nm
Like I said, if you can't get hyped for the Carolina game, why are you here?
-Earl Wolff-
-Earl Wolff-
Coronavirus
2,677,071 Views |
20319 Replies |
Last: 11 hrs ago by Werewolf
^Numerous studies underway around the world to assess the snake venom peptide possibility. If you'll Rumble videos for "Doctor Ardis" there are numerous videos discussing in detail. What he's done is more of an "Inspector Clouseau" as he's a chiropractor I believe. He's able to come forward unlike others with pressure/threats from Big Pharma.
^
does this snake venom peptide occur only in snake venom, and nowhere else?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
does this snake venom peptide occur only in snake venom, and nowhere else?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
Like I said, if you can't get hyped for the Carolina game, why are you here?
-Earl Wolff-
-Earl Wolff-
I have no earthly idea. Leavin' it to the scientists. There cannot be 'yes' or 'no' from any of us on this board.
The last blurb I saw on it was it was likely a synthetic.......
The last blurb I saw on it was it was likely a synthetic.......
So, if the peptide was also found in goose ovaries, then we could, and maybe should, call it a goose egg protein?
"I have no earthly idea."
and now you have admitted to not knowing what you are talking about. But you repeatedly post these web sites without understanding them, apparently in an attempt to get others to believe what you yourself DO NOT know.
Sounds like Jen Psaki tactics to me.
"I have no earthly idea."
and now you have admitted to not knowing what you are talking about. But you repeatedly post these web sites without understanding them, apparently in an attempt to get others to believe what you yourself DO NOT know.
Sounds like Jen Psaki tactics to me.
Like I said, if you can't get hyped for the Carolina game, why are you here?
-Earl Wolff-
-Earl Wolff-
100% NOT TRUE.
How many things are posted when that person doesn't know 100% certain about something.
Let's say such n such runs a 4.4 forty...........and you opine that such n such runs a 4.4 forty. Do you really know? No, you DO NOT. Very simply, you are sharing information, you do NOT know.
We could apply the same to 90% of what's posted here. If such n such is going to take an official visit on such n such a date.............and you post it. You - very simply - DO NOT KNOW. You are sharing info that you have that others may not have.
How many things are posted when that person doesn't know 100% certain about something.
Let's say such n such runs a 4.4 forty...........and you opine that such n such runs a 4.4 forty. Do you really know? No, you DO NOT. Very simply, you are sharing information, you do NOT know.
We could apply the same to 90% of what's posted here. If such n such is going to take an official visit on such n such a date.............and you post it. You - very simply - DO NOT KNOW. You are sharing info that you have that others may not have.
Kinda like..........you post that such n such is visiting on such n such a date. I ask where's he staying then. I reply I don't know, but Mercy or one of the other coaches know. I reply back that you shouldn''t be posted such nonsense because you don't know specifically where such n such is staying.
You don't understand this analogy or you do?
You don't understand this analogy or you do?
Werewolf said:
Kinda like..........you post that such n such is visiting on such n such a date. I ask where's he staying then. I reply I don't know, but Mercy or one of the other coaches know. I reply back that you shouldn''t be posted such nonsense because you don't know specifically where such n such is staying.
You don't understand this analogy or you do?
That analogy doesn't work at all.
A more accurate analogy would be like saying some recruit ran a 4.2 forty time and must be the fastest high school recruit ever. But then not mentioning that 3 other kids at that same camp had even faster times because the stopwatch was off.
Well at least the world has shown that the entire masking during the virus was a total sham and was only put in place for the people in power to see how far they could push their underlings.
And I have said it since I have commented on this thread and I'll say it again:
IF YOU OR A MEMBER(S) OF YOUR FAMILY IS/ARE IMMUNO-COMPRIMISED THEN YOU FOLLOW THE DOCTOR'S ADVICE AND WEAR A MASK IF RECOMMENDED OR YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY.
Does everyone understand that above statement? If not I can repeat it again like I have dozens of times before.
If you are one of the clowns driving down the road in a car by yourself wearing a mask then you deserve all the ridicule you get. You are nothing but a mindless, obedient, non-thinking sheep.
Special thanks to the lefties and their, well, he's not the leader, but to Sleepy Joe. Appealing the mask mandate being found illegal is a HUGE win for the GOP. It's almost as if this administration is purposefully trying to sabotage itself......
One could ponder that the far left MARXISTS that are running the show are sabotaging Sleepy Joe in order to prove this country needs to goose step more in line with them.... like many on here do!
And I have said it since I have commented on this thread and I'll say it again:
IF YOU OR A MEMBER(S) OF YOUR FAMILY IS/ARE IMMUNO-COMPRIMISED THEN YOU FOLLOW THE DOCTOR'S ADVICE AND WEAR A MASK IF RECOMMENDED OR YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY.
Does everyone understand that above statement? If not I can repeat it again like I have dozens of times before.
If you are one of the clowns driving down the road in a car by yourself wearing a mask then you deserve all the ridicule you get. You are nothing but a mindless, obedient, non-thinking sheep.
Special thanks to the lefties and their, well, he's not the leader, but to Sleepy Joe. Appealing the mask mandate being found illegal is a HUGE win for the GOP. It's almost as if this administration is purposefully trying to sabotage itself......
One could ponder that the far left MARXISTS that are running the show are sabotaging Sleepy Joe in order to prove this country needs to goose step more in line with them.... like many on here do!
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
I'm sorry you're upset. Enjoy your dayWolfPacker54 said:Werewolf said:
Kinda like..........you post that such n such is visiting on such n such a date. I ask where's he staying then. I reply I don't know, but Mercy or one of the other coaches know. I reply back that you shouldn''t be posted such nonsense because you don't know specifically where such n such is staying.
You don't understand this analogy or you do?
That analogy doesn't work at all.
A more accurate analogy would be like saying some recruit ran a 4.2 forty time and must be the fastest high school recruit ever. But then not mentioning that 3 other kids at that same camp had even faster times because the stopwatch was off.
https://rumble.com/v11ey6j-dr.-ryan-cole-cancer-depleting-immune-systems-and-what-we-can-do-about-it.html
Dr Ryan Cole has been in the forefront on this issue.
Also, of very high importance to be aware of, the US Senate passed a treaty a few years back. It's a treaty with the WOLRD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ..........not another nation-state. The treaty allows the WHO to essentially take charge of the United States in the event of a pandemic. You had absolutely better be aware of this and think about all that would involve!!!!!
Dr Ryan Cole has been in the forefront on this issue.
Also, of very high importance to be aware of, the US Senate passed a treaty a few years back. It's a treaty with the WOLRD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ..........not another nation-state. The treaty allows the WHO to essentially take charge of the United States in the event of a pandemic. You had absolutely better be aware of this and think about all that would involve!!!!!
I don't understand. If masks are a total sham, why would any rational immunocompromised person feel the need to listen to a doctor and wear something that offers no benefit? Do we then listen to our docs if they suggest other such outlandish sham treatment measures? I sure hope not.
So I can only think of 2 scenarios: 1. masks are a sham and offer no protection and so there is no reason to suggest it's rational for the immunocompromised to waste their time and have false confidence that potentially raises their risk, or 2. masks aren't a sham and it's rational to allow no shame in the immunocompromised using them if they feel the need because they are more likely to exhibit the strict compliance needed to offer whatever benefit they offer such a group.
The only thing I know for certain is the mask has no idea whether or not the wearer is immunocompromised nor does it know its situational usage to somehow alter its effectiveness. It's just confusing.
So I can only think of 2 scenarios: 1. masks are a sham and offer no protection and so there is no reason to suggest it's rational for the immunocompromised to waste their time and have false confidence that potentially raises their risk, or 2. masks aren't a sham and it's rational to allow no shame in the immunocompromised using them if they feel the need because they are more likely to exhibit the strict compliance needed to offer whatever benefit they offer such a group.
The only thing I know for certain is the mask has no idea whether or not the wearer is immunocompromised nor does it know its situational usage to somehow alter its effectiveness. It's just confusing.
I don't think the masks were a sham, but I think some of the decision making on masking was very poor.Mormad said:
I don't understand. If masks are a total sham, why would any rational immunocompromised person feel the need to listen to a doctor and wear something that offers no benefit? Do we then listen to our docs if they suggest other such outlandish sham treatment measures? I sure hope not.
So I can only think of 2 scenarios: 1. masks are a sham and offer no protection and so there is no reason to suggest it's rational for the immunocompromised to waste their time and have false confidence that potentially raises their risk, or 2. masks aren't a sham and it's rational to allow no shame in the immunocompromised using them if they feel the need because they are more likely to exhibit the strict compliance needed to offer whatever benefit they offer such a group.
The only thing I know for certain is the mask has no idea whether or not the wearer is immunocompromised nor does it know its situational usage to somehow alter its effectiveness. It's just confusing.
Early in the disease, I think the mask policy was probably sound for the masks that actually were proven to provide some protection but the supply of those masks was not available to allow for the mandate to work, nor was it enough to provide masking where it was needed most - healthcare and nursing home environments - which then science was basically thrown out the window for the mandate - ie cloth type masks.
I agree with BBW above in that there should have never been a mandate because the mandate exacerbated the supply chain problem of masks that actually worked due to panic purchasing.
The other bad policy extension of mask mandates was some blue states and cities enacting civil penalties on businesses to force the mandate compliance.
I somewhat agree with BBW where there was a mix of people making these decisions who were doing so in an abundance of caution and then those who truly do have a power trip and ego problem (cough Cuomo…..cough).
Not sure I truly believe that this was a test to see how well the sheep could be herded. I just think this was more about issuing out bad policy by politicians because they felt like they must do something and it was backed by some in the scientific community who had the hubris to believe that a mask mandate would stop the spread.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
With all the data showing virtually no differences between regions with and without mask mandates, it certainly seems reasonable to question their effectiveness. I see two explanations for that data: 1) masks are irrelevant and 2) humans are unreliable users of masks. Of course, we can discount the data and say it's gathered, manipulated, or displayed improperly. Regardless, masks may be very effective for some purposes and very ineffective for others.
If masks are irrelevant with regards to COVID, then they offer no risk reduction for the immunocompromised and perhaps are endangering those folks who believe they help so they can take more risks around people.
If masks are likely to be worn improperly and the immunocompromised are well trained and extremely diligent, then perhaps they do offer risk reduction and are a reasonable choice for those folks.
If masks are irrelevant with regards to COVID, then they offer no risk reduction for the immunocompromised and perhaps are endangering those folks who believe they help so they can take more risks around people.
If masks are likely to be worn improperly and the immunocompromised are well trained and extremely diligent, then perhaps they do offer risk reduction and are a reasonable choice for those folks.
As an appeals court just ruled that federal agencies CAN continue to mandate vaccines on federal employees, I think they may reinstate the mask mandate at federal workplaces on the same grounds. I just got used to walking around my workplace without mask just this month. I guess I can resume until retirement. Vaccines are another story though. I had the double but no desire for a booster, especially after my sister developed blood clots in her legs immediately after second shot. Fifteen months until full retirement eligibility, dunno if I can game the appeals process that long. 
https://www.fedsmith.com/2022/04/19/second-appeals-court-backs-federal-employee-vaccine-mandate/
https://www.fedsmith.com/2022/04/19/second-appeals-court-backs-federal-employee-vaccine-mandate/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/whats-wrong-and-whats-right-about-judge-mizelles-mask-mandate-decision/
Andrew McCarthy argues the CDC does have the authority to mandate masks but the Biden administration abused the process. The article provides a complicated analysis on the errors in her arguments and reminds us we don't want judges attempting to make policy even if we happen to agree with the results.
Andrew McCarthy argues the CDC does have the authority to mandate masks but the Biden administration abused the process. The article provides a complicated analysis on the errors in her arguments and reminds us we don't want judges attempting to make policy even if we happen to agree with the results.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,277
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Thanks for posting this article and I think McCarthy's arguments and points regarding the judge's decision are correct. I do think the judge's ruling will be over-turned on appeal and I anticipate the CDC will attempt to reinstate the mandate. I do think the judge was correct in throwing out the policy, given the CDC did not follow required administrative procedures and as such, if the CDC wants to reinstate their mandate, they should be required to follow the legal required procedures.PackFansXL said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/whats-wrong-and-whats-right-about-judge-mizelles-mask-mandate-decision/
Andrew McCarthy argues the CDC does have the authority to mandate masks but the Biden administration abused the process. The article provides a complicated analysis on the errors in her arguments and reminds us we don't want judges attempting to make policy even if we happen to agree with the results.
Additionally, the CDC should be required to present sound, well-reviewed studies that demonstrate their masking mandate will have an effect of achieving the stated goal of limiting the spread of a highly infectious disease. Otherwise, I do believe plaintiffs would have grounds to argue the mandate on the grounds of them being arbitrary and capricious. Since the CDC is likely unable to produce said studies, they would have the potential of being struck down on these grounds.
The CDC and other government officials are setting up an argument that people must wear masks to protect the immunocompromised population that may desire to travel. However, this is a difficult argument for them to win, since they have no required masks in the past to prevent the transmission of other airborne infectious diseases. Under these grounds, the CDC and government are arguing for perpetual masking into the future and providing no basis for the removal of the mandate.
The question becomes - when is it safe enough for immunocompromised people to travel with those who are not taking precautions and may be infected? At what point does it become the responsibility of the immunocompromised individual act in a way to protect themselves from an environment where they could be infected by a broad range of infectious diseases? In the past, people who were immunocompromised were expected to take actions on their own to avoid infection and not depend on others to take those same precautions. At what point can we expect the same actions to apply? The virus that causes Covid-19 is never going to go away. It will continue to mutate and as more and more people become exposed to it, it will shift from being a "novel" virus to one that is endemic. Cases and hospitalizations will continue to rise and fall, following seasonal trends that are very predictable. So, it will never be safe for anyone who is immunocompromised to travel, without taking their own precautions - just as they have always been required to do in the past.
PackFansXL said:
With all the data showing virtually no differences between regions with and without mask mandates, it certainly seems reasonable to question their effectiveness. I see two explanations for that data: 1) masks are irrelevant and 2) humans are unreliable users of masks. Of course, we can discount the data and say it's gathered, manipulated, or displayed improperly. Regardless, masks may be very effective for some purposes and very ineffective for others.
If masks are irrelevant with regards to COVID, then they offer no risk reduction for the immunocompromised and perhaps are endangering those folks who believe they help so they can take more risks around people.
If masks are likely to be worn improperly and the immunocompromised are well trained and extremely diligent, then perhaps they do offer risk reduction and are a reasonable choice for those folks.
It certainly is reasonable to question the effectiveness of mask mandates.
That said, there are obvious ways that mask mandate effectiveness could be and likely is divergent from quality, properly fitted mask effectiveness.
Given everything we now know about mask efficacy being highly dependent on COVID variant type, mask type, mask fit, penetration of mask-wearing in a given region/environment, etc. it's almost silly at this point to broadly discuss "mask effectiveness" without clarifying these drivers of effectiveness. It borders on impossible to appropriately control for all the inputs necessary to determine mask efficacy based solely on macro analysis of areas with mask mandates versus those without.
Poorly fitted cloth masks versus Omicron in an environment where few people are masking is very clearly a different ballgame than properly fitted high-quality masks versus Delta or pre-Delta strains in environments where most are masking.
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
https://davidicke.com/2022/04/03/whats-going-on-tennis-world-stunned-after-miami-open-carnage-15-fully-vaccinated-players-unable-to-finish/
More news that's suppressed by Corporate Media. How many of you have heard about these 15 fully vaccinated tennis players?
More news that's suppressed by Corporate Media. How many of you have heard about these 15 fully vaccinated tennis players?
Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
It's about a virus when it's your free choice.
It's about slavery otherwise.
PackFansXL said:Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
What do you definite as "truly effective?"
I recommend using Pubmed to examine mask effectiveness studies conducted prior to 2019 when the issue became politicized. I see one conclusion by WHO, for example, citing that masks just don't stop influenza. There are other old studies that take the opposite tack, but they all must be read carefully for qualifying or conditional language.PackFansXL said:Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Here's a study from over a decade ago that panned the effectiveness of surgical masks and even N95s. Notice that the CDC weighed in with an opinion here.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-10-surgical-masks-flu.html
Now such measures MIGHT work against bacterial-borne diseases like anthrax and plague. But I wouldn't bet my life on it, and I have worked with anthrax-filled bomblets but I was fully encapsulated and on supplied air, either tank or tethered airline.
PackFansXL said:
With all the data showing virtually no differences between regions with and without mask mandates, it certainly seems reasonable to question their effectiveness. I see two explanations for that data: 1) masks are irrelevant and 2) humans are unreliable users of masks. Of course, we can discount the data and say it's gathered, manipulated, or displayed improperly. Regardless, masks may be very effective for some purposes and very ineffective for others.
If masks are irrelevant with regards to COVID, then they offer no risk reduction for the immunocompromised and perhaps are endangering those folks who believe they help so they can take more risks around people.
If masks are likely to be worn improperly and the immunocompromised are well trained and extremely diligent, then perhaps they do offer risk reduction and are a reasonable choice for those folks.
I agree with you.
It should show a large statistical difference between presence and absence. Let's use seatbelts as an example. Seatbelts don't guarantee your survival in an accident but they provide a significant improvement in chances for many accidents.Civilized said:PackFansXL said:Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
What do you definite as "truly effective?"
Oldsouljer said:I recommend using Pubmed to examine mask effectiveness studies conducted prior to 2019 when the issue became politicized. I see one conclusion by WHO, for example, citing that masks just don't stop influenza. There are other old studies that take the opposite tack, but they all must be read carefully for qualifying or conditional language.PackFansXL said:Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Here's a study from over a decade ago that panned the effectiveness of surgical masks and even N95s. Notice that the CDC weighed in with an opinion here.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-10-surgical-masks-flu.html
Now such measures MIGHT work against bacterial-borne diseases like anthrax and plague. But I wouldn't bet my life on it, and I have worked with anthrax-filled bomblets but I was fully encapsulated and on supplied air, either tank or tethered airline.
The medicalxpress link was not a study, but an editorialization about the JAMA study.
If you read through the actual study, it seemingly demonstrated that surgical masks were not consequentially less effective than N95 masks. It did not conclude that both masks were ineffective against transmission.
The editorial also quickly arrives at the conclusion that neither mask was "all that effective" at preventing the flu, citing the ~24% of nurses that caught flu during the study. The author then immediately acknowledges "...and, because both groups wore masks, it's impossible to say how they would have fared compared with not wearing a mask at all."
How can you say a mask isn't "all that effective" but then immediately admit you don't know how many nurses would have caught flu if they weren't masking?
Also keep in mind the nurses in the study were caring for patients with respiratory illness on a daily basis which obviously increases their risk very significantly.
The study also said ~25% of those in the study reported a spouse or roommate with influenza-like illness and around 21% reported a child with influenza-like illness during the study. It's impossible to know if the nurse got their roommate, spouse, or kid sick, or the other way around.
The study perfectly illustrates the challenges of controlling for all the variables in these sorts of studies, even in controlled work environments like nursing.
PackFansXL said:It should show a large statistical difference between presence and absence. Let's use seatbelts as an example. Seatbelts don't guarantee your survival in an accident but they provide a significant improvement in chances for many accidents.Civilized said:PackFansXL said:Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
What do you definite as "truly effective?"
We know how stratified risk is for COVID based on age and immune status.
Moderate reductions in risk are not insignificant for those most at-risk. Also, relatively mild or moderate reductions in risk have profound consequence when the sample size is in the billions of people.
We don't need to know that masks reduce COVID transmission by 50%, like seatbelts reduce the risk of death or injury, for masks to be part of a comprehensive respiratory illness risk-reduction plan.
Provided for informational purposes. That's why I included the link to PubMed so that the broad array of research studies on this subject can be accessed.
Oldsouljer said:
Provided for informational purposes. That's why I included the link to PubMed so that the broad array of research studies on this subject can be accessed.
I do really like the approach of diving into pre-2020 data to take the politicization out of the research and dialogue.
As we all know, this whole conversation became a colossal cluster about 5 minutes after COVID hit.
Here's a question... if you or a family member were immuno-compromised prior to Covid and wore masks and 99.9% of the population didn't why all of a sudden do masks become mandatory and anyone that doesn't goose step in line with your thinking is an evil Fascist?
That's were we are today with many of the gaslighting sheep that follow the lefty brigade goose step by goose step.
That's were we are today with many of the gaslighting sheep that follow the lefty brigade goose step by goose step.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
So what do you define as moderate reduction? Where is your study showing an actual value? If one is going to the trouble of mandating masks there should be an obvious benefit.Civilized said:PackFansXL said:It should show a large statistical difference between presence and absence. Let's use seatbelts as an example. Seatbelts don't guarantee your survival in an accident but they provide a significant improvement in chances for many accidents.Civilized said:PackFansXL said:Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
What do you definite as "truly effective?"
We know how stratified risk is for COVID based on age and immune status.
Moderate reductions in risk are not insignificant for those most at-risk. Also, relatively mild or moderate reductions in risk have profound consequence when the sample size is in the billions of people.
We don't need to know that masks reduce COVID transmission by 50%, like seatbelts reduce the risk of death or injury, for masks to be part of a comprehensive respiratory illness risk-reduction plan.
PackFansXL said:So what do you define as moderate reduction? Where is your study showing an actual value? If one is going to the trouble of mandating masks there should be an obvious benefit.Civilized said:PackFansXL said:It should show a large statistical difference between presence and absence. Let's use seatbelts as an example. Seatbelts don't guarantee your survival in an accident but they provide a significant improvement in chances for many accidents.Civilized said:PackFansXL said:Quote:
I think a sober, rational analysis within the medical community of the effectiveness of high quality, well-fitting masks would lead doctors to strongly suggest that the immunocompromised continue to implement such measures in situations where they may be at risk. There is clearly an incremental benefit to them doing so.
Very reasonable until you jumped to your conclusion. I would love to see a well controlled study so we can say definitively whether any specific mask type is truly effective against COVID. If we aren't going to rely on macroanalysis, then we must replace it with a well designed and controlled study. Political theater is useless and potentially harmful to those truly at risk.
What do you definite as "truly effective?"
We know how stratified risk is for COVID based on age and immune status.
Moderate reductions in risk are not insignificant for those most at-risk. Also, relatively mild or moderate reductions in risk have profound consequence when the sample size is in the billions of people.
We don't need to know that masks reduce COVID transmission by 50%, like seatbelts reduce the risk of death or injury, for masks to be part of a comprehensive respiratory illness risk-reduction plan.
There's plenty of data out there to support masking, even one-way masking, as a sound practice.
A mask has a 23% reduction in risk for passengers within two rows, but a 54% reduction in risk for passengers in the same row
[url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699721001551][/url]Face shields did not protect people from the coronavirus in an outbreak in Switzerland, but masks did, health officials say
[url=https://www.insider.com/face-shields-did-not-protect-people-from-coronavirus-swiss-outbreak-2020-7][/url]Inward and outward effectiveness of cloth masks, a surgical mask, and a face shield
[url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02786826.2021.1890687?journalCode=uast20#:~:text=According%20to%20fit%20tests%20on,to%2080%25%20for%20surgical%20masks.][/url]Even a simple cotton mask offers some protection (17 percent to 27 percent) to the wearer. Medical masks performed better, including a surgical mask (47 percent to 50 percent protection), a loosefitting N95 (57 percent to 86 percent protection) and a tightly sealed N95 (79 percent to 90 percent protection)
[url=https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20][/url]Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population
But keep in mind I'm not arguing for a mandate. I don't think mandates have been shown to be efficacious, likely for a variety of reasons. I do think it's important to distinguish between mandate efficacy for the general population, and mask efficacy for individuals.
All I'm really saying is that the circumstantial and research data is likely out there to encourage high-quality, good-fitting mask wearing for those at risk, or for those at risk to make that decision independently.
Yeah... figured you'd be on that side...
Funny how the left never complains about being told what to do, when to do, how to do. As long as they get their free handouts they don't have to think or put effort into pretty much anything.
Ol' Sleepy Joe and the MARXIST PARTY has all the solutions.
Funny how the left never complains about being told what to do, when to do, how to do. As long as they get their free handouts they don't have to think or put effort into pretty much anything.
Ol' Sleepy Joe and the MARXIST PARTY has all the solutions.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for the links and for clarifying your position.
And nothing but crickets...BBW12OG said:
Here's a question... if you or a family member were immuno-compromised prior to Covid and wore masks and 99.9% of the population didn't why all of a sudden do masks become mandatory and anyone that doesn't goose step in line with your thinking is an evil Fascist?
That's were we are today with many of the gaslighting sheep that follow the lefty brigade goose step by goose step.
Featured Stories
See All
25:37
9h ago
395
Dave Doeren: "This One Runs Deeper"
by IPS Staff
GRADING THE PACK: Georgia Tech
by James Henderson
6:35
17h ago
657
Wes Moore: "They're All Going to Be Tough"
by IPS Staff
COMMIT ALERT: 2025 RB Grayson Rigdon Picks NC State
by James Henderson