Texas will have its opportunity in the spotlight soon, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Printable View
Texas will have its opportunity in the spotlight soon, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://media.tenor.com/images/1492d...8511/tenor.gif
https://media.tenor.com/images/1492d...8511/tenor.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That's been the plan all along. Now if your peeps can just get the ballot harvesting thing down to a science, you may have a shot at winning. Might want to consider somebody other than Biden though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/16/texa...y-reopens.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Look at the Texas new case chart. The trend is really bad.
Did I miss the part about more testing? Typical liberal NBC lack of quality reporting...only looking for the bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
CNBC is not liberal. They talked about testing, so I guess you didn’t read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Not liberal. That's funny. Nothing about more testing making the numbers rise in this story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
CNBC readers can decipher that from this passage.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Do you really not watch or read CNBC? It is politically neutral if not leaning a little to the right.Quote:
While Texans moved more freely around the state after it allowed stores and restaurants to reopen on May 1 with capacity restrictions, the figures could reflect improving testing capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Total Deaths Pop in mil Deaths per million 1 Belgium 8,959 11.42 784.36 2 Spain 27,459 46.72 587.69 3 Italy 31,610 60.43 523.07 4 United Kingdom 33,998 66.49 511.33 5 France 27,498 66.99 410.5 6 Sweden 3,646 10.18 358.04 7 Netherlands 5,643 17.23 327.49 8 Ireland 1,518 4.85 312.76 9 United States 87,433 327.17 267.24 10 Switzerland 1,878 8.52 220.51 11 Canada 5,680 37.06 153.27 12 Ecuador 2,594 17.08 151.83 13 Portugal 1,190 10.28 115.74
If you want an accurate comparison, compare the US to, say, France+Spain+Italy+Switzerland+Germany+Denmark+The Netherlands+Belgium.
At least that would be a closer comparison based on population.
Need more testing! It doesn’t matter if they are reliable or not. We need more testing! How many tests in the US versus other countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Actually, Spain, Italy and Belgium have tested a greater percentage of their population than we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
Yeah, but did you read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by olddog75
Word floating around Europe, where I have family, is that their tests are not as reliable as ours. Doesn’t matter how many more tests you do if they give false results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
A partial sentence equals leaning right? Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It is an article that is politically neutral. Only a fringe right wing group believes the pandemic is a hoax. CNBC itself leans right more often than left, but it’s focus isn’t really politics anyway. Most articles are focused on business and markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
For you to say that CNBC ever leans right at all completely destroys any credibility you might have ever had Guisslapp. You're nothing more than a Trump hating, brainwashed mouthpiece for the far left establishment. You'd fit right in with the idiot leftists on The View.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You already have no credibility. Have you never watched Joe Kernen on Squawk Box in the morning? He has such a hard leg for Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
I watch CNBC quite a bit...a little less the past couple of months since I already knew what the stock market was doing :(. But, yeah, it is about as neutral politically as any network and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than most. Joe Kernen is clearly a very good guy and is a true American. Most of the others come cross as being apolitical, at least as they express themselves publicly. The younger dude, whose name escapes me, is a Dem-supporter...in fact there are a few who don't hide their left-leaning positions very well. But, I would say they are just "left-leaning" not hardcore, hopelessly lost lefties. They probably wouldn't be on this network...rooted in coverage of the market, and business, and finance...if they were leftists.
Andrew Ross Sorkin is way less liberal than Kernen is a Trump supporter. He tries to counterbalance Kernen somewhat. But the news coverage is mostly apolitical with Kernen being the most blatant exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That's who I was thinking of, Andrew, one of the co-hosts...with the perky Becky Quick. Carl Quintenella (sp?) is left-leaning. But, as I said, I watch CNBC and find it to be as politically neutral as any network...probably the single best apolitical network out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Carl barely counterbalances Cramer’s affection for Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Jim Cramer has an affection for Trump? Admittedly, I don't watch Mad Money very much anymore, mostly because I am beyond the heavy investing in the stock market stage. For me it's about asset preservation now. But, in months and years past, I heard Cramer being very critical of Trump on some issues, and he was coming directly from a leftist POV on it too. Maybe because his good friend, and former partner, Larry Kudlow is now on Trump's staff Cramer has softened his views of the president. Or, maybe because Cramer is actually a pretty smart fellow...he's seen the light!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Cramer is with Carl on Squawk on the Street after Squawk Box. He is more willing to say something negative about something Trump did than Kernen, but he usually says positive things about him. And good point about Kudlow. The fact that Trump lifted someone out of CNBC to put on his staff shows you this is not a left leaning network.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
BINGO. You get it!Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
It's also a closer comparison based on freedom and ease of movement between states (it's a hallmark of the EU and the USA). It's called FREEDOM. Our statistics could have been changed significantly if we had restricted movement in and out of New York and California, but WE don't do that.
Just in WW2 we had 500,000+ soldiers die and untold millions wounded for our freedoms. Any idiot that would give that up for a virus that is WAY less deadly than the hand wringing tribe was telling us is someone I do not want representing me.
It also appears our health system was better able to handle the fallout than the socialized healthcare nations.
Just for GooberBoy:
https://www.facebook.com/charles.sta...662409382/?t=8
You just got your crank yanked on Facebook again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTEK
Quote:
The next day, Ezike offered clarification. She told reporters that Illinois was not counting those whose COVID-19 infection had nothing to do with their death.
“We are trying to make sure that things that aren’t related at all to the COVID diagnosis are removed, but if someone has another illness, like heart disease, and then had a stroke or other event, it’s not as easy to separate that and say COVID didn’t exacerbate that existing illness. That would not be removed from the count,” she said.
Here is a tip for you boomers:
People will put stuff on social media that appeals to your tribal instincts while making a crazy claim.
This should sound an automatic alarm. It is a red flag. You should ask yourself “What is this person’s agenda?” “What facts might they have left out that would contradict the impression they want me to make?”
You can then do some basic Google diligence and find out what’s really up. Usually, you will find out there is way more to the story and things aren’t nearly as crazy as the person making the video was making it out to seem.
The more you know.
That alarm goes off every time you post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The more you post, the more I am certain you are a narcissist. Hopefully age will remedy that somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...b7a_story.html
Houston we have a problem.. not enough people to test.. This is crazy.. one thing that they didn't even consider, is the possibility of people not having COVID-19. Also, really a test is meaningless if you don't have any symptoms. I could test negative, and within hours be exposed and contract the virus.
Wonder if people know where these tests are and that they can go there.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Because you don’t seem to understand how testing is supposed to be used in this phase...
People that SHOULD get tested really fall into one of these buckets:
1. You are symptomatic (and quarantining until you get your results).
2. You are asymptomatic but have been exposed (and you are quarantining until you get your results).
3. You are asymptomatic but could transmit the disease to someone in your house or under your care that is at high risk for complications if they get the disease. You are testing regularly.
The second bucket is really the key to keeping the R0 below 1. When someone tests positive, you need to figure out who else has been exposed and they need to immediately quarantine and test. If they test positive, repeat the exercise for those that they could have given it to.
This is how we reopen.
Just returning volley the same banter that is served.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
For all of the negatives of aging, it has improved my humanity.
Moderna phase 1 vaccine trial looks promising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I don't think I should be tested because I don't feel bad in any way. I go to the grocery store when we need to buy groceries, my wife and I have been to restaurants a couple of times in last couple of weeks, my daughter who lives with us, is an ICU nurse and has treated COVID-19 patients. She no longer is treating them as the numbers are falling and they are consolidating the wings of the hospital to treat Covid-19 patients. Problem is how do you know if you have been exposed?
Contact tracing.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Unless you are using a contact tracing app, you won’t necessarily know that you were exposed out in public. But the main way this is being addressed is in the workplace - someone tests positive at work, and then you figure out who else they could have exposed to the disease. You then ask them to quarantine and test. Repeat.
Some (a small number of businesses) are also doing this for customers. For example, a restaurant takes down your phone number and if someone was working the shift you were there or a customer (that was there when you were) reports to the restaurant that they found out they were infected, the restaurant lets you know that you were exposed. You can then follow the same process - quarantine and test.
I am just curious. All of the guidance from people who do this for a living NOW say that when you go into public that you should wear a mask, not for your sake but for the sake of others.
I read an article this morning where a business owner estimates that about 15% of patrons come in wearing masks. I noticed the same yesterday when I was trying to buy shoes for my son.
Since I am certain that we have some people here who don't wear masks in public, I simply want to know what your reasons are.
I wear it for others and so others will wear masks for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by weunice
The problem is that we have to get somewhere between 60-80 percent of the people in the community to wear masks to really make much of a difference in suppressing the overall spread.
Bah .. that stinks. My coworkers are wearing them but I am not leaving my office unless I have to. I have Teams. It works. I have three people in my house who are high risk (all asthma). For the most part, I think I am going to return to only going to the grocery store. I just don't trust the people around me to actually wear masks. They simply aren't doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
We will know in a few weeks. I can limit my movement until then.
This isn’t a few week deal. We will likely be living like this for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by weunice
Your biggest risks are around larger groups where people are doing a lot of talking. Avoid those, especially if people aren’t wearing masks.
If you really need to protect yourself, you can use N95 and lots of hand hygiene.
I saw some recent info that indicates the asthma may actually not be a big risk factor, but I would be still careful if it were my loved ones.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/86323
Yeah, I know it isn't going to be a few week deal. The few weeks thing I was referring to was whether this Phase I rush to get out in public and act like nothing happened results in a spike of cases. Since I think there is a chance it will, I'd rather let everyone else be part of that. My needs, other than groceries, can wait.
I have read the same about asthma. My brother lost his long time girlfriend to an asthma attack in her 40's. I know it can kill by itself. I have one who was hospitalized as a young child but his, like mine, has gotten much milder since puberty. Still, mine can flare up even now and my lung capacity is crap compared to my peers because of it. I want nothing to do with a respiratory issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddog75
boom.
No it hasn't. :laugh: Just so we're clear, Mr Psycho. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
People do NOT need to be listening to you. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://patriot.imgix.net/b8d33e6b4d...pg?auto=format
Yep the U.K. reporting this news. Of course models, like polls, are only as good as the clowns creating them. Liberals should know this by now after 2016. And now the “One World” socialist Dems are pushing their still flawed models.
Decisive COVID model the 'most devastating software mistake of all time'
Neil Ferguson's study convinced U.S., U.K. to enact unprecedented lockdowns
The coronavirus death-forecast model that apparently convinced President Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shift to a policy featuring unprecedented lockdowns of the healthy "could go down in history as the most devastating software mistake of all time, in terms of economic costs and lives lost."
That's according to two software company executives writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper of London.
David Richards, CEO of the British-American software firm WANdisco, and Konstantin Boudnik, the company's vice president of open source development, were referring to the Imperial College of London report March 16 forecasting 2.2 million deaths in the United States and 500,000 in Britain from the coronavirus.
However, just 10 days later, the lead author of the report, Neil Ferguson, told a drastically different story when he testified under oath to a British parliamentary committee.
Ferguson said the U.K. death toll was unlikely to exceed 20,000 and could be much lower.
"Since publication of Imperial’s microsimulation model, those of us with a professional and personal interest in software development have studied the code on which policymakers based their fateful decision to mothball our multi-trillion pound economy and plunge millions of people into poverty and hardship," Richards and Boudnik wrote.
More
https://www.wnd.com/2020/05/decisive...-mistake-time/
Or
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...tware-mistake/
on Sunday, just 785 cases, for the largest one-day decrease in new cases since coronavirus began. But that doesn't make a good story, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The trend is really good.
This thing is over. It may not be over in NYC or New Jersey yet, but it's over everywhere else. It's just amazing to watch idiots like Guissy not know it. HAHA!Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
In the U.S. we lose over 650K people a year to heart disease, and another 600K per year to Cancer. And nobody has shut down the economy for those two. And yet, we'll probably have a one-time loss of 150K to 200K people to Coronavirus, and this country literally destroyed its' own economy over it.
https://www.mdlinx.com/article/top-10-causes-of-death-in-the-us-in-2020/MNpEowpA8DXKBUNcbmkpY
Sundays are always low days for reporting. People look at 3 day and 7 day moving averages to eliminate the noise from single day variability. For example, just the day before (Saturday) Texas had reported its biggest day of new cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs...ovid-19-cases/
I can teach you more about data analysis if you want to learn how to do this for yourself.
I know how to sort through the BS. You were all giddy about the MSM Saturday bad news until I shut you down on them ignoring the increase in testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No I wasn’t. I was looking at the 7 day moving average for hospitalizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cli...outputType=amp
On Sunday you were happy about the bad news reported by CNBC about Texas. Your link is still thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I wasn’t happy, but I am concerned. If you go back and look at the CNBC link, that data didn’t even include Saturday’s big increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
MSM is ignoring success in Texas, Florida, and Georgia while praising that idiot murderer in New York. That’s your team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You follow the mainstream media while I follow the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
In Guisslapp's world, these are not facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Random sample....hold the one you need.
This was a snapshot, this data is a few days old, but the message is accurate. Populations/covid cases/ covid deaths, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
I didn’t say they weren’t facts. I just don’t know what you think they prove.
Another fact it didn’t mention is that Texas’s unemployment tax fund is about to run dry.
Two states with zero state income tax have balanced budgets.. Both states have historically been GOP states as opposed to the other two. Two states are in virtual lockdown and have way more covid cases and deaths than the two who are now opening up. Wonder what the difference is.. TX and Florida both have multiple Urban areas with populations greater than 1 million. All of the states shown have large areas of land where population is very dispersed and low. TX has high property taxes but averages only 1 percent more than CA or NY at the state level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Median household family pays way more in taxes in Texas than they do in Cali. The graphic posted by Abbott quotes the highest marginal tax rate, which most residents don’t pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Abbott is kind of an idiot.
NY provides way more for services to make NYC the economic powerhouse it is - supplying the US with more GDP than the whole country of South Korea.
The 4 states really are quite different, so it isn’t really an apples to apples comparison.
Granted! you'll never get the facts from the lame mainstream media. I agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And that includes FoxNews.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
My sister lives in Austin and her property taxes are WAY higher than her income taxes would be. I talked with a business owner in Mineral Wells (a dying town if there ever was one), and he said over the past 5 years, his tax valuation had gone up 10% each year!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
People in Texas actually get something in return for high taxes. Louisiana residents don’t unless they are blessed to live in a good school district. We have it pretty good school wise in Ouachita Parish, but the roads are HORRIBLE and leadership is a joke. Every time I’m in Texas, I’m amazed at what they have compared to our corrupt BS here on EllAye
They do keep the toll roads pretty well maintained here. The schools, well, I guess that depends on how you like being in the same grade as nearly a thousand other students at your school. 3500 students in one high school would have been quite a bit different than my experience in Louisiana. Guessing the drugs are probably better in our schools than what you would normally find in the ones in Louisiana. Then there is the pressure of knowing that unless you are in the very competitive top 10 percent in your class, you probably aren’t getting into the state university of your choosing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
College is not the “be all” unless you are limited on how to pour piss out of a boot.
Pawdawg, Hogdog - are you guys feeling stressed?
https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana...m_campaign=snd
Speaking of masks...
there was a British regiment (19th century) that wore black masks, which covered their mouths and noses, as part of their battle attire, meant to intimidate their enemies. There is something psychologically "evil" or mean-looking to people when we see others wearing masks. There are no photos, only a sketch of the regiment. But, there was a modern reenactment of the Battle of New Orleans and about 80-100 reenactors wore the masks as they attacked Line Jackson and it was all captured on video. The real British regiment had about 700 soldiers. Anyway, some fellow has snipped that portion from a documentary and posted it on a historical blog with a caption, "See, when in Louisiana even the British wore masks because of the virus."
Yeah, he was trying to be funny, but it does, I think, remind us why we naturally are put off by masks. It represents people trying to do something bad, criminal. The image of the leftist terrorist group Antifa in their black masks...pure evil. And it's also why we, westerners, don't like muslims covering up, burkas...only people with something to hide wear masks. And of course that is further reinforced by the images from movies of the bad guys in westerns who wore masks when they robbed banks and trains.
Thanks for posting this. It helped me understand my neighbors a little better. I know some people who really think this is all about the government taking control of their freedoms. They are VERY up in arms about this. This article affirms that assessment. They see people who wear masks as ones who would be lock step in line with the government when they come for their freedoms. I get that. I think it is shortsighted, but I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yeah, but some of the same people would have folks cited for wearing their pants too low.Quote:
Originally Posted by weunice
Right. A person not wearing a mask is as offensive as a person with his ass showing. Typical left logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But only one of them could kill someone or make someone very ill from their choice of attire.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The point is that neither is any more of an infringement of someone’s freedom than the other.
Typical crazy conservative logic.
Why is it the responsibility of a healthy person to wear a mask in order to "protect" an unhealthy person they may not come into contact with who can protect themselves by staying at home? I get it...it's not really about protection, but the appearance of being protective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You can spread the disease even if you think you are healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
All omniscient healthy people should freely go without masks. Those who are not omniscient are wearing them because they may be pre-symptomatic. I wear it because the Bible is pretty clear about caring for the "least of these".Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Seems an awfully small sacrifice frankly...yet, the anti-maskers are strutting around like Paul Revere! It's certainly comedic.
So the unhealthy are not responsible for looking after themselves. Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
You’re only responsible for yourself. There will always be those who don’t do what they should...that doesn’t justify joining them.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Latest analysis shows patients treated with HCQ or CQ are more likely to die than the control group.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext
This thing is over. Except for the over 70+ crowd, it's over. Oh darn....you'll have to go back to work now. LOL!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/h...9-b89895482e87
98% of everyone who gets Coronavirus LIVES! Go back to work!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No...you wear a mask because you're ugly as hell, and you know it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Two birds, one stone!Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
It's just true, Johnny. And you now it. Wearing a mask is the greatest thing you could do for you fellow man, and it has nothing to do with Coronavirus.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
When all of this settles down I hope we will see the real, accurate numbers of this virus outbreak. I hope the politics will be removed and someone will present an accurate accounting of the infections and the deaths directly related to C-19.
For lack of a better term, I want to know how many "regular" people were adversely affected. By "regular" I mean those without pre-existing conditions of age and health issues. It appears that about 50% of all the deaths across the nation are occuring in nursing homes. And then there's another significant % of deaths connected to an array of health issues. I don't know what that % is, but based on anecdotal evidence it is significant. The very first C-19 death in Louisiana (confirmed) happened to be the uncle of a close friend/business associate. She tells me her uncle was 54 and had long suffered with a variety of health issues, was a heavy smoker & drinker, and generally did not take care of himself. He happens to also be African American, and 55% of all deaths in the state have been black. He lived in New Orleans and was the type of person who would enjoy Mardi Gras and other social gatherings, so perhaps that contributed to his contracting the virus and it ultimately contributing to his death. I think he is typical of a lot of the deaths related to the virus.
So, back to my question, how many "regular" people have died from C-19? Generally healthy, generally live a healthy lifestyle (at least not a damaging one), and have no other issues that would put them at risk. As I mentioned, my former football player friend, now 40 (he just had a b'day), suffers from advanced diabetes and he got slammed hard by the virus, nearly died. He is also proof of miracles! Yep, he was left for dead until his silly doctor administered HCQ, and wow! 72 hours later he was discharged from the hospital and is doing well to this day. I have mentioned to him Goosey says he is actually dead, just doesn't know it. Who is the Goosey person, he asked me, I would like to explain things to him. Yo! Goosey, my friend works a lot in Texas, he owns an oilfield service company, he can come by and explain things to you. Just need your address...
I'll venture a guess that a very, very small % of regular people died from this virus and that among that group the % is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than the regular flu. Until I see documented, reliable numbers, I will continue to hold onto that position.
Your definition of “regular” would exclude around 40 percent of the adult population of Louisiana that has hypertension.
Maybe. Well, I suppose if hypertension is a definite contributing factor to deaths caused by the C-19 virus, then that has to be considered. But, I don't see how it makes someone more prone to death by a virus. No, I am not a doctor, so I base this strictly on a layman's understanding of this health issue. C-19 is said to be dangerous because it attacks the respiratory system and those with health issues already hampering their lungs and the like would be particularly susceptible to this virus. But then the regular flu often leads to pneumonia, which is the real cause of death for many infected by a flu virus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Hypertension makes one more likely to suffer a stroke or a heart attack. I have not seen any mention at all of so-called "C-19 deaths" linked to strokes or heart attacks. And, if there are, then I say those are just more wrongly linked causes of death. The C-19 virus did not kill those people...their pre-existing hypertension did.
Nope, this doesn't contribute to the discussion of "regular" people dying from this virus.
I don't know any regular person who has died from coronas.
You knew Frank; he died from coronas.
Yeah, but he wasn't a REGULAR person.
Single greatest Covid mask yet.
Lady at WalMart had cut a cup off of one of her braziers to make a mask. Still had the straps hanging from it. She strung a runner band through it to go around her head.
I already had you pegged as someone who hangs out with irregular people....Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
And please don't go there...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0515115644.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Because it interacts with/enters cells through the ACE2 receptor.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconv...explain-136928
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3240...Bt9MLW0f7NWvJQ
Some interesting reading if Chinese are telling the truth.
Lots of studies out there that masks have not been effective. Lots of warnings on boxes of masks that they do not prevent transmission of disease. Was the spread worsened by people getting a false sense of security the they could go out as long as their wear one?
WHO suspends its HCQ trial due to safety concerns.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/25/coro...-concerns.html
If you think you are safe because you are wearing a mask you haven’t been paying attention. You wear it to reduce the distance and amount you transmit the virus if you have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
That’s just it. Studies have shown that the masks don’t do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech70
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article
“Studies” (plural)? Are you talking about the one where people coughed through a mask a short distance from a Petri dish?Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
If so, that very study showed reduction in particles with an mask and said further study needed to be done to see if masks affect the distance particles can travel. Low and behold, THAT study has been done and shows that masks DO reduce the distance water droplets carry.
Again, the mask doesn’t stop transmission; it reduces it. It is to be used in combination with social distancing - not by itself.