• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Coronavirus (Stay on Topic)

Status
Not open for further replies.
GaWx said:
I thought that the WHO wasn't credible any more per Trump as well as many conservatives who no longer wanted to have anything to do with them, . Now that it says something that is liked, they're credible? :rolleyes:

Edit: I could only imagine what tr$x, whom I no longer read, is saying about this.
Click to expand...

It’s an example of a flip flop from the supposed “experts” in the field. You’re seeing scientists now coming out and saying the lockdowns are causing more harm than good, WHO is reversing course, etc. All along people like myself who have been outspoken and told to “trust the science” and that the only way to effectively deal with COVID is by locking things down aggressively. Now we are seeing some shifts in the message with the dangers of aggressive lockdowns (especially long term ones that last months) becoming more apparent.
 
ghost1 said:
So what are your opinions on why COVID cases are skyrocketing again? I thought around now we would be on a steep downward trend with cases and not see an uptick until around Thanksgiving. School and college in session? More bars opened? When I go to grocery store, WalMart, Home Depot, etc. I see over 90% of the people wearing masks. Our church is having services but families are seated socially distanced and masks are required for indoor services (not outdoor but social distancing rules are applied)
Click to expand...

The whole AL Covid thing is really puzzling me. ALDH reported that we are up to 852 in the hospitals in the state, which is the highest in a while but it has become hard to trust what data they are giving. Ever since the big drop below 700 around a month ago, the next day they raised that day up and hospitalizations have been staying around the 750 mark plus or minus 50. That would be fine if you could gauge a trend off of it, but they have been constantly revising the data a day or so after it’s it’s released so it’s been hard to follow.

ALDH still cannot get a handle on releasing data even after these past few months which sadly isn’t surprising.
 
Link:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...te-over-campaign-ad/ar-BB19X4Pz?ocid=msedgntp

"The ad, released last week shortly after the president was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, touts the president's response to the virus and includes an edited clip of Fauci that makes it seem as though he was praising Trump's response to the pandemic.

In the 30-second spot, Fauci is heard saying, 'I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.'

Fauci this week said his remarks, taken from a March interview, were in reference to fellow members of the White House coronavirus task force and other public health officials.

'In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate. The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials,' Fauci said in a statement Sunday."
 
Last edited:
GaWx said:
Link:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...te-over-campaign-ad/ar-BB19X4Pz?ocid=msedgntp

"The ad, released last week shortly after the president was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, touts the president's response to the virus and includes an edited clip of Fauci that makes it seem as though he was praising Trump's response to the pandemic.

In the 30-second spot, Fauci is heard saying, 'I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.'

Fauci this week said his remarks, taken from a March interview, were in reference to fellow members of the White House coronavirus task force and other public health officials.

'In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate. The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials,' Fauci said in a statement Sunday."
Click to expand...
Every political ad ever put out is made with random sound bytes. This is a tactic as old as time.
 
ForsythSnow said:
I am not too inclined to trust a blog from an ex-breitbart employee. I smell deception from that.
Click to expand...

You could just click the link to the CDC paper in his article. Or just point out his political side, and put your fingers in your ears...

From the CDC study (<--that's the link to the CDC Study) linked in his article...

"In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control-participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public. Close contact with one or more persons with known COVID-19 was reported by 42% of case-patients compared with 14% of control-participants (p<0.01), and most (51%) close contacts were family members. "

Also of note is this line...

"Approximately one half of all participants reported shopping and visiting others inside a home (in groups of ≤10 persons) on ≥1 day during the 14 days preceding symptom onset. No significant differences were observed in the bivariate analysis between case-patients and control-participants in shopping; gatherings with ≤10 persons in a home; going to an office setting; going to a salon; gatherings with >10 persons in a home; going to a gym; using public transportation; going to a bar/coffee shop; or attending church/religious gathering "

Case -Patients are patients that were interviewed when they had a positive test.
Control-participants were people who seeking medical care that had a negative test.

Translation: People who contracted Covid didn't seem to being doing anything different than people who didn't contract Covid.

It also states this in the Study...

"
Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. "

And that's pretty damming until you dig into the numbers a bit.

Of the 154 positive persons in the study 63 (40%) went to a restaurant, and of the 160 Negative participants 44 (27%) went to a restaurant in the 14 days prior. So, yea... that Approx. twice as likely is kind of a stretch...
 
Yeah it’s actually alarming that the CDC can report these things and the powers that be are still telling us we can safely do things as long as we wear a mask. Either it works or it doesn’t? Why keep pushing masks if their studies show masks really don’t work in the grand scheme of things.
 
smast16 said:
You could just click the link to the CDC paper in his article. Or just point out his political side, and put your fingers in your ears...

From the CDC study (<--that's the link to the CDC Study) linked in his article...

"In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control-participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public. Close contact with one or more persons with known COVID-19 was reported by 42% of case-patients compared with 14% of control-participants (p<0.01), and most (51%) close contacts were family members. "

Also of note is this line...

"Approximately one half of all participants reported shopping and visiting others inside a home (in groups of ≤10 persons) on ≥1 day during the 14 days preceding symptom onset. No significant differences were observed in the bivariate analysis between case-patients and control-participants in shopping; gatherings with ≤10 persons in a home; going to an office setting; going to a salon; gatherings with >10 persons in a home; going to a gym; using public transportation; going to a bar/coffee shop; or attending church/religious gathering "

Case -Patients are patients that were interviewed when they had a positive test.
Control-participants were people who seeking medical care that had a negative test.

Translation: People who contracted Covid didn't seem to being doing anything different than people who didn't contract Covid.

It also states this in the Study...

"
Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. "

And that's pretty damming until you dig into the numbers a bit.

Of the 154 positive persons in the study 63 (40%) went to a restaurant, and of the 160 Negative participants 44 (27%) went to a restaurant in the 14 days prior. So, yea... that Approx. twice as likely is kind of a stretch...
Click to expand...
What I was mainly targeting was the deceptive titling of the blog post. Note this line that you just quoted:
(and most (51%) close contacts were family members.)

Who is even going to wear a mask at home anyway? If half the cases are spread through family members it doesn't matter what you do outside the house your family members are going to get it anyway. Also note my other points as well as some from others that were posted afterwards on the ways people can get it such as claiming they did when they did not, "wearing them" by using them as a chinguard or not using them properly such as having their nose exposed. The study does not take into account the failure of people to wear a mask properly as well.

The point about the restaurants only furthers the issue for them right now as it proves re-opening them and allowing people to cram in has only made it spread more.

TLDR, the blog post title was deceptive and the study quotes don't account for factors such as how masks are worn and how nobody wears masks at home among other family members.
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
Yeah it’s actually alarming that the CDC can report these things and the powers that be are still telling us we can safely do things as long as we wear a mask. Either it works or it doesn’t? Why keep pushing masks if their studies show masks really don’t work in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
I said it in the past some. Masks and distancing. People who refuse to do both will probably catch it. If you pile into a sporting event, rally, bar, restaurant, or any crowded area with several people infected you're doing no favors for yourself. People are generally careless and I've seen a lot of people "wear" their mask by keeping their nose exposed and doing nothing really. Sure they can say they are wearing it but are they properly? I'd say half aren't.
 
ForsythSnow said:
I said it in the past some. Masks and distancing. People who refuse to do both will probably catch it. If you pile into a sporting event, rally, bar, restaurant, or any crowded area with several people infected you're doing no favors for yourself. People are generally careless and I've seen a lot of people "wear" their mask by keeping their nose exposed and doing nothing really. Sure they can say they are wearing it but are they properly? I'd say half aren't.
Click to expand...
I would say the face touching that comes with wearing a mask is actually the main reason why mask wearers catch Covid at the rate they do.
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
I would say the face touching that comes with wearing a mask is actually the main reason why mask wearers catch Covid at the rate they do.
Click to expand...

Sounds like what The Who thought. I’d like to see studies done to see if wearing masks increases time in stores and increases length of contact due to the feeling of being safer.

 
My guess is that the percentage of people who wear masks properly, practice adequate hand hygiene, follow proper protocols wrt face and surface touching, and practice adequate social distancing is very slim. IMO, most of these studies are misleading because A) we keep learning more about how the virus spreads, how long it lingers on surfaces, which surfaces it lingers on, how long it hangs in the air, how small the particles are, how far they travel, etc., B) the studies usually focus on one element of protection (as if you can really learn a whole lot about the totality of the infection rate from one variable), and C) many of them are contradicted by other studies.

I still say that the best weapon is common sense. Masks, if worn properly and used in conjunction with other protocols, will absolutely help slow the spread of the virus. The degree to which that is true greatly depends on the degree to which someone (and others around them) are using PPE properly and practicing all of the other things properly. And we know from observation that many, many, many people do not fall into the "doing everything (or even most things) correctly" category. Still, common sense says that mask wearing isn't a bad thing right now.
 
UK reports 17,240 new cases and 143 new deaths.
Italy reports 5,901 new cases and 41 new deaths.
Netherlands reports 7,378 new cases and 35 new deaths.
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants’ efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at “gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” they still contracted the virus.

What points were you referring to from the actual study and not just this article?
Click to expand...

I mean to me it's missing some data in both directions. How many of the people at the restaurants that were dined at had actual live virus? How many people that wore a mask washed their hands and/or used sanitizer? In the close contact cases with someone virus infected was the person they contacted wearing a mask? How many of the mask wearers were encountering people in public that didn't have on a mask? If I missed that in the study I apologize but I'd certainly like to see the variables and environment defined a little more.

I would like to know how Cam, Gilmore, and the scout team guy got the virus but no one else on the team did while the Titans saw it burn through 20% of the organization.

I guess my thing is until we actually see defined controlled studies you leave a lot to infer and when you do that it gives people the ability to run with the data to support a narrative.
 
NCSNOW said:
Thanks to Operation warp Speed!

Click to expand...
Dead link. Also it's nowhere near done as we're on another upward tick worldwide and as a nation. Instead of letting our guard down to lies keep up the measures and execute them properly. Keep them up until only a handful of cases exist and focus in on keeping those individuals isolated until they recover. Only then will we be over this sooner.
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
I would say the face touching that comes with wearing a mask is actually the main reason why mask wearers catch Covid at the rate they do.
Click to expand...
I said this in here once, was basically told it was nonsense... but I agree, way too much hand to face wearing those mask.
 
metwannabe said:
I said this in here once, was basically told it was nonsense... but I agree, way too much hand to face wearing those mask.
Click to expand...
But but but.. they're too smart to have any common sense so that they make you feel feel like your the dummy.
 
ForsythSnow said:
What I was mainly targeting was the deceptive titling of the blog post. Note this line that you just quoted:
(and most (51%) close contacts were family members.)

Who is even going to wear a mask at home anyway? If half the cases are spread through family members it doesn't matter what you do outside the house your family members are going to get it anyway. Also note my other points as well as some from others that were posted afterwards on the ways people can get it such as claiming they did when they did not, "wearing them" by using them as a chinguard or not using them properly such as having their nose exposed. The study does not take into account the failure of people to wear a mask properly as well.

The point about the restaurants only furthers the issue for them right now as it proves re-opening them and allowing people to cram in has only made it spread more.

TLDR, the blog post title was deceptive and the study quotes don't account for factors such as how masks are worn and how nobody wears masks at home among other family members.
Click to expand...

Great points.

I keep seeing this study float around and people are interpreting the data as wearing masks has no benefit versus not wearing masks. I don’t blame folks for interpreting it that way, but it’s incorrect.

People seem to forget the limitations. ALL studies have limitations. You can’t take every study as fact just because it was published. That’s the thing about science, you have to know how to read the trial. Ive mentioned this before but I have a good book recommendation written by my professor Dr. Charles Harring called “Quick Stats” if anyone is interested in learning med lit.

For this study, it wasn’t designed to test mask efficiency vs non-masks. So there’s a lot of issues with those data points.

As for the interpretation that masks don’t work:
-You’re assuming every person has the same exposure
-you’re assuming each subject that answers “always” to mask wearing has the same exact mask, wore the mask “always” and never pulled it down to talk, or took it off at home around infected individuals (hint: they definitely did given familial infection data)
-you’re assuming they wore their masks while eating out...

The truth is people take their masks off to eat and open themselves up for infection with dozens of people around in a closed air system.

What the study found were restaurant-goers are more likely to get covid than people who literally do everything else but go to restaurants. That’s the only thing that’s statistically significant from this study. So the CDC warned people about going to restaurants.

If one wants to draw a conclusion about mask efficiency and whether it helps prevent covid, one would have to generate a large case-control study to do so, with the same mask fittings, and the same exposure(s).
 
I wear my mask. So I shouldn't be concerned if anyone else does bc the mask + distancing should keep me from getting it. Right? Rhetorical...Yes.

Point being, you wouldn't get close to someone you know who had covid whether both of you had a mask on or not!!! So it's a null thing to me. Would you trust a 99.9 percent condom to prevent you from getting a STD? Yes? Then go ahead and have a field day having sex with them then.

These preventative measures are so minute to me. Maybe you could make an argument in the right conditions they can aid in prevention, yet even with them you wouldn't get anywhere near either of those scenarios. I'll just stay away from large groups or getting close to anyone. To hell with a darn mask.
 
Jon said:
Great points.

I keep seeing this study float around and people are interpreting the data as wearing masks has no benefit versus not wearing masks. I don’t blame folks for interpreting it that way, but it’s incorrect.

People seem to forget the limitations. ALL studies have limitations. You can’t take every study as fact just because it was published. That’s the thing about science, you have to know how to read the trial. Ive mentioned this before but I have a good book recommendation written by my professor Dr. Charles Harring called “Quick Stats” if anyone is interested in learning med lit.

For this study, it wasn’t designed to test mask efficiency vs non-masks. So there’s a lot of issues with those data points.

As for the interpretation that masks don’t work:
-You’re assuming every person has the same exposure
-you’re assuming each subject that answers “always” to mask wearing has the same exact mask, wore the mask “always” and never pulled it down to talk, or took it off at home around infected individuals (hint: they definitely did given familial infection data)
-you’re assuming they wore their masks while eating out...

The truth is people take their masks off to eat and open themselves up for infection with dozens of people around in a closed air system.

What the study found were restaurant-goers are more likely to get covid than people who literally do everything else but go to restaurants. That’s the only thing that’s statistically significant from this study. So the CDC warned people about going to restaurants.

If one wants to draw a conclusion about mask efficiency and whether it helps prevent covid, one would have to generate a large case-control study to do so, with the same mask fittings, and the same exposure(s).
Click to expand...

You say tomato, I say tomato...

You say
"What the study found were restaurant-goers are more likely to get covid than people who literally do everything else but go to restaurants. That’s the only thing that’s statistically significant from this study."
Click to expand...

But that's not what the study says. The study says
Community exposure 14 days before illness onset¶​
Shopping​
131 (85.6)​
141 (88.1)​
0.51​
Home, ≤10 persons​
79 (51.3)​
84 (52.5)​
0.83​
Restaurant​
63 (40.9)​
44 (27.7)​
0.01​

that Shopping was by far the largest group... 85% of people who tested positive for Covid went shopping in the 14 days prior to symptoms compared to the 40% who went to a restaurant.

Where in The left column is persons who performed 'X' 14 days prior to testing positive, and the middle column is number of persons who performed 'X' 14 days prior to being sick and having a negative Covid-19 result. The main number is persons reported for each group and the number in parenthesis is percentage of their respective groupings.

Also, of the 107 people who reported going a restaurant only 19 more went to a restaurant and tested positive for covid vs those that went to a restaurant and didn't test positive covid.

That's a barely a 17% increase... but lets shutter a whole industry over a less than 1 in 5 chance.

-you’re assuming they wore their masks while eating out...
Click to expand...

Just to point out, they did break this down further in the study 81% in the Positive group, and over 97% in the negative group reported that 50% or more of the patrons in the restaurant wore masks ...

Restaurant: others following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing (n = 107)​
None/A few​
12 (19.0)​
1 (2.3)​
0.03​
About half/Most​
25 (39.7)​
21 (47.7)​
Almost all​
26 (41.3)​
22 (50.0)​

(Left column and middle column are the same as above. Pos. Covid on left, and Negative Covid middle with the number of responses as the main number and the percentage of the total in percentage)

Keep in mind this is also limited in scope of the seating in the restaurant per it's own words " Of note, the question assessing dining at a restaurant did not distinguish between indoor and outdoor options."

The problem with studies like these is that people do take them out of context and push them for more than they are. What's not being added here is there are Governors and local government officials using studies like this to make policy about restaurants, Bars, and other forms of employment. You have people reading a single line and taking to twitter for Gotcha liners, when even the studies own numbers don't support its own proclamations.

Like This...
Among 107 participants who reported dining at a restaurant and 21 participants who reported going to a bar/coffee shop, case-patients were less likely to report observing almost all patrons at the restaurant adhering to recommendations such as wearing a mask or social distancing (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively).
Click to expand...

but per their own numbers a few scrolls of the scroll wheel....

Restaurant: others following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing (n = 107)​
None/A few​
12 (19.0)​
1 (2.3)​
0.03​
About half/Most​
25 (39.7)​
21 (47.7)​
Almost all​
26 (41.3)​
22 (50.0)​

Again, as I stated above, that's 81% and 97% reported greater than 50% usage of Masks and social distancing in Restaurants

and of Bars... (Keep in mind, Bars is lumped up with Coffeeshops...
Bar/Coffee shop​
13 (8.5)​
8 (5.0)​
0.22​

but later on, the word "Coffee shop" is dropped, but the numbers stay the same
Bar: others following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing (n = 21)​
None/A few​
4 (31.8)​
2 (25.0)​
0.01​
About half/Most​
7 (53.8)​
0 (0.0)​
Almost all​
2 (15.4)​
6 (75.0)​

Nice wave of the wand to keep the heat of Starbucks... But yea, 6 people reported the bars / coffee shops didn't have masks on, but 15 did... That surely equates to more likely to see masks at a bar / coffee shop than not seeing masks at a bar / coffee shop.


/Rant
 
smast16 said:
You say tomato, I say tomato...

You say


But that's not what the study says. The study says
Community exposure 14 days before illness onset¶​
Shopping​
131 (85.6)​
141 (88.1)​
0.51​
Home, ≤10 persons​
79 (51.3)​
84 (52.5)​
0.83​
Restaurant​
63 (40.9)​
44 (27.7)​
0.01​

that Shopping was by far the largest group... 85% of people who tested positive for Covid went shopping in the 14 days prior to symptoms compared to the 40% who went to a restaurant.

Where in The left column is persons who performed 'X' 14 days prior to testing positive, and the middle column is number of persons who performed 'X' 14 days prior to being sick and having a negative Covid-19 result. The main number is persons reported for each group and the number in parenthesis is percentage of their respective groupings.

Also, of the 107 people who reported going a restaurant only 19 more went to a restaurant and tested positive for covid vs those that went to a restaurant and didn't test positive covid.

That's a barely a 17% increase... but lets shutter a whole industry over a less than 1 in 5 chance.



Just to point out, they did break this down further in the study 81% in the Positive group, and over 97% in the negative group reported that 50% or more of the patrons in the restaurant wore masks ...

Restaurant: others following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing (n = 107)​
None/A few​
12 (19.0)​
1 (2.3)​
0.03​
About half/Most​
25 (39.7)​
21 (47.7)​
Almost all​
26 (41.3)​
22 (50.0)​

(Left column and middle column are the same as above. Pos. Covid on left, and Negative Covid middle with the number of responses as the main number and the percentage of the total in percentage)

Keep in mind this is also limited in scope of the seating in the restaurant per it's own words " Of note, the question assessing dining at a restaurant did not distinguish between indoor and outdoor options."

The problem with studies like these is that people do take them out of context and push them for more than they are. What's not being added here is there are Governors and local government officials using studies like this to make policy about restaurants, Bars, and other forms of employment. You have people reading a single line and taking to twitter for Gotcha liners, when even the studies own numbers don't support its own proclamations.

Like This...


but per their own numbers a few scrolls of the scroll wheel....

Restaurant: others following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing (n = 107)​
None/A few​
12 (19.0)​
1 (2.3)​
0.03​
About half/Most​
25 (39.7)​
21 (47.7)​
Almost all​
26 (41.3)​
22 (50.0)​

Again, as I stated above, that's 81% and 97% reported greater than 50% usage of Masks and social distancing in Restaurants

and of Bars... (Keep in mind, Bars is lumped up with Coffeeshops...
Bar/Coffee shop​
13 (8.5)​
8 (5.0)​
0.22​

but later on, the word "Coffee shop" is dropped, but the numbers stay the same
Bar: others following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing (n = 21)​
None/A few​
4 (31.8)​
2 (25.0)​
0.01​
About half/Most​
7 (53.8)​
0 (0.0)​
Almost all​
2 (15.4)​
6 (75.0)​

Nice wave of the wand to keep the heat of Starbucks... But yea, 6 people reported the bars / coffee shops didn't have masks on, but 15 did... That surely equates to more likely to see masks at a bar / coffee shop than not seeing masks at a bar / coffee shop.


/Rant
Click to expand...
I think you missed the overarching statement that it's just a study. This is not scientific fact. This is a study. All day I can sit here and say studies show if you breathe air and went to a football game you will die but at the end of the day some factors just overlap others or are irrelevant to the exact situation. I can say I wore a mask but got covid blatantly and you'll interpret that as masks don't work. When I tell you that I wore it improperly and went to crowded parties you'll begin to realize that it was my fault for putting myself into worse situations that got me infected over just simply wearing a mask and staying distanced. At the end of the day, the study doesn't account for everything and doesn't seem to say.
 
Well it just got real for folks in Alabama
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20201014-165659_Facebook.jpg
    Screenshot_20201014-165659_Facebook.jpg
    327 KB · Views: 52
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top