just when you thought you knew what stupid was

[CalG]

Lol, you can稚 be that clueless? If LEOs across America enforced every violation they observed, everyday, your 911 call would take a month to answer, and municipalities would be broke from OT in January every year.....

I read once.... The average "law abiding" citizen breaks 5-6 laws per day.... I hate stop sign cameras! ;-)

 

[CalG]

There are also societies that tend to care for their elders in the home, rather than farm them out. I'm sure this would have some effect on the death toll. Maybe one way or the other for that matter. If they lived in NY and the authorities sent COVID cases into the old age homes, that was bad!

So I think it's impossible to compare one country/society with another.

Sweden has large "elder commons". Norway and Finland tend to smaller groupings. And then there is Malmo.... Nothing like it in Norway or Finland

 

[CalG]

If you say so, I値l go the other way, I like OT (shrugs).

No one would be happy with robotic cops.

MoMower

Thanks for what you do! It can't be easy.

Idiots all around.... and they call on you to make things right...;-)

 

[RSR]

No you are incorrect..."a wealth of research" is not a definitive clearing house of facts... there are only findings when it comes to the actual virus within the droplets that the research is akin to...yes you can say the droplets do this or don't do that but you can't say what happens with the covid microbes...

And as far as masks being "effective" there are NO definitive numbers...especially in real life scenarios not laboratory and emulated conditions and settings...

You need to face some facts that just because you want to believe something just because there is "some" evidence that supports it...does not make it so...

And BTW...vetted by whom??

You seem to be expressing that you will only be "convinced" when you put a sick person in the same room as a healthy person, don't let them touch, rather only talk, and then see if the other gets infected. That would actually be a good experiment. The problem is, it would never be approved for ethical reasons. So, you look at data that you do know, and again (like a puzzle) piece everything together to get a clear picture.

It is pretty safe to say that pretty much no research is "definitive". I admitted to as much earlier. That's how science progresses. But claiming "I refuse to believe" when there is overwhelming evidence is naivety at best, or worse, willful ignorance.

Now, as to your argument of a "wealth" of evidence versus "some". Well, just because you aren't familiar with it, doesn't mean hasn't been performed.

So, let's take a look at the mask issue. What do we know?

The virus is shed from the upper respiratory tract (Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019 | Nature), which is the same location droplets are produced during speaking/coughing/talking (Modality of human expired aerosol size distributions - ScienceDirect, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227699, etc.). Droplets are in the range of 0.5 micron - 200 micron (Modality of human expired aerosol size distributions - ScienceDirect, Effect of voicing and articulation manner on aerosol particle emission during human speech). It has been shown that viruses that are shed in the respiratory and oral tract can be transported in expirated droplets (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25523206/). Side note: this was first shown in 1897!!!! Expiration droplets are known to be able to stay suspended easily, for hours, and up to days in time (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850208002036, https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17542834/, etc.). The SARS-CoV-2 virus remains viable (infectious) in an aerosolized form for up to 2 hours (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2004973). The virus has been measured directly in hospital locations where infected patients are not present, as well as in social situations (e.g. Skagit choir) where social distancing was maintained, no contact occurred, but transmission did occur (For a review of some of these examples - there are many - see https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa939/5867798, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151430/, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.15.20132027v1.full.pdf, etc.). Finally, in addition to the summation of information already presented, it is known that oral expirations can travel much farther than 6 feet in aerosolized form (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2763852).

The usefulness of face masks has been proven in the laboratory, and in the community, despite your protestation to the contrary that they haven't. Again, just because you aren't aware of the results doesn't mean they aren't out there. (see below)

Face coverings work, because they stop virus-laden droplets from entering the surroundings by trapping them in the cloth (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?ContensisTextOnly=true, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/5.0016018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850220301063, etc.) The usefulness of face covering has also been proven by looking at how infection rates vary with state mandates on mask wearing (https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818). Retrospective community modeling based on facemask compliance has shown similar results (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117). Wearing face masks will save a large number of lives (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117). The need for everyone to wear a face masks is because of the prevalence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread with COVID-19 (I already posted a bunch of links to articles proving this in an earlier post).

Now, the sad thing here? I have just scratched the surface of what is out there. Yes, the evidence, when taken as a whole, is overwhelming that: (1) Aymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals can spread the virus in aerosol form. (2) The virus is airborne and infectious. (3) Masks are effective (but not perfect) at stopping the airborne spread of the virus. (4) If everyone wears a mask, it will save lives.

The facts are before you. But hey, sometimes it's easier to just play ostrich, bury your head in the sand, stick to your guns, and continue in ignorance.

 

[MoMower]

MoMower

Thanks for what you do! It can't be easy.

Idiots all around.... and they call on you to make things right...;-)

You are very welcome. Thanks is not necessary, but appreciated.

The idiots (of the criminal type) are job security. 18 years in probably 17 to go.

 

[RSR]

You have made many unsupported assumptions. Demographics is not your strong suit.

So let me get this straight. You cherry pick countries that have nothing in common with Sweden, with no justification whatsoever, and then say "See, Sweden's doing great."

I respond with a selection of countries that can be justified as being more like Sweden than any of the countries you chose, and your response is, essentially, "Nope, I disagree with your justification for selecting those countries, so I'm right!?!?!''

Again. Look up Occam's Razor. The ONE thing that was different between Sweden and it's neighboring countries was lock-down versus no lockdown. So, gee, let's think, what would be most likely to explain the differences in deaths. Oh, I knows, it's Malm (yes, I know, other poster). But again, you are looking for every possible solution to support your bias, instead of the one staring you straight in the face.

 

[CalG]

You seem to be expressing that you will only be "convinced" when you put a sick person in the same room as a healthy person, don't let them touch, rather only talk, and then see if the other gets infected. That would actually be a good experiment. The problem is, it would never be approved for ethical reasons. So, you look at data that you do know, and again (like a puzzle) piece everything together to get a clear picture.

The facts are before you. But hey, sometimes it's easier to just play ostrich, bury your head in the sand, stick to your guns, and continue in ignorance.

How is it that kids and homeless people get a pass?

Is there more to the story than "transmission".

It is easiest to speak authoritatively on subjects that are familiar. That doesn't make those topics significant.

Consider this statemen you have provided:
"Face coverings work, because they stop virus-laden droplets from entering the surroundings by trapping them in the cloth "

Does that not imply that the INFECTED wearer of the mask is INCREASING his/her own viral load and so increasing a more acute infection?
Expectoration is a response to what? Has it developed as a mechanism to fight off infections? If so? how is it "good" to inhibit the response. If "no", then why did it develop?

I'm going down to my laboratory and set up a laser illuminated test that depicts the particle velocity and distribution of expectorant during a coughing episode. I'll use a black and white "shadow graph" to accentuate the scientific nature of refracted light. But then I will apply false color to the mirage to highlight the sensational aspects I am trying to put across in order to gain support and funding for my work.

I could do that. I have all the elements at hand (in the lab). But I won't. "Because of the children". They just don't get it!

Or are we just ignoring such mechanics because they do not fit the narrative?

 

[5030]

"The facts are before you. But hey, sometimes it's easier to just play ostrich, bury your head in the sand, stick to your guns, and continue in ignorance."

Until you contract it. Then you sing a different song.

 

[Industrial Toys]

Funny if you look at these exchanges and wonder, who you would like to have a conversation with at a dinner party or BBQ.

 

[RSR]

How is it that kids and homeless people get a pass?

Is there more to the story than "transmission".

It is easiest to speak authoritatively on subjects that are familiar. That doesn't make those topics significant.

Consider this statemen you have provided:
"Face coverings work, because they stop virus-laden droplets from entering the surroundings by trapping them in the cloth "

Does that not imply that the INFECTED wearer of the mask is INCREASING his/her own viral load and so increasing a more acute infection?
Expectoration is a response to what? Has it developed as a mechanism to fight off infections? If so? how is it "good" to inhibit the response. If "no", then why did it develop?

I'm going down to my laboratory and set up a laser illuminated test that depicts the particle velocity and distribution of expectorant during a coughing episode. I'll use a black and white "shadow graph" to accentuate the scientific nature of refracted light. But then I will apply false color to the mirage to highlight the sensational aspects I am trying to put across in order to gain support and funding for my work.

I could do that. I have all the elements at hand (in the lab). But I won't. "Because of the children". They just don't get it!

Or are we just ignoring such mechanics because they do not fit the narrative?

You keep bringing up homeless people, yet you have never provided any evidence to show they are, or are not, getting sicker/dying at any rates different than the general public.

Something else to think about. Homeless people are, well, homeless. Which means they spend their time outdoors. Where droplet concentrations aren't able to build up. They also don't come into contact with many people.

If you honestly think holding in your cough will increase your own viral load, I'm concerned. That's not how viruses replicate in the body. There's a reason we're told to "cover our mouth when we cough."

Wearing a face covering does not inhibit expectoration one bit. It just deposits droplets in the material, instead of the air.

Finally, read the articles I posted. There are many more than just laser light illumination of droplets that show face coverings work, including various that use aerodynamic particle sizers to actually count individual droplets.

The arguments you are grasping at to justify your stance have progressed from Ill-informed to downright ludicrous.

As evidenced by your last comment, it appears you have reached the final state of denial where, when there is no logical way to support your argument, you resort to "Well, I bet that data is just made up."