Very mysterious. Of course, the bailey is that those who don't comply with your "common sense" as you see fit are inferior and members of a "death cult"
Have you read what they wrote? There is a lot there about tradeoffs. If anything our government has avoided talking about the costs of these policies. We have been monomaniacal on this issue. This only makes sense from a political perspective. Politicians are going to want to dissuade people from looking at alternatives to their policies.
What is your solution - Liberate New Jersey and remove the mask mandate? Also - post videos, but watch what you're writing - a pretty offensive comment was removed.. This is a covid discussion as I've said - not politics.
Watch what I write? Don't bring up politics? Pretty offensive?
Note that where you censored me was a reply to this that included a video of the speaker.
people are hurting because the solution is two pronged, but we have a gutless and destructive death cult of a Republican party that doesn't want to provide financial help.
Surely you see this. It's not like they're trying to hide it.
The problem with conversing with people like you is that you are so biased you can't even see it. You are fine with someone saying roughly half Americand subscribe to "death cult". Nothing political or offensive there. When it is pointed out that this supposed death cult had a $1.8 Trillion package on the table but the speaker refused for seemingly political reasons, that's where the Rubicon is. Sure.
again, you have some facts wrong.
We can discuss whether they constitute a death cult somewhere else. I have many receipts.
The 1.8 tr dollar package did not come from Republican leadership. It came from Mnuchin, one of the more reasonable people in the administration. There was exactly zero chance that McConnell would allow a vote on it, so why should Pelosi compromise her position for something that was going nowhere?
Or do you think that's smart politics?
Humm. Can't be sure.
what, exactly, do you think this proves?
Other than that you, apparently, take McConnell's words in good faith
Very mysterious. Of course, the bailey is that those who don't comply with your "common sense" as you see fit are inferior and members of a "death cult"
that's your interpretation.
Mr. ml1 - Don't get so hung up on what you've actually said, just accept that it's what Mr. terp says it is. That's another rhetorical technique although its name escapes me right now.
Dont worry about comparing 1 place with another. The question is where is the correlation between the mask mandates and the number of cases. It is impossible to find. If masks were truly effective you would expect to see dips with some regularity. I just don't see that. Wouldn't we expect to see a pattern if masks limited transmission as much as is claimed?
If our data were more fine-grained, perhaps we'd expect to see that. The data we have is pretty coarse, though. Who gets tested, how often people are tested, how long it takes to report results, etc, all will affect these numbers significantly, so what we see on these charts is incomplete and indirect. You can read a bit more about it at the Covid Tracking Project, which as we've seen is one of the sources used in the charts you shared. On that general topic, you also might be interested in this recent article in The Atlantic (the organization behind Covid Tracking Project) on how the holiday season will cause some skew in the data.
What we would expect is that per capita infections will be lower if people social distance and wear masks than if they don't. Ideally you'd create two separate timelines with everything else the same except this behavior, and compare, say, Los Angeles Timeline 1 to Los Angeles Timeline 2. Of course we can't do that (or maybe we can, but as the subjects rather than the experimenters we're unaware of the alternate timeline and unable to observe it), so the next best thing is to compare different places, observe their differing outcomes, and try to tease out what's different between the places that could account for the different outcomes.
So, for instance, comparing places where the virus is established and people have differing behaviors with different outcomes gives us some good indications. We still do need to see what other differences might be important -- correlation does not always mean causation after all -- but it's a good starting point.
You would think these things must make us invincible considering the distasteful manner some speak about those who are against wearing them.
I really hope people don't believe that, and that in addition to mask wearing they are also practicing social distancing and hand washing!
I think we can agree that no mandate or recommendation protects anyone, it's compliance with same that does. And I'm not seeing the level of compliance you're seeing, especially among young people. Especially since the school year started, whenever I see a clump of teens together, invariably only a minority of them are masked. There's also half-assed useless "compliance" like the mask under the nose look I see so often.
Re the squad, yes we have n95 masks and better. The conclusion is that good masks work, not that no masks work. Do you disagree based on my own and my squad's experience that good masks are highly effective? Give me an alternative theory to explain our experience.
Mr. ml1 - Don't get so hung up on what you've actually said, just accept that it's what Mr. terp says it is. That's another rhetorical technique although its name escapes me right now.
I think we can agree that no mandate or recommendation protects anyone, it's compliance with same that does. And I'm not seeing the level of compliance you're seeing, especially among young people. Especially since the school year started, whenever I see a clump of teens together, invariably only a minority of them are masked. There's also half-assed useless "compliance" like the mask under the nose look I see so often.
Re the squad, yes we have n95 masks and better. The conclusion is that good masks work, not that no masks work. Do you disagree based on my own and my squad's experience that good masks are highly effective? Give me an alternative theory to explain our experience.
there have been studies of mask efficacy. Are they completely conclusive? Science never is. But the preponderance of evidence is that masks lessen the means of transmission of the coronavirus. Anyone arguing that we know nothing on this topic is incorrect.
absolutely. Which is why wearing a mask even in circumstances where it really isn't necessary (like outdoors) can be important. Seeing other people in masks reminds us to keep distance, and it establishes mask-wearing as normative behavior. There is no real way to enforce these mandates, and ultimately people's compliance is a choice. And that choice becomes more obvious when we see nearly everyone else in compliance.
You would think these things must make us invincible considering the distasteful manner some speak about those who are against wearing them.
And on this point, a reminder that the main purpose for the masks isn't to protect the wearer, but to protect other people. If you are pre-symptomatic, asymptomatic, or only having mild symptoms, you can still spread it. Wearing a mask reduces the odds of your infecting your neighbor.
You would think these things must make us invincible considering the distasteful manner some speak about those who are against wearing them.
And on this point, a reminder that the main purpose for the masks isn't to protect the wearer, but to protect other people. If you are pre-symptomatic, asymptomatic, or only having mild symptoms, you can still spread it. Wearing a mask reduces the odds of your infecting your neighbor.
The thinking has shifted towards protection both ways and how could it be otherwise? If the mask material can catch and trap outbound viral strands, is there any reason to think it can't trap at lest some of the stuff coming inbound? That would be magical thinking. A virus strand doesn't have arms and legs or teeth. it's not a creature. It doesn't try to bore its way through your mask. And certainly mask material can catch a big "gob" even if an individual (and ineffective) viral strand from the gob somehow gets through.
If the mask material can catch and trap outbound viral strands, is there any reason to think it can't trap at lest some of the stuff coming inbound?
At least some, yes. The difference, though, isn’t about the mask material. It’s the way the air moves. When you exhale, the air goes directly into the mask. When you inhale, you typically draw in some air from around the mask.
And to be clear, I wear a mask when I go to stores etc. I mostly do it to make people around me comfortable. I do not think it is nearly as important outside. I brought my dog to the reservation and was walking her through the trails in the woods. A few people gave me the hairy eyeball because I wasn't wearing a mask. One family and their dog actually walked off the trail and into the woods to avoid me. Now where is the science to back that up?.
The science is that humans make risk/benefit calculations all the time. A person who puts on a mask for the 10 seconds of an approach-and-walk-past signals to others that they are taking precautions against catching COVID-19, so are quickly assessed by the person about to walk past as both lower risk of having the virus, and a lower risk of transmitting it through their mask if they do have it.
The off-trail woods walkers have correctly quickly assessed you as having more tolerance for COVID-19 risk, which makes you a higher risk person to breathe near.
Their risk/benefit calculation seems to be working correctly. The risk of catching the virus is higher if one passes closely by a person who has COVID-19 who is not wearing a mask. So, by not taking the small step of putting on a mask when walking close to other people, you are signaling that that you are a person with higher probability of having been exposed to COVID-19.
What is the additional risk those walkers take on by going off the trail into the woods? There may be a few (e.g., increased exposure to ticks, increased exposure to uneven ground), but they may feel they can control/mitigate those risks better than they can control/mitigate the potential impact of quickly walking into a cloud of someone's contaminated breath.
The science they are using is more social science than infectious disease science.
If the mask material can catch and trap outbound viral strands, is there any reason to think it can't trap at lest some of the stuff coming inbound?
At least some, yes. The difference, though, isn’t about the mask material. It’s the way the air moves. When you exhale, the air goes directly into the mask. When you inhale, you typically draw in some air from around the mask.
well, one would assume that when you exhale, in most masks, the air goes around the mask also. In fact, that's the whole point about glasses fogging up.
And to be clear, I wear a mask when I go to stores etc. I mostly do it to make people around me comfortable. I do not think it is nearly as important outside. I brought my dog to the reservation and was walking her through the trails in the woods. A few people gave me the hairy eyeball because I wasn't wearing a mask. One family and their dog actually walked off the trail and into the woods to avoid me. Now where is the science to back that up?.
The science is that humans make risk/benefit calculations all the time. A person who puts on a mask for the 10 seconds of an approach-and-walk-past signals to others that they are taking precautions against catching COVID-19, so are quickly assessed by the person about to walk past as both lower risk of having the virus, and a lower risk of transmitting it through their mask if they do have it.
The off-trail woods walkers have correctly quickly assessed you as having more tolerance for COVID-19 risk, which makes you a higher risk person to breathe near.
It was also the polite thing to do as they approached a person who was not protecting himself.
If the mask material can catch and trap outbound viral strands, is there any reason to think it can't trap at lest some of the stuff coming inbound?
At least some, yes. The difference, though, isn’t about the mask material. It’s the way the air moves. When you exhale, the air goes directly into the mask. When you inhale, you typically draw in some air from around the mask.
well, one would assume that when you exhale, in most masks, the air goes around the mask also. In fact, that's the whole point about glasses fogging up.
These points go to the quality of the mask. N95 masks or better, when fit right, seal over your face. No gaps. The store bought masks a lot of people are wearing have gaps. The surgical masks fall somewhere in between. They have the metal strip that allows you to make somewhat of a seal in the upper half of the mask. I'm all for people getting 95s if they can.
You would think these things must make us invincible considering the distasteful manner some speak about those who are against wearing them.
And on this point, a reminder that the main purpose for the masks isn't to protect the wearer, but to protect other people. If you are pre-symptomatic, asymptomatic, or only having mild symptoms, you can still spread it. Wearing a mask reduces the odds of your infecting your neighbor.
The thinking has shifted towards protection both ways and how could it be otherwise? If the mask material can catch and trap outbound viral strands, is there any reason to think it can't trap at lest some of the stuff coming inbound? That would be magical thinking. A virus strand doesn't have arms and legs or teeth. it's not a creature. It doesn't try to bore its way through your mask. And certainly mask material can catch a big "gob" even if an individual (and ineffective) viral strand from the gob somehow gets through.
It's less that it won't protect you, and more about emphasis here -- particularly in the context of a statement like "you would think these things must make us invincible". If people are thinking of masks mostly in terms of personal protection, and slip it on then ease off on other important behavior changes like hand washing and distancing, that's not great. I think this kind of thinking is also what contributed to the mixed messaging around masks early on -- if you're stressing personal protection, the quality of the mask matters a great deal.
If thinking in terms of broadly reducing the spread, the calculus changes. A less effective mask blocks fewer particles, but with mass mask wearing, the overall spread of particle into common space is dramatically reduced.
Think of it this way -- let's say you're trying to work from home and don't want to be distracted by the sound of leaf blowers. Really good noise cancelling headphones become very important. Now let's say that you're looking to reduce the overall noise from leafblowers, and there's a technology that will reduce a given leafblower's noise level by 78%. Having every leafblower use this would dramatically decrease the amount of noise.
If the mask material can catch and trap outbound viral strands, is there any reason to think it can't trap at lest some of the stuff coming inbound?
At least some, yes. The difference, though, isn’t about the mask material. It’s the way the air moves. When you exhale, the air goes directly into the mask. When you inhale, you typically draw in some air from around the mask.
well, one would assume that when you exhale, in most masks, the air goes around the mask also. In fact, that's the whole point about glasses fogging up.
These points go to the quality of the mask. N95 masks or better, when fit right, seal over your face. No gaps. The store bought masks a lot of people are wearing have gaps. The surgical masks fall somewhere in between. They have the metal strip that allows you to make somewhat of a seal in the upper half of the mask. I'm all for people getting 95s if they can.
Yes, you're right. During the mini-discussion we had about fogging, I was assuming that everyone has a mask with the metal strip to tighten the nose seal. That's essential. Sometimes the blue surgical masks have them. I'm writing this from a hospital room with a hospital supplied mask and it has the strip on it and I've managed to avoid fogging.
Yes, you're right. During the mini-discussion we had about fogging, I was assuming that everyone has a mask with the metal strip to tighten the nose seal. That's essential. Sometimes the blue surgical masks have them. I'm writing this from a hospital room with a hospital supplied mask and it has the strip on it and I've managed to avoid fogging.
I wish I knew your secret or maybe it's just about face shape. My masks have the metal strips and also the foam seals and I still get fogging no matter how much I pinch and adjust although those things do help. I'm a person who wears my glasses (progressives) "all" the time and this has been a big PITA for me. Nevertheless, I am definitely pro-mask and I DO wear a mask at any time indoors (other than my own house) as well as outdoors if not absolutely sure of distancing and it is always with me. I am just having to remember to carry a case for my glasses and keep track of them, which had never been a problem before in the 40-ish years that I have had glasses, so it's a new habit for me.
To bub's and PVW's points, hampering the outflow of viral carrying airflow/droplets as well as making it tougher for that same air content to get into you are where masks make the difference. The less exposure we wind up with, the better chances we have for getting the 'training wheels' version of contracting COVID compared to the consequences of taking in a heavier viral load. It isn't a guarantee for getting only mild symptoms or being asymptomatic but it but wearing a mask certainly does help.
A drawback here is that people may wind up inadvertently exposed but never have any clue at all that they're positive but showing no symptoms - and thus thinking the threat is reduced. Or one could think the virus is no longer as deadly now due to more recent strains going around because of the well-documented mutations. The death rate in other states has been much lower than it was in Essex/Bergen/Hudson NJ counties and the NYC area in the spring. It used to make me bitterly jealous as it seemed to validate dissenter's talking about it being no big deal.
(These figures are rounded off and taken from worldometers.info on 12/4/2020)
NJ - 17K dead out of 359K cases NY - 35K dead out of 714K cases
compared to:
TX - 22K dead out of 1.3M+ cases FL - 19K dead out of 1M+ cases CA - 20K dead out of 1.3M cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ "...Although we found that respiratory tract viral loads were associated with inflammation and outcomes, higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 plasma RNA had the strongest relationship with disease severity, key laboratory markers, and mortality..."
SARS-CoV-2 viral load is associated with increased disease severity and mortality
I wish I knew your secret or maybe it's just about face shape. My masks have the metal strips and also the foam seals and I still get fogging no matter how much I pinch and adjust although those things do help. I'm a person who wears my glasses (progressives) "all" the time and this has been a big PITA for me. Nevertheless, I am definitely pro-mask and I DO wear a mask at any time indoors (other than my own house) as well as outdoors if not absolutely sure of distancing and it is always with me. I am just having to remember to carry a case for my classes and keep track of them, which had never been a problem before in the 40-ish years that I have had glasses, so it's a new habit for me.
One thing that sometimes helps is to use the anti-fogging drops that reduce fogging in swim goggles. Just a drop rubbed dry with a cloth or tissue on each side of the lens. They still fog up but it disappears quickly. Most of the time anyway.
There are venues other than that 1 op ed. The fact is that nobody was interested in discussing the particulars. Google relegated the declaration to page 5 of its search results after pages of articles smearing, reddit scrubbed it, and Dr Gupta was told not to bring it up just prior to a BBC interview.
Her plea was to actually have the discussion. What is so hard to understand?
Is there any particular reason you're declining to share a link to one of these other venues?
There are venues other than that 1 op ed. The fact is that nobody was interested in discussing the particulars. Google relegated the declaration to page 5 of its search results after pages of articles smearing, reddit scrubbed it, and Dr Gupta was told not to bring it up just prior to a BBC interview.
I type the words "Barrington" and "declaration" into the Google, and it comes up at the top, with a link to the site and to the Wikipedia page for it.
There are venues other than that 1 op ed. The fact is that nobody was interested in discussing the particulars. Google relegated the declaration to page 5 of its search results after pages of articles smearing, reddit scrubbed it, and Dr Gupta was told not to bring it up just prior to a BBC interview.
I type the words "Barrington" and "declaration" into the Google, and it comes up at the top, with a link to the site and to the Wikipedia page for it.
sure, but in particular I'd like to see where Dr. Gupta addresses questions like how many people she expects would die, be seriously injured, and suffer long term health issues. I haven't seen this in anything terp's shared so far, but if there really are other venues he's seen this at, it would be helpful to the discussion if he shared.
There are venues other than that 1 op ed. The fact is that nobody was interested in discussing the particulars. Google relegated the declaration to page 5 of its search results after pages of articles smearing, reddit scrubbed it, and Dr Gupta was told not to bring it up just prior to a BBC interview.
I type the words "Barrington" and "declaration" into the Google, and it comes up at the top, with a link to the site and to the Wikipedia page for it.
sure, but in particular I'd like to see where Dr. Gupta addresses questions like how many people she expects would die, be seriously injured, and suffer long term health issues. I haven't seen this in anything terp's shared so far, but if there really are other venues he's seen this at, it would be helpful to the discussion if he shared.
I agree. I was just addressing the claim that "Google relegated the declaration to page 5 of its search results after pages of articles smearing".
One would think that such basic and obvious questions would have been addressed on their website. I think they skirt the issue in their FAQ.
We are not currently in anything that could be accurately described as a "lockdown." Plenty of activities are permitted. There are discussions we can have about whether or not science supports all of the regulations. But we are in nothing like a strict quarantine in NJ and we haven't been for months.
It certainly is a tragic outcome of the pandemic that people are avoiding medical screenings and treatment. But that isn't because of regulations. Cancer screenings or other diagnostic testing isn't prohibited. It's just that people are making their own personal choices to stay away from places they perceive might be a COVID-19 risk. Much (maybe most) of the negative health and mental health outcomes aren't the fault of regulations as much as they are a result of reasonable reactions people are having to the pandemic itself. And those issues can't really be addressed effectively until the pandemic itself is behind us.
Follow-up, with some appropriate reaction from our governor -
It is also beyond the pale that Rep Matt Putz – I mean @RepMattGaetz – would participate in this. What a fool. Matt – You are not welcome in New Jersey, and frankly I don’t ever want you back in this state. pic.twitter.com/j67x9Z2lAf
that's your interpretation.