just when you thought you knew what stupid was

[MoMower]

I believe you have the disconnect somewhere.

When push comes to shove, local LEO's will have to enforce state mandates given time.

Kind laughable in a way... This same sheriff (Johnson of Alamance ounty) who doesn't mind a race track event does mind a protest on public grounds.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article243054951.html

The bigger question becomes how the police can enforce "codified laws" within that state that go against the Constitution of the United States but it's the LE's job to uphold the Constitution. Not saying it's right or wrong, but the way of the world in the US.

No disconnect here. I am firmly rooted in the US and state constitution along with the Oath I swore to uphold.

Push come to shove, a lot of things will happen. Enforcing mandates that are not codified laws, won’t be one of them.

 

[MoMower]

You said "We (the police) aren't and won't enforce such things." Yet we've seen numerous examples of police enforcing such things.

Where? I haven’t seen any (not being obtuse, I have seen none). And again, in the area I work in, and for that matter the state, we are not and will not enforce a mandate.

 

[CalG]

I find it most interesting that the original post challenged the idea of not wearing a facial mask as "stupid". Extending the "stupidity" to the additional option of prohibiting masks in certain situations.
By association, "people who disdain mask wearing are therefore stupid people" (my words).

Yet, As witnessed in post 547 by DK35vince, Residents of Western PA is not a mask wearing group . I know there is not widespread support for mask wearing in the Dakotas either. Certainly no mandate.
Are all these people stupid? It's a big world....

 

[RSR]

You..

My bad. I'll try to speak slower and use shorter words.

 

[MoMower]

I believe you have the disconnect somewhere.

When push comes to shove, local LEO's will have to enforce state mandates given time.

Kind laughable in a way... This same sheriff (Johnson of Alamance ounty) who doesn't mind a race track event does mind a protest on public grounds.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article243054951.html

The bigger question becomes how the police can enforce "codified laws" within that state that go against the Constitution of the United States but it's the LE's job to uphold the Constitution. Not saying it's right or wrong, but the way of the world in the US.

Missed that part about the protest. An LEO, especially an administrator, should extend the same courtesy/respect/discretion to all citizens, even the ones he disagrees with.

The states rights v. Constitution issue is a whole other can of worms, and I agree.

The states that limit freedoms have their own constitutions that mirror the US one, yet still pull that crap.

 

[RSR]

Just to be sure everyone is on the same page.

This is not a trivial statement extracted from the subsequent study.


Little is known about the infectiveness of asymptomatic patients. Our findings, given a recent report of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from an asymptomatic person to 4 family members,8 nevertheless offer biological plausibility to such reports of transmission by asymptomatic people. A previous study9 analyzing a small number of patients also reported that viral load of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 patients was as high as that of symptomatic patients. Although the high viral load we observed in asymptomatic patients raises a distinct possibility of a risk for transmission, our study was not designed to determine this. [end quote]

So many questions? I worry about those who profess to know the answers.

Again, all you are proving, is you don't understand how the progression of research and science works.

Let me explain it like this. Think of it as a puzzle. You have a bunch of people all working on the same puzzle. Everyone is trying to find a piece, and figure out how it fits into the bigger picture. It takes all of the pieces to see the entire picture (e.g., see the forest through the trees), as it is extremely rare to perform one study that suddenly identifies everything you need to know. If an individual like yourself continues to pursue your confirmation bias (as you have done again with this comment) without understanding the whole picture, then you arrive at erroneous conclusions, such as, "This puzzle piece doesn't fit in the place I'm trying to put it, so it must be a bad piece. Let's throw it out!"

Regarding asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread, there are two issues. 1) Transmission - does it jump from an asymptomatic person to another?, and 2) Viral load - how infectious are asymptomatic/presymptomatic people. That is, is asymptomatic transmission a rarity because they are less infectious (as the WHO was claiming), or is it just as likely to occur because they are just as infectious.

The article I quoted definitively answered the second question. They are just as infectious. That was their focus, and a key finding that up to that point was unknown. The research community already KNOWS that asymptomatic/presymptomatic transmission occurs, because it has been well documented. It just wasn't clear how likely that was relative to symptomatic transmission. By focusing solely on an accurate statement by the authors regarding their main research objective (infectivity versus transmission), and then making a judgement of it's utility based on a lack of understanding of the broader research field, you failed to dig deep enough to recognize that asymptomatic/presymptomatic transmission has already been shown to occur, here:

Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic (which gives a good overview of other articles showing the same thing)

and here:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

and here:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2009758

Are you getting the point?

and here:

Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19 | Infectious Diseases | JAMA | JAMA Network

and here:

Screening of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 highlights the role of asymptomatic carriage in COVID-19 transmission | eLife

And I could go on.


Finally, as you continue to post glib comments about science, such as that it's just observation, you again are highlighting your lack of understanding on the matter. Travel to the moon was not made possible by looking through a telescope and observing the moon. The theory of relativity was not developed by seeing how time could speed up and slow down. Scientists develop theories and hypotheses based on understanding the physical underpinnings of the phenomenon of interest. Then they seek to design experiments, to test, validate, and further advance those hypotheses. It's called the scientific method, and is usually taught in middle school science classes. But again, maybe that was one of those classes you thought was too boring to attend, and so skipped it.

 

[5030]

Again, all you are proving, is you don't understand how the progression of research and science works.

Let me explain it like this. Think of it as a puzzle. You have a bunch of people all working on the same puzzle. Everyone is trying to find a piece, and figure out how it fits into the bigger picture. It takes all of the pieces to see the entire picture (e.g., see the forest through the trees), as it is extremely rare to perform one study that suddenly identifies everything you need to know. If an individual like yourself continues to pursue your confirmation bias (as you have done again with this comment) without understanding the whole picture, then you arrive at erroneous conclusions, such as, "This puzzle piece doesn't fit in the place I'm trying to put it, so it must be a bad piece. Let's throw it out!"

Regarding asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread, there are two issues. 1) Transmission - does it jump from an asymptomatic person to another?, and 2) Viral load - how infectious are asymptomatic/presymptomatic people. That is, is asymptomatic transmission a rarity because they are less infectious (as the WHO was claiming), or is it just as likely to occur because they are just as infectious.

The article I quoted definitively answered the second question. They are just as infectious. That was their focus, and a key finding that up to that point was unknown. The research community already KNOWS that asymptomatic/presymptomatic transmission occurs, because it has been well documented. It just wasn't clear how likely that was relative to symptomatic transmission. By focusing solely on an accurate statement by the authors regarding their main research objective (infectivity versus transmission), and then making a judgement of it's utility based on a lack of understanding of the broader research field, you failed to dig deep enough to recognize that asymptomatic/presymptomatic transmission has already been shown to occur, here:

Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic (which gives a good overview of other articles showing the same thing)

and here:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

and here:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2009758

Are you getting the point?

and here:

Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19 | Infectious Diseases | JAMA | JAMA Network

and here:

Screening of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 highlights the role of asymptomatic carriage in COVID-19 transmission | eLife

And I could go on.


Finally, as you continue to post glib comments about science, such as that it's just observation, you again are highlighting your lack of understanding on the matter. Travel to the moon was not made possible by looking through a telescope and observing the moon. The theory of relativity was not developed by seeing how time could speed up and slow down. Scientists develop theories and hypotheses based on understanding the physical underpinnings of the phenomenon of interest. Then they seek to design experiments, to test, validate, and further advance those hypotheses. It's called the scientific method, and is usually taught in middle school science classes. But again, maybe that was one of those classes you thought was too boring to attend, and so skipped it.

You mean they actually teach something in school toady? I'll be.

 

[Dftodd]

And a word from the optimist side

Honey found to be a better treatment for upper respiratory tract infections than traditional remedies

I'm a firm believer with locally sourced honey helping with seasonal allergies.

 

[CalG]

Again, all you are proving, is you don't understand how the progression of research and science works.

Finally, as you continue to post glib comments about science, such as that it's just observation, you again are highlighting your lack of understanding on the matter. Travel to the moon was not made possible by looking through a telescope and observing the moon. The theory of relativity was not developed by seeing how time could speed up and slow down. Scientists develop theories and hypotheses based on understanding the physical underpinnings of the phenomenon of interest. Then they seek to design experiments, to test, validate, and further advance those hypotheses. It's called the scientific method, and is usually taught in middle school science classes. But again, maybe that was one of those classes you thought was too boring to attend, and so skipped it.

Nah, You got it all wrong. I spent my career in science. Physics, light and optical phenomena.

I've observed how "scientist" stand behind their credentials , crafting their self image by the motto "publish or perish".

Pawning superiority behind the works of giants.

I got to do some pretty cool stuff. Caught neutrinos in scintillating slabs of quartz, Snagged gasses from the deepest parts of the ocean, Heck, My DNA is on Mars. Who'd a thunk...

Got tired of the cold fusion hype I guess.

It keeps coming back to those pesky Swedes. They aren't masking up.... Pretty much the same results as the others. At least a general observation shows as much.

 

[RSR]

It keeps coming back to those pesky Swedes. They aren't masking up.... Pretty much the same results as the others. At least a general observation shows as much.

Really? 5-10 TIMES the per capita death rate of their neighboring Scandinavian countries is "pretty much the same result"?

So, to apply that to the US, if we were sitting at roughly 1-2 MILLION deaths (currently 170,000 plus) that wouldn't be a concern?

Maybe we just have a different definition of what acceptable is.