Coronavirus - Doomsday

[wiffleball 4,790]

37 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

This one chart is the proof Pfizer's vaccine works | MIT Technology Review

What the data shows is that during the first week after getting their shots, both groups of people kept getting covid-19 at about the same rate. But after that, the lines start to separate. And they just keep separating and separating.

That’s the result of the vaccine taking effect, which usually takes a few days and gets boosted by a second dose. After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity.

Well, clearly it's criminal to give people placebos.

[edjr 6,608]

9 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Based on the SCARY WEATHER REPORTS it doesn't matter.  You're about to be blanketed in eleven billion inches of snow.

PANIC

45 million people affected!!

AHHHHHHHHH

Ban snow. please

[Cdub100 3,931]

Oy Vey! Just do what you're told! Do not question SCIENCE!!! To question science is to question GOD, I mean facts.

You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?sh=68098411535e

[Cdub100 3,931]

43 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

This one chart is the proof Pfizer's vaccine works | MIT Technology Review

What the data shows is that during the first week after getting their shots, both groups of people kept getting covid-19 at about the same rate. But after that, the lines start to separate. And they just keep separating and separating.

That’s the result of the vaccine taking effect, which usually takes a few days and gets boosted by a second dose. After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity.

Awesome I'm glad it works and that hopefully there are no side effects. Let's get back to regular life now. Also don't force people to get it.

[Strike 5,590]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/13/us/deaths-covid-other-causes.html

[vomit 502]

12 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Oy Vey! Just do what you're told! Do not question SCIENCE!!! To question science is to question GOD, I mean facts.

You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?sh=68098411535e

Let us know how your own vaccine clinical trials come out 

[Cdub100 3,931]

8 minutes ago, vomit said:

Let us know how your own vaccine clinical trials come out 

Y'all traded one religion for another. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

[Utilit99 4,099]

25 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Awesome I'm glad it works and that hopefully there are no side effects. Let's get back to regular life now. Also don't force people to get it.

If they go after all the creepy joe voters to get vaccinated, they will have to be digging up 10s of thousands of long time dead bodies to shoot up.

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to get the vaccine.  No one should just blindly trust that it's 100% safe to take.  I also don't blame anyone who wants to get the vaccine right away.  As long as everyone knows there are possible risks then go ahead.  I plan to wait until I see more information on it's results.  If it looks to be effective and safe then I will most likely get it.  Until then I will wear a mask when required to, wash my hands as often as I can and try to avoid large groups of people.

[vomit 502]

3 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Y'all traded one religion for another. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

This coming from the guy that thinks that wearing a mask spreads disease.

[vomit 502]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to get the vaccine.  No one should just blindly trust that it's 100% safe to take.  I also don't blame anyone who wants to get the vaccine right away.  As long as everyone knows there are possible risks then go ahead.  I plan to wait until I see more information on it's results.  If it looks to be effective and safe then I will most likely get it.  Until then I will wear a mask when required to, wash my hands as often as I can and try to avoid large groups of people.

I'm pro vaccine but I'm not rushing to get one either.  I've already been exposed to this virus and I'm young and healthy so I'll wait

[TimHauck 2,912]

25 minutes ago, Strike said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/13/us/deaths-covid-other-causes.html

Some of these stats were posted earlier.

Like I said, I'm sure there are additional deaths that aren't directly due to covid, but this article doesn't prove it.    As it was even alluded to in that article, many of those very well could have been covid deaths, or at least covid sped up their death.   Pneumonia is one of the main symptoms of covid, so many of those are almost certainly covid.    High blood pressure and diabetes are 2 of the most common comorbidities, so likely many of these were covid too (yes, maybe there were some due to lack of access to care).   I think alzheimer's and dementia is the only legitimate one on the list that may not have many direct covid deaths, but since that commonly effects old people, even that could be covid too.   

And to one of my earlier points, there very well could have been an increase in alzheimer's and dementia deaths regardless of any lockdown measures (even most rational people say to at least "protect the vulnerable," so that still may have left many people suffering from alzheimer's and dementia in isolation), so in essence those could have been "caused" by covid too.   Same thing for if any of the HBP/diabetes ones were due to lack of care - even if they would have been allowed to go to doctor's offices, many probably wouldn't have for fear of catching covid.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

if it's so deadly, why would people risk being in this test?   

Some people have a sense of duty to help mankind.

[vomit 502]

Good easy to read article explaining the vaccine, for those of you that are mentally challenged

 

https://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-they-made-a-vaccine-so-fast-1845880519

[jerryskids 6,836]

18 hours ago, Strike said:

Not sure what you're saying here.  The parallel operations were testing while manufacturing.  I don't see how that means "rushed and less secure."

I’m a little concerned that there was some of the Boeing 737 MAX / FAA pressure to err on the side of approving things.  We apparently had this mRNA around, we get hit by Corona viruses often, yet we’ve never come up with a vaccine until now?    

1 hour ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

This one chart is the proof Pfizer's vaccine works | MIT Technology Review

What the data shows is that during the first week after getting their shots, both groups of people kept getting covid-19 at about the same rate. But after that, the lines start to separate. And they just keep separating and separating.

That’s the result of the vaccine taking effect, which usually takes a few days and gets boosted by a second dose. After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity.

That is eerily positive.  Like, you couldn’t draw it any better in a theoretical “how a vaccine should work” presentation.  Hopefully it pans out that way in implementation.   

[TimHauck 2,912]

12 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

I don't wear a mask for the same reason. The general public wearing masks have increased infections. This can be seen in every single place that has a strict mask mandate. This has been shown in studies. I just posted an article from the NYT of all places that showed masks DO NOT WORK. 

So where are all these "studies" saying mask mandates actually result in increased infection??   Just tried to search and not finding any.    Do I need to go to "thedonald.com" to find them?

Closest I can find is this, based on a whole 4 participants, which was retracted - https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

Are you just looking at cases from early on (despite probably at the same time complaining about false positives), and saying that must mean that it was increased because of masks?   Again, no one is saying masks will all the sudden stop infection, and even if we can agree that they "help," it's not going to be instantaneous (especially when you factor incubation period).    So if a place implements a mask mandate, if cases increase for the next 2 weeks, that doesn't mean that MASKS RESULTED IN INCREASED INFECTIONS!

Here's what I did find though:

Here's an interesting study which IMO actually also does a good job summarizing some of the prior studies and opinions, which studied areas with mask mandates vs. those without them, and found "The study provides evidence that US states mandating the use of face masks in public had a greater decline in daily COVID-19 growth rates after issuing these mandates compared with states that did not issue mandates" - https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818#:~:text=Between April 8 and May 15%2C governors of fifteen states,retail stores) where maintaining six

Here's another  that says "Mask mandates are associated with a 25 to 46 per cent average reduction in weekly COVID-19 cases across Canada" - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201007085638.htm

And another, "after implementation of mask mandates in 24 Kansas counties, the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed" - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

Another "duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality" - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5

Another study finds masks work with hamsters - https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2139/5848814

CDC summary of a few different real world situations finds "Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2" - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

 

OK, I did my own research.  I think now I'm actually more convinced they do work.  Thanks cdub!

[Strike 5,590]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I’m a little concerned that there was some of the Boeing 737 MAX / FAA pressure to err on the side of approving things.  We apparently had this mRNA around, we get hit by Corona viruses often, yet we’ve never come up with a vaccine until now?  

Sure, but that's not what we were discussing.  We were discussing the parallel tracts of doing the trials while manufacturing the drug, which someone (Cdub?) said would somehow hurt the the vaccine.  I don't see how manufacturing the drug while waiting to see if the trials show it to be effective and safe could do that. 

To what your concerns are, I would hope the FDA would hold these vaccines up to the same standards they hold all drugs up to.  AFAIK these drugs have gone through the same trials other drugs do as well.   Bear in mind the FDA approval for these vaccines is an "emergency approval" which I assume does relax some of the rules/standards used for some drugs.  I assume that has to do with study over a longer period than 6 months.  But there is a balance in getting the vaccine out there and being 100% sure of all possible issues with it. 

Below is a link to the FDA's announcement of the emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19

[Thornton Melon 623]

22 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I’m a little concerned that there was some of the Boeing 737 MAX / FAA pressure to err on the side of approving things.  We apparently had this mRNA around, we get hit by Corona viruses often, yet we’ve never come up with a vaccine until now?    

Companies were working on mRNA vaccines for SARS and MERS when those hit, but then those viruses petered out and the work stopped. That's due to the $$ needed to develop a vaccine, and the fact that it would be difficult (impossible?) to run trials when there was little to no chance of any trial volunteers contracting the virus.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

47 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That is eerily positive.  Like, you couldn’t draw it any better in a theoretical “how a vaccine should work” presentation.  Hopefully it pans out that way in implementation.   

Agreed. Almost too good to be true, but it does lend some significant hope that the mRNA technology has applications to highly effective vaccines to a variety of diseases. We shall see, but could be a really amazing springboard for huge medical advances.

[jerryskids 6,836]

1 hour ago, Thornton Melon said:

Companies were working on mRNA vaccines for SARS and MERS when those hit, but then those viruses petered out and the work stopped. That's due to the $$ needed to develop a vaccine, and the fact that it would be difficult (impossible?) to run trials when there was little to no chance of any trial volunteers contracting the virus.

I understand that private industry had limited motivation to continue on.  But you’d have thought that our government would have continued funding R&D in anticipation of the next one.  We spend billions on medical and security research, and preparation for a killer pathogen should be near the top of the list.  If instead we funded important studies like fetishes in transgender pacific salmon, shame on us.  If we did provide some funding, I’m back to the lack of progress until now.  I also understand that deadlines drive results, but those results aren’t always as thorough as they can be.

Regarding trial volunteers, I presume that the volunteers were deliberately exposed to the virus.  If that beautiful straight line is supposed to represent random COVID contraction from a day in the life, I’m calling bull.  That must be controlled exposure.

[tanatastic 2,062]

16 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

I don't wear a mask for the same reason. The general public wearing masks have increased infections. This can be seen in every single place that has a strict mask mandate. This has been shown in studies. I just posted an article from the NYT of all places that showed masks DO NOT WORK. 

Forget studies and stats for a second...what part of the concept of wearing a mask to keep particles closer to yourself do you not think is real? Use this cartoon graphic on this site as reference and tell me what part of that you feel is not only wrong, but the opposite. https://www.eamc.org/news-and-media/why-is-wearing-a-mask-important
Again, no studies or politics, just use physics and logic and tell me what part of the concept of covering your moth to prevent more particles from being expelled you feel is wrong.

Its like arguing umbrellas don’t keep you dryer in the rain than not having an umbrella. I don’t need a study or science to explain to me how covering my head prevents more water from hitting me, I just use basic logic.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I understand that private industry had limited motivation to continue on.  But you’d have thought that our government would have continued funding R&D in anticipation of the next one.  We spend billions on medical and security research, and preparation for a killer pathogen should be near the top of the list.  If instead we funded important studies like fetishes in transgender pacific salmon, shame on us.  If we did provide some funding, I’m back to the lack of progress until now.  I also understand that deadlines drive results, but those results aren’t always as thorough as they can be.

Regarding trial volunteers, I presume that the volunteers were deliberately exposed to the virus.  If that beautiful straight line is supposed to represent random COVID contraction from a day in the life, I’m calling bull.  That must be controlled exposure.

The below article is from January of 2019 and there are other articles out there as well. People were still studying coronaviruses, however not with the fervor that the world did right after SARS or especially compared with this year. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6356267/

 

[Thornton Melon 623]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I understand that private industry had limited motivation to continue on.  But you’d have thought that our government would have continued funding R&D in anticipation of the next one.  We spend billions on medical and security research, and preparation for a killer pathogen should be near the top of the list.  If instead we funded important studies like fetishes in transgender pacific salmon, shame on us.  If we did provide some funding, I’m back to the lack of progress until now.  I also understand that deadlines drive results, but those results aren’t always as thorough as they can be.

Regarding trial volunteers, I presume that the volunteers were deliberately exposed to the virus.  If that beautiful straight line is supposed to represent random COVID contraction from a day in the life, I’m calling bull.  That must be controlled exposure.

For the COVID trials, trial volunteers were not deliberately exposed to the virus. They were told to go about their daily lives. 170 people out of 43,000+ trial participants caught Covid. 162 of those 170 people were in the placebo group. That's where they get the 95% efficacy.

I think they only directly expose animals to pathogens when they're trying out vaccines, but I could be wrong. I think it's considered unethical to expose humans, especially in the case of MERS where it had a 32% fatality rate. For COVID, I'm sure you could've found some people willing to be directly exposed, especially young people. I don't think you'd find many octogenarians or immunocompromised people willing to volunteer to be exposed, but who knows.

[Cdub100 3,931]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

So where are all these "studies" saying mask mandates actually result in increased infection??   Just tried to search and not finding any.    Do I need to go to "thedonald.com" to find them?

Closest I can find is this, based on a whole 4 participants, which was retracted - https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

Are you just looking at cases from early on (despite probably at the same time complaining about false positives), and saying that must mean that it was increased because of masks?   Again, no one is saying masks will all the sudden stop infection, and even if we can agree that they "help," it's not going to be instantaneous (especially when you factor incubation period).    So if a place implements a mask mandate, if cases increase for the next 2 weeks, that doesn't mean that MASKS RESULTED IN INCREASED INFECTIONS!

Here's what I did find though:

Here's an interesting study which IMO actually also does a good job summarizing some of the prior studies and opinions, which studied areas with mask mandates vs. those without them, and found "The study provides evidence that US states mandating the use of face masks in public had a greater decline in daily COVID-19 growth rates after issuing these mandates compared with states that did not issue mandates" - https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818#:~:text=Between April 8 and May 15%2C governors of fifteen states,retail stores) where maintaining six

Here's another  that says "Mask mandates are associated with a 25 to 46 per cent average reduction in weekly COVID-19 cases across Canada" - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201007085638.htm

And another, "after implementation of mask mandates in 24 Kansas counties, the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed" - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

Another "duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality" - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5

Another study finds masks work with hamsters - https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2139/5848814

CDC summary of a few different real world situations finds "Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2" - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

 

OK, I did my own research.  I think now I'm actually more convinced they do work.  Thanks cdub!

Your first two links simple are not true. Go look at the graphs of states. Many states have had to increase restrictions months after the mask mandate.

Nice Hampster study though.

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group

improper use might increase the risk for transmission

https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/Adviceusemaskscommunityrevised.pdf

Using a mask incorrectly however, may actually increase the risk of transmission, rather than reduce it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm.

Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%

Whether a state or nation had a mask mandate or not, infections increased. Masks didn't slow or stop COVID

Argintina - https://ibb.co/r65DL73
France - https://ibb.co/FzMFT8V
Puru - https://ibb.co/2qHkN8Z
Sweden - https://ibb.co/rtwYb7z
Tennesse - https://ibb.co/vv1QZQM

Cali - https://ibb.co/wNRf56r

[Cdub100 3,931]

1 hour ago, tanatastic said:

Forget studies and stats for a second...what part of the concept of wearing a mask to keep particles closer to yourself do you not think is real? Use this cartoon graphic on this site as reference and tell me what part of that you feel is not only wrong, but the opposite. https://www.eamc.org/news-and-media/why-is-wearing-a-mask-important
Again, no studies or politics, just use physics and logic and tell me what part of the concept of covering your moth to prevent more particles from being expelled you feel is wrong.

Its like arguing umbrellas don’t keep you dryer in the rain than not having an umbrella. I don’t need a study or science to explain to me how covering my head prevents more water from hitting me, I just use basic logic.

See here's the problem. You guys always argue dishonestly. You're trying to change the argument and frame it in a way that has nothing to do with the conversation. We are talking about the spread of a virus. 

I also don't need a study or science to understand when dealing with a virus that is so small that most masks are like trying to keep a mosquito out of your yard using a chain-link fence.

You want to talk about basic logic? What's maddening is in every single state from the most extreme lockdown to the less extreme. Infections continue to go up. Even with everyone wearing a mask. What works is hand washing and not being near an infected person. But you crazies keep screaming for more masks. EVERYONE IS WEARING A MASK! IT'S NOT WORKING! Even you can see that.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

9 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

See here's the problem. You guys always argue dishonestly. You're trying to change the argument and frame it in a way that has nothing to do with the conversation. We are talking about the spread of a virus. 

I also don't need a study or science to understand when dealing with a virus that is so small that most masks are like trying to keep a mosquito out of your yard using a chain-link fence.

You want to talk about basic logic? What's maddening is in every single state from the most extreme lockdown to the less extreme. Infections continue to go up. Even with everyone wearing a mask. What works is hand washing and not being near an infected person. But you crazies keep screaming for more masks. EVERYONE IS WEARING A MASK! IT'S NOT WORKING! Even you can see that.

The virus's are contained in droplets which the mask does catch.

Masks are working in slowing the spread, however they only stop the aerosol transmission. Formites are still a big part of how this spreads. So if a sick person touches a door handle and then a healthy person then touches that door handle then it can still be caught that way. One big example is at the grocery store, I eat multiple avacados a week, everyone squeezes 10+ avacados before they choose the ones they want. That is why i wash them in soap and water before putting them away at home.

Masks only stop some of the spread and they are best at protecting the old people who only go out to the grocery store once a week. If they are careful and wipe down their food then they have a low risk of catching it via formites and the mask almost eliminates any chance of them catching it through aerosols.

 

Just look at the normal flu curve every year before this year, if you slowed the spread 10-20% you will still have a big spike.

 

[Cdub100 3,931]

1 minute ago, MTSkiBum said:

The virus's are contained in droplets which the mask does catch.

Masks are working in slowing the spread, however they only stop the aerosol transmission. Formites are still a big part of how this spreads. So if a sick person touches a door handle and then a healthy person then touches that door handle then it can still be caught that way. One big example is at the grocery store, I eat multiple avacados a week, everyone squeezes 10+ avacados before they choose the ones they want. That is why i wash them in soap and water before putting them away at home.

Masks only stop some of the spread and they are best at protecting the old people who only go out to the grocery store once a week. If they are careful and wipe down their food then they have a low risk of catching it via formites and the mask almost eliminates any chance of them catching it through aerosols.

 

Just look at the normal flu curve every year before this year, if you slowed the spread 10-20% you will still have a big spike.

 

No they aren't. My magic rock is working to slow the spread. Infections go up just about the same with or without a mask mandate or my magic rock. 

You really need to understand that before we can continue with a conversation.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

No they aren't. My magic rock is working to slow the spread. Infections go up just about the same with or without a mask mandate or my magic rock. 

You really need to understand that before we can continue with a conversation.

[TimHauck 2,912]

Follow up from the “Johns Hopkins Newsletter” - https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/12/public-health-experts-and-biostatisticians-weigh-in-on-covid-19-deaths-a-look-at-u-s-data-webinar

[Utilit99 4,099]

17 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Follow up from the “Johns Hopkins Newsletter” - https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/12/public-health-experts-and-biostatisticians-weigh-in-on-covid-19-deaths-a-look-at-u-s-data-webinar

Regarding the statements about excess deaths due to COVID-19

In the concluding statements of her talk, Briand commented on the nature of excess deaths due to COVID-19.

“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand said.

[TimHauck 2,912]

Just now, Utilit99 said:

Regarding the statements about excess deaths due to COVID-19

In the concluding statements of her talk, Briand commented on the nature of excess deaths due to COVID-19.

“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand said.

Yes, the article I just posted was quoting Briand there.  Then proceeded to shred her “work” to pieces

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes, the article I just posted was quoting Briand there.  Then proceeded to shred her “work” to pieces

 

Yeah. She won. Nice contribution. How many seasonal flu deaths this year?

[nobody 2,691]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Follow up from the “Johns Hopkins Newsletter” - https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/12/public-health-experts-and-biostatisticians-weigh-in-on-covid-19-deaths-a-look-at-u-s-data-webinar

Shocking

[TimHauck 2,912]

1 hour ago, Utilit99 said:

Yeah. She won. Nice contribution. How many seasonal flu deaths this year?

Through August, influenza and pneumonia deaths via the CDC were up 12% vs. 2019 (but nope, no undercounting of covid deaths there).  next question?

You obviously didn't read that link (or watch Briand's webinar for that matter)

 

[TimHauck 2,912]

 

8 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Your first two links simple are not true. Go look at the graphs of states. Many states have had to increase restrictions months after the mask mandate.

Nice Hampster study though.

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group

improper use might increase the risk for transmission

https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/Adviceusemaskscommunityrevised.pdf

Using a mask incorrectly however, may actually increase the risk of transmission, rather than reduce it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm.

Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%

Whether a state or nation had a mask mandate or not, infections increased. Masks didn't slow or stop COVID

Argintina - https://ibb.co/r65DL73
France - https://ibb.co/FzMFT8V
Puru - https://ibb.co/2qHkN8Z
Sweden - https://ibb.co/rtwYb7z
Tennesse - https://ibb.co/vv1QZQM

Cali - https://ibb.co/wNRf56r

"No signifcant reduction" - yes I've said there are few studies that said this.  That doesn't mean they're saying they don't work, and they're certainly not saying they make it worse.

Oh, it "may" increase risk of transmission?  Stunning analysis there, and I see that sentence wasn't cited.

Yes, cloth masks are worse than medical masks.  Welcome to April.  This one was interesting though.  Here's a good quote: "Among the 68 laboratory-confirmed cases, 58 (85%) were due to rhinoviruses. Other viruses detected were hMPV (7 cases), influenza B (1 case), hMPV/rhinovirus co-infection (1 case) and influenza B/rhinovirus co-infection (1 case) (table 3). No influenza A or RSV infections were detected."

As to your mask mandate links, as I suspected...

Quote

Are you just looking at cases from early on and saying that must mean that it was increased because of masks? 

Especially true for Argentina and Peru.   Based on your France graphic, seems masks must have been the only reason deaths did not peak as high during the second wave!

I think your Sweden graph needs to be updated.  Better tell them covid is over!

Tennessee did not have a statewide mandate but some areas did.  In fact a Vanderbilt study found areas without mask mandates had a higher death toll: https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee-counties-without-mask-mandates-have-higher-covid-19-death-toll-pandemic-coronavirus-vanderbilt

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by TimHauck
whoops, put some additional comments in my quote

[Utilit99 4,099]

7 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Through August, influenza and pneumonia deaths via the CDC were up 12% vs. 2019 (but nope, no undercounting of covid deaths there).  next question?

You obviously didn't read that link (or watch Briand's webinar for that matter)

 

 

Key Updates for Week 49, ending December 5, 2020

Seasonal influenza activity in the United States remains lower than usual for this time of year.

[supermike80 1,928]

15 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

See here's the problem. You guys always argue dishonestly. You're trying to change the argument and frame it in a way that has nothing to do with the conversation. We are talking about the spread of a virus. 

I also don't need a study or science to understand when dealing with a virus that is so small that most masks are like trying to keep a mosquito out of your yard using a chain-link fence.

You want to talk about basic logic? What's maddening is in every single state from the most extreme lockdown to the less extreme. Infections continue to go up. Even with everyone wearing a mask. What works is hand washing and not being near an infected person. But you crazies keep screaming for more masks. EVERYONE IS WEARING A MASK! IT'S NOT WORKING! Even you can see that.

Thats cause of Trumpsters.  Don't you watch the news?

[Utilit99 4,099]

9 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Thats cause of Trumpsters.  Don't you watch the news?

Trump rallies? Disease spreading, unthoughtful, destructive gatherings. 

Mass protests and riots? Safe.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

21 hours ago, vomit said:

I'm pro vaccine but I'm not rushing to get one either.  I've already been exposed to this virus and I'm young and healthy so I'll wait

YOU MUST NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE! 

What did this idiot think that meant?  

[TimHauck 2,912]

1 hour ago, Utilit99 said:

 

Key Updates for Week 49, ending December 5, 2020

Seasonal influenza activity in the United States remains lower than usual for this time of year.

 

You know the year starts in January right?   (Edit:  But their deaths data is flu & pneumonia, so certainly possible flu deaths are down for the year, meaning many of those deaths are coming from pneumonia which is yet another sign that covid deaths could actually be undercounted since covid often results in pneumonia)

In addition, you know we have a test for Flu right?  From the same link your image came from which I see you chose not to share - 0.2% testing positive - https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

Even forgetting masks for a second, tons of people working and going to school from home (not saying they should be going to school from home)...you don’t think thats likely going to lead to less people getting sick with stuff they normally get sick from?