|
Post by Rambo McClain on Oct 21, 2020 6:45:47 GMT -5
A great 4 minute video full of facts
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 21, 2020 9:46:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 21, 2020 11:43:27 GMT -5
A CDC study of 154 Virus patients showed that 70% of them wore a mask all the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 12:48:14 GMT -5
A CDC study of 154 Virus patients showed that 70% of them wore a mask all the time. No way a single person wears a mask all the time
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 21, 2020 14:33:49 GMT -5
A CDC study of 154 Virus patients showed that 70% of them wore a mask all the time. Did you read the study? Those virus patients were twice as likely to report dining in at a restaurant and were more likely to go into a bar/coffee shop (after controlling for those who were not in close contact with a Covid positive person)... It literally says "Masks cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking", and that "Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance". Obviously if these people are putting themselves in conditions which undermine the effectiveness of their masks, they aren't going to work.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 21, 2020 14:41:22 GMT -5
Masks obviously help. Are they perfect? Do they prevent all transmission? Of course not.
Full PPE > N95 alone > regular surgical mask > homemade mask just like seat belt and airbag > seatbelt alone > nothing.
A regular surgical mask is like building a damn with rocks. Some water can still get through. Most water is retained. An N95 is like building a damn with cement. Very little chance water gets through.
You’re just as likely to touch a countertop pick up the virus on your hand and accidentally inoculate yourself when you touch your face.
Every decision every day is a risk benefit ratio. In a free country you should get to decide what risk is acceptable to you. You do NOT get to decide what risk you’re willing to subject someone to. What’s going to happen if numbers climb this winter? Kids go home, businesses close. Wear a dang mask. It’s not that hard.
|
|
|
Post by clb6110 on Oct 21, 2020 18:13:59 GMT -5
A CDC study of 154 Virus patients showed that 70% of them wore a mask all the time. Good for them. They might have slowed down the transmission by wearing them. The masks weren't meant to protect them unless they were medical grade or whatever they are. I wear a mask whenever I enter a retail store,restaurant or anyplace there is a crowd. I don't do it for me at all I do it for the 80 year old lady I might pass in the aisle.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 21, 2020 21:49:20 GMT -5
Good for you! I'm WAY more careful than you guys. I wear a mask when I leave my house, but it's rare that I leave my house. I haven't been in a retail store or a restaurant in over 7 months. I haven't seen a crowd since last basketball season. I'm not allowed to enter my children's homes. I bought a new Lincoln in February and it has 2300 miles on it. And 1800 of those came on 2 trips to our summer home on Lake Michigan. I look at it like this. If you're not careful you're either committing suicide or have intent on killing someone. Since you've been in a restaurant AND a retail store in the past 7 months you could have done both. SHAME ON YOU!!
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 21, 2020 21:55:54 GMT -5
A CDC study of 154 Virus patients showed that 70% of them wore a mask all the time. Did you read the study? Those virus patients were twice as likely to report dining in at a restaurant and were more likely to go into a bar/coffee shop (after controlling for those who were not in close contact with a Covid positive person)... It literally says "Masks cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking", and that "Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance". Obviously if these people are putting themselves in conditions which undermine the effectiveness of their masks, they aren't going to work. Yes, I read....do you? The Governor of California said it was OK to go out to eat, as long as you pull your mask up and down when you take a bite or a drink from your glass. Just proves what an ignoramus he also is. Bad enough to breath when you pull your mask down in a dirty restaurant(all are), to take a bite or a swallow. BUT every time you do that you're touching the outside of your mask that could be covered with droplets from the virus. People actually voted for that doofus? Then there's the yahoo's in the media who are telling us if most of the people who aren't wearing masks do, that we can "STOMP OUT the virus". That's BS. The ONLY thing that will "STOMP OUT" the virus is a vaccine and that could come out in 3 months. Then there are the ars hole politicians who say they won't be vaccinated unless Joe Biden wins the elections. Didn't have to read that, heard the words come out of their ignorant mouths.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 21, 2020 22:19:04 GMT -5
Good for you! I'm WAY more careful than you guys. I wear a mask when I leave my house, but it's rare that I leave my house. I haven't been in a retail store or a restaurant in over 7 months. I haven't seen a crowd since last basketball season. I'm not allowed to enter my children's homes. I bought a new Lincoln in February and it has 2300 miles on it. And 1800 of those came on 2 trips to our summer home on Lake Michigan. I look at it like this. If you're not careful you're either committing suicide or have intent on killing someone. Since you've been in a restaurant AND a retail store in the past 7 months you could have done both. SHAME ON YOU!! Careful. Unless you have only consumed what you produced at home over the last 7 months you made someone leave their home to produce and deliver what you have consumed. You could have killed them. SHAME ON YOU.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 21, 2020 22:36:34 GMT -5
No need to be careful, when intelligent. Did I say we've had carry out?? Sounds like you've been stupid. WAY WAY safer and smarter than anyone on here. Don't even go IN the grocery store. We order on line and they put the groceries in the trunk of our car. Have automatic trunk openers and closers on the car. Wipe down the trunk when I get home. We wear gloves when taking the bags out of the trunk when home. Wipe down packages, cans and boxes. Throw gloves, masks, wipes and grocery bags in the trash. SHAME ON YOU for insinuating and not being as careful as the wise.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 22, 2020 5:46:18 GMT -5
No need to be careful, when intelligent. Did I say we've had carry out?? Sounds like you've been stupid. WAY WAY safer and smarter than anyone on here. Don't even go IN the grocery store. We order on line and they put the groceries in the trunk of our car. Have automatic trunk openers and closers on the car. Wipe down the trunk when I get home. We wear gloves when taking the bags out of the trunk when home. Wipe down packages, cans and boxes. Throw gloves, masks, wipes and grocery bags in the trash. SHAME ON YOU for insinuating and not being as careful as the wise. You said, “...have intent to kill...” You are saying that going to a restaurant or retail store puts another at risk. Who delivers your groceries? By paying them to leave the house, go to a retail store, and deliver your groceries you are subjecting them to risk just like someone going out to a store or restaurant. Is it your intent to kill them? At least someone who leaves the house has some skin in the game. You’re just paying someone less fortunate to take all your risk.
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Oct 22, 2020 7:35:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Oct 22, 2020 7:51:33 GMT -5
Surprised that there is not a growing number of people choosing to wear face shields. No doubt, they are more effective in deflecting air born viruses, with periferal inhabitation minimal, with it's designed curvature. Medical personell use facial masks, as well as shields, in many cases. My wife and I have been wearing shields recently and enjoy the increased breathing ability they allow. My only suggestion is, wear them properly, with the top padding at eyebrow level, instead of some cases, where we see people with the padding at the top of the forehead, lessening the protective area below the chin.
|
|
|
Post by dude on Oct 22, 2020 8:14:05 GMT -5
If schools are forcing kids to wear masks and keep spacing, then why are kids being sent home when their classmate tests positive from the family reunion they had last weekend?
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 22, 2020 12:46:54 GMT -5
No need to be careful, when intelligent. Did I say we've had carry out?? Sounds like you've been stupid. WAY WAY safer and smarter than anyone on here. Don't even go IN the grocery store. We order on line and they put the groceries in the trunk of our car. Have automatic trunk openers and closers on the car. Wipe down the trunk when I get home. We wear gloves when taking the bags out of the trunk when home. Wipe down packages, cans and boxes. Throw gloves, masks, wipes and grocery bags in the trash. SHAME ON YOU for insinuating and not being as careful as the wise. You said, “...have intent to kill...” You are saying that going to a restaurant or retail store puts another at risk. Who delivers your groceries? By paying them to leave the house, go to a retail store, and deliver your groceries you are subjecting them to risk just like someone going out to a store or restaurant. Is it your intent to kill them? At least someone who leaves the house has some skin in the game. You’re just paying someone less fortunate to take all your risk. Indeed, if one is asymptomatic and they go into public without a mask, that could be construed as intent. READ carefully, PAY ATTENTION!! No one "delivers". I go to a grocery store, pull into an assigned space, call their phone number, push the button that pops the lid of my trunk, an employee puts groceries in the trunk without touching my car. I push the button to automatically shut the lid. The individual has no contact with me, nor I with them. No "subjecting", just more "fake news" by thou and those of your ilk.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 22, 2020 13:54:43 GMT -5
You said, “...have intent to kill...” You are saying that going to a restaurant or retail store puts another at risk. Who delivers your groceries? By paying them to leave the house, go to a retail store, and deliver your groceries you are subjecting them to risk just like someone going out to a store or restaurant. Is it your intent to kill them? At least someone who leaves the house has some skin in the game. You’re just paying someone less fortunate to take all your risk. Indeed, if one is asymptomatic and they go into public without a mask, that could be construed as intent. READ carefully, PAY ATTENTION!! No one "delivers". I go to a grocery store, pull into an assigned space, call their phone number, push the button that pops the lid of my trunk, an employee puts groceries in the trunk without touching my car. I push the button to automatically shut the lid. The individual has no contact with me, nor I with them. No "subjecting", just more "fake news" by thou and those of your ilk. Would they have to leave the house, stop at a gas station, walk into a store, handle merchandise, all of which is potentially contaminated, if you didn’t order the food? They are only doing that because YOU are ordering it. You are potentially subjecting them to risk just like someone who leaves the house and goes to the store in person except the person that leaves the house is also assuming some risk. Delivering to your car or house is still delivering. Semantics. The risk isn’t just from contact with you.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 22, 2020 14:22:27 GMT -5
Try again. Those articles are from 2010 and 2015 respectively, so they are not testing their effectiveness against the coronavirus (which is a BIG distinction... masks are useless for other diseases). You might have a point about cloths masks, but you need to actually use relevant studies to back your claims.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 22, 2020 23:16:14 GMT -5
Indeed, if one is asymptomatic and they go into public without a mask, that could be construed as intent. READ carefully, PAY ATTENTION!! No one "delivers". I go to a grocery store, pull into an assigned space, call their phone number, push the button that pops the lid of my trunk, an employee puts groceries in the trunk without touching my car. I push the button to automatically shut the lid. The individual has no contact with me, nor I with them. No "subjecting", just more "fake news" by thou and those of your ilk. Would they have to leave the house, stop at a gas station, walk into a store, handle merchandise, all of which is potentially contaminated, if you didn’t order the food? They are only doing that because YOU are ordering it. You are potentially subjecting them to risk just like someone who leaves the house and goes to the store in person except the person that leaves the house is also assuming some risk. Delivering to your car or house is still delivering. Semantics. The risk isn’t just from contact with you. They left their house to go to work 2 years ago. They left their house to go to work before the pandemic. The left their house to go to work during the pandemic. They'll leave their home to go to work after the pandemic, as has 90% of the people in the country. They went to gas stations, walked into their store, handled merchandise, BEFORE I ordered groceries on line. AS HAVE ALL working people. This is the most doofus position in the history of Ncoast. NOT "semantics", lack of care in reading on your part.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 23, 2020 5:35:21 GMT -5
Would they have to leave the house, stop at a gas station, walk into a store, handle merchandise, all of which is potentially contaminated, if you didn’t order the food? They are only doing that because YOU are ordering it. You are potentially subjecting them to risk just like someone who leaves the house and goes to the store in person except the person that leaves the house is also assuming some risk. Delivering to your car or house is still delivering. Semantics. The risk isn’t just from contact with you. They left their house to go to work 2 years ago. They left their house to go to work before the pandemic. The left their house to go to work during the pandemic. They'll leave their home to go to work after the pandemic, as has 90% of the people in the country. They went to gas stations, walked into their store, handled merchandise, BEFORE I ordered groceries on line. AS HAVE ALL working people. This is the most doofus position in the history of Ncoast. NOT "semantics", lack of care in reading on your part. You said, and I’ll paraphrase, shame on you leaving the house, you're either committing suicide or have intent to kill someone. You were judging someone for their decision to leave the house. I suggested you be careful shaming someone for deciding what risk they deem acceptable. The only way you put another individual at zero risk is to stay at home completely and be completely independent and self sufficient without utilizing the outside world. The person you were shaming has decided that going to a restaurant or retail store is an acceptable risk. The person who serves/waits on them has decided that the risk is acceptable so they can pay their bills. Why shame them. The doomsday preparer might try to shame you for even leaving the house and using your fancy automatic trunk because they’ve got five years worth of food in their bomb shelter and haven’t left the house since this all started. There will always be risk in the world. I could hit and kill someone with my car driving to work through no fault of mine or the other driver. Life has risk. I get to decide what is acceptable risk for me. That’s why I said be careful shaming someone else’s decision. Your decisions may put you and others at less risk than mine, but they do not eliminate all risk. You still contribute what is an acceptable risk in your mind and I won’t shame you about that.
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Oct 23, 2020 8:43:34 GMT -5
Try again. Those articles are from 2010 and 2015 respectively, so they are not testing their effectiveness against the coronavirus (which is a BIG distinction... masks are useless for other diseases). You might have a point about cloths masks, but you need to actually use relevant studies to back your claims. So the coronaVIRUS isn't a virus?
And it's FANTASTIC that those scientific papers are from 2010 & 2015 that means they are NOT POLITICAL. Studies from 2020 are all political as those that do and do not want to wear a mask are likely to bias their study to what they want. In 2010 mandatory masking wasn't around so it wasn't political to study and then find that a mask is worthless or a mask is great.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Oct 23, 2020 9:20:21 GMT -5
Try again. Those articles are from 2010 and 2015 respectively, so they are not testing their effectiveness against the coronavirus (which is a BIG distinction... masks are useless for other diseases). You might have a point about cloths masks, but you need to actually use relevant studies to back your claims. So the coronaVIRUS isn't a virus?
And it's FANTASTIC that those scientific papers are from 2010 & 2015 that means they are NOT POLITICAL. Studies from 2020 are all political as those that do and do not want to wear a mask are likely to bias their study to what they want. In 2010 mandatory masking wasn't around so it wasn't political to study and then find that a mask is worthless or a mask is great.
All viruses aren’t equal. Some are airborne. Some are not. Of airborne some are spread in droplets and some in aerosols. Some virus require very few viral particles to result in infection and some require huge doses to result in infection. You can not use the efficacy of an intervention for one virus to predict it’s efficacy against another virus.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Oct 23, 2020 10:51:50 GMT -5
Try again. Those articles are from 2010 and 2015 respectively, so they are not testing their effectiveness against the coronavirus (which is a BIG distinction... masks are useless for other diseases). You might have a point about cloths masks, but you need to actually use relevant studies to back your claims. So the coronaVIRUS isn't a virus?
And it's FANTASTIC that those scientific papers are from 2010 & 2015 that means they are NOT POLITICAL. Studies from 2020 are all political as those that do and do not want to wear a mask are likely to bias their study to what they want. In 2010 mandatory masking wasn't around so it wasn't political to study and then find that a mask is worthless or a mask is great.
I think fanofthegame has this covered, but are you assuming that all viruses are spread the same? They don't...
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Oct 23, 2020 19:00:25 GMT -5
They left their house to go to work 2 years ago. They left their house to go to work before the pandemic. The left their house to go to work during the pandemic. They'll leave their home to go to work after the pandemic, as has 90% of the people in the country. They went to gas stations, walked into their store, handled merchandise, BEFORE I ordered groceries on line. AS HAVE ALL working people. This is the most doofus position in the history of Ncoast. NOT "semantics", lack of care in reading on your part. You said, and I’ll paraphrase, shame on you leaving the house, you're either committing suicide or have intent to kill someone. You were judging someone for their decision to leave the house. I suggested you be careful shaming someone for deciding what risk they deem acceptable. The only way you put another individual at zero risk is to stay at home completely and be completely independent and self sufficient without utilizing the outside world. The person you were shaming has decided that going to a restaurant or retail store is an acceptable risk. The person who serves/waits on them has decided that the risk is acceptable so they can pay their bills. Why shame them. The doomsday preparer might try to shame you for even leaving the house and using your fancy automatic trunk because they’ve got five years worth of food in their bomb shelter and haven’t left the house since this all started. There will always be risk in the world. I could hit and kill someone with my car driving to work through no fault of mine or the other driver. Life has risk. I get to decide what is acceptable risk for me. That’s why I said be careful shaming someone else’s decision. Your decisions may put you and others at less risk than mine, but they do not eliminate all risk. You still contribute what is an acceptable risk in your mind and I won’t shame you about that. NEVER paraphrase, that's what fake news does. These were my EXACT words: "SHAME ON YOU for insinuating and not being as careful as the wise. Shame on you AGAIN for lying about what I said, as Uncle Joe has made a habit of. "Shaming" has never killed anyone. Going out in public without a mask, if asymptomatic, could kill could someone.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 13, 2020 9:02:22 GMT -5
From a news report:
Tesla Inc Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk said on Thursday he took four coronavirus tests on the same day, with two showing positive results, while the other two were negative. "Something extremely bogus is going on. Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse. Rapid antigen test from BD," Musk said in a tweet, possibly referring to Becton Dickinson and Co's rapid antigen test.
Understatement of the year as the incoming Biden administration considers calling for a national lockdown to fulfill Biden's debate prediction of a "dark winter". Control and obedience of the population is necessary for the socialists to take and hold power. The scientific data must show a need for implementing the controls on the population. This is an example of where the "FAKE DATA" comes from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2020 9:09:08 GMT -5
Why is he being tested 4 times? Was it research?
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 13, 2020 9:47:34 GMT -5
Why is he being tested 4 times? Was it research? The report didn't say, other than he then took another and different type of test that the results are not back yet. I would imagine that being a celebrity billionaire, Musk gets what he wants. My question is, how many average Joe's that test positive, but asymptomatic, receive one of the tests that are flawed, but because they are a nobody, they just get rung up as another positive case that adds to the "data", and hysteria?
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Nov 13, 2020 10:43:47 GMT -5
Every test in medicine has a false positive and false negative rate. None of our tests are 100% accurate. We refer to sensitivity (how good is the test at finding the disease) and specificity (if you test positive you REALLY do have it).
The first rapids were BAD, but it’s what we had. The newer ones are better. IMO they shouldn’t be used unless you absolutely need an answer rapidly (admitting to the hospital and you need to determine if they need isolation and PPE or taking to the OR and you need to determine if they need the negative pressure room and N95’s or regular OR and normal surgical masks). If you are not hospital sick you should get the PCR test and quarantine the 48 hours it is currently taking to get the results.
If you are willing to pay for it you can get tested hourly. Joe Rogan buys the rapid tests and tests everyone before they come on his podcast. $$$ talks.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 13, 2020 11:27:40 GMT -5
Every test in medicine has a false positive and false negative rate. None of our tests are 100% accurate. We refer to sensitivity (how good is the test at finding the disease) and specificity (if you test positive you REALLY do have it). The first rapids were BAD, but it’s what we had. The newer ones are better. IMO they shouldn’t be used unless you absolutely need an answer rapidly (admitting to the hospital and you need to determine if they need isolation and PPE or taking to the OR and you need to determine if they need the negative pressure room and N95’s or regular OR and normal surgical masks). If you are not hospital sick you should get the PCR test and quarantine the 48 hours it is currently taking to get the results. If you are willing to pay for it you can get tested hourly. Joe Rogan buys the rapid tests and tests everyone before they come on his podcast. $$$ talks. Are all of the rapid tests done, reported to and included in the "alarming new case" totals that the Little Dictator is about to lock us down again over?
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Nov 13, 2020 12:53:38 GMT -5
Every test in medicine has a false positive and false negative rate. None of our tests are 100% accurate. We refer to sensitivity (how good is the test at finding the disease) and specificity (if you test positive you REALLY do have it). The first rapids were BAD, but it’s what we had. The newer ones are better. IMO they shouldn’t be used unless you absolutely need an answer rapidly (admitting to the hospital and you need to determine if they need isolation and PPE or taking to the OR and you need to determine if they need the negative pressure room and N95’s or regular OR and normal surgical masks). If you are not hospital sick you should get the PCR test and quarantine the 48 hours it is currently taking to get the results. If you are willing to pay for it you can get tested hourly. Joe Rogan buys the rapid tests and tests everyone before they come on his podcast. $$$ talks. Are all of the rapid tests done, reported to and included in the "alarming new case" totals that the Little Dictator is about to lock us down again over? I have to admit I do not know what reporting requirements are.
|
|