Coronavirus II

[greg1647545532]

Like Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

[spankis]

Tractor, you do IT work as I recall. Why should anyone trust that you know what you're talking about when they hire you for some IT shit they themselves don't have a professional background in?

 

When you or a family member go to the doctor, (a real, licensed, certified, credentialed, medical professional) how do you know that they have a damn clue what they're talking about when they treat you and prescribe some medication for you to ingest?

 

You have your own wheelhouse of expertise, brodeo, and so does the doctor.

 

It's when your mechanic starts giving you IT advice, or when your politician's start providing "their own" medical advice, or when anyone in government starts making decisions that fly in the face of the "best" (not perfect, but best) scientific data available that you should become especially suspicious.

 

Questioning the experts should not be the go-to here.

[10phone2]

that's an awkward pick up line.

[Tractor]

I understand what your saying and under my own ideology I wouldn't trust me. I guess I have issues because I 100% do not trust anyone I'm paying to do the right thing. I'd have much less trouble trusting free advice lol.

 

Worse part of it is, any time I've ever paid anyone for services it's always turned out bad and in their favor proving my paranoia. Kinda off topic but kinda shows why I don't trust any sources for anything.

 

A perfect example came up this week, Tuesday I was supposed to go sign a refinance I'm getting done and the bank informs me a couple of hours before that there's some mistakes and they're going to have to start the whole process over for a simple clerical error that should have been caught months ago at the beginning of the process.

[Tractor]

I'm sorry guys, I don't mean to dump all over the thread. I've been feeling a bit better the last few weeks and for me better also means feeling feisty. Lol

[Tractor]

Interesting but long read I found on the use and effectiveness of face masks. This was published for dentistry in 2018 so well before anyone imagined we'd be faced with a "pandemic".

 

https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/

 

For the TLDR;

Masks aren't effective at preventing airborne particles below 1 micron.

 

Lots of scientific data who knows if any of it is actuate however it fuels my personal confirmation bias, so yeah.

[Mallard]

Interesting but long read I found on the use and effectiveness of face masks. This was published for dentistry in 2018 so well before anyone imagined we'd be faced with a "pandemic".

 

https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/

 

For the TLDR;

Masks aren't effective at preventing airborne particles below 1 micron.

 

Lots of scientific data who knows if any of it is actuate however it fuels my personal confirmation bias, so yeah.

But it was published after other parts of the world had to deal with a possible epidemic (SARS, MERS) and there was active discussion in the US about an inevitable respiratory virus pandemic.

 

Yes there are people publishing conflicting studies, but note that this is about whether the mask is effective or not, instead of whether wearing a mask is dangerous and will kill you. People need to stop believing the crap about asks being dangerous to wear and focus one whether they are effective or not.

 

When faced with the question of whether its effective, consider the possible side effects. If it is effective then we prevent rapid spread of the virus, fewer people die, the economy can actually get restarted without the risks of more shutdowns, and hopefully you don't get sick yourself. If it's not effective you just wore a mask for no reason, a bunch of people will still get sick and die, and the economy will shut down several more times, causing a deeper recession.

 

To me the risk vs reward tilts toward wearing the mask and hoping the economy can recover. I'm willing to try anything (especially something so simple) that might keep everyone working.

 

There are several credible studies showing the effectiveness of wearing masks (if 80% of people wore them infection rates may drop by 92%, according to one), and, anecdotally, the current case numbers in other countries where people are actually wearing masks are staying low. We're so bad in the US now that Europe and China will have travel bans on us and they'll call their second waves "the US virus."

 

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[greg1647545532]

It's just another one of the dumbest things to have become politicized. "What if the science is wrong and I end up wearing this mask for nothing!" has now become "Regardless of the science, if I wear this mask my friends will call me a libtard cuck!" I mean, *I* can certainly handle being call a libtard cuck, but I understand peer pressure is a bitch. I just don't know why people feel the need to call people erring on the side of the CDC being correct libtard cucks... probably the media's fault (<-- that's a joke).

[spankis]

Seems asia learned their lesson on masks a while ago on their own. They lived through this already and their experiences proved that they were the most impactful of containment measures.

 

It would not surprise me if we find that states with some form of mask orders ultimately do better than those without. Pure speculation but we'll see.

 

That said, considering how quickly it spread globally, it won't take long for the "out of control" states to poison the water nationally.

[zeitgeist57]

To me the risk vs reward tilts toward wearing the mask and hoping the economy can recover. I'm willing to try anything (especially something so simple) that might keep everyone working.

 

This x 100.

[xlr8tn]

I don't think anyone has been saying masks are 100% effective. More that they help reduce the spread. Why would someone not do something so easy to do if it reduces the chances of spread? It also reduces viral load which determines how sick someone might get. It reminds me of when seat belts were made mandatory except this time you're doing it to possibly help keep someone else safe along with yourself.

[Mace1647545504]

SOOOOOOOOOO...talking to my neighbor this morning(his wife was in ICU for 10-12 days) and he tested positive 17 day ago was retested before heading back to work tomorrow..his doc called last night and said he still tested positive.....remember the experts are all saying 14 days and your done

 

Well not so...keep your guard up..this is an FYI

[spankis]

Wife works at Children's, and assists other hospitals with their pediatric care, so she has wide interactions across hospital systems.

Wife has a nurse friend/coworker at OSU who had an unpleasant but only "flu-like" bout with Covid and rode it out without hospital care. She was still testing positive 30+ days later and was having to remain quarantined. Not super uncommon apparently.

 

Also, any children's employees are not allowed to fly PERIOD without quarantining for 2 weeks upon their return without pay. There is a similar list of constantly updated hotspots where travel even by car is prohibited, and breaching it results in a mandatory unpaid quarantine period.

 

Everything's fine though, Libs must be running the hospitals.

[Mallard]

SOOOOOOOOOO...talking to my neighbor this morning(his wife was in ICU for 10-12 days) and he tested positive 17 day ago was retested before heading back to work tomorrow..his doc called last night and said he still tested positive.....remember the experts are all saying 14 days and your done

 

 

 

Well not so...keep your guard up..this is an FYI

14 days was just the publicized incubation period, not the time to recovery. One of the reasons it's a drain on hospital resources is because it has such a long recovery time (3 to 4 weeks is not uncommon). There are also "long haulers" that even continue to have symptoms, some are even past 100 days.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Mace1647545504]

14 days was just the publicized incubation period, not the time to recovery. One of the reasons it's a drain on hospital resources is because it has such a long recovery time (3 to 4 weeks is not uncommon). There are also "long haulers" that even continue to have symptoms, some are even past 100 days.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

So there could be people that have quarantined 14 days thinking they were good BUT still have it ..gone out and then spread it all over again

[10phone2]

kind of like the 6 ft rule that was a magical number.... the mit number on sneezing needed 15-25ft to avoid sneezing particles.

 

Went to hocking hills today and briefly talked to a park rep because only 2 trails were open. They were closed so they could dig up new trails for social distancing and signs. Nothing like destroying nature over it.

[xlr8tn]

kind of like the 6 ft rule that was a magical number.... the mit number on sneezing needed 15-25ft to avoid sneezing particles.

 

Went to hocking hills today and briefly talked to a park rep because only 2 trails were open. They were closed so they could dig up new trails for social distancing and signs. Nothing like destroying nature over it.

Unless the person sneezing has a mask on.

[10phone2]

or if there protesting then rules don't apply.

[Furloaf]

depends on what they're protesting

[Otis Nice]

Nothing like destroying nature over it.

 

You went to the HH to hike trails that had been dug up previously didn't you?

[oh8sti]

Once MSM starts publishing data correctly I will start listening to their recommendations.

 

https://medium.com/analyticaper/covid-19-what-the-data-tells-us-3a08e42ee36f

[greg1647545532]

You should get your recommendations from public health experts, not journalists.

[spankis]

What does MSM have to do with CDC recommendations?

[greg1647545532]

Some information about how treatments have improved over the last 4 months, which goes a long way to explain why the surge of cases is not associated with a surge in deaths.

[TTQ B4U]

Some information about how treatments have improved over the last 4 months, which goes a long way to explain why the surge of cases is not associated with a surge in deaths.

 

 

it also goes a long way when the age groups on the rise are younger. In Ohio we sit at about 82% of our cases under age 70 yet that same group only makes up about 23% of the deaths. The YTD trend in hospitalizations and deaths track upwards in age too. Very apparently too.

 

 

I encourage everyone to break out the .csv file Ohio provides and to track it there. It contains all the information vs the reported on data that tends to make up the covid dashboard and the information DeWine tweets and shares. Reported on dates and data are really irrelevant.