro reflection of micro community discourse. Even to this day you can type in Sweden covid and clearly see with in the headlines of each news outlet where they fall on the political spectrum as to how they perceive Sweden's actions.

It really does come back to what is an acceptable amount of precaution with in a social group. For what you or I perceive as a reasonable amount of warning or precaution does not always translate to being acceptable or necessary mandate.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Tuesday 8th of June:

- World: 173,709,075 confirmed cases and 3,739,443 confirmed deaths.

- World: Unicef appeals to G7 governments to start sending 20% of their vaccine surplus so they can be with countires before the end of August. It has been noted also that if supplies arrive all at once in one go, poorer countries may not have the infrastructure to roll out millions of doses all in one go, risking the medicine spoiling on warehouse shelves waiting for capacity to be come available to be distributed.

- Vaccines: Pfizer to run a trial to test if its vaccine is suitable for children under 12 years of age, seeks to enroll 4,500 volunteers across 4 countries.

- Vaccines: Sinovac indicates its vaccine has been approved for anyone over the age of 3 years old.

- US: Washington State, and another incentive is launched to encourage vaccine takeup: legal cannabis shops now allowed to offer "Joints for Jabs", giving people a free spliff for getting vaccinated on premises.

- US: Millions of doses of J&J vaccine close to expiry, calls for an extension on the dates have been made by the White House “I would encourage every governor who has doses that they worry may be expiring to work with the FDA directly on the proper storage procedures as they continue to examine processes that will allow them to potentially last longer,”

- US: More than a year after stopping allowing reuseable cups due to the Pandemic, Starbucks announces it will shortly allow them again.

- EU: Millions of citizens get the COVID Passport to allow them to move inside the bloc.

- Northern Ireland: Number of COVID patents in hospital hits Zero. “For the first time in 10 months in the North, there are zero Covid patients in intensive care, [...] A massive thank you to our healthcare workers for their efforts - let’s keep playing our part and making progress.”

- UK: 7 day average for new cases up another 60%.

- UK: Stronger restrictions to curb Delta Variant now cover 10% of the country however it is just advice, not law, but extra funding has been sent to the areas to assist with the measures.

- UK: Only 24% of the counties pubs believe they will still be in business by the end of the summer.

- Poland: Shortens the time gap between vaccine doses.

- Kenya: Hospitals stock up and reinforce their capacity as third wave expected.

- India: Government data indicates a gender disparity between men and women being vaccinated, with 17% more men getting jabbed.

- Vietnam: Asks the public for donations to buy vaccines as a new wave takes its toll.

 

[Bambooza]

Social distancing and mask mandates were to allow people to maintain some semblance of a normal life while trying to slow (not stop) the spread. Now, before you say "it's FREEDOM"...sorry, but here in the US, we have always had some restrictions about what we want to wear. Most stores have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy, meaning you can't go in barefooted and shirtless and expect to be able to purchase items from that store. As a whole, the VAST VAST majority of places require you to have some sort of clothing covering your reproductive organs. (the exceptions being nude beaches and naturalist resorts). Wearing a mask is no more than wearing another piece of uncomfortable clothing.

It's interesting that you bring up the shirts and shoes as you are right most stores have a general policy of no shirt, no shoes, no service but there is no law requiring stores to enact this policy in the USA. Just like restraints can require a certain level of attire before allowing patrons in the only thing these business cannot do is base their restrictions upon a protected status (sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, genetic information, once again a USA law, other countries have similar policies). In the USA most states outright ban public nudity while others have a more lax restriction based upon the intent of the nudest but even these have lead to arrests and costly trials of the nudest as the courts decided the person's intent. While not always enforced (as demonstrated in the free the nipple rallies) it's still a touchy subject nonetheless. Two aspects compound mask wearing requirements. Its a government mandate where people are fiercely independent in their personal attire, and there is no empirical evidence that mask wearing does anything to combat the spread of the virus. Medical evidence going into the pandemic was of the consensus that mask wearing achieved nothing thus was not a requirement. Mask wearing even at this moment in time has not shown real world data to support it use as a means to reduce the spread of Covid. Given the different mask mandates across the world it should be possible to start to process the data and show some sort of conclusion.

You are right in saying mask wearing is just another piece of uncomfortable clothing and it really is just that. If it is helpful or not we do not know and there is the limited possibility that mask do more harm than good. But it does nothing to say that mandating a mask is going to benefit anyone or simply create another point of contention between the will of the individual and the authoritarian of the government. In fact you can look at those who wore masks correctly would have most likely worn masks anyways even without a government mandate and those who wore masks incorrectly would not have worn a mask and not wearing a mask correctly is no different then not wearing one at all. It's the same principle that applies to motorcycle helmet wearing. Its benifit is questionable at best and most of the helmets fall into two categories. Either to the letter of the law offering the rider no protection or a full helmet that offers some protection. Just like helmets are a reflection of the people and once again achieve the same predictable result. On a larger political scale the question becomes why attempt to impose laws that only those who agree with it will follow and not be enforceable by those who don't and at the same time create civil unrest when the same outcome could simply be achieved by information campaigns? We could even use the case study on the war on drugs but I feel while sort of relievent it has the real potential to significantly divert off topic.

As for social distancing, it was that or quarantine. Since asymptomatic transmission is such a huge deal, we would have needed to quarantine EVERYONE for over a month to contain things, and we just don't have the infrastructure nor the personal resources for that as a whole. Most people do not have enough food for a month without going to the grocery store, nor could grocery stores have been able to provide that food in a limited time. Since a nation wide quarantine was out, social distancing was again asked of people.

However, some people thought they were special, immune, or just felt that because they were younger, they would just get a mild case, so they went to spring break, they went to Sturgis, they went to all these places and guess what. They got sick and brought it back to their communities where they spread it to others. Others who get very sick, and some probably died due to that negligence.

There is no true quarantine of the virus. Its zoonotic and so reinfection by birds and other mammals is real. While a full true two month quarantine would eliminate the virus from the current world population it would be only a matter of time before it was reintroduced.

Those who are younger than 50 and have no underlying medical condition for the most part would get a mild case be sick for a couple days and make a full recovery. I would bet you a keg of beer that the virus has infected a significant more of the population then currently estimated and tested for. In fact you can look at the CDC graph I had posted earlier that showed no noticeable increase in the number of deaths per week over the last year compared to previous years for the age groups under 40. While there is always edge cases and the exception to the trends that we like to highlight the reality is 99.98% of those under 40 are not negatively affected by the virus.

So, did I stay home all the time? For the most part, YES, I did, and so did most of my family and the people I worked with. I did make ONE trip. My Aunt was in a bad way (not covid, just old age), so I drove 800 miles to get my mom, drove her another 600 miles down to see her sister (probably for the last time while she is alive), and then another 800 miles back home. I limited contact to my family and one grocery store. I also quarantined myself starting 3 weeks prior to my trip. I got a COVID test a week before (results were negative 2 days before my trip), drove directly there, ensuring that I used gloves, a mask, good handwashing techniques, and lots of hand sanitizer when I stopped at rest stops. Once I got back, I self quarantined again for 17 days, then got another test, self quarantining again until I received the negative result. I did not stop to see my mother-in-law who lives 30 minutes from my mom (and 5 minutes off my travel path), nor my sister-in-law who lives just a little further away, and I REALLY wanted to.

Other than that trip, the only places I have been are to the grocery store and a few other places for stuff we needed (pharmacy, etc.) Other than that, it was take out for the few times we ordered out, home delivery, or contactless in-car delivery. My wife also did all those things, except for the trip where she stayed home. I have not seen my nephews, nieces, brother, in-laws, family friends, cousins, all my other aunts and uncles, etc. in over 20 months. Yes, it's hard, but I do it because by not seeing them, it limits the possibility of unknowing transmission. We make do with phone calls.

Would you have still done this if it wasn't mandated? Did the government involvement in anyway change what you would have done regardless?

We have been vaccinated for about 2 months, fully for about the past 6 weeks, and only in the past 2 weeks have we really started resuming our lives.

I've seen too many people deny COVID exist, then get sick themselves and pass it on to others. I've seen too many people question reasonable precautions, throw a freaking temper tantrum that a 2 year old would be envious of over wearing a mask, and act like the whole thing was someone else's problem. Others say "people need to wear a mask", then don't do it themselves. Sorry, but people like the above need to GROW UP and TAKE SOME FREAKING RESPONSIBILITY.

What do you expect? People deny we went to the moon and insist the world is flat. Of course there will be those who deny covid exists. Youtube is full of Karens and so the temper tantrums over spelling their name incorrectly or their coffee missing the correct amount of white fluff its not unexpected to see them lose their minds over what they are being mandated to wear. The other thing to think about is what even with in this small community of Test do not always agree on what is reasonable and while we might have some overlap there is a lot that you would say it needs to be mandated and information shared where I would say it's common sense and nothing needs to be done. It could be as simple as agree about the risk but a disagreement in the degree we should take to keep each other from the risk or as far as disagreements in regards to the risk level. In the end people for the most part are going to do what they want to do, while laws can slightly modify their behaviour its only with in limits of their original desire. Education has always been far more effective in modifying unwanted behaviour then any law saying don't do this. Once again we don't have to look any further then the use of illegal drugs.

 

[Thalstan]

It's interesting that you bring up the shirts and shoes as you are right most stores have a general policy of no shirt, no shoes, no service but there is no law requiring stores to enact this policy in the USA. Just like restraints can require a certain level of attire before allowing patrons in the only thing these business cannot do is base their restrictions upon a protected status (sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, genetic information, once again a USA law, other countries have similar policies). In the USA most states outright ban public nudity while others have a more lax restriction based upon the intent of the nudest but even these have lead to arrests and costly trials of the nudest as the courts decided the person's intent. While not always enforced (as demonstrated in the free the nipple rallies) it's still a touchy subject nonetheless. Two aspects compound mask wearing requirements. Its a government mandate where people are fiercely independent in their personal attire, and there is no empirical evidence that mask wearing does anything to combat the spread of the virus. Medical evidence going into the pandemic was of the consensus that mask wearing achieved nothing thus was not a requirement. Mask wearing even at this moment in time has not shown real world data to support it use as a means to reduce the spread of Covid. Given the different mask mandates across the world it should be possible to start to process the data and show some sort of conclusion.

Not nursing glands, but reproductive organs.

As for government mandate. Only the states can authorize masks for their states. The ONLY things the federal government could mandate a mask on would be things directly under their authority. Airlines, Trains, etc. Both President Trump and President Biden knew this. Trump chose not to authorize this requirement, Biden chose to do so. Note, in most cases, you were not required to wear a mask unless you were entering a public area. They could not arrest you for going to a neighbors house without a mask if the neighbor allowed it, but because of the thought (later - mostly - shown to be much less of a chance), that you could catch COVID from touching contaminated surfaces), they didn't want you to go to stores and other public places without a mask. (see below about it being about preventing you from giving it to others, not preventing you from getting it)

The biggest problem I had with the mask mandates was the way certain states used their authority to allow gatherings in one place/situation, while not allowing the same sized gatherings in other places/situations. If it's bad for one, it's bad for both and politics should not come into play. Unfortunately, many governors did not follow this type of logic.

As for the mask mandate, consider this: https://srhd.org/media/documents/PeeTest.pdf

You are right in saying mask wearing is just another piece of uncomfortable clothing and it really is just that. If it is helpful or not we do not know and there is the limited possibility that mask do more harm than good. But it does nothing to say that mandating a mask is going to benefit anyone or simply create another point of contention between the will of the individual and the authoritarian of the government. In fact you can look at those who wore masks correctly would have most likely worn masks anyways even without a government mandate and those who wore masks incorrectly would not have worn a mask and not wearing a mask correctly is no different then not wearing one at all. It's the same principle that applies to motorcycle helmet wearing. Its benifit is questionable at best and most of the helmets fall into two categories. Either to the letter of the law offering the rider no protection or a full helmet that offers some protection. Just like helmets are a reflection of the people and once again achieve the same predictable result. On a larger political scale the question becomes why attempt to impose laws that only those who agree with it will follow and not be enforceable by those who don't and at the same time create civil unrest when the same outcome could simply be achieved by information campaigns? We could even use the case study on the war on drugs but I feel while sort of relievent it has the real potential to significantly divert off topic.

big difference here is this. Wearing a mask helps prevent you from passing it along as well as try to help prevent you from catching it. It's not just about your PERSONAL health, but to try to keep those around you healthy as well. Think of it this way. There is a law that says you need to turn your headlights on in the rain. For years, people have argued against it saying "But I can see just fine if it's raining during the day" The point of the law isn't so YOU can see the road, but so that it's easier for OTHERS to see your car.

There is no true quarantine of the virus. Its zoonotic and so reinfection by birds and other mammals is real. While a full true two month quarantine would eliminate the virus from the current world population it would be only a matter of time before it was reintroduced.

Those who are younger than 50 and have no underlying medical condition for the most part would get a mild case be sick for a couple days and make a full recovery. I would bet you a keg of beer that the virus has infected a significant more of the population then currently estimated and tested for. In fact you can look at the CDC graph I had posted earlier that showed no noticeable increase in the number of deaths per week over the last year compared to previous years for the age groups under 40. While there is always edge cases and the exception to the trends that we like to highlight the reality is 99.98% of those under 40 are not negatively affected by the virus.

There has been significant ability to control the virus by those countries that have been able to enact big lockdowns. China, Australia, New Zealand (so not just authoritarian governments), etc. All of these have been able to significantly reduce the spread via quarantine. China was able to provide food/limited needs to those locked down, and other countries were better suited for lockdowns. But here in the US, people would not stay put and continued to gather in spite of all advice to limit gatherings, to restrict travel, etc and went to spring break destinations, summer destinations, etc.
However, I do agree that more people have had it then the tests show. Especially at first.

Would you have still done this if it wasn't mandated? Did the government involvement in anyway change what you would have done regardless?

YES! I stopped traveling when this started becoming a thing back in February/March of 2020. My company has been very accommodating in allowing me to work from home. I felt that the least I could do was to try and maintain my own health as best as I possibly could by restricting my own movement and to ensure that my wife and I remained as healthy as possible. If we WERE infected, we also wanted to be sure we did not pass it along (this was well before reliable testing was available)
When my company sent people home to do a WFH period, they anticipated a return to the office in 4 (28 days) weeks. 431 months later, we are still all working remotely and will likely continue to do so for at least the next 3-6 months. All travel needs to be approved by the Senior VP and only 3-4 people have received this permission...all when someone was testifying before congress.

What do you expect? People deny we went to the moon and insist the world is flat. Of course there will be those who deny covid exists. Youtube is full of Karens and so the temper tantrums over spelling their name incorrectly or their coffee missing the correct amount of white fluff its not unexpected to see them lose their minds over what they are being mandated to wear. The other thing to think about is what even with in this small community of Test do not always agree on what is reasonable and while we might have some overlap there is a lot that you would say it needs to be mandated and information shared where I would say it's common sense and nothing needs to be done. It could be as simple as agree about the risk but a disagreement in the degree we should take to keep each other from the risk or as far as disagreements in regards to the risk level. In the end people for the most part are going to do what they want to do, while laws can slightly modify their behaviour its only with in limits of their original desire. Education has always been far more effective in modifying unwanted behaviour then any law saying don't do this. Once again we don't have to look any further then the use of illegal drugs.

We were asked to take very minimal precautions against spreading an unknown and very contagious disease in hope that it would slow the spread of COVID. Many people chose to use that to throw a fit saying their freedoms were being infringed upon ('MURICA), when in fact, these precautions were intended to preserve your freedom to go shopping, go to the mall, go for a walk, etc. Wear a mask, remain socially distanced from those not in your immediate family, etc. Unfortunately, Politicians, the MSM, and the AM (alternative media) have twisted this message for their own ends.

 

[SoloFlyer]

- US: Washington State, and another incentive is launched to encourage vaccine takeup: legal cannabis shops now allowed to offer "Joints for Jabs", giving people a free spliff for getting vaccinated on premises.

Why do I foresee this leading to people attempting to get more than the recommended dosages?

 

[Bambooza]

Not nursing glands, but reproductive organs.

Depending on the medical literature Breasts are either part of the female reproductive system or considered as a secondary sexual characteristic which contain mammary glands in women but not in men. Or we can go the other direction and point out the fact that technically females even in the nude do not have visible reproductive organs.

As for government mandate. Only the states can authorize masks for their states. The ONLY things the federal government could mandate a mask on would be things directly under their authority. Airlines, Trains, etc. Both President Trump and President Biden knew this. Trump chose not to authorize this requirement, Biden chose to do so. Note, in most cases, you were not required to wear a mask unless you were entering a public area. They could not arrest you for going to a neighbors house without a mask if the neighbor allowed it, but because of the thought (later - mostly - shown to be much less of a chance), that you could catch COVID from touching contaminated surfaces), they didn't want you to go to stores and other public places without a mask. (see below about it being about preventing you from giving it to others, not preventing you from getting it)

The biggest problem I had with the mask mandates was the way certain states used their authority to allow gatherings in one place/situation, while not allowing the same sized gatherings in other places/situations. If it's bad for one, it's bad for both and politics should not come into play. Unfortunately, many governors did not follow this type of logic.

I do not believe I made a distinction as to it being a federal mandate simple a government one. The good part about having such a variety of implementations is we now have a variety of data points to compare against. And honestly this is one of the best outcomes due to the very fact this "pandemic" is meek. We can see how the public reacted to mandates, we can see how mask wearing impacted the spread along with social distancing. How isolated populations such as Australia and New Zealand are able to react at the same time as the rest of the world and have different outcomes.

As for the mask mandate, consider this: https://srhd.org/media/documents/PeeTest.pdf

Not sure how this meme is an effective illustration to the effectiveness of mask wearing. Especially when you take the primary principle and expand the use cases. It could easily be said that wearing pants and being peed on lets the pee soak into a far larger area than if you were not wearing pants as well as keeping the pee on you for a far longer time. Them wearing pants and then peeing while sitting in a seat that you use after them does not prevent you from having pee soak pants. The cases go on.

big difference here is this. Wearing a mask helps prevent you from passing it along as well as try to help prevent you from catching it. It's not just about your PERSONAL health, but to try to keep those around you healthy as well. Think of it this way. There is a law that says you need to turn your headlights on in the rain. For years, people have argued against it saying "But I can see just fine if it's raining during the day" The point of the law isn't so YOU can see the road, but so that it's easier for OTHERS to see your car.

I know you truly believe this to be true and I am not saying the possibility of it being true is not the case. I am simply saying there has been no conclusive study to show wearing a mask has any impact on the spread of this virus. There have been limited studies that show the possibility of masks providing some protection within the very narrow scope of the test. It is impossible to extrapolate a conclusion that masks reduce ones risks from these studies at this point.

There has been significant ability to control the virus by those countries that have been able to enact big lockdowns. China, Australia, New Zealand (so not just authoritarian governments), etc. All of these have been able to significantly reduce the spread via quarantine. China was able to provide food/limited needs to those locked down, and other countries were better suited for lockdowns. But here in the US, people would not stay put and continued to gather in spite of all advice to limit gatherings, to restrict travel, etc and went to spring break destinations, summer destinations, etc.

Once again it's not been proven that the lockdowns as implemented have had any success on reducing the spread of the virus. Luckily given the different procedures and implementations or even no implementations will allow for some conclusions to be derived from the data but even this will be highly debated due to the differences in the populations with in each governing body. But one cannot say its a fact when it's far from proven and is more speculation.

However, I do agree that more people have had it then the tests show. Especially at first.


YES! I stopped traveling when this started becoming a thing back in February/March of 2020. My company has been very accommodating in allowing me to work from home. I felt that the least I could do was to try and maintain my own health as best as I possibly could by restricting my own movement and to ensure that my wife and I remained as healthy as possible. If we WERE infected, we also wanted to be sure we did not pass it along (this was well before reliable testing was available)
When my company sent people home to do a WFH period, they anticipated a return to the office in 4 (28 days) weeks. 431 months later, we are still all working remotely and will likely continue to do so for at least the next 3-6 months. All travel needs to be approved by the Senior VP and only 3-4 people have received this permission...all when someone was testifying before congress.



We were asked to take very minimal precautions against spreading an unknown and very contagious disease in hope that it would slow the spread of COVID. Many people chose to use that to throw a fit saying their freedoms were being infringed upon ('MURICA), when in fact, these precautions were intended to preserve your freedom to go shopping, go to the mall, go for a walk, etc. Wear a mask, remain socially distanced from those not in your immediate family, etc. Unfortunately, Politicians, the MSM, and the AM (alternative media) have twisted this message for their own ends.

Some of the precautions were minimal some cost people their jobs some cost people their life savings especially when it comes to rental properties and tenten's who have not paid their rent for a year. Small businesses who had to close their doors. There was a substantial economic impact even for large companies like mine who are still struggling to find a way forward. So the impact on you and I was minimal others it has had a very real and substantial impact that we cannot dismiss as minimal or their being upset as being throwing a fit of a toddler. This is not to say a lot of the outrage was directed simply at being told what to do.

And yes because its a hot topic Politicians and news agencies have been twisting the truth to their own ends (some more then others) its also why I am learly of convent studies that have happened in the last year and look to find others that both contradict as well as support the findings. It's also my fear that the data from this pandemic in regards to the success or no impact of mandates will be massaged to fit an agenda. But like all things it will self correct in time and hopefully in the end the true lessons learned will be applied correctly to future pandemics for more will come in time.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

which contain mammary glands in women but not in men.

Small bit important point: men also have mammory glands.

All male mammals do it's why males have nipples the equipment is all there it's just inactive, they form before a foetus reaches the point of becoming male or female.

View: https://youtu.be/FXI21S4ZWJU

View: https://youtu.be/bq5FQJdVKdM

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Oh, and:

I know you truly believe this to be true and I am not saying the possibility of it being true is not the case. I am simply saying there has been no conclusive study to show wearing a mask has any impact on the spread of this virus. There have been limited studies that show the possibility of masks providing some protection within the very narrow scope of the test. It is impossible to extrapolate a conclusion that masks reduce ones risks from these studies at this point.

There have been hundreds of studies one of which was this one in August 2020 nearly a whole year ago now:

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/new-study-highlights-new-evidence-that-masks-prevent-coronavirus-spread/

“The spread of the virus really goes down in areas where people wear masks and it goes as down as four-to-five times reduced risk of infection when people in the community are wearing a mask than when they’re not wearing a mask,”

Limiting the spread of viral spores = limiting transmission. It is not ones risk of catching it, it is ones risk of being sent it from someone else. Two very different things but the results are the same, you don't come in contact the virus.

I do totally get your point, a scientific trial keeps variables to a minimum - but that's the point of science: you keep everything the same and if a result is peristant, its caused by the conditions of the trial. Scientific method is to then keep everything the same, but then change just one thing to see what happens. As real world conditions are infinite in their combination, it is not possible to test for every single variation of factors so science a lot of the time covers the basics, which in this case is you block the aerosol coming out of people's face holes, you reduce the distance the virus is transmitted, you reduce transmission. How many people pass within 25ft of you a day Vs how many people pass within 3ft of you a day? That is potentially the difference.

The studies are not based on wearing a mask Vs wearing a mask inside out Vs wearing a mask upside down, they are based on wearing a mask and not wearing a mask. Those are the chriteria, the results we have known for over a year, and in some places since the beginning of the pandemic, are conclusive. Masks do reduce transmission compared to no masks.

 

[Bambooza]

Oh, and:


There have been hundreds of studies one of which was this one in August 2020 nearly a whole year ago now:

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/new-study-highlights-new-evidence-that-masks-prevent-coronavirus-spread/

“The spread of the virus really goes down in areas where people wear masks and it goes as down as four-to-five times reduced risk of infection when people in the community are wearing a mask than when they’re not wearing a mask,”

Limiting the spread of viral spores = limiting transmission. It is not ones risk of catching it, it is ones risk of being sent it from someone else. Two very different things but the results are the same, you don't come in contact the virus.

I do totally get your point, a scientific trial keeps variables to a minimum - but that's the point of science: you keep everything the same and if a result is peristant, its caused by the conditions of the trial. Scientific method is to then keep everything the same, but then change just one thing to see what happens. As real world conditions are infinite in their combination, it is not possible to test for every single variation of factors so science a lot of the time covers the basics, which in this case is you block the aerosol coming out of people's face holes, you reduce the distance the virus is transmitted, you reduce transmission. How many people pass within 25ft of you a day Vs how many people pass within 3ft of you a day? That is potentially the difference.

The studies are not based on wearing a mask Vs wearing a mask inside out Vs wearing a mask upside down, they are based on wearing a mask and not wearing a mask. Those are the chriteria, the results we have known for over a year, and in some places since the beginning of the pandemic, are conclusive. Masks do reduce transmission compared to no masks.

From the very bottom of the article.

“Taken together, I think, these are very powerful in preventing the spread of infection,” he adds. “Each one alone is good but not sufficient. If you do them all, you minimize your risk of spreading or getting the disease much more than just each one by itself.”

Dr. Dweik is very careful to word that he thinks all three measures are important at spreading an infection. The study itself focuses only on the effectiveness of different mask materials in their attempt to find a low cost solution to testing mask effectiveness which having skimmed over looks like they were successful and I think rather ingenious. It does nothing to determine possible virus transmission pathways or the risk associated with each one. So yes we now have lots of studies that have shown the effectiveness in masks in reducing respiratory droplets, in fact we have known this for decades and why medical staff wears masks to help reduce the spread mostly of bacteria as part of a meticulous cleaning ritual in an attempt to keep patients safe from contamination. And yet all these measures still lead to 99,000 deaths due to infections.

The four common routes as studied in a hospital setting are, Contact transmission, Droplet Transmission, Airborne transmission, Common vehicle transmission and Vector borne transmission. While masks are very good at reducing or eliminating droplet transmission the current theory that the vast majority of infections are caused by both direct and indirect contact transmission. Once again it is important to understand that this theory and studies supporting it were mostly focused on a hospital setting and bacterial infections.

So to reiterate we know that specific masks worn correctly are effective in significantly reducing droplet transmission. What we do not know is if droplet transmission directly to the susceptible host or indirectly by contaminating a contact surface is the most common pathway to spread the infection or if other modes of transfer are. Until then it is unknown if masks reduce the possible transfer of the virus by less than 1% (and thus their only real purpose is to make the wear feel like they are doing something, being safe, which while important to mental health can also lead to a false sense of security that is detrimental to the overall safety of the community) or they contribute to a 80% reduction in virus transmission.

So what we are seeing is hundreds of studies that prove masks have a measurable reduction in reducing droplet transmission without addressing how the virus is truly transmitted in the real world. Read the study understand what the studies attempting to show in its limited scope but do not attempt to project it beyond its conclusion. It's like putting an umbrella over your house to protect it from the rain but doing nothing against the river that is flooding it.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

From the very bottom of the article.


Dr. Dweik is very careful to word that he thinks all three measures are important at spreading an infection. The study itself focuses only on the effectiveness of different mask materials in their attempt to find a low cost solution to testing mask effectiveness which having skimmed over looks like they were successful and I think rather ingenious. It does nothing to determine possible virus transmission pathways or the risk associated with each one. So yes we now have lots of studies that have shown the effectiveness in masks in reducing respiratory droplets, in fact we have known this for decades and why medical staff wears masks to help reduce the spread mostly of bacteria as part of a meticulous cleaning ritual in an attempt to keep patients safe from contamination. And yet all these measures still lead to 99,000 deaths due to infections.

The four common routes as studied in a hospital setting are, Contact transmission, Droplet Transmission, Airborne transmission, Common vehicle transmission and Vector borne transmission. While masks are very good at reducing or eliminating droplet transmission the current theory that the vast majority of infections are caused by both direct and indirect contact transmission. Once again it is important to understand that this theory and studies supporting it were mostly focused on a hospital setting and bacterial infections.

So to reiterate we know that specific masks worn correctly are effective in significantly reducing droplet transmission. What we do not know is if droplet transmission directly to the susceptible host or indirectly by contaminating a contact surface is the most common pathway to spread the infection or if other modes of transfer are. Until then it is unknown if masks reduce the possible transfer of the virus by less than 1% (and thus their only real purpose is to make the wear feel like they are doing something, being safe, which while important to mental health can also lead to a false sense of security that is detrimental to the overall safety of the community) or they contribute to a 80% reduction in virus transmission.

So what we are seeing is hundreds of studies that prove masks have a measurable reduction in reducing droplet transmission without addressing how the virus is truly transmitted in the real world. Read the study understand what the studies attempting to show in its limited scope but do not attempt to project it beyond its conclusion. It's like putting an umbrella over your house to protect it from the rain but doing nothing against the river that is flooding it.

I don't recall saying that other vectors were not an issue - I was under the impression we were discussing the question "do masks reduce transmission compared to when masks are not worn?", not "Do masks reduce or increase transmission of any other vector such as contact due to a myriad of factors?".

I was under the impression that when you were simply saying:

I am simply saying there has been no conclusive study to show wearing a mask has any impact on the spread of this virus

you were saying there was no study that indicated Masks assisted in reducing transmission in any way, shape or form.

I found an article on a study which clearly states:

“The spread of the virus really goes down in areas where people wear masks and it goes as down as four-to-five times reduced risk of infection when people in the community are wearing a mask than when they’re not wearing a mask,”

Which I believes answers the question of if wearing a mask reduces transmission. Yes it does, by 4 or 5 times compared to when masks are not being worn, despite all other vectors still being present - that suggests that masks do play a role in reducing transmission and that repository exhalation is a major source of transmission. If they promote transmission via other sources such as contact, it is at a lower level than they defend against. So, accepted, perhaps masks would lower risk by 7 times but contact contamination is increased by 2 to 3 times? They still contribute to a net reduction in transmission.

Am I mistaken in my interpretation of your statement?

I don't disagree there are other vectors such as touch, and indeed as pointed out the doctor in the article takes pains to explain there are other measures which must be taken to provide comprehensive precautions - that is the case and I don't believe I have at any point given the impression that I believe there should be one single precaution, i.e. mask wearing, which shoud be solely relied upon over any other precautions such as social distancing, hand washing, sterilisation of areas or full on lockdowns amongst others. Apologies if that was the impression I had given?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Wednesday 9th of June:

- World: 174,082,010 confirmed cases and 3,749,754 confirmed deaths.

- World: A Special Envoy points out restrictions are not purely to be relied on when dealing with the pandemic and precautions must not be forgotten about once the restrictions are lifted:
"I want to suggest to everybody, please be really, really careful - by all means, governments should be releasing restrictions but it's really up to people everywhere to organise their lives to minimise the amount of contact they have with others, and to wear their face masks and just keep that protection going. It can't be just about restrictions - the future for humanity is going to require that we adapt our lifestyles so that we make it hard for this virus to spread.”

- Malaysia: Intensive care beds have hit capacity, there is no more room.

- US: Eases travel restrictions on 61 countries.

- US: Official claims China and Russia demanded concessions in return for vaccine sharing.

- US: San Francisco could be first city to hit Herd Immunity target.

- US: Nobel winner biologist retracts claims on virus features indicating it had at some point been in a lab. Originally he had stated “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin,” however has now stated he is uncertain what those features mean for the origin of the virus, if they mean anything at all about it.

- US: Pharmacist jailed for 3 years for intentionally trying to spoil hundreds of Moderna doses due to his scepticism about them.

- EU: A major study indicates citizens confidence in the ability of the commission to deal with a crisis has fallen, but they still want the union and for it to strengthen and become more cooperative.

- UK: Vaccinations are opened up to 25 to 29 year olds, over 1 million vaccination bookings for appointments are made in a single day, a new daily record.

- UK: New daily cases at highest level since February.

- UK: High court rules the government acted unlawfully by handing a COVID polling contract worth half a million pounds to friends of the countries Senior Adviser at the time, saying the failure to consider any other suppliers meant there “was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision-maker was biased”.

- UK: Number of people in hospital with COVID climbs back over 1,000.

- Scotland: Weekly infections of children aged up to 14 hits new record high at 1,064.

- Indonesia: Sees highest daily cases since February.

- Russia: Sees highest daily cases since March.

- Russia: Three are killed in a fire in a COVID hospital reportedly caused by a faulty ventilator.

- Pakistan: Sees 10 millionth vaccine administered.

- Australia: Now allowed to incentivise vaccine takeup.

- Germany: David Hasslehoff appears in new national ad to appeal to Germans to roll their sleeves up and get vaccinated.

 

[Bambooza]

I don't recall saying that other vectors were not an issue - I was under the impression we were discussing the question "do masks reduce transmission compared to when masks are not worn?", not "Do masks reduce or increase transmission of any other vector such as contact due to a myriad of factors?".

I was under the impression that when you were simply saying:

you were saying there was no study that indicated Masks assisted in reducing transmission in any way, shape or form.

I found an article on a study which clearly states:

Which I believes answers the question of if wearing a mask reduces transmission. Yes it does, by 4 or 5 times compared to when masks are not being worn, despite all other vectors still being present - that suggests that masks do play a role in reducing transmission and that repository exhalation is a major source of transmission. If they promote transmission via other sources such as contact, it is at a lower level than they defend against. So, accepted, perhaps masks would lower risk by 7 times but contact contamination is increased by 2 to 3 times? They still contribute to a net reduction in transmission.

Am I mistaken in my interpretation of your statement?

I don't disagree there are other vectors such as touch, and indeed as pointed out the doctor in the article takes pains to explain there are other measures which must be taken to provide comprehensive precautions - that is the case and I don't believe I have at any point given the impression that I believe there should be one single precaution, i.e. mask wearing, which shoud be solely relied upon over any other precautions such as social distancing, hand washing, sterilisation of areas or full on lockdowns amongst others. Apologies if that was the impression I had given?

I guess I was not clear in my statement that no study has shown mask wearing in the wild has any impact on the reduction of virus transmission as worn by the public at large Is currently unknown.

Honestly I’m sure if we just met at the pub we could solve all the world issues over a couple pints.

 

[Thalstan]

Look at it this way, to my knowledge, there has been no scientific study that has shows that wearing a mask increases your chance of getting it just by wearing one correctly and with proper handling. Therefore, it's a very simple and cheap precaution and does absolutely nothing to restrict your freedoms other than another piece of clothing you need to wear in public like jeans/shorts/a skirt, swim trunks, exercise shorts (you get the drift).

So wear the dang mask, especially if you are not vaccinated.

 

[Bambooza]

Look at it this way, to my knowledge, there has been no scientific study that has shows that wearing a mask increases your chance of getting it just by wearing one correctly and with proper handling. Therefore, it's a very simple and cheap precaution and does absolutely nothing to restrict your freedoms other than another piece of clothing you need to wear in public like jeans/shorts/a skirt, swim trunks, exercise shorts (you get the drift).

So wear the dang mask, especially if you are not vaccinated.

I understand the huge wall of text can obscure the topic and so I’ll post the cliff notes. No one is suggesting that one should go against the mandates and medical recommendation of your region. What we are discussing and sharing is the effectiveness of mask wearing and any studies supporting the conclusions.

 

[Thalstan]

I understand the huge wall of text can obscure the topic and so I’ll post the cliff notes. No one is suggesting that one should go against the mandates and medical recommendation of your region. What we are discussing and sharing is the effectiveness of mask wearing and any studies supporting the conclusions.

I have heard too many people say "no proof masks do anything" Well there is proof in many studies that mask wearing does offer some protection, while not a single study I am aware of says wearing masks (when worn and handled properly) increase your risk of getting it.

If there is no risk of increase, but lots of studies that say in certain circumstances that masks help, then you should be wearing a mask. Honestly, your continued insistence and denial about masks helping just makes no sense in this situation. No proof it hurts you, and lots that says it does help in certain circumstances and you keep arguing that people shouldn't need to wear them so that OTHERS are better protected against being inadvertently infected by someone who is asymptomatic. Again, this is not about protecting just YOU, it's about protecting those around you as well. It's like a kid putting his fingers in his ears and screaming because his mom says he can't have ice-cream for every meal and he doesn't want to hear it. At this point, you and your arguments are looking like desperation

I'm done.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I guess I was not clear in my statement that no study has shown mask wearing in the wild has any impact on the reduction of virus transmission as worn by the public at large Is currently unknown.

Oh, just that?

The 2020's Denmark study of 4000 people was arguably flawed as it was a sample of only a low percent of the local population so they were not able to tell if the wearing of masks reduced transmission from wearer out to the local population, but still there were reductions in those who wore masks compared to those who didn't proving there is a personal benefit when wearing masks, albeit a small one.

Beyond that only available data at present seems to be case studies of outbreaks, data from cotact tracing etc but even then they seem to be compelling, with data even coming from USS Roosevelts outbreak:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

So let's work out how to make a real world study and send it too someone who can make the magic happen:

So first, we need two similar towns of roughly the same size populations and movement profiles with roughly the same makeup in ethnicities etc and similar social norms to make sure the variables are kept to a minimum. Comparing a town in Finland where they stay respectfully silent on public transport compared to Italy where they hug to greet one another would not be a fair test. Then we need to test the entire populations for antibodies and COVID presence and ensure both towns are at a roughly similar level of background infection. Finally deny them the right to vaccines, movement in and out of the town's, and personal choice to/not to wear a mask for the duration of the trial and run it for three months. One town would 100% wear masks and one town 100% not wear masks but all other mixing etc would be permitted. Test the populations daily with swabs and an antibody test to find out how many have been in contact with the virus in total at the end.

You would also have to not tell them what the test was for so it didn't effect their behaviours - nothing like being told you are part of a study on a potentially lethal pathogen to start someone washing their hands and not touching their face.

Ethically speaking the above is dubious - beyond all the infrenges of personal liberty, as there is no thereputic treatment to guarantee recovery from COVID infection, you would be sentencing one of the two towns to to a higher rate of suffering/death than the other one depending on what effect the masks had one way or another.

How would you run the real world test?

Honestly I’m sure if we just met at the pub we could solve all the world issues over a couple pints.

I'm quite sure we would

 

[Bambooza]

Oh, just that?

The 2020's Denmark study of 4000 people was arguably flawed as it was a sample of only a low percent of the local population so they were not able to tell if the wearing of masks reduced transmission from wearer out to the local population, but still there were reductions in those who wore masks compared to those who didn't proving there is a personal benefit when wearing masks, albeit a small one.

Beyond that only available data at present seems to be case studies of outbreaks, data from cotact tracing etc but even then they seem to be compelling, with data even coming from USS Roosevelts outbreak:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

So let's work out how to make a real world study and send it too someone who can make the magic happen:

So first, we need two similar towns of roughly the same size populations and movement profiles with roughly the same makeup in ethnicities etc and similar social norms to make sure the variables are kept to a minimum. Comparing a town in Finland where they stay respectfully silent on public transport compared to Italy where they hug to greet one another would not be a fair test. Then we need to test the entire populations for antibodies and COVID presence and ensure both towns are at a roughly similar level of background infection. Finally deny them the right to vaccines, movement in and out of the town's, and personal choice to/not to wear a mask for the duration of the trial and run it for three months. One town would 100% wear masks and one town 100% not wear masks but all other mixing etc would be permitted. Test the populations daily with swabs and an antibody test to find out how many have been in contact with the virus in total at the end.

You would also have to not tell them what the test was for so it didn't effect their behaviours - nothing like being told you are part of a study on a potentially lethal pathogen to start someone washing their hands and not touching their face.

Ethically speaking the above is dubious - beyond all the infrenges of personal liberty, as there is no thereputic treatment to guarantee recovery from COVID infection, you would be sentencing one of the two towns to to a higher rate of suffering/death than the other one depending on what effect the masks had one way or another.

How would you run the real world test?


I'm quite sure we would

The sad truth is worse studies have been conducted on groups of people.

For me the test has already been ran. All we need to do is finish collecting the data and analyze it. We had whole countries that did nothing we had mix populations that sort of did a mix approach. We had full lockdowns to no lockdowns. The other thing of note is how the seasonal influenza rates were.

Hopefully with the huge sampling size and pretty good data sets. I am really looking forward to seeing the published papers and data points. Hopefully it will give us what worked and what didn’t. But the biggest surprise was just how fast biontech was able to produce a rna vaccination. To go from specialized cancer treatments to world wide vaccination was incredible.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Thursday 10th of June:

- World: 174,509,849 confirmed cases and 3,759,536 confirmed deaths.

- Europe: WHO warns there is a high risk of an Autumn surge despite drop in cases now. “Last summer, cases gradually rose in younger age groups, then moved into older age groups, leading to a devastating … loss of life in the autumn and winter of 2020. Let’s not make that mistake again.”

- US: Pledges to provide 500 million Pfiser doses worth $3.5 billion to 100 poorer countries. "We have to end Covid-19, not just at home, which we're doing, but everywhere,"

- UK: Delta variant now makes up 91% of new cases.

- UK: England, and cases rise in every single region with a spike in 20 to 29 year olds.

- UK: Health Minister states to inquiry on early pandemic response that original March 23rd lockdown was following the (lack of) science at the time and he would have do exactly the same thing again given the same information provided.

- UK: Hospital worker given a suspended prison sentence for stealing a recently deceased COVID 83 year old COVID patents bank card to buy snacks from a vending machine which had a contactless payment option.

- EU: Fundamental Rights agency indicates the reaction to the pandemic effected human rights, fuelled racism and also child abuse. “The pandemic and the reactions it triggered exacerbated existing challenges and inequalities in all areas of life, especially affecting vulnerable groups.”

- EU: Officials indicate the Bloc declined an option to buy an additional 100 million doses of the J&J vaccine in March.

- India: Bihar state revises its death toll, adding 4,000 to the total.

- Taiwan: Domestic vaccine passes stage 2 trials, emergency approval already being sought.

- Denmark: To remove requirement to wear masks in public places including when 25,000 football fans attend the European Championship matches in Copenhagen.

- South Korea: Considers plans to vaccinate key workers in the tech industry to ensure no disruption to chip supplies.

 

[Vavrik]

I missed from Tuesday because of recovering from dental surgery. Very un-fun.

But the biggest surprise was just how fast biontech was able to produce a rna vaccination. To go from specialized cancer treatments to world wide vaccination was incredible.

I got the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, but don't forget there's also the Moderna. They're very similar. The other thing about these mRNA vaccines is that if new variants start to make it ineffective, a booster shot with the new variant's mRNA is likely all that is needed. They can be made very quickly compared with other types of vaccine. Now the two we have currently are only approved under an emergency use status, but that will change. It's going to be interesting to see what else they can make mRNA vaccines for - and how long the immunity actually lasts.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Friday 11th of June:

- World: 174,989,621 confirmed cases and 3,775,790 confirmed deaths.

- World: Study by charity Oxfam suggests the worlds developing countries could be vaccinated for a price of just $6.5 billion in contrast to the current price tag of $80 billion if Intellectual Property rights on vaccines are waived.

- US: Report on lateral flow tests which are used as a central part of the UK's Surge Testing strategy made by California company Innova states their efficiency is unproven and should be returned to the manufacturer or binned.

- US: Baltimore factory fails to follow J&J vaccine manufacturing process resulting in 60 million doses being scrapped. 10 million doses will be permitted to be distributed but will carry a warning the manufacture may have been flawed or suboptimal.

- EU: Following Baltimore factory issues, European Union no longer believes the company will meet its vaccine dose contractual commitments.

- UK: Pledges 100 million vaccine doses following the US pledging 500 million vaccine doses.

- UK: Public Health England advises findings that Delta Variant 60% more transmissible than Alpha Variant which itself was more transmissible than the original version of the virus.

- UK: Third wave appears to be on the way as new cases climbing with a strength similar to that which was seen at the beginning of the deadly Winter Wave of 2020 with the R number now somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4

- Pakistan: A Provence declares anyone who refuses to accept a vaccine will have their mobile phones blocked.