Coronavirus
- Thread starter gteeitup
- Start date
lol
Those COVID-19 tests the government sent you might not work. Cold weather could be to blame.
Millions of coronavirus tests are traveling across the nation, many through winter weather. Freezing temperatures could affect test results, experts say.
www.usatoday.com
Another great success for this administrationlol
Those COVID-19 tests the government sent you might not work. Cold weather could be to blame.
Millions of coronavirus tests are traveling across the nation, many through winter weather. Freezing temperatures could affect test results, experts say.www.usatoday.com
I'm sure you think he did. He constantly expresses conservative points of view IN HINDSIGHT but always manages to disparage being a conservative. I wonder what HE was saying when this all began, when many of us were reacting against the lib OVERreaction that he now rails against but, at least INdirectly if not directly supported by being anti-conservative and pro-liberal. If he admitted being wrong I missed it somehow.
And he is a hypocrite. He insinuates treason because Russians were in the oval office with Trump, but neglects to point out that the Clintons practically sold the WH to the Chinese who Trump went head-to-head with while dems criticized him for it.. The Chinese have become known by even many of the obtuse like you to be our real enemy and not the trumped up Russian enemy created by the dems....but rather than being honest and fair, Maher somehow manages to indulge in typical dem sleeze with a straight face.
I admit he makes good points well and is entertaining in his approach. But since I have a brain, I know that the park he hits it out of is as small as your brain.
your mama was easy
those of us with a brain and the ability to see beyond the scary moment knew in REAL TIME that the lockdowns / shutting down of businesses / loss of jobs were a MASSIVE overreaction. i have liberal friends that supported it and i have conservative friends that supported it (yes even some Trump voters). hopefully we've learned that lesson and it wont happen again the next time around.
He makes good points, but I don't like how Bill says "skeptical of medical establishment", then he talks about Life Magazine and Oprah. Don't get your "news" from "news entertainment" like Oprah and Dr Oz.
He's right about understanding of this virus, the learning around fats (which is still ongoing), etc, but for every wrong thing about science there's more right as time goes on. That's how science works, isn't it? Are we supposed to just sit around still believing the earth is flat despite a scientific group determining otherwise.
What's the alternative - ignore scientific findings? Scientific findings show that vaccine shots and boosters prevent illness.... should older people just ignore that because the scientific community has taken a really long time to figure out fats?
Years from now we might learn antibiotics saved some lives and limbs in the last 80 years but also spawned a superbug that wipes us all out - should we pause 100% usage of antibiotics until scientists are sure one way or another on that?
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the scientific community is pretty clear on fats. Long chains of hydrocarbons.........
Your point about science evolving over time, leading to different conclusions, is very valid and worth emphasizing. Science is fluid and ever changing. Which is why many on your side of the equation lost so much credibility with their little signs and chants of we believe the science. Policy drove much of the alleged science and kept it static. When science evolved, the policy didn't and could no longer be justified, so suddenly science wasn't so important anymore.
Also, how refreshing would it be to simply have one of them say, we don't really know, but this is our best guess right now.
Not really. Yes, technically, the disclaimers and caveats are usually included (although not as directly honest as I note), but almost never with the three lines that go out on FB or Twitter. It's not unlike some of your complaints with Rogan. He may say something early in his podcast, but it doesn't become part of the 30 second clip that gets stated 30 minutes into a show. Can't have it both ways.
Older people should do as they they please. If they want to believe the earth is flat, that’s no skin of my back. Or yours. You can certainly believe the earth is spherical if you want to. I don’t care what you choose to believe and I’d kindly ask the same of you. That’s what you’re not getting through your thick skull.
This. Stick to CNN and MSNBC like @blazers and @Heels Noir. Absolutely the 2 best sources for real news and pedophiles.
Those also fall into the "new entertainment" realm. Stick with AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR, Economist.
The 3 authors doing the working paper (from JHU Economics dept not the well-respected school of Medicine) found masks reduced death by 20%.
Weren't you and gunslinger kinda anti-mask?
Ah, but the devil is in the details, not the chart summary.
"In particular, the lockdownmeasure varies from study to study and in some cases is poorly defined by the authors. Also,
there are only a few estimates within some of the categories. For instance, the estimate of the
effect of facemasks is based on only two studies."
. . . .
"Mandating facemasks – an intervention that was not widely used in the spring of 2020, and in
many countries was even discouraged – seems to have a large effect (-21.2%), but this
conclusion is based on only two studies.
43 Again, our categorization may play a role, as the
larger mask-estimate from Chernozhukov et al. (2021) is in fact “employee facemasks,” not a
general mask mandate. Our findings are somewhat in contrast to the result found in a review by
Liu et al. (2021), who conclude that “fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials
comparing face masks to no mask controls failed to find statistically significant benefit in the
intent-to-treat populations.” Similarly, a pre-COVID Cochrane review concludes, “There is low
certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no
difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk
ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18). There is moderate certainty evidence
that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐
confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials;
3005 participants)” (Jefferson et al. (2020)).44 However, it should be noted that even if no effect
is found in controlled settings, this does not necessarily imply that mandated face masks does not
reduce mortality, as other factors may play a role (e.g. wearing a mask may function as a tax on
socializing if people are bothered by wearing a face masks when they are socializing)."
"In particular, the lockdownmeasure varies from study to study and in some cases is poorly defined by the authors. Also,
there are only a few estimates within some of the categories. For instance, the estimate of the
effect of facemasks is based on only two studies."
. . . .
"Mandating facemasks – an intervention that was not widely used in the spring of 2020, and in
many countries was even discouraged – seems to have a large effect (-21.2%), but this
conclusion is based on only two studies.
43 Again, our categorization may play a role, as the
larger mask-estimate from Chernozhukov et al. (2021) is in fact “employee facemasks,” not a
general mask mandate. Our findings are somewhat in contrast to the result found in a review by
Liu et al. (2021), who conclude that “fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials
comparing face masks to no mask controls failed to find statistically significant benefit in the
intent-to-treat populations.” Similarly, a pre-COVID Cochrane review concludes, “There is low
certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no
difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk
ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18). There is moderate certainty evidence
that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐
confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials;
3005 participants)” (Jefferson et al. (2020)).44 However, it should be noted that even if no effect
is found in controlled settings, this does not necessarily imply that mandated face masks does not
reduce mortality, as other factors may play a role (e.g. wearing a mask may function as a tax on
socializing if people are bothered by wearing a face masks when they are socializing)."
Also, just for clarification, while it has been put out under the auspices of JHU, only one of the authors is from there. One is from University of Copenhagen and the other is from Lund University, Sweden.
The last part of the quoted language is a great example of unexpected or beneficial consequences. They are basically saying that while masks may not have any effect on the actual disease, wearing them can be such a pain in the ass that people will simply not go somewhere that requires a mask. We've already witnessed this effect with many on the boards who indicate they haven't gone to bball games simply due to the mandated masks at the dome.
Well none are from the respected JHU school of medicine or epi. They're economists studying studies and doing some cherry-picking to boot. If you're going to throw out the 20% face-mask part, then you gotta throw out much of the other stuff which the epi/med/sci world is calling out as BS (the studies they excluded).
Last edited:
Based on personal experience and what you see on TV, they don't have to worry about masks after you get through the door.
Exactly. To test the impact of lockdowns on mortality I think you'd need to check with Chyna since all the measures in the US - masks, restaurants, churches, sports, etc, etc were half-assed.
to begin with, Johns Hopkins is a well respected U with a well-respected SoM and hospital.The 3 authors doing the working paper (from JHU Economics dept not the well-respected school of Medicine) found masks reduced death by 20%.
Weren't you and gunslinger kinda anti-mask?
Secondly, @gunslingerdick can speak for himself but I have not been anti-mask, at least in that I have not in most cases objected to being asked to wear one. I have not been very much at all compliant about voluntarily wearing one but that's not a matter of protest.....but rather of not going apeshit over the idea of catching a virus and living (or dying) with the consequences.
What I did do back when and since was point out that the reaction to the pandemic was WAY overblown, that it was ridiculous to hide from Covid like the world was going to end if we didn't. And I haven't really discussed my mask attitude here to the extent that one might decide that I've been 'anti-mask', but I have been highly supportive here of those who want to maintain their right to choose for themselves.
Just so you'll know, I believe in the idea that mild exposure to pathogens can actually enable the immune system without necessarily allowing an actual infection. That being said, it's been hard trying to nail down here and elsewhere exactly what the term 'infection' entails.
Thirdly, do you ever stay on the straight and narrow or is it just your nature to take those bothersome subjects to left field? LOL.
Check with China? Yeah, because I have no doubt you'll get accurate numbers from the country that is at fault for this whole thing.
A lot of states starting to lift mask mandates, including states with democrat governors. Tide is slowly turning to people realizing it's time to get back to normal.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
THI Podcast: The Basketball Show | GM Role, Extended Staff, Family and More
- Latest: andrew jones