well if people are talking about the covid death numbers.
its simple
take the number of people dying within reasonable time of testing positive for covid. WHO HAD THE SYMPTOMS
then look at all mortality death.
and separately look at the 2 separate data points
what you will find is if the all mortality rate went up. and the only common denominator change to the environment was covid
and then when you look at the covid death numbers and realise their spikes and dips fit into the EXCESS death numbers neatly.
you start to see that covid did cause more deaths than normal
..
if covid cause zero deaths and it was just a error of reporting cause of normal deaths.. there would not be excess deaths. .. nor would there be a pattern between the excess deaths and the new event
but reality shows that there was excess deaths and that coincided with covid deaths being the cause of the uptick rise in deaths.. thus covid does cause deaths.
and once you have analysed the data..
then you can go ask the doctors on ICU wards.
then will give you witness testimony that people were dying due to infections in their lungs and not something else.. like excess gun shootings.
yep ICU were not filled with excess gun shooting victims. they were filled with lung infection patients
who subsequently died.
thus adding to the proof that covid causes deaths
No one is doubting that Covid causes deaths (except for the crazies, but no one takes them seriously anyways). The point I was making was when the early studies came out on the Covid fatality rate, there was no sense in taking them seriously because their data wasn't even accurate to begin with. If you take any experimental procedure for any study and start with a false premise (for example, like working with data that isn't accurate), the study's worthless from the start. So it's easy to pull out whatever study you want, no matter what the topic is. Not all studies are created equal. |
|
|
|
...
Ahh, the Boston Tea Party, one of my favorite American historical events because of the pettiness and successful retaliation against the British. Do not mess with the brits and their tea was the moral of the story, but also do not mess with Americans and their freedom. Problem is today, most "revolutionists" don't have the same passion. They rally behind something no one cares about. |
|
|
|
No no, you're right I absolutely did not read that one article you linked because I figured it'd be a waste of time, and in fact it was! I've already tried to see if there was any decent research about there on masks, there isn't any. There are laboratory replications and then "meta analysis" case type studies. These weren't laboratory studies. They were real world studies. If you read the article, I don't think you would have said what you did.
They are *case* studies. All that means is that they take data that is already produced and then try to make sense of it. This is different from a scientific experiment where you conduct an experimental assay, record the data, and then analyze the data. ... You are leaving out one critical part of a rigorous study; the protocols. It should be the case that a study is designed around a hypothesis. The details of how the study is to be performed are known as the study protocols. They should be agreed upon ahead of time. The agreement should be between interested parties ('stakeholders' is the current buzzword). The protocols should define exactly how the study is to be performed and what the observations lead to what understandings. aka 'interpenetration.' If the protocols are changed after the study begins it should be terminated and started over from scratch. Science is like a chain being only as strong as it's weakest link. That's what the whole 'citations' things is all about. Any paper predicated on citations from a study which was not performed correctly and honestly is subject to itself become damaged. That's why it is so important that 'scientists' be neutral and honest. Unfortunatly that car crashed into the weeds a long time ago and we entered the new dark ages of 'scientism'. https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/See, the protocols of some of these studies aren't even that useful in the real world. Even if they change them for whatever reason, it's not like we learn anything from the start. What do we learn from a meta analysis where they examine COVID confirmed fatality rate? Do we actually learn what the fatality rate of COVID is? No, not unless you take into account the general age of the population, other confounding variables, and then take the data and cross reference it to other data. I remember when researchers tried to use China's numbers to try and determine the fatality rate of Covid. No matter what the protocols (aka experimental basis), the results don't mean anything. |
|
|
|
I think disparity of outcome should be addressed somewhat, but not excessively. And I think a small wealth tax (not just an income tax) might be a good idea. But my main problem is with inequality of opportunity. There is a widespread belief that the rich 'deserve' to be rich, and the poor 'deserve' to be poor... certainly this is true in some cases and to an extent, but in large part wealth is inherited, and opportunities are inherited with it. Did Trump become president entirely on merit, did it have absolutely nothing to do with inherited wealth? Same with Boris Johnson here. Most of the leaders of my country went, as children, to the same private school, an opportunity which is out of reach of all but the very richest in society. I believe that we should strive to give everyone, not the same outcome, but the same chances... or at least close to the same chances. And I think this might result in fewer $5 billion yachts built from 10,000kg of gold, and more safe drinking water that doesn't contain faeces. What does a wealth tax accomplish? How do you tax wealth? Say I have a painting that is worth 10,000 USD. Say I have zero USD in my bank account. My net worth is 10,000 USD, my wealth is valued at 10,000 USD. Does a wealth tax mean I must liquidate my painting in order to pay? You can't tax wealth, you can tax income. The moment you start taxing wealth is when you start driving rich people out of your country, or of course, they start stashing their money away in the cayman islands. |
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/10/inflation-cpi-may-prices/Literally all across retailers in the US, you will find stories about how they are increasing their prices on all products. Scary stuff. But as the WaPo article above indicates, lawmakers in the US are saying it's just temporary. Sure, the inflation is temporary. But are the effects temporary? Nope! They last a life time, and then some. Once prices increase, they don't go back down. And then who gets hurt? The consumer.
|
|
|
|
TL;DR: Thomas Sowell believes that there is no such thing as inequality of opportunity, no such thing as systemic discrimination, no such thing as the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and vulnerable. He believes that the son of a white billionaire has the exact same chances in life as the daughter of a Mexican illegal immigrant who has to work three jobs just to pay the rent. He's also - although there are no quotes on this above - a climate-change denier.
I'm wary of taking isolated quotes out of context, but there's a clear pattern that many of his statements and opinions are driven by the almost rabid antipathy characteristic of an extremist ideologue, and many, notably his aversion to foreign aid, are morally indefensible. If you genuinely believe that there is no problem with a largely untaxed billionaire spending a hundred million dollars on a new yacht rather than saving millions of lives in poorer nations by providing safe drinking water or malaria nets, then it says a lot about your position on a lot of subjects. But who cares about anyone else, right, so long as you have enough $$$ yourself? 'F*** the poor' appears to be the overriding sentiment, as if poverty were entirely a choice.
He believes that the welfare system has turned out to be complete garbage over the last 30 or 40 years because it displaces blacks even further. His arguments are that the cure can't be worse than the disease. Take minimum wage for example, he says raising the minimum wage which might help out black people because they are lower down on the income scale means that only those that actually have a job benefit. When businesses begin to slash their work force because they can't afford the minimum wage increases, what happens to all the minorities that lose their jobs? Do they get to reap the benefits of the 15 dollar minimum wage? Watch his interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok It's very informative to his real positions. Also worth watching his views on AOC type policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SprRnUBAruw |
|
|
|
|
Billionaire doesn't like Bitcoin? What??!? No way. Most of the people that take Trump's word for everything without thinking are probably too stupid to understand the novelty of Bitcoin anyways. I usually compare those people to the same people that stormed the capitol building because they thought the election was stolen.
|
|
|
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-07/doj-to-discuss-ransomware-attack-on-colonial-pipeline-on-mondayWow, US government did something useful for once. They recovered a lot of the Bitcoin that was stolen through the hack. Can't imagine how they did this though. The article mentions who was behind the hack, they said the people who are responsible will probably not face charges because they're outside of US. Seemed very weird how the oil company willingly gave up millions on a whim, guess it was peanuts compared to the amount of money they were losing shut down.
|
|
|
|
|
Does that mean the tranny celebrities are cisgendered?
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with your thoughts that virus was not created intentionally by any country or person to use it as bio weapon but there is possibility it could have leaked as a result of accident in Lab. Even the most secure labs have sometimes accidents. Its not man made pandemic, not engineered to make massive killing world wide. Why any country, CHINA or USA would take risk of killing its own people.
For the same reason they demolished the twin towers in 9/11. If there is a human element, it is not a coincidence. The virus was created intentionally. Do you even follow the latest news? Dr. Fauci is about to be crucified by his own people. Not so long ago, the fact checkers were banning people who say that the virus came from the lab in Wuhan and now the fact checkers are editing their facts. Now, if those fact checkers were wrong back in the day... why would anybody ever listen to them again? As far as I know facts are immutable truths. If you constantly edit your facts, how can you be a fact checker? The fact checkers have been sipping a bit to to much kool aid. They really like to regard themselves as the doing the lord's work, and they sacrifice their own credibility so they can push a narrative (most, anyways). But now even some of the "fact checkers" are coming around and asking more questions. They should have been more forthcoming a year ago, but better let than never? |
|
|
|
No no, you're right I absolutely did not read that one article you linked because I figured it'd be a waste of time, and in fact it was! I've already tried to see if there was any decent research about there on masks, there isn't any. There are laboratory replications and then "meta analysis" case type studies. These weren't laboratory studies. They were real world studies. If you read the article, I don't think you would have said what you did.
They are *case* studies. All that means is that they take data that is already produced and then try to make sense of it. This is different from a scientific experiment where you conduct an experimental assay, record the data, and then analyze the data. What's wrong with meta analysis type case studies? They aren't scientific assays, they don't have a control group, most importantly they don't account for confounding variables. Go look into this, the most crucial part of a scientific experiment is controlling the confounding variables. So when I saw apply critical thinking skills, this isn't some petty shot at your intelligence, all this is saying is that because you can find a case study that saw a reduction in Covid cases because of masks, it's not right to immediately attribute that reduction in Covid cases due to masks alone, and not some other variable. And secondly, I'd argue that the data is cherry picked because looking at the Italian or US Covid case chart, there isn't any correlation to mask usage and a reduction in Covid cases. When the experts talk about using masks, they usually talk about it within the context of stopping aerosol particles from spreading. And again, I'm not disputing this. I agree with the experts. I'm talking about asymptomatic spread where someone isn't going into a restaurant and then spitting on everyone, then leaving. If you have Covid, it's beneficial for you to mask up. If you are asymptomatic and mask up, which is what a mask mandate accomplishes, it doesn't make much sense. |
|
|
|
Many months ago, I heard the theory that COVID-19 had been created in that institute that had received funding from Fauci among others.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I can see why people might believe it came from an accidental lab leak. I wondered about the origin last year; I suspect that if it did come from a lab, then China, notoriously autocratic, would try very hard to suppress the story and concoct some more or less plausible alternative... initially I was unsure if it was natural or not. However, whilst we all became armchair virologists, the real experts were investigating the nature of the virus to determine its probable origin. As the evidence accrued, I began to form an opinion that it was a natural virus, most likely transmitted through bats at the wet market, as reported. I linked to several papers on this subject about a year ago, but here is a short excerpt from one of them again. The more you look into it, the more it seems that the structure of the virus is very different to the kind of thing that people might make. Again though, I'm by no means an expert. As ever, all we can do is study the findings as best we can. Theories of SARS-CoV-2 origins
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9This paper is published in March of 2020, when it was scientific suicide to suggest that the virus might've come from a lab. It was considered racist if you said otherwise. The paper's saying that because the binding site of the virus has a high binding affinity to the human ACE2 receptor, it's probably a selection mechanism that this virus originated from, but people that support the lab leak theory aren't necessarily saying that it isn't natural, they're saying it's possible the virus was being used for gain of function research, and that it was "leaked" accidentally due to poor hygiene. So it probably is natural, in fact I think it is, but it also probably was being studied in Wuhan and was leaked. It's probably not a custom bioweapon (in fact I think it's kinda crazy to say so). |
|
|
|
The Lab Leak Theory Explained by Vanity Fair (certainly not a right leaning organization) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-originsIf anyone is interested, you should read the entire article but I'll highlight some portions. Former CDC Robert Redfield had thought *last year* that this virus might have leaked out from a laboratory, and he received deaths threats from literal scientists, not politicians, not right wing nut jobs, other scientists, for suggesting the virus came out of a lab. But for most of the past year, the lab-leak scenario was treated not simply as unlikely or even inaccurate but as morally out-of-bounds. In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told Vanity Fair. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.”
The scientific community back in March generally condemned any theories that supported the idea that the virus was leaked from a lab, with "The Lancet", one of the most prestigious scientific journals, condemned the misinformation from people suggesting that the virus had originated from a lab. Here is that article. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltextThe article points out: On February 19, 2020, The Lancet, among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism. Signed by 27 scientists, the statement expressed “solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China” and asserted: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” The Lancet statement effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began. To Gilles Demaneuf, following along from the sidelines, it was as if it had been “nailed to the church doors,” establishing the natural origin theory as orthodoxy. “Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone.” This is yet another reminder that people do not trust scientific institutions because they don't deserve our trust. It took over a year before the media began to take the lab leak theory seriously, and that is after scientific professionals condemned the idea because of they didn't want to be politically inflammatory. |
|
|
|
...
Good, we have the case studies -- now let's apply some critical thinking skills. In these meta analysis type studies, we don't have a control base line nor do we have any way to separate confounding variables. The data of mask usage is also self reported which is already going to be skewed. In circumstances where people wear masks, is it also true that a person that wears a mask would also engage in other precautions like handwashing, self isolating when exhibiting symptoms or when in close contact with infected people, and most importantly, follows social distancing guidelines? The answer is yes. Remember, all these mask mandates were in conjunction with social distancing, and we all know social distancing absolutely works without a doubt. It's also probably true that someone who is willing to wear a mask is probably more willing to engage in social distancing too. So how are we able to separate masks as the differential here? We can't. These case studies just that, case studies that cherry pick data without having a control group, without taking into account confounding variables. Goes without saying, correlation is not causation. If you look at the mask mandate in April for the entire US, you can selectively take the data and indicate that the mask mandate clearly worked because there was a *momentarily* decrease in caseload. But that's only if you take the data and refuse to look at the entire timeline. |
|
|
|
Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population.
And the experts are saying you're wrong. Studies show that masks stop the spread of the virus, whether the spreader is symptomatic or not. The fact that so many are asymptomatic is why before the vaccine they recommended everyone where a mask. This article explains it better than I could: Face masks essential in combating asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets Here's the study it's based on: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422But wait, that one's oveer a year old, ok, here's a more recent study (it's really based on about 12 separate studies, that I've already posted for you) from Feb 2021 (this is the third time I've linked it for you): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways. First, masks prevent infected persons from exposing others to SARS-CoV-2 by blocking exhalation of virus-containing droplets into the air (termed source control). This aspect of mask wearing is especially important because it is estimated that at least 50% or more of transmissions are from persons who never develop symptoms or those who are in the presymptomatic phase of COVID-19 illness.1 There's plenty more, open your eyes. April 2020 is when the CDC changed their guidelines and no more than a month late nearly every state in America mandated masks. Show me the correlation between mask usage and the reduction in case load. Point me to where the masks worked. In fact, I'll make it easier for you -- show me states that lifted their mask mandates, or states that were loose with their mask mandates, like Florida, and show me the association between a lack of a mask mandate. The data does lie. You're linking me to laboratory studies which refer to aerosol particle spread when people are "loud speaking", was one of the phrases your links used. Find me a single study that take into account real world factors of the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, etc. It doesn't exist. Turns out, Covid spread doesn't just happen by a single person going into a store, screaming at the top of their lungs, and then leaving. Masks are marginally effective at best, and there is *zero* conclusive evidence that they are effective at stopping spread within the general public, especially when community spread already exists. Again, show me the data that they work, not a test of aerosol spread, I'm not disputing that mask can help stop aerosol spread. Do you know the exact extent that an asymptomatic individual will produce aerosol particles? Nope, and neither do the "experts." |
|
|
|
he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?
From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context: Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.
LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?
Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective. He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect. Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy. You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific. It's really not that complicated. Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns. We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading. We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them. You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew. In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time. More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did. I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-preventhttps://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/openhttps://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-knowhttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either. Cool, click on another one then, try this one? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536Read the abstract, check out the table with all the different studies and results...and don't just bring up one study that you think is easiest to discredit and then use it to discredit all of them. Look at the results of all the studies as a whole. I'm not going to keep holding your hand and do all the research for you. It's obvious the evidence clearly points to masks being effective. We're still learning new stuff and we don't know precisely how effective, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective. Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population. If you are symptomatic and sneeze into a mask, it captures some of the droplets and then a mask is effective, no one is disputing that, I said that earlier very clearly. My point is masking up the general population, vast majority being asymptomatic, has shown no evidence to stop the spread when you consider that asymptomatic people don't transmit the virus to a great extent to begin with, when you consider the masks people use are reused, very porous, do not create a proper seal with the face, and people keep touching the damn thing (in fact, in medical settings, you are to discard your mask if you touch it with your hands and then wash your hands)...So when you keep linking these studies, they aren't looking at normal people breathing in a room using a mask they pulled out of their glove compartment. They aren't taking someone that's Covid positive, putting a mask on them, and then putting them in a room with non infected people to see whether the virus is actually stopped by the mask. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHsSome of the video was debunked, turns out in one of the videos, it was probably just a goose  UFOs are just conspiracies to me. If they are aliens, why does the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians never report them? Why do we always find them off the coast of the US? Americans are very self centered I get it, but if they're ailiens, you think they might be interested in some place other than the US? Turns out, the US invests a lot of money in R and D into military technology, and these flying objects are probably advanced US military drones or planes. Some of the UFOs are just illusions, see the video above. When Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles talk about UFOs, they even admit that the aliens theory is far fetched. Us earthlings are not that interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
The "save the environment" nutjobs whining about BTC is nothing more than people spreading misinformation, I don't think it's anything to be worried about. Elon Musk just brought it to the mainstream discussion because apparently he didn't understand that BTC mining requires electricity before Tesla's massive purchase of Bitcoin (or of course, he knew and he lied about it like a slime ball).
|
|
|
|
he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?
From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context: Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.
LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?
Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective. He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect. Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy. You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific. It's really not that complicated. Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns. We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading. We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them. You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew. In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time. More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did. I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-preventhttps://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/openhttps://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-knowhttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
