ThinkFast
Live Long
Can't tell by your ROFL at the end there whether you trying to be ironic or not.
I'd guess there's a strong overlap between the anti-maskers and the vaxxers. It's all a deep state conspiracy...
What do you think about COVID-19?
- Thread starter ThinkFast
- Start date
Can't tell by your ROFL at the end there whether you trying to be ironic or not.
I'd guess there's a strong overlap between the anti-maskers and the vaxxers. It's all a deep state conspiracy...
ThinkFast
Live Long
Headline, September 8, 2020:
Positive Covid tests in no-lockdown Sweden hit lowest rate since pandemic began
So did Sweden win the battle and lose the war? Or vice versa? On the one hand they have more deaths than their immediate neighbors. OTOH, they now have a much lower rate of new cases. Easy to understand why there is so much debate about best approach.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...owest-rate-since-pandemic-began-idUSKBN25Z2TM
Positive Covid tests in no-lockdown Sweden hit lowest rate since pandemic began
So did Sweden win the battle and lose the war? Or vice versa? On the one hand they have more deaths than their immediate neighbors. OTOH, they now have a much lower rate of new cases. Easy to understand why there is so much debate about best approach.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...owest-rate-since-pandemic-began-idUSKBN25Z2TM
Climber
Well-known member
I think it's a more complex issue, and probably one that won't translate well to different minded (make-up of citizens) populations.
In Sweden's case, I think the people who were going to get infected due to work requirements, social habits or other factors have gotten infected now. That doesn't mean that more than 15% have gotten infected, it means that the people who were going to have already had it, due to the above factors.
I think in other populations, like their neighboring countries that locked down more the likely people are still getting infected due to the earlier artificial barriers imposed by lockdowns.
Sweden has still had more cases (8,535/million) than denmark (3,341/million) but has fewer new cases (31/million) than denmark (55/million). They still remain well over Finland and Norway in both cases/million and new cases/million.
I'd say the jury is still out. We really don't know what it's like on the ground there, how many people are being more cautious than the publicity photos of the people who are venturing out and socializing.
rothmans
Lowering my expectations
I fully expect all of you to be wearing a mask all the time for normal flu season for the rest of time. If you don't you will literally be responsible for killing thousands.
Be sure to use an N95 mask for maximum effect.
Yakoo752
USN
Sounds like a plan to me :thumbup
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
The poll is a transparent attempt to reinforce views held by the brainwashed. You're not sucking me into those false dichotomies. Instead, I offer my untethered opinions on the same topics.
Severity of the disease
The corona virus is not an influenza virus, and no one ever said it was. It is possible, however, to compare severity. In terms of case-fatality rate--deaths / confirmed cases--it is similar to flu for younger age groups. In California for those under 50, 2 in 1000 have died. It is my understanding that severe flu such as the 2009 swine flu is about the same. Among 75,000 victims under age 18, only 3 have died. That's a CASE-fatality rate--not POPULATION-fatality rate--of 1 in 25,000. I suspect that the flu fatality rate is far higher among the youngest. But for the elderly and those with certain known complicating factors, COVID-19 is MUCH more deadly than for the young. In California for those age 65+, 127 in 1000 victims have died--a very serious disease indeed.
Due to the wide variation in outcome by age, it is pointless to try to characterize severity without specifying age group. Those who don't understand this will advocate bonehead one-size-fits-all solutions.
Masks
Clearly, a simple cloth or paper mask will help contain the effluent from a coughing, sneezing, wheezing victim and reduce dispersion of the virus to the surroundings. Also clearly, a sealed mask that forces the wearer to breathe through a filter is an absolute necessity for health care workers in close contact with patients.
Now, explain to me how a mask that does not seal the wearer's respiration from the surrounding air has any benefit for the healthy. I'm not interested in anecdotes about how Aunt Ida wore a mask and didn't get sick while Uncle Clem didn't and did. Nor am I interested in correlations between mask mandates and infection rates. Give me actual experimental evidence that such masks prevent or reduce transmission of the virus.
The mask phenomenon reveals the mental disability induced by terror-infused brainwashing. People are being driven batshit crazy. Have you seen this: Someone driving alone, windows up, wearing a mask? That is a person who won't be coming back to the land of the sane when the pandemic is declared over. Maybe ever. They have been conditioned to see the atmosphere swimming with a deadly virus, and that perception will not be easily overcome.
Most are not batshit crazy, though. A good part of mask wearing is virtue signaling. If you're wearing a mask outdoors while also observing recommended social distancing, you're doing it to project an image, and you probably know it.
Lockdown
The original justification for lockdown was to "flatten the curve", i.e., reduce peak hospital demand in order to stay below capacity. To assist, by adding capacity, the US Navy sent hospital ships to New York City and Los Angeles. Not for COVID patients but for non-COVID patients, so area hospitals with the skills and equipment for dealing with the virus could focus on the expected surge. That strategy worked (local exceptions notwithstanding), and the Navy ships, which went mostly unused, returned to their home ports by mid-May. Remarkably, COVID-19 hospitalizations in California on September 10, 2020 were lower than at any time since COVID data was first reported in March and are down by half from the peak 6 weeks ago.
When lockdown commenced, the plan wasn't to maintain it until the virus was eradicated. The expectation of eliminating it in the short term is totally unrealistic, because infectious viruses don't disappear overnight. The smallpox vaccine was invented around 1800, and the last US case was reported in 1949. The polio vaccine was invented in the mid-1950s, and the last US case was reported in 1979. Similarly, the COVID-19 virus will persist for some time.
A realistic expectation is for the virus to spread through the population, inducing immunity. Between those who acquire immunity by contracting it and a remarkably high percentage who seem to be immune already (perhaps via a similar virus), the spread will slow because the virus can't find victims.
The acquired immunity effect is not unprecedented. It has already occurred in Sweden and New York City. Sweden did not lock down except for limiting large events, new cases peaked in June, and it now sees an average of 2 cases per day per 100,000 population. New York did lock down but only after the horses had escaped from the barn, new cases peaked in April, and it now sees an average of 3 cases per day per 100,000 population. For comparison, California now has 10 new cases per day per 100K (but dropping fast) as does the US (dropping but not as fast as CA).
While those who advocate lockdown may intend well, the effect is to prolong the misery. More unemployment, more failed businesses, more social disruption, more individual despair and all of the pathologies that accompany it.
Crucially, lockdown cannot reduce the number of cases before population immunity is achieved. It delays but does not prevent occurrence of the disease. It delays but does not prevent loss of life. However, it does make those who will NOT suffer much from the social and economic disruption feel good about themselves.
Severity of the disease
The corona virus is not an influenza virus, and no one ever said it was. It is possible, however, to compare severity. In terms of case-fatality rate--deaths / confirmed cases--it is similar to flu for younger age groups. In California for those under 50, 2 in 1000 have died. It is my understanding that severe flu such as the 2009 swine flu is about the same. Among 75,000 victims under age 18, only 3 have died. That's a CASE-fatality rate--not POPULATION-fatality rate--of 1 in 25,000. I suspect that the flu fatality rate is far higher among the youngest. But for the elderly and those with certain known complicating factors, COVID-19 is MUCH more deadly than for the young. In California for those age 65+, 127 in 1000 victims have died--a very serious disease indeed.
Due to the wide variation in outcome by age, it is pointless to try to characterize severity without specifying age group. Those who don't understand this will advocate bonehead one-size-fits-all solutions.
Masks
Clearly, a simple cloth or paper mask will help contain the effluent from a coughing, sneezing, wheezing victim and reduce dispersion of the virus to the surroundings. Also clearly, a sealed mask that forces the wearer to breathe through a filter is an absolute necessity for health care workers in close contact with patients.
Now, explain to me how a mask that does not seal the wearer's respiration from the surrounding air has any benefit for the healthy. I'm not interested in anecdotes about how Aunt Ida wore a mask and didn't get sick while Uncle Clem didn't and did. Nor am I interested in correlations between mask mandates and infection rates. Give me actual experimental evidence that such masks prevent or reduce transmission of the virus.
The mask phenomenon reveals the mental disability induced by terror-infused brainwashing. People are being driven batshit crazy. Have you seen this: Someone driving alone, windows up, wearing a mask? That is a person who won't be coming back to the land of the sane when the pandemic is declared over. Maybe ever. They have been conditioned to see the atmosphere swimming with a deadly virus, and that perception will not be easily overcome.
Most are not batshit crazy, though. A good part of mask wearing is virtue signaling. If you're wearing a mask outdoors while also observing recommended social distancing, you're doing it to project an image, and you probably know it.
Lockdown
The original justification for lockdown was to "flatten the curve", i.e., reduce peak hospital demand in order to stay below capacity. To assist, by adding capacity, the US Navy sent hospital ships to New York City and Los Angeles. Not for COVID patients but for non-COVID patients, so area hospitals with the skills and equipment for dealing with the virus could focus on the expected surge. That strategy worked (local exceptions notwithstanding), and the Navy ships, which went mostly unused, returned to their home ports by mid-May. Remarkably, COVID-19 hospitalizations in California on September 10, 2020 were lower than at any time since COVID data was first reported in March and are down by half from the peak 6 weeks ago.
When lockdown commenced, the plan wasn't to maintain it until the virus was eradicated. The expectation of eliminating it in the short term is totally unrealistic, because infectious viruses don't disappear overnight. The smallpox vaccine was invented around 1800, and the last US case was reported in 1949. The polio vaccine was invented in the mid-1950s, and the last US case was reported in 1979. Similarly, the COVID-19 virus will persist for some time.
A realistic expectation is for the virus to spread through the population, inducing immunity. Between those who acquire immunity by contracting it and a remarkably high percentage who seem to be immune already (perhaps via a similar virus), the spread will slow because the virus can't find victims.
The acquired immunity effect is not unprecedented. It has already occurred in Sweden and New York City. Sweden did not lock down except for limiting large events, new cases peaked in June, and it now sees an average of 2 cases per day per 100,000 population. New York did lock down but only after the horses had escaped from the barn, new cases peaked in April, and it now sees an average of 3 cases per day per 100,000 population. For comparison, California now has 10 new cases per day per 100K (but dropping fast) as does the US (dropping but not as fast as CA).
While those who advocate lockdown may intend well, the effect is to prolong the misery. More unemployment, more failed businesses, more social disruption, more individual despair and all of the pathologies that accompany it.
Crucially, lockdown cannot reduce the number of cases before population immunity is achieved. It delays but does not prevent occurrence of the disease. It delays but does not prevent loss of life. However, it does make those who will NOT suffer much from the social and economic disruption feel good about themselves.
rothmans
Lowering my expectations
No one is going to produce the science showing how effective masks are because it doesn't exist. If it did we we would have been wearing them for years now.
Unless you are sick with symptoms or in a healthcare setting masks are probably useless...especially all these bullshit cloth homemade masks lol...
Hopefully all the real data will come out over the next couple years and show how many have died from the lockdowns, cancer, depression, suicide, other medical issues that went undiagnosed and untreated.
I do think we are finally turning the corner and people are slowly waking up to how bad we got played. Sadly, as DataDan has pointed out, many will not be making it back to the world of the sane.
GAJ
Well-known member
I agree with the above (with one clarification) and continuing that till we have a vaccine.
As to "locking down" we tried reducing that with negative consequences and at some point we'll try again before a vaccine as cases drop.
That is true for Democrat and GOP Governors.
GAJ
Well-known member
So masks had nothing to do with that?
I'm not sure I remember a lot of BARFers who don't go out, got to stores, p/u at restaurants, ride bicycles, hike etc.
Yakoo752
USN
I put mine on the moment I leave my house and don't remove it till I return and have washed my hands. The average person touches their face once every four minutes. As a function of minimizing risks, I think it's smart. In no way shape or form do I think I will get it on departure of my home to arrival of my destination but I tend to forget shit and having to return home for a mask is a waste of my time.
I am really starting to question your handle... maybe the other one suggested is more fitting :laughing
:dunno
Last edited:
GAJ
Well-known member
When I'm out and about at age 63 in decent shape, I see a lot of older folks who look quite frail.
If I'm sick and I don't know it I don't mind the "inconvenience"/loss of "freedom"/ or being labeled "brainwashed" or a "wimp" by those who choose to view things that way.
Could care less that I "lost" 10 seconds of my life donning a mask.
But I don't wear it when bicycling (but pull it up if I'm riding with pedestrians nearby) or when driving.
Or showering! :laughing
rothmans
Lowering my expectations
2 more weeks, just 2 more weeks.
Climber, its over. Take your mask off and take a deep breath. It's over.
