covid-19

[JoeWeber 2,297]

31 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Good morning Joe. Great game.

Can't find the definition of Googaloo, doesn't seem to be a real word. But if you have a citation.... 

You've quoted items I've said and either, just want to argue, or truly don't understand that there is a difference in the two discussions. The can and could words was in reference to a citation that is claimed to show a certain scientific result. Any statement of fact that has these words has little value. The words soften the message and lower it's relevance. A typical tactic when the results aren't proven to the level required to be proven.

In contrast, my use of the words "some impact" and "probably" were specifically chosen because I don't know how much impact any of the factors have in the total outcome.

You need to go to the Urban Dictionary.

googaloo

The gooey yellow gunk from the yolk in a cooked egg.

I split open my egg - sunny side up- and all the googaloo rushed out like a lava flow.

For the rest, why not credit the counter party with intentionally using the same wiggle room qualifiers you  intentionally used?

[billeisele 122]

22 hours ago, billeisele said:

One set of professionals screamed as loud as they could and were shut down. The American Board of Industrial Hygiene certifies Industrial Hygienists. This is the group that works 24/7 protecting the respiratory health of workers in some of the worst environments. They know how masks should be worn, how they work, how long they should be worn, how to handle them, and what type works for each environment. They clearly stated that the masks do not work the way the CDC and other talking heads stated, and they were much less effective than described. Having that expert data, did the CDC or Fauchi provide accurate information to the citizens?

Anyone can read the instructions for mask use and clearly see why they aren't effective as used by most people. They don't wear them or use them properly. There are some published studies on this topic and even those state that it's difficult to quantify how much less effective they are. Primarily due to the wide range of potential mask misuse. The studies note a 50% to 90% drop in stated effectiveness. They also clearly state that a simple cloth covering is the least effective.

Another group of medical experts, respiratory therapists and doctors treating respiratory ailments, have noted a big increase in patients. The primary issue is mask wearing. It's not difficult to understand that a warm moist mask provides the perfect collection and breeding ground for all kinds of bad things. When those high concentrations are inhaled the bugs go directly into the lungs. Do that for a few hours a day and bingo, respiratory ailment. Luckily, most can be treated with the common treatment protocols. People wear them too long, don't change them often enough and touch them with potentially contaminated hands.

I feel for the people that have been terrorized with the constant barrage of fear language. When I see an elderly person driving alone with a mask on, that's someone that is living in fear.

I've received my smackdown. Now I know that citations are needed, I'll do better. Since this requirement has been clearly stated that means that others must follow the same standard. What fun.

Thanks Wendy for a related citation. And no gowlerk, the info didn't come from Tucker. It came from various other sources, some of them peer reviewed. The reports/statements were published 8-12 months ago. What I find interesting is I can't find them now. That means they were either false and removed, or true and removed. Both are interesting. But since I can't find them I'm taking my thrashing. In the future I'll save the articles.

However, this article provides interesting info. Not exactly what I referenced but close. The complete article is worth reading but if you only want to focus on the lung stuff skip down to 3.12. Also note that the next paragraph states, "A major risk of mask use in the general public is the creation of a false sense of security with regard to protection against viral infections, especially in the sense of a falsely assumed strong self-protection,", "Researchers were able to provide statistically significant evidence of a false sense of security and more risky behavior when wearing masks in an experimental setting." Kinda supports my "magic bullet" comments.   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/

Roll on, citations will be used in the future.

[wmw999 2,120]

Traffic accidents have also been going up for the last two years — one of the thoughts is that people are sick of “giving way” and decide fuckit, I’m driving.

And as far as citing, it’s kind of like the rules of a debate, or throwing spaghetti at a ceiling. If no one challenges it and it doesn’t fall down, it’s all good. If you make an assertion and someone challenges it, then it’s best to have a source for your assertion. And yes, peer reviewed is better than FB…

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,394]

26 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Also note that the next paragraph states, "A major risk of mask use in the general public is the creation of a false sense of security with regard to protection against viral infections, especially in the sense of a falsely assumed strong self-protection,", "Researchers were able to provide statistically significant evidence of a false sense of security and more risky behavior when wearing masks in an experimental setting."

Agreed.  The best defense against that sort of misunderstanding is education.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

...However, this article provides interesting info. Not exactly what I referenced but close. The complete article is worth reading but if you only want to focus on the lung stuff skip down to 3.12. Also note that the next paragraph states, "A major risk of mask use in the general public is the creation of a false sense of security with regard to protection against viral infections, especially in the sense of a falsely assumed strong self-protection,", "Researchers were able to provide statistically significant evidence of a false sense of security and more risky behavior when wearing masks in an experimental setting." Kinda supports my "magic bullet" comments.   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/

Roll on, citations will be used in the future.

The 'funny' thing about that is that Fauci said the exact same thing back early in the pandemic.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/outdated-fauci-video-on-face-masks-shared-out-of-context/

 

The 'anti mask' crowd took it out of context and ran with it, pretending that masks don't work at all.

 

Masks aren't perfect.
Keeping distances isn't perfect.
The vax isn't perfect.

 

The only 'perfect' solution is to not have ANY contact with ANYBODY. Which is impossible.

So many (most?) folks take what precautions they can, understanding that they are reducing the risk, not eliminating it.

 

Unfortunately, there are some seriously binary idiots who seem to believe that if a solution isn't perfect, then it's completely useless.
I know a few of those. They are insanely frustrating to talk to.

And the 'citation thing' is general practice. Make sure to put some common sense with it.

If you claim the sun is going to come up tomorrow, you don't need to provide links to NOAA with sunrise times.

If you're going to claim that its the vaxed, not the unvaxed that are overloading the hospitals, then you probably should. 
And be prepared to be challenged on them.
 

[Phil1111 910]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

I've received my smackdown. Now I know that citations are needed, I'll do better. Since this requirement has been clearly stated that means that others must follow the same standard. What fun.

Thanks Wendy for a related citation. And no gowlerk, the info didn't come from Tucker. It came from various other sources, some of them peer reviewed. The reports/statements were published 8-12 months ago. What I find interesting is I can't find them now. That means they were either false and removed, or true and removed. Both are interesting. But since I can't find them I'm taking my thrashing. In the future I'll save the articles.

However, this article provides interesting info. Not exactly what I referenced but close. The complete article is worth reading but if you only want to focus on the lung stuff skip down to 3.12. Also note that the next paragraph states, "A major risk of mask use in the general public is the creation of a false sense of security with regard to protection against viral infections, especially in the sense of a falsely assumed strong self-protection,", "Researchers were able to provide statistically significant evidence of a false sense of security and more risky behavior when wearing masks in an experimental setting." Kinda supports my "magic bullet" comments.   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/

Roll on, citations will be used in the future.

Just because you cannot find an article that you previously took notice of doesn't mean its been removed from anywhere.

I almost always provide the quotations from where I make representations. IMO they are seldom read or re quoted.

"statistically significant evidence" could mean a low percentage overall even defined as "weak"  Entire industries and companies use "statistically significant" to market drugs,products, etc.That are nothing less than snake oil.

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Agreed.  The best defense against that sort of misunderstanding is education.

IMO after two years of pandemic if people don't know how to use a mask they have not made an effort. Don't contaminate the interior or exterior of a mask when putting it on. Ensure that its tightly sealing around all of its edges. Ensure that its a quality mask like N95 or similar. Cloth masks are not as effective. Change frequently, Don't reuse unless its ...

You nailed it here: "Sure, people may have falsely assumed that masks work 100%.  That's their problem, and the best solution to that is education"

Wandering into the abyss of discussion that masks are not effective is a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not saying that you are. But the interwebs, Facebook, etc. are filled with discussions that masks don't work. They are not infallible but there is a reason why they have been used in OR rooms for over a century Some people have an agenda in suggesting that they are not effective. Science says they are.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Phil1111

[wmw999 2,120]

On the citing thing, I’d expect to be challenged on an assertion that the election was fair if I were posting on MeWe (or whatever).

Wendy P. 

[billeisele 122]

21 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You need to go to the Urban Dictionary.

googaloo

The gooey yellow gunk from the yolk in a cooked egg.

I split open my egg - sunny side up- and all the googaloo rushed out like a lava flow.

OK. How does one know which definition to use when two are shown? Does the most current definition override the original one?

Reading further it appears that one just makes up a word and defines it. How does that make any sense?

"All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now's your chance to add your own!
Please review Urban Dictionary's content guidelines before writing your definition. Here's the short version: Share definitions that other people will find meaningful..."

Googaloo

 

When one rubs his or her butt until it bleeds

look at that googaloo bitch over their

by Michael Rubbing February 14, 2008

googaloo

 

The gooey yellow gunk from the yolk in a cooked egg.

I split open my egg - sunny side up- and all the googaloo rushed out like a lava flow.

by Emilise June 11, 2007

[Baksteen 84]

On 2/12/2022 at 9:35 PM, brenthutch said:

Has anyone gotten their “free” covid tests?

Responding to a post a couple of pages back, but this got kinda buried.

Yes, I got two free government-issued "self tests" in the mail (these tests can also be bought at the local supermarket for reasonable prices).

In addition, I got COVID-like symptoms about 4-5 times during the pandemic. I got a free PCR test each time. The government-issued PCR tests cannot be used for access to events/holidays abroad. For those "testing for access"-tests, you foot the bill yourself.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

OK. How does one know which definition to use when two are shown? Does the most current definition override the original one?

Reading further it appears that one just makes up a word and defines it. How does that make any sense?

"All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now's your chance to add your own!
Please review Urban Dictionary's content guidelines before writing your definition. Here's the short version: Share definitions that other people will find meaningful..."

Googaloo

 

When one rubs his or her butt until it bleeds

look at that googaloo bitch over their

by Michael Rubbing February 14, 2008

googaloo

 

The gooey yellow gunk from the yolk in a cooked egg.

I split open my egg - sunny side up- and all the googaloo rushed out like a lava flow.

by Emilise June 11, 2007

The current rule here is that when challenged you need to be able to back it up, usually with a citation. It could be FOX, MTG, your MOM or, in Brent's case, the Journal of Retired Thermos Users. (The article on how a Thermos knows whether to keep things hot or cold was fascinating, BTW) I chose the Urban Dictionary because it's ridiculous and I could get away with it. To your point: if you are asserting there are other people like me I think you should be ready to back that up with a citation.

[gowlerk 1,904]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

OK. How does one know which definition to use when two are shown? Does the most current definition override the original one?

Despite all your complaining about being called out you have still posted no evidence that wearing a mask causing respiratory diseases. You seem to be outraged that you were challenged. As in I was wrong to not just let your false news pass. What would you suggest that I do when someone in a forum like this posts something that is clearly as wrong as what you did? Why are you even here if you can't stand the heat?  

[billeisele 122]

46 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Despite all your complaining about being called out you have still posted no evidence that wearing a mask causing respiratory diseases. You seem to be outraged that you were challenged. As in I was wrong to not just let your false news pass. What would you suggest that I do when someone in a forum like this posts something that is clearly as wrong as what you did? Why are you even here if you can't stand the heat?  

Don't have a clue how you come to this conclusion.  I didn't complain about being called out, I accepted it and took the thrashing. No outrage was demonstrated. Is it the fact that it didn't come from Tucker what bothers you?

Did you read the noted citation, specifically the noted section, 3.12? Within that section it states, "From this aspect, it is also problematic that moisture distributes these potential pathogens in the form of tiny droplets via capillary action on and in the mask, whereby further proliferation in the sense of self and foreign contamination by the aerosols can then occur internally and externally with every breath." I also stated that this was not exactly what I referenced but it was close. 
IMO, there's no sense in arguing about this further.

[gowlerk 1,904]

3 minutes ago, billeisele said:

IMO, there's no sense in arguing about this further.

Well, that much is true. There does seem to be a certain disdain and mockery of the request for a citation though. As if somehow it is not reasonable.

[gowlerk 1,904]

7 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Is it the fact that it didn't come from Tucker what bothers you?

Or some such talking head? Did you "hear it through the grapevine"? Maybe a random radio show you were listening to? I'm pretty sure you didn't make it up, but you heard it somewhere and just accepted it because it confirms something you want to believe.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

13 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Don't have a clue how you come to this conclusion.  I didn't complain about being called out, I accepted it and took the thrashing. No outrage was demonstrated. Is it the fact that it didn't come from Tucker what bothers you?

Did you read the noted citation, specifically the noted section, 3.12? Within that section it states, "From this aspect, it is also problematic that moisture distributes these potential pathogens in the form of tiny droplets via capillary action on and in the mask, whereby further proliferation in the sense of self and foreign contamination by the aerosols can then occur internally and externally with every breath." I also stated that this was not exactly what I referenced but it was close. 
IMO, there's no sense in arguing about this further.

 

"It came from various other sources, some of them peer reviewed."

"The reports/statements were published 8-12 months ago. What I find interesting is I can't find them now. That means they were either false and removed, or true and removed." 

Peer reviewed and evaporated in less than a year. Ja, oder es gab sie nie. In fairness, it's possible to see how Ken might conclude the peers were those who sit on a couch at Fox & Friends.

[brenthutch 383]

With the premature rollback of mask mandates (according to the CDC aka science), we should see a rebound in cases or at least a flattening of the downward trend in cases.  If we don’t see real world, statistically significant, differences between masked and unmasked, my suspicion that masks were nothing more than a virtue signaling talisman will be confirmed.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

With the premature rollback of mask mandates (according to the CDC aka science), we should see a rebound in cases or at least a flattening of the downward trend in cases.  If we don’t see real world, statistically significant, differences between masked and unmasked, my suspicion that masks were nothing more than a virtue signaling talisman will be confirmed.

Does your modeling account for changes in vaccine efficacy over time? Are your projections based on national data only or will the results be more granular? 

[brenthutch 383]

21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Does your modeling account for changes in vaccine efficacy over time? Are your projections based on national data only or will the results be more granular? 

Comparing two populations with similar demographics and medical histories with masked vs non-masked being the variable.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 2/12/2022 at 4:47 PM, airdvr said:

We've reached a point in this fiasco where everyone knows what they personally need to do to lower the odds of contracting.  Time for the mandates to end.  Live your life however you'd like.  Wear dresses.

See that is the difference. There are some people who think we should also focus on lowering the odds of spreading.

But the concept of us over me is lost on many.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 2/12/2022 at 10:40 AM, brenthutch said:

If they are as effective as those studies claim, there should be an obvious difference in COVID transmission in states with mask mandates and those with none.  

Only if mask mandates were followed. Do you have evidence that mask mandates significantly altered mask usage during the time period of your "study"?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 2/13/2022 at 5:32 AM, billeisele said:

The problem is people were led to believe that they were a magic shield

No they weren't. That is a right wing strawman argument.

[brenthutch 383]

7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

 

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

See that is the difference. There are some people who think we should also focus on lowering the odds of spreading.

But the concept of us over me is lost on many.

Do you have any, real world, evidence that masks actually lowered the spread?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Do you have any, real world, evidence that masks actually lowered the spread?

Sure. Here is one of them:

https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794?ijkey=644b2bb8c29c19cc353a9a9c04157017217fa1a1&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

[billvon 2,394]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do you have any, real world, evidence that masks actually lowered the spread?

Here are four studies:

"Face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission, if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring":

https://www.pnas.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjUvNS9lMDAyNzk0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6Mjg6Ii9wbmFzLzExOC80L2UyMDE0NTY0MTE4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==

"persons who wore masks experienced a 70% lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection":

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

"Estimates suggest that as a result of the implementation of these [mask] mandates, more than 200,000 COVID-19 cases were averted by May 22, 2020":

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

"near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained.":

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure. Here is one of them:

https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794?ijkey=644b2bb8c29c19cc353a9a9c04157017217fa1a1&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

I didn’t see where the study specified what type of mask was used and how properly it was fitted.  The majority of mask worn in the US are either the blue surgical masks or cloth masks and even many of the N95s are not properly worn.