COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
- Status
I agree schools being open is very important. Other countries are doing it. We should be learning from them.
You confuse idiots pulling their masks down to talk with masks being ineffective.
It's no different then saying social distancing doesn't work because people keep coming a foot away from you to ask a question.
The issue is not the measure, it's peoples inability to follow the measure.
There is no confusion at all. I've said wearing masks leads to false bravado. I see it every single day. Too much. To the point that if there is a 2nd wave then all stores including supermarkets and big box stores should be order online and curbside pickup only. If your serious about it you can't have exceptions. We screw restaurants but thousands more congregate at supermarkets. How is that fair and how does that stop the spread? Wal-Mart, Home Depot/Lowe's supermarkets have no limits on customers in the store any longer. But 20 people can't sit inside 200 capacity restaurant.
The real inability isn't people following the rule but once a person enters a retail store there is no authority to not serve them if they take off their mask. The law in NJ and PA is simply the have to wear one to enter. After that our hands are tied.
Because the masks don't work its all a scam. Now that we have given you the fake answer you want. Can you stop asking the same question. That's like saying how come the states that have done the most tests have the most cases? Must be the tests causing the virus then...
For me, a fairly simple guidance would be: "always maintain 6 feet of distance from any other person in public (indoors or outdoors) and when you're in a situation where you can't be sure of maintaining that distance, then wear a mask." The problem is that even that subtlety is lost on a decent fraction of people, so officials then come out with these "mandatory" mask policies for everyone outside the home, as that's simply easier to remember/enforce. But it pisses people off who know the difference. I wear a mask in any store, but not walking around the neighborhood, but I would wear one if walking in a city where it's a lot more crowded (haven't actually done that yet).
Furthermore, what I wrote has a number of "exceptions" to it, in reality. For example distancing with no mask is likely very effective beyond 4-5' indoors and probably beyond 2-3' outdoors, where "contact" time is only a few seconds (since infection is dose-dependent although we don't know the exact dose for the giver/receiver and individuals vary) and someone isn't sneezing, coughing or breathing very heavily, like simply walking by someone. It's why I think eating outdoors without a mask with several feet of distance is likely fine (as long as the mask goes on when talking to anyone nearby, including staff), but that same distance might not be ok indoors with less air movement. The risk there can also be, what if someone at the next table 4 feet from me starts coughing or sneezing right at me, unexpectedly - it's risks like that which have prevented us from going anywhere in public near people w/o a mask.
So, being on the beach w/o a mask or just walking around where population density is low w/o a mask are likely very safe, but standing in line for 10 minutes within a couple of feet of someone or standing next to someone at a concert (even outdoors) for awhile are very likely not safe without a mask. And I could write out a bunch more scenarios (different businesses for example) with subtle differences from these - the list of exposure/transmission variables (and risk tolerance variability) is huge and writing a guidance that tries to include more than a few gets very unwieldy quickly. Do you see how difficult it could become to write a realistic guidance for people to follow? That's why very simplistic guidances appeal to public health officials.
good response here.....i am waiting to see what happens tomorrow with a mask mandate and whether Murphy specifically addresses the beach issue
You know I am a strongng advocate of social distancing being way more important than a mask. Yes I have seen so many studies about and yes I wear one long hours inside. However outside I see no value especially this year in the NE. (Please explain why it's so windy every single day this year? Usually you have calm winds a few day a week after April. Everyday has been 10-15 mph into July. Cycling has been a very different adventure this year!)
People have figured out the entrance to the store requires a mask but drop them to their chin walking in. I am a little fortunate in that I can refuse service to anyone with out explanation. I do have to document it but they can still shop in the store.
Are we still talking about the effectiveness of masks?
We do have one LP dude that is a very formidable human specium. Giant of a man. Great dude. Not a mean bone in his body. All he has to do politely recommended to people to put their masks back on and say I will be watching you. People can't put them back fast enough. Lol. The rest of the crew not so much. Looks very much like the guy in the Green Mile with Tom Hank's.
But again your comparing an industry where it is impossible to wear a mask, and another where it is possible, and most people do adhere, but some people do not.
And businesses can mandate that customers wear masks and wear them properly. They should.
Alternatively, you can utilize the eyes in the sky and let people know that, if they're caught not wearing a mask, they're going to be charged a 50% surcharge on their grocery bill.
No! No! People do not adhere wearing masks in supermarkets and box stores. And no you can not mandate them to wear a mask once they enter wearing a masks properly. You can not stop someone shopping in an essential business once they enter legally. Both in PA and NJ. It's the little secret that people have figured out.
Have you noticed that the Connecticut Governor has dropped out of the 3 state trio of irrational behavior. A month ago they were best friends. Not so much now.
The counts were still not final; some more reporting trickled in and the final count for Tuesday was 994.
They're still in the travel advisory partnership. CT was never as hard hit as ny/nj, so it would make sense that they're further ahead in reopening. Upstate NY is catching up quickly
So true it's well known that the reason Conneticut had zero deaths today was because people's immune systyems were boosted by indoor dining and pumping iron in the gym.
But there isn't a mandatory quarantine for all the state's that NY and NJ require. BTW who is enforcing that?
You're trying so hard but then a post like this just screams fkr
Stop the charade already
There is no charade. CT was not hit as hard as NJ, simple. The gov needs to do what is best for our state.
I wonder if hanging UV lights in a super market would damage merchandise. I assume it would probably lead to more shrink in the produce aisles...if not, that might be a decent solution.
(unless theyre prohibitively expensive)
Last edited:
Filters and UV lights don't help prevent the guy in the seat next to you or the lady right next to you in the store aisle with a nice case of undiscovered COVID from sneezing and coughing on you or even talking loudly right at you. The big risks have been and will always be from person to person contact.
Derek Lowe (In the Pipeline blog in Science Translational Medicine) updated his blog from 2 weeks ago on antibodies, T-cells, immunity and more - and what it all might mean, as well as detailing how little we really know.
The fundamental problem is we have snapshots of antibody levels in state and even country-level serology surveys of close to random populations (i.e., those who had a viral infection and those who didn't know they had one) and we have selected data on T-cell levels active against the virus in small populations (dozens to a few hundred, since measuring these is far more complex than measuring antibodies) of infected and never infected people (from pre-COVID blood donations), but we don't know how these antibody levels might change over time, or how someone's T-cell response might change over time, and (importantly) what a protective profile looks like for both of those.
We've presumed that infected and recovered patients will have immunity from months to a few years, but we don't know that for sure and we've assumed unexposed people have no immunity and that might also be wrong if "cross-reactivity" from exposure to other coronaviruses somehow has given people some or total immunity to the virus from the T-cell part of the immune system. A link and excerpt from his blog is below, The 2nd link below is to a fantastic paper in Cell, which he talks about, which also includes the great graphic, below, showing the two main parts of the immune response (antibodies, which typically work to prevent the virus from latching onto and infecting cells and T-cells, which are special white blood cells which target and destroy virus infected cells) and even this is greatly simplified.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeli...-on-t-cells-antibody-levels-and-our-ignorance
https://www.cell.com/trends/pharmac...m/retrieve/pii/S0165614720301309?showall=true
We have similar data here in the US: several surveys of IgG antibodies show single-digit seroconversion. You could conclude that we have large numbers of people who have never been exposed – and indeed, the recent upswing in infections in many regions argues that there are plenty of such people out there. But we need to know more. We could have people who look vulnerable but aren’t – perhaps they show no antibodies, but still have a protective T-cell response. Or we could have people who look like they might be protected, but aren’t – perhaps they showed an antibody response many weeks ago that has now declined, and they don’t have protective levels of T-cells to back them up. Across the population, you can use the limited data we have and our limited understanding of it to argue for a uselessly broad range of outcomes. Things could be better than we thought, or worse, getting better or deteriorating in front of our eyes. We just don’t know, and we have to do better at figuring it out.
Sad article about nurses who spent months in NYC volunteering to battle the coronavirus pandemic only to see family and friends back home (TX, NC, OK, and AZ in the article) not believing their stories of how bad it was and some still not believing. If anyone doubts the power of disinformation on social media, look no further than this article. In the "old days" we'd get our scientific info from one of the 3 broadcast networks or a few newspapers or even cable news from the 80s on and we'd generally get close to the objective "truth" from them, unlike now, where seriously made up shit passes for "science" in some circles and is believed by those gullible enough to not think critically.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/us/coronavirus-nurses.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/us/coronavirus-nurses.html
Numbers,
You are citing an article which quotes ancedotal evidence and does not cite any studies or surveys. In a country of 350 million being able to find 4 or 5 stories like this is hardly evidence of a widespead belief that the virus is not real and disinformation is causing the spread. Even before the widespead use of the internet, There have always been people who believe in conspiracies. This article is designed and has succeded in getting you to believe that people in the south and west are rubes, and I suspect designed to get support for the demands currently being placed on facebook to police speech. This article is pretty much an example of the disinformation you are talking about.
What I would like to see are some surveys by some reptutable research organizations that show the prevelace of these attitudes.
You are citing an article which quotes ancedotal evidence and does not cite any studies or surveys. In a country of 350 million being able to find 4 or 5 stories like this is hardly evidence of a widespead belief that the virus is not real and disinformation is causing the spread. Even before the widespead use of the internet, There have always been people who believe in conspiracies. This article is designed and has succeded in getting you to believe that people in the south and west are rubes, and I suspect designed to get support for the demands currently being placed on facebook to police speech. This article is pretty much an example of the disinformation you are talking about.
What I would like to see are some surveys by some reptutable research organizations that show the prevelace of these attitudes.
The implementation of face coverings was never to reduce the rate of Covid transmission (RT) to zero. Never. The goal of face coverings was to provide a method to get RT<1 which is a negative spread of the virus (cases going down not up).
I cant find the paper I read a while back that stated/surmised that if 70% of the population wore face coverings and those face coverings had an efficacy of 50% that is the threshold to keep RT<1.
Below is a pretty good research paper from the National Academy of Sciences that speaks to the efficacy and importance of face coverings to control the virus.
Understanding the Impacts of Face Covering
"Compared to the simultaneous implementation of measures in China, intervention measures were successively implemented in the western world (Fig. 2A), providing an opportunity for assessing their relative effectiveness. We quantified the effects of face covering by projecting the number of infections based on the data prior to implementing the use of face masks in Italy on April 6 and NYC on April 17 (Fig. 2A; see Methods). Such projections are reasonable considering the excellent linear correlation for the data prior to the onset of mandated face covering (Fig. 2 B and C and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). Our analysis indicates that face covering reduced the number of infections by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and by over 66,000 in NYC from April 17 to May 9. In addition, varying the correlation from 15 d to 30 d prior to the onset of the implementation reveals little difference in the projection for both places, because of the high correlation coefficients (SI Appendix, Fig. S1). Notably, the trends of the infection curves in Italy and NYC contrast to those in the world and in the United States (Fig. 1C), which show little deviation from the linearity due to the nonimplementation of face-covering measures globally and nationally, respectively. The inability of social distancing, quarantine, and isolation alone to curb the spread of COVID-19 is also evident from the linearity of the infection curve prior to the onset of the face-covering rule in Italy on April 6 and in NYC on April 17 (Fig. 2 B and C). Hence, the difference made by implementing face covering significantly shapes the pandemic trends worldwide."
Conclusions
"Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic worldwide. We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with extensive testing, quarantine, and contact tracking, poses the most probable fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic, prior to the development of a vaccine."
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857
I cant find the paper I read a while back that stated/surmised that if 70% of the population wore face coverings and those face coverings had an efficacy of 50% that is the threshold to keep RT<1.
Below is a pretty good research paper from the National Academy of Sciences that speaks to the efficacy and importance of face coverings to control the virus.
Understanding the Impacts of Face Covering
"Compared to the simultaneous implementation of measures in China, intervention measures were successively implemented in the western world (Fig. 2A), providing an opportunity for assessing their relative effectiveness. We quantified the effects of face covering by projecting the number of infections based on the data prior to implementing the use of face masks in Italy on April 6 and NYC on April 17 (Fig. 2A; see Methods). Such projections are reasonable considering the excellent linear correlation for the data prior to the onset of mandated face covering (Fig. 2 B and C and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). Our analysis indicates that face covering reduced the number of infections by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and by over 66,000 in NYC from April 17 to May 9. In addition, varying the correlation from 15 d to 30 d prior to the onset of the implementation reveals little difference in the projection for both places, because of the high correlation coefficients (SI Appendix, Fig. S1). Notably, the trends of the infection curves in Italy and NYC contrast to those in the world and in the United States (Fig. 1C), which show little deviation from the linearity due to the nonimplementation of face-covering measures globally and nationally, respectively. The inability of social distancing, quarantine, and isolation alone to curb the spread of COVID-19 is also evident from the linearity of the infection curve prior to the onset of the face-covering rule in Italy on April 6 and in NYC on April 17 (Fig. 2 B and C). Hence, the difference made by implementing face covering significantly shapes the pandemic trends worldwide."
Conclusions
"Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic worldwide. We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with extensive testing, quarantine, and contact tracking, poses the most probable fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic, prior to the development of a vaccine."
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857
Last edited:
It’s a seat belt — not 100% effective, but makes a meaningful difference.
Talks about "made up shit" and "disinformation" then links the NYT. Priceless
President pointing out that Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden reopened schools without issue, therefore we should too. Of course, things in the US look very different than in those countries.
A lot of people, starting at the top, want to “have their cake and eat it too.” They want the virus recovery without ever actually finishing the hard work and sacrifice of suppressing the outbreak. V-shaped recovery (lost cause) and normalcy don’t occur when we say we’re ready for them, they come about from us actively creating conditions that foster their arrival.
I’m unsure of what to do about the schools thing. Kids will probably be mostly unharmed, but not sure how they act as spreaders. Also not sure if we’ll actually do anything to change schools to limit transmission — I suspect we won’t.
A lot of people, starting at the top, want to “have their cake and eat it too.” They want the virus recovery without ever actually finishing the hard work and sacrifice of suppressing the outbreak. V-shaped recovery (lost cause) and normalcy don’t occur when we say we’re ready for them, they come about from us actively creating conditions that foster their arrival.
I’m unsure of what to do about the schools thing. Kids will probably be mostly unharmed, but not sure how they act as spreaders. Also not sure if we’ll actually do anything to change schools to limit transmission — I suspect we won’t.
Ya, if the kids are fine but we see a bunch of teachers dying? I imagine teachers would walk.
He also complained about the cost of following the CDC's guidelines for school safety precautions. If you want them open, open the checkbook. If you want teachers and parents to revolt, then do what you are continuing to do.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
BB Recruiting 2026 Rutgers target Aiden Derkack provides Metro Classic heroics:- Latest: PiscatawayMike
