The truth about wearing a mask -finally

[Golfman25]

Again you are wrong on Masks and the vaccine. Your not concerned with protecting anyone just your bank account and your 401k
You keep criticizing the guy that has been right about this virus dispute being muzzled by Trump most of the time.

Actually, I am concerned about protecting more people than you. See guys like you refuse to understand that an at risk person can completely protect themselves from the virus -- just stay inside and isolate. Who am I concerned with? Well here is the list:
1) my buddy, ED, who is loosing his bar and live music business
2) my friends Maria and Pete, who are loosing their restaurant and everything they have worked for in their lives.
3) my friend Kathleen who's restaurant is struggling so much that the stress caused a divorce from her husband.
4) My neighbor, Claudette, who's husband had a stroke and passed away -- and was unable to have a proper burial and closure. She no longer leaves her house.
5) My kid, and his college buddies, who even though have minimal effects and risks of death are treated like prisoners at school -- subject to the risk of suspension if they mess up and forget a mask, or celebrate, outside, the big win by the football team. They are stuck isolated in their rooms, stuck on zoom.
6) All the people struggling with mental health issues due to the shutdowns, lockdowns and the like.
Shall I continue?

 

[PeteL]

Why does the entire population have to suffer? We know who is vulnerable, and we know the horrific effects lock downs and other control measures have on people's lives and the overall economy. We also know better how to treat the sick....yet we still act like it was a year ago when we knew nothing about this virus. How about if you are in the clearly identified vulnerable groups, you start taking responsibility for your own safety, and the rest of us, can choose how to live our lives? Businesses can open, people can live, and we can manage our own risks. I am over masks, shut downs, and forced restrictions. Why are we losing our minds over 1 or 2 percent death rate? And stop testing asymptomatic people and the associated fear mongering.

 

[Iprof]

Actually, I am concerned about protecting more people than you. See guys like you refuse to understand that an at risk person can completely protect themselves from the virus -- just stay inside and isolate. Who am I concerned with? Well here is the list:
1) my buddy, ED, who is loosing his bar and live music business
2) my friends Maria and Pete, who are loosing their restaurant and everything they have worked for in their lives.
3) my friend Kathleen who's restaurant is struggling so much that the stress caused a divorce from her husband.
4) My neighbor, Claudette, who's husband had a stroke and passed away -- and was unable to have a proper burial and closure. She no longer leaves her house.
5) My kid, and his college buddies, who even though have minimal effects and risks of death are treated like prisoners at school -- subject to the risk of suspension if they mess up and forget a mask, or celebrate, outside, the big win by the football team. They are stuck isolated in their rooms, stuck on zoom.
6) All the people struggling with mental health issues due to the shutdowns, lockdowns and the like.
Shall I continue?

Seems you left out all the people at risk and dying. As I said your concerned about money first and foremost but I'm not surprised at all.

 

[PeteL]

Seems you left out all the people at risk and dying. As I said your concerned about money first and foremost but I'm not surprised at all.

So people losing livelihoods and marriages and the ability to support their families does not matter?

 

[Golfman25]

So people losing livelihoods and marriages and the ability to support their families does not matter?

Not to guys like him. You see, if it saves one life blah blah blah . . .

 

[Golfman25]

Seems you left out all the people at risk and dying. As I said your concerned about money first and foremost but I'm not surprised at all.

I didn't leave them out -- it was my second line. Their course of action is clear -- isolate and protect yourself until a vaccine is given to you. Let the not at risk keep everything going so there is a society for the at risk population to return to.

 

[PeteL]

I didn't leave them out -- it was my second line. Their course of action is clear -- isolate and protect yourself until a vaccine is given to you. Let the not at risk keep everything going so there is a society for the at risk population to return to.

Why is this so hard/Offensive? It's common sense. A very wise Vulcan once said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...."

 

[alnav]

Why is this so hard/Offensive? It's common sense. A very wise Vulcan once said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...."

It seems like common sense, but, as is often the case, applying reality gets in the way.
- 50 million or so Americans are 65 and older. Taking them out of the economy by locking them up alone will ensure the businesses that we are concerned about won't recover.
- Another 41 million or so are under 65 but have medical conditions that put them at risk (diabetes, hypertension, obesity, etc.). Taking them out of the economy would not only exacerbate the losses from taking out the elderly but would also deprive the economy of their labor and cause further disruptions. Many have "essential" jobs. Many would have to go to work anyway and would get infected by the remainder who seemingly would not be asked to take any precautions under you guys' plan.
I believe an economy with nearly half its members locked down would be much worse off than what we are seeing now. I think the solution is to invoke mitigation as needed but also to take care of the worst-hit economically through stimulus measures. I'm not a fan of big government expenditures but I think it's necessary right now. There was a good start earlier in the year but then politics kicked in and neither side has distinguished itself since.

 

[PeteL]

It seems like common sense, but, as is often the case, applying reality gets in the way.
- 50 million or so Americans are 65 and older. Taking them out of the economy by locking them up alone will ensure the businesses that we are concerned about won't recover.
- Another 41 million or so are under 65 but have medical conditions that put them at risk (diabetes, hypertension, obesity, etc.). Taking them out of the economy would not only exacerbate the losses from taking out the elderly but would also deprive the economy of their labor and cause further disruptions. Many have "essential" jobs. Many would have to go to work anyway and would get infected by the remainder who seemingly would not be asked to take any precautions under you guys' plan.
I believe an economy with nearly half its members locked down would be much worse off than what we are seeing now. I think the solution is to invoke mitigation as needed but also to take care of the worst-hit economically through stimulus measures. I'm not a fan of big government expenditures but I think it's necessary right now. There was a good start earlier in the year but then politics kicked in and neither side has distinguished itself since.

I am not taking that entire population out of the economy. They can participate, with proper self-protection measures. The only ones that are really and truly at risk (of not having a nearly 99% chance of survival) are the older americans with underlying conditions. But, as I said, they can protect themselves, and the less vulnerable can choose to protect themselves. The economy will be fine. You counted perhaps 90 Million of 328 Million.... a large part of that 90 million already has reduced their participation in the economy, at least the production side. So I don't think the impact is as great you say. But these measures punish everyone. Does not make sense. We get back to work, take care of our own, and we will not need the stimulus. Open the economy, stop asymptomatic testing, and continue to effectively treat the sick. Real simple.

 

[alnav]

I am not taking that entire population out of the economy. They can participate, with proper self-protection measures. The only ones that are really and truly at risk (of not having a nearly 99% chance of survival) are the older americans with underlying conditions. But, as I said, they can protect themselves, and the less vulnerable can choose to protect themselves. The economy will be fine. You counted perhaps 90 Million of 328 Million.... a large part of that 90 million already has reduced their participation in the economy, at least the production side. So I don't think the impact is as great you say. But these measures punish everyone. Does not make sense. We get back to work, take care of our own, and we will not need the stimulus. Open the economy, stop asymptomatic testing, and continue to effectively treat the sick. Real simple.

The pandemic has crushed demand in food, entertainment and travel. The big spending elderly are precisely the ones who need to re-join to bring those sectors back, along with a large number of the less vulnerable. They won't do so until they feel safe. So, the virus has to be defeated, probably via vaccination, before there will be a meaningful improvement. Failure to provide stimulus not only hurts the displaced but will lead to 2nd and 3rd order effects as those fail to spend. Open up all you want but things won't get better until a much larger portion of the population feels safe, regardless of government-imposed mitigations. Hopefully we won't be a depression by then.

 

[Shenanigans77]

The pandemic has crushed demand in food, entertainment and travel. The big spending elderly are precisely the ones who need to re-join to bring those sectors back, along with a large number of the less vulnerable. They won't do so until they feel safe. So, the virus has to be defeated, probably via vaccination, before there will be a meaningful improvement. Failure to provide stimulus not only hurts the displaced but will lead to 2nd and 3rd order effects as those fail to spend. Open up all you want but things won't get better until a much larger portion of the population feels safe, regardless of government-imposed mitigations. Hopefully we won't be a depression by then.

Sure! Just keep borrowing trillions upon trillions of dollars that my kids kids wont even be able to pay back. Protect the elderly and vulnerable and get on with it.

 

[MonacoMike]

Well it seems like the science is settled.

A recently completed research study by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center and published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found that strict quarantine, tightly controlled social distancing, and continuous use of masks did absolutely nothing to contain the spread of COVID-19, and might even have increasedits spread.






https://behindtheblack.com/behind-t...less-and-might-even-increase-covid-19-spread/

 

[alnav]

Well it seems like the science is settled.

A recently completed research study by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center and published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found that strict quarantine, tightly controlled social distancing, and continuous use of masks did absolutely nothing to contain the spread of COVID-19, and might even have increasedits spread.






https://behindtheblack.com/behind-t...less-and-might-even-increase-covid-19-spread/

Take a look at the study itself instead. It concluded nothing about spread, just reported what happened. Which was: "Among Marine Corps recruits, approximately 2% who had previously had negative results for SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of supervised quarantine, and less than 2% of recruits with unknown previous status, tested positive by day 14. Most recruits who tested positive were asymptomatic, and no infections were detected through daily symptom monitoring. Transmission clusters occurred within platoons. (Funded by the Defense Health Agency and others.)"

I happened to be on a call with DHA today where they discussed this study. In their opinion, if the quarantine hadn't been in effect, about 75% of the training cohort would have quickly gotten infected, including the DI's who would have spread it to the community.

 

[Golfman25]

Take a look at the study itself instead. It concluded nothing about spread, just reported what happened. Which was: "Among Marine Corps recruits, approximately 2% who had previously had negative results for SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of supervised quarantine, and less than 2% of recruits with unknown previous status, tested positive by day 14. Most recruits who tested positive were asymptomatic, and no infections were detected through daily symptom monitoring. Transmission clusters occurred within platoons. (Funded by the Defense Health Agency and others.)"

I happened to be on a call with DHA today where they discussed this study. In their opinion, if the quarantine hadn't been in effect, about 75% of the training cohort would have quickly gotten infected, including the DI's who would have spread it to the community.

The fact remains that those in strict quarantine ended up more infected than those not in strict quarantine. It is what it is.

 

[MonacoMike]

Take a look at the study itself instead. It concluded nothing about spread, just reported what happened. Which was: "Among Marine Corps recruits, approximately 2% who had previously had negative results for SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of supervised quarantine, and less than 2% of recruits with unknown previous status, tested positive by day 14. Most recruits who tested positive were asymptomatic, and no infections were detected through daily symptom monitoring. Transmission clusters occurred within platoons. (Funded by the Defense Health Agency and others.)"

I happened to be on a call with DHA today where they discussed this study. In their opinion, if the quarantine hadn't been in effect, about 75% of the training cohort would have quickly gotten infected, including the DI's who would have spread it to the community.

excuses excuses excuses. all in the effort to protect the establishment. You establishmentarians make me laugh. LOL

 

[alnav]

The fact remains that those in strict quarantine ended up more infected than those not in strict quarantine. It is what it is.

Read all the articles. The quarantine regimen was the same for all the boots. Here's where one of the articles made the correction, even though they didn't bother to adjust the rest of the text:
"The earliest version of this article misstated the conditions of the control group. They were equally locked down with those who participated in the study. The difference between the two concerned testing frequency and the isolation response."

 

[alnav]

excuses excuses excuses. all in the effort to protect the establishment. You establishmentarians make me laugh. LOL

Study of Nearly 2,000 Marine Recruits Reveals Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among Young Adults During Supervised Quarantine
Results suggest the need for widespread surveillance testing to reduce COVID-19 transmission in group settings
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/ne...-young-adults-during-supervised-quarantine-pr
Another take on the study. Do you agree with this analysis as well?

 

[alnav]

Study of Nearly 2,000 Marine Recruits Reveals Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among Young Adults During Supervised Quarantine
Results suggest the need for widespread surveillance testing to reduce COVID-19 transmission in group settings
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/ne...-young-adults-during-supervised-quarantine-pr
Another take on the study. Do you agree with this analysis as well?

Navy Research Confirms Need for Strict Coronavirus Testing Protocols
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/health/coronavirus-navy-parris-roosevelt.html

 

[Golfman25]

Read all the articles. The quarantine regimen was the same for all the boots. Here's where one of the articles made the correction, even though they didn't bother to adjust the rest of the text:
"The earliest version of this article misstated the conditions of the control group. They were equally locked down with those who participated in the study. The difference between the two concerned testing frequency and the isolation response."

I read the study. There where two different groups subject to different protocols. The locked down group did worse.

 

[alnav]

I read the study. There where two different groups subject to different protocols. The locked down group did worse.

Wrong. All recruits about to start boot camp are quarantined via a standard protocol (true in the other services as well). From the original study:
"The public health program implemented by the U.S. Marine Corps for all new recruits includes a period of home quarantine followed by a 2-week, strictly supervised quarantine at a closed campus, with the objective of mitigating infection among recruits."

The study team merely selected a group to monitor closely. Boots who signed up for the study were mixed in with the full population so there couldn't have been a difference.
The difference in outcome between the two groups was not statistically significant.
2% or so positives during the quarantine is right about the max that has been seen across the services. Sometimes it's zero. The quarantine is in place to avoid large-scale infection during boot camp. Earlier efforts that involved direct accession, albeit with testing, resulted in much bigger problems with both the recruit population and training staff. Military readiness largely runs on maintaining the through-put of accession pipelines. The services have done an admirable job of maintaining that flow during the pandemic.