|
Post by kirinke on Sept 22, 2020 15:09:54 GMT
Basically, you should wear a mask in order to protect yourself and others. It's simple courtesy and a common sense precaution. This disease spreads quickly, is highly infectious and deadly. Don't fuck with taking chances. You might not care about yourself, but what happens if you infect a hundred people with Covid-19 because of your stupid? It's not worth it. Don't be a selfish dick.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 22, 2020 15:28:28 GMT
I'd agree regarding masks - for those who are sick. After spending years in Japan, I've observed that sick people wear masks. Healthy people do not. The problem is that the incubation period is lengthy, without symptoms, and you're infectious during it. So how do you know you're not sick? Here's a direct quote from the top of the article: And what does this say about opening bars and restaurants? We really don't know if anyone who is asymptomatic is infectious, so it's tough to say. The NJEM article was really about urging universal mask protocols in the hospital environment where you are in close proximity to symptomatic patients and other patients who may be vulnerable to be infected. Bars and restaurants are generally occupied for less than an hour by any particular patron and each party is not in close proximity to each other party generally (when was the last time you left your table to interact with another table full of strangers?) Staff who are sick can infect patrons regardless of being indoors or out.
|
|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Sept 22, 2020 16:08:12 GMT
If you're indoors, masks amongst strangers is probably a good idea. At the beach or on a hiking trail? Not necessary. At home with family? Not necessary... Is that in any way different from the official recommendations in the USA?
Because that are the recommendations we have in Germany. Only if you're really in a tight place outdoors would masks be recommended, but anything else is about indoor with large groups.
It doesn't matter if they are strangers, though. Even someone you know could be sick. And if you meet with 100 people, you can't really know whether someone couldn't be infected alerady, and if someone has it, a lot will get it. So avoid that.
The usual concern about anti-maskers is about anti-maskers going into bars, into shopping malls and similar enclosed buildings.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 22, 2020 16:45:08 GMT
Thing is, if they aren't showing symptoms you don't know if they're infectious. Why take the risk with this disease? It's deadly.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 22, 2020 16:50:42 GMT
The problem is that the incubation period is lengthy, without symptoms, and you're infectious during it. So how do you know you're not sick? Here's a direct quote from the top of the article: And what does this say about opening bars and restaurants? We really don't know if anyone who is asymptomatic is infectious, so it's tough to say. The NJEM article was really about urging universal mask protocols in the hospital environment where you are in close proximity to symptomatic patients and other patients who may be vulnerable to be infected. Bars and restaurants are generally occupied for less than an hour by any particular patron and each party is not in close proximity to each other party generally (when was the last time you left your table to interact with another table full of strangers?) Staff who are sick can infect patrons regardless of being indoors or out. Restaurants and bars are actually one of the largest causes of the spread of COVID-19.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 22, 2020 16:55:30 GMT
If you're indoors, masks amongst strangers is probably a good idea. At the beach or on a hiking trail? Not necessary. At home with family? Not necessary... Is that in any way different from the official recommendations in the USA?
Because that are the recommendations we have in Germany. Only if you're really in a tight place outdoors would masks be recommended, but anything else is about indoor with large groups.
It doesn't matter if they are strangers, though. Even someone you know could be sick. And if you meet with 100 people, you can't really know whether someone couldn't be infected alerady, and if someone has it, a lot will get it. So avoid that.
The usual concern about anti-maskers is about anti-maskers going into bars, into shopping malls and similar enclosed buildings.
The issue is the buffoonery surrounding the politicization of this. When you've got the media convincing people that 1 case = 1 death (awhile back there was a survey and the results of that survey was that a significant number if people thought 33 million people in the US has died of COVID19), coupled with panicky-pete officials refusing to do away with lockdowns, coupled with the FDA and CDC looking like buffoons for multiple fuckups, the end result is a bunch of kirinkes convinced that everyone is going to die unless they remain holed up in their basements. There is so much information that is being suppressed about this - 1. How many people have some level of T-cell immunity due to prior exposure to some other strain of a coronavirus. 2. Evidence that HCQ is likely effective with very low risk if given correctly and early. If multiple doctors across the planet have had success using it, anecdotally or not, it's still something that should be investigated. 3. An unknowable number of people infected, resulting in using CFR instead of IFR to determine the fatality rate. 4. Variability in reporting positives. Some statistics included those suspected but not confirmed. Others included multiple tests of one person as separate cases. PCR results being declared positive when it took way too many cycles to get there (current research indicates CT>24 and STT>8 = not infectious. The UK had been using a CT>45 as the difference between positive and negative.) PCR results way after someone has fought off an infection, resulting in viral debris being declared a positive. Recording a backlog of results as if they were new cases rather than identifying when they were actually sampled. Reporting of people who died of something else while infected with COVID as having died from COVID. 5. Fear-mongering by the media. How come we've never heard follow-up reports on sports figures who've been infected? Because that are all healthy people who recover, just like most people who get infected. 6. Piss poor decisions by some elected officials. Who in their right mind would think sending infected people into nursing homes to recover wouldn't lead to them infecting and killing off vulnerable elderly people, many with multiple health issues. Go take a look at Ethical Skeptic and Kyle Lamb and a few others who've been pulling back the covers on the statistics and you'll see that the IFR for COVID19 is on par with a bad flu season.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 22, 2020 16:56:53 GMT
Thing is, if they aren't showing symptoms you don't know if they're infectious. Why take the risk with this disease? It's deadly. Try and understand. It's not deadly for the majority of people who get infected. Just like the flu or chickenpox.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 22, 2020 16:57:52 GMT
And how much of your information has been plain wrong or outdated? The Anser: all of it. So excuse me for not believing you. I'll trust the CDC thanks. At least their info is up to date.
People are dying from this shit and suffering serious complications and you're believing Trump's outright lies over this. That's 200k dead. That tells me it's deadly. Even if you survive it, the chances of you suffering serious complications are pretty high.
So no, I'm not believing you in this. Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Sept 22, 2020 16:59:05 GMT
The problem is that the incubation period is lengthy, without symptoms, and you're infectious during it. So how do you know you're not sick? Here's a direct quote from the top of the article: And what does this say about opening bars and restaurants? We really don't know if anyone who is asymptomatic is infectious, so it's tough to say There is evidence that it is infectious before you get symptoms, in fact, you seem to be most infectious 1-3 days before showing any symptoms. My source unfortunately is a German podcast with one of the top Germans specialists on Corona (who actually created the PCR test). I don't really feel like walking through the podcast notes and see which studies they were referring, and it could very well be that he's actually the primary source anyway.
But the CDC recommendations mention this already (apparently,since June 20th?).
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 22, 2020 17:04:28 GMT
We really don't know if anyone who is asymptomatic is infectious, so it's tough to say There is evidence that it is infectious before you get symptoms, in fact, you seem to be most infectious 1-3 days before showing any symptoms. My source unfortunately is a German podcast with one of the top Germans specialists on Corona (who actually created the PCR test). I don't really feel like walking through the podcast notes and see which studies they were referring, and it could very well be that he's actually the primary source anyway.
But the CDC recommendations mention this already (apparently,since June 20th?). If you've a link, I'd love to see it. It sounds like you are referring to pre-symptomatic (going to get sick) vs asymptomatic (got it, got over it, didn't know you had it). As to PCR - I don't think that a German invented it, seeing as how Cary Mullis is credited with inventing PCR. Or are you referring to the specific protocol for using PCR on COVID? Would you not agree with Dr. Mullis who had previously asserted that PCR shouldn't be used for diagnostic testing since it was intended as a manufacturing tool?
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 22, 2020 21:08:49 GMT
Thing is, if they aren't showing symptoms you don't know if they're infectious. Why take the risk with this disease? It's deadly. Try and understand. It's not deadly for the majority of people who get infected. Just like the flu or chickenpox. How about you stop talking about mortality rates, and start talking about something more important: hospitalization rates? Hospitalization rates are much higher than the mortality rate. Keeping social distancing and masks is important to do that. The hospitalization rate also follows comorbidities and age, though not as much as the mortality rate. The problem is that for ALL categories, the hospitalization rate is significantly higher. That means that if we don't keep the spread down, hospitals can still be overwhelmed because we're nowhere near herd immunity. Also, it's NOT just like the flu or chickenpox. We don't know specifics of all of it, but it can, and does, do permanent damage. And yes, so can those diseases, but not at the rate of COVID-19. And some of it is much more disabling than the permanent damage from the flu or chickenpox. For example, the effects of the blood clotting that COVID-19 can cause is permanent. That kind of damage can be very significant. There is also damage that can be done to just about every organ. They're finding damage to the heart, lungs, liver, etc. Pretty much every organ is affected by COVID-19. And that's one of the problems with asymptomatic. Damage to your organs may not cause symptoms, but could well shorten your life and decrease the quality of your later life. Of course, like I said, exactly what those long term effects are is not currently known. But I wouldn't be surprised if those who were "asymptomatic" actually have damage to their organs that isn't enough to cause immediate symptoms, but is permanent. Consider that some of people are asymptomatic until they have strokes and heart attacks because of COVID-19.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 22, 2020 21:32:19 GMT
Exactly. So if you don't mask up, you are potentially damning a person or persons to permanent injury at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 22, 2020 22:43:01 GMT
Try and understand. It's not deadly for the majority of people who get infected. Just like the flu or chickenpox. How about you stop talking about mortality rates, and start talking about something more important: hospitalization rates? Hospitalization rates are much higher than the mortality rate. Keeping social distancing and masks is important to do that. The hospitalization rate also follows comorbidities and age, though not as much as the mortality rate. The problem is that for ALL categories, the hospitalization rate is significantly higher. That means that if we don't keep the spread down, hospitals can still be overwhelmed because we're nowhere near herd immunity. Also, it's NOT just like the flu or chickenpox. We don't know specifics of all of it, but it can, and does, do permanent damage. And yes, so can those diseases, but not at the rate of COVID-19. And some of it is much more disabling than the permanent damage from the flu or chickenpox. For example, the effects of the blood clotting that COVID-19 can cause is permanent. That kind of damage can be very significant. There is also damage that can be done to just about every organ. They're finding damage to the heart, lungs, liver, etc. Pretty much every organ is affected by COVID-19. And that's one of the problems with asymptomatic. Damage to your organs may not cause symptoms, but could well shorten your life and decrease the quality of your later life. Of course, like I said, exactly what those long term effects are is not currently known. But I wouldn't be surprised if those who were "asymptomatic" actually have damage to their organs that isn't enough to cause immediate symptoms, but is permanent. Consider that some of people are asymptomatic until they have strokes and heart attacks because of COVID-19. Hospitalization rates? Didn't all those experts and government leaders say we needed two weeks of lockdown to flatten the curve of hospitalizations? We've flattened the curve and spread the infections over a longer period of time. You can't live your life and expect to not get this (or any other virus) unless you consider hunkering down in a basement to be living. Sweden is estimated to have herd immunity already. Italy was overwhelmed back in March because all of their sick people were elderly. NY was a disaster because they were they port of entry. You can do a heatmap and clearly see how the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths petered out there further away you get from the city. Don't let the "we're close to ICU capacity" fool you - ICUs are always operated at close to capacity. If you are looking at data on hospitalizations you need to look at prior actuals and not models of future predictions - the IHME model, for example, has never been anywhere close to correct.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 22, 2020 23:22:53 GMT
How about you stop talking about mortality rates, and start talking about something more important: hospitalization rates? Hospitalization rates are much higher than the mortality rate. Keeping social distancing and masks is important to do that. The hospitalization rate also follows comorbidities and age, though not as much as the mortality rate. The problem is that for ALL categories, the hospitalization rate is significantly higher. That means that if we don't keep the spread down, hospitals can still be overwhelmed because we're nowhere near herd immunity. Also, it's NOT just like the flu or chickenpox. We don't know specifics of all of it, but it can, and does, do permanent damage. And yes, so can those diseases, but not at the rate of COVID-19. And some of it is much more disabling than the permanent damage from the flu or chickenpox. For example, the effects of the blood clotting that COVID-19 can cause is permanent. That kind of damage can be very significant. There is also damage that can be done to just about every organ. They're finding damage to the heart, lungs, liver, etc. Pretty much every organ is affected by COVID-19. And that's one of the problems with asymptomatic. Damage to your organs may not cause symptoms, but could well shorten your life and decrease the quality of your later life. Of course, like I said, exactly what those long term effects are is not currently known. But I wouldn't be surprised if those who were "asymptomatic" actually have damage to their organs that isn't enough to cause immediate symptoms, but is permanent. Consider that some of people are asymptomatic until they have strokes and heart attacks because of COVID-19. Hospitalization rates? Didn't all those experts and government leaders say we needed two weeks of lockdown to flatten the curve of hospitalizations? We've flattened the curve and spread the infections over a longer period of time. You can't live your life and expect to not get this (or any other virus) unless you consider hunkering down in a basement to be living. Sweden is estimated to have herd immunity already. Italy was overwhelmed back in March because all of their sick people were elderly. NY was a disaster because they were they port of entry. You can do a heatmap and clearly see how the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths petered out there further away you get from the city. Don't let the "we're close to ICU capacity" fool you - ICUs are always operated at close to capacity. If you are looking at data on hospitalizations you need to look at prior actuals and not models of future predictions - the IHME model, for example, has never been anywhere close to correct. So we know that COVID-19 can spread rapidly. Exactly how isn't entirely understood. We had a huge spike over the summer, which has since come down, but is still higher than pretty much anywhere. The two weeks of lockdown DID help some, though we probably reopened too early which explains the spike. Now the spread is actually mostly through social contact at restaurants and bars. We still need to continue with social distancing and wearing masks. We don't have a treatment that has been proven (proven with studies, not anecdotes) to work well enough. We don't have a vaccine, or even know if a vaccine will work. Until we have one of these things, we will need to continue with social distancing and masks. If we don't, then hospitals WILL get overwhelmed. Oh, you might be right that rural areas won't have problems to start, but it won't end that way unless we go back to social distancing and masks. And you're still ignoring that COVID-19 does more to people who get it than most any other diseases you know. If we don't keep a lid on it, there are going to be a lot of people who won't be able to work for a while. And some of them won't be able to work again.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 23, 2020 1:51:49 GMT
What is the estimated percentage required for a population to be considered as having herd immunity regarding COVID?
|
|