Covid vaccine poll
Poll
 | 11 votes (15.94%) | ||
| | 45 votes (65.21%) | ||
| | 13 votes (18.84%) |
69 members have voted
Quote: AZDuffmanNot being obtuse at all. Making a point. Worded in such a way as to make my point about some of the statements made by the pro-maskers on here. The wording about "yelling unmasked" should be a dead giveaway.
Meanwhile worked a great poker game last night. About 30 people, one woman working the party masked up but nobody else did.
I am so sick of you people, (now divided along party lines) that think you have the right to do whatever you want. That is NOT how it works and was never how it worked.
You don't have the right to walk down the street shooting whoever you want.
You don't have the right to take whatever you want, whether it belongs to you or not.
You don't even have the right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded place.
In short, your "freedoms" stop at another person. You have the right to do what you want as long as you are harming no one else.
If you want to kill yourself, go for it. Shoot yourself, drink yourself silly, overdose on whatever drugs you want. Jump off a cliff or bridge or off the roof of a high building. But don't take us with you, And that is what you are doing. Your decision is effecting me, just the same as if you hijacked a plane I am on and fly it into a building.
And that's fine, it doesn't trigger me since I'm guilty of not following the proper guidelines all the time myself. However, I try to do my best and I'm not apposed to doing so. Wearing a mask and trying your best to soical distance isn't a big deal, awhile we are trying to figure this stuff out, even is if it doesn't work as well as they would have us think, it's not a big deal. I still belive had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. I was ready and willing to do so myself.Quote: AZDuffmanNot being obtuse at all. Making a point. Worded in such a way as to make my point about some of the statements made by the pro-maskers on here. The wording about "yelling unmasked" should be a dead giveaway.
Meanwhile worked a great poker game last night. About 30 people, one woman working the party masked up but nobody else did.
FYI, Unless someone is willing to go live far away from our society, doing those things you mentioned actually do affect other's. Of course, we account for all that as a part of living in soocity, so I think it's probably fine.Quote: kewljI am so sick of you people, (now divided along party lines) that think you have the right to do whatever you want. That is NOT how it works and was never how it worked.
You don't have the right to walk down the street shooting whoever you want.
You don't have the right to take whatever you want, whether it belongs to you or not.
You don't even have the right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded place.
In short, your "freedoms" stop at another person. You have the right to do what you want as long as you are harming no one else.
If you want to kill yourself, go for it. Shoot yourself, drink yourself silly, overdose on whatever drugs you want. Jump off a cliff or bridge or off the roof of a high building. But don't take us with you, And that is what you are doing. Your decision is effecting me, just the same as if you hijacked a plane I am on and fly it into a building.
What if the virus only in it's infancy, continues to mutate and grow much much stronger. And it keeps mutating away from our vaccines, therapies, cures and defenses to where we have no defense. First wave it kills mostly the older, high risk, next wave, middle ages and finally the younger stronger.
Several years from now, when death rates are 50, 60, 70%, and we are powerless with civilization is on the brink of ending, we might look back and say, we had the power to end this when the virus was in it's infancy just by wearing a damn mask for a few months and smothering out this virus before it could strengthen and mutate to the point that we couldn't control it.
Is it really too much to ask to wear a mask, to get a vaccine? To stop a virus that potentially could wipe us all out? Again, I hope this isn't THE ONE. And I don't think it is. But by the time we know for sure, the window of opportunity may be long gone. Hey, but at least SOME will have gone out without a mask on, which is their RIGHT.
Please take it up at DT.
Quote: WizardIt is unfortunate that the issue of mask wearing has become political. However, it is obvious that the posts above on the topic are getting political. Kewlj, AZD, and Axelwolf are all officially warned to drop the topic of masks.
Please take it up at DT.
I think politics is is one of the closest activities to gambling there is.
Can't help it if it makes some people's heads explode as a side effect.
I have no clue what you are are talking about. I don't have a political bone in my body. Please explain, or, if you would, just let me know who complained and I will understand your intrusion. The discussion has been far more "political" up until this point. It leaves me wondering whyQuote: WizardIt is unfortunate that the issue of mask wearing has become political. However, it is obvious that the posts above on the topic are getting political. Kewlj, AZD, and Axelwolf are all officially warned to drop the topic of masks.
Please take it up at DT.
all of the sudden there is a warning. Why is it, whenever I'm right, warnings start to come in...
Probably should make sure teens aren't spooning without masks also.
Quote: kewlj
Several years from now, when death rates are 50, 60, 70%, and we are powerless with civilization is on the brink of ending, we might look back and say, we had the power to end this when the virus was in it's infancy just by wearing a damn mask for a few months and smothering out this virus before it could strengthen and mutate to the point that we couldn't control it.
Mankind only has about 1000 years left in any case. Fertility rates show this. It is possible a virus will take mankind, or at least knock us down enough that population growth is in a figurative intensive care unit similar to what the Black Death did. We have been on a good run as said Black Death was 700 years ago. Smallpox, the biggest thing since, has been eradicated. This has allowed for amazing population growth the last 200 years.
But man is not more powerful than nature. Some of us think we are, but we are not. We think we can stop water, but we cannot, we can merely hold most of it back for a limited time. We build and marvel at roads that are in very inhospitable places, they you have a washout like recently in CA. We think we can just stop a virus at will, but as the last year has proven that is not possible, either. Then excuses and complaints that it was not stopped.
You need to accept that nature is more powerful than man. The people that do are the calm ones these days. The ones that don't are the ones blaming all kinds of things.
I accept that when my number is up it is up. Hopefully I get a place in heaven afterwards, and hopefully up there I will be able to adopt a dog who had no good family in this life.
Quote: AxelWolfI have no clue what you are are talking about. I don't have a political bone in my body. Please explain, or, if you would, just let me know who complained and I will understand your intrusion. The discussion has been far more "political" up until this point. It leaves me wondering why
all of the sudden there is a warning. Why is it, whenever I'm right, warnings start to come in...
This is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
Quote: WizardThis is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
Meh, it's too contextual.
Axel may have been referring to the antics of certain political leaders
But he also may have been referring to how difficult human nature is in reacting (i.e. AZ and DRich not caring).
"Proper lock down accros the world" would imply the latter since there is no global political party
Ok, but, How is that political? I have no doubt someone can turn it into something political, but it seems you can turn just about any conversation into something political.Quote: WizardThis is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
Quote: AxelWolfOk, but, How is that political? I have no doubt someone can turn it into something political, but it seems you can turn just about any conversation into something political.Quote: WizardThis is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
Axel is correct. The initial statement is not a political one. The follow up statement, likely to be.... Governor X prevented it, or President Y was too stupid to fully enforce it .... is when it BECOMES political. Stating the fact that 'had we done a more rigorous lockdown would have confined it sooner' is not a political statement.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolfOk, but, How is that political? I have no doubt someone can turn it into something political, but it seems you can turn just about any conversation into something political.Quote: WizardThis is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
Axel is correct. The initial statement is not a political one. The follow up statement, likely to be.... Governor X prevented it, or President Y was too stupid to fully enforce it .... is when it BECOMES political. Stating the fact that 'had we done a more rigorous lockdown would have confined it sooner' is not a political statement.
So Axel is like a political gateway drug?
If by 1000 years you mean 5-30 years, I agree. The current mass-extinction event is accelerating. All we need is one good ice-free Arctic early in the summer and the average Arctic temperature will spike up by 2-5 degrees C and disrupt normal climate patterns worldwide. That is not survivable. The current estimate is sometime before 2035 for the first ice free Arctic event.Quote: AZDuffmanMankind only has about 1000 years left in any case.
Picture it this way, you have a cold drink with a bunch of ice in it and you apply heat. As long as a single bit of ice remains in the drink, the drink will remain cold, roughly around the freezing point. But apply that same amount of heat to a drink with no ice and the drink will quickly get hot. Same with the Arctic. Once the Arctic thaws, the temperatures will spike uncontrollably.
There are many sources of info on this phenomena. The future is not about sea level rise or gradual global warming, although both will be a challenge. It's about an ice-free Arctic. And it's too late to do anything about it.
Here's a fun read:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
I don't define it as political, but as controversial. It's easy for us to see close alignment between highly charged political opinions and similarly charged mask/vaccine opinions and in some cases they are proxies for eachother.Quote: AxelWolfOk, but, How is that political? I have no doubt someone can turn it into something political, but it seems you can turn just about any conversation into something political.Quote: WizardThis is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
But rule 19 covers it fine.
We know well enough when we are being controversial.Quote: rule 19Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere (Added 8/13/19).
It's a phenomenon called latent heat. We can drive more and more heat energy into a chunk of ice and it will stay at or below 0C. But once it melts, it's temperature can rise almost proportionately to heat input.Quote: teliotIf by 1000 years you mean 5-30 years, I agree. The current mass-extinction event is accelerating. All we need is one good ice-free Arctic early in the summer and the average global temperature will go up by 2-5 degrees C. That is not survivable. The current estimate is sometime before 2035 for the first ice free Arctic event.
Picture it this way, you have a cold drink with a bunch of ice in it and you apply heat. As long as a single bit of ice remains in the drink, the drink will remain cold, roughly around the freezing point. But apply that same amount of heat to a drink with no ice and the drink will quickly get hot. Same with the Arctic. Once the Arctic thaws, the temperatures globally will spike uncontrollably.
There are many sources of info on this phenomena. The future is not about sea level rise or gradual global warming, although both will be a challenge. It's about an ice-free Arctic. And it's too late to do anything about it.
Quote: teliotIf by 1000 years you mean 5-30 years, I agree. The current mass-extinction event is accelerating. All we need is one good ice-free Arctic early in the summer and the average global temperature will go up by 2-5 degrees C. That is not survivable. The current estimate is sometime before 2035 for the first ice free Arctic event.
Picture it this way, you have a cold drink with a bunch of ice in it and you apply heat. As long as a single bit of ice remains in the drink, the drink will remain cold, roughly around the freezing point. But apply that same amount of heat to a drink with no ice and the drink will quickly get hot. Same with the Arctic. Once the Arctic thaws, the temperatures globally will spike uncontrollably.
There are many sources of info on this phenomena. The future is not about sea level rise or gradual global warming, although both will be a challenge. It's about an ice-free Arctic. And it's too late to do anything about it.
I remember hearing we would have an ice free arctic by now. "SANTA'S WORKSHOP IS UNDER WATER" the news said. Yet we still have plenty of ice. 1000-10000 years ago we had glaciers halfway down North America. Yet all remains well. 2-5C you would probably not notice. Meanwhile ice at the South Pole is thicker than ever.
But if it happens as part of the 4.5 billion year climate cycle well nothing we can do about that. Just the earth shaking us off like the fleas we are to it.
Meanwhile, let it warm up here by me. I hate the cold winters.
Regardless of the cause, man made or natural, the inevitability of an ice-free Arctic in the near term is no longer in dispute. You could educate yourself or not, I honestly don't care, but the future is already written and it will be in our lifetimes.Quote: AZDuffmanI remember hearing we would have an ice free arctic by now.
But, if you feel like taking a moment to educate yourself, just once to take a different approach to your way of arguing with and replying to folks, here is a source of some great visuals on what is happening:
https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-figures/
Often times, the less someone knows about a subject, the more fiercely they will defend their position. This is known as confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Quote: OnceDearWe know well enough when we are being controversial.
TOTALLY DISAGREE! There have been NUMEROUS posts by NUMEROUS members stating that the moderation here is UNABLE to fairly and unbiasedly decide what is a controversial comment!
(Please see the intentional irony and don't suspend me!)
Ahhhh. But you don't know who constitutes 'We' ... And who said unbiased?Quote: SOOPOOTOTALLY DISAGREE! There have been NUMEROUS posts by NUMEROUS members stating that the moderation here is UNABLE to fairly and unbiasedly decide what is a controversial comment!
(Please see the intentional irony and don't suspend me!)
$:op
Quote: OnceDearWe know well enough when we are being controversial.
But you just made a post about climate change?
Quote: OnceDearAhhhh. But you don't know who constitutes 'We' ... And who said unbiased?
$:op
WMOAT!!!
Not so. I posted about latent heat. That, sir is not controversial.Quote: gamerfreakBut you just made a post about climate change?
Thanks for the vote.Quote: mcallister3200WMOAT!!!
Hey, just because your ice requires 334 j/g to melt, doesn't mean that mine has to! ;)Quote: OnceDearNot so. I posted about latent heat. That, sir is not controversial.
ETA: Back OT, I think I'm in with the Phase 3 crowd. So, whenever my number comes up, I'll be getting the vaccine, assuming no significant side affects come to light between now and then.
Quote: OnceDearNot so. I posted about latent heat. That, sir is not controversial.
You quoted a post about a very controversial topic (climate change) and added to the discussion.
As a mod, when you contribute to a discussion, it’s presumed the topic is kosher.
So to set the record straight ... in a covid thread, the topic of MASKS is too controversial and banned, but the topic of CLIMATE CHANGE is not?
And we are just supposed to know that “well enough”?
Presumably I have your permission to create a climate change thread?
Quote: teliotRegardless of the cause, man made or natural, the inevitability of an ice-free Arctic in the near term is no longer in dispute. You could educate yourself or not, I honestly don't care, but the future is already written and it will be in our lifetimes.
If it is inevitable then why worry about what you cannot change? As to me I am not buying it as I have heard it will happen in 20 yeard for 30 years now. Meanwhile in the 70s there were calls to drape huge swaths of black poly to keep the amount of ice down. Because then they said too much ice up there was going to kill us.
Quote: gamerfreakSo to set the record straight ... in a covid thread, the topic of MASKS is too controversial and banned, but the topic of CLIMATE CHANGE is not?
Quote: WizardIt is unfortunate that the issue of mask wearing has become political. However, it is obvious that the posts above on the topic are getting political. Kewlj, AZD, and Axelwolf are all officially warned to drop the topic of masks.
Please take it up at DT.
Make of that what you will. I'm not aware of much controversy here regarding climate change. I expect if that too became a proxy for politics or controversial in its own way, then it might get discouraged.
I just interpret the forum's rules. We can all do that and will all reach our own conclusions.
Obviously, when is that not the case?😊Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolfOk, but, How is that political? I have no doubt someone can turn it into something political, but it seems you can turn just about any conversation into something political.Quote: WizardThis is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
Axel is correct.
But, seriously, I'm not trying to argue with Mike, I'm sure someone complained and that resulted in the warning.
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He's the boss man around here, so, it is what it is! If my post was considered political in nature, then all the Covid threads are drenched in political statements far greater than mine.
Quote: OnceDearMake of that what you will. I'm not aware of much controversy here regarding climate change. I expect if that too became a proxy for politics or controversial in its own way, then it might get discouraged.
I just interpret the forum's rules. We can all do that and will all reach our own conclusions.
I guess you don't pay much attention to US politics. The response to climate change is amongst the most controversial topics we have, and a certain new President ran against a certain ex President with the response to climate change a MAJOR point!
Dear WMOAT,Quote: OnceDearI don't define it as political, but as controversial. It's easy for us to see close alignment between highly charged political opinions and similarly charged mask/vaccine opinions and in some cases they are proxies for eachother.Quote: AxelWolfOk, but, How is that political? I have no doubt someone can turn it into something political, but it seems you can turn just about any conversation into something political.Quote: WizardThis is the comment that I was referring to, " I still belive [sic] had we done a much more rigorous proper lock down accros [sic] the world we could have confined much sooner. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was ever even a remote possibility. "
But rule 19 covers it fine.We know well enough when we are being controversial.Quote: rule 19Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere (Added 8/13/19).
Heaven forbid there's anything remotely controversial around here(There's much more to be said about that, in a nut shell, without controversy forums like this would be a ghost town, but I think you know that). for the record, I did not know I was truly being controversial, it certainly wasn't my intentions. I think it's a legitimate question/thought, and an interesting one at that.
BTW I did think your explanation how my statement was not necessarily political, but controversial instead, was a good explanation, had Mike just said that in the first place it may have been the end of it. You might want to ask for a raise for coming to his rescue.
p.s. Is there anything AZDuffman has ever said that isn't controversial?😁
I care about the reasons. That's super important. I heard a story on NPR where a significant number of nursing home workers (mostly minorities) are declining to be vaccinated( that's crazy if you ask me). If I recall correctly, it seemed that lack of Education about the vaccine was a serious issue. They went on to say something about having an educational one-on-one conversation with another Healthcare professional in that field helped those reluctant change their minds about receiving the vaccine.Quote: VegasriderAs the OP, it's just a poll. I don't care what your reasons are for getting the vaccine or not, but I did give everyone the option to select that you are opting out, which is a key component to my poll.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/us/vaccine-hunters-covid-trnd/index.html
Quote: AxelWolfI care about the reasons. That's super important. I heard a story on NPR where a significant number of nursing home workers (mostly minorities) are declining to be vaccinated( that's crazy if you ask me). If I recall correctly, it seemed that lack of Education about the vaccine was a serious issue. They went on to say something about having an educational one-on-one conversation with another Healthcare professional in that field helped those reluctant change their minds about receiving the vaccine.
Individuals reasoning can be discussed in a different thread. We all have are reasonings on why we should or shouldn’t. The vaccine has been out for 6 weeks. I was just curious how many of us have gotten at least the 1st dose vs still waiting or don’t want it at all.
Yeah, but only after having to wait in a line that looks like this....Quote: RogerKint
And those are just the people who originally refused to get the vaccine.Quote: WizardMaybe I was too quick to throw out a warning regarding the conversation about masks. I'm all in favor of a good science-based discussion of anything. You may talk about it, but I'll be watching to make sure the topic stays scientific/mathematical. Perhaps a good subtopic is whether or not this statement is true or false, "CDC comes out with a statement that 85% of the people wearing masks catch it (covid)."
I’m assuming you have misquoted them. Is it ‘of the people who have caught Covid, 85% wore masks’?
Assuming I am correct, then I need to know what % of the population wore masks to think if it is helpful to the individual
mask wearer.
Remember, the explanation given for wearing masks is to help others from getting it from you, not you from getting it from others. So if we actually believe that ( I do NOT) then it is IRRELEVANT if it is 85%, more, or less!
Quote: WizardMaybe I was too quick to throw out a warning regarding the conversation about masks. I'm all in favor of a good science-based discussion of anything. You may talk about it, but I'll be watching to make sure the topic stays scientific/mathematical. Perhaps a good subtopic is whether or not this statement is true or false, "CDC comes out with a statement that 85% of the people wearing masks catch it (covid)."
That is a false statement. You flip-flopped it I will not speculate on intent.
"85% of people who catch Covid were mask wearers" is the correct statement.
This can be compared to the old Camel ad stating "More Doctors Smoke Camel Than Any Other Brand!"
Well, Camel was at the time the #1 cigarette. So more doctors will smoke it. More Landmen will smoke it. More actuaries will smoke it. At least assuming an even distribution. Actuaries might have preferred Lucky Strike. But the point is the point.
To draw a valid conclusion you have to know what percent of people are wearing masks regular. If it were exactly 85% then we could conclude that masks do nothing to prevent catching the virus. If it were 50% then we would conclude masks actually increase your chance of getting it since 85% of people came from 50% of the population that wore masks.
But it is not quite so simple. Masks are mandatory in certain pubic areas and this varies by state. Here in PA you are supposed to wear your mask while not seated in a restaurant but may remove it at the table. I have walked in without one when I forgot it in the car and was not challenged, so compliance varies. Meanwhile, I have heard in OR restaurants are still locked down tight for the most part. Meanwhile, seating here has gone from a strict every other booth to most booths filled but tables have thinned out.
Last week I worked a poker tournament that I only took on a condition of "no mask." Around 30 people, almost all male if that matters, and the only mask wearer was a woman giving massages. I have a regular "mo mask" condition on gigs I work, working about one every other month. OTOH, I know of people who the family wears masks at home, all the time.
Thus, who is the mask wearer? And then does the fact that few people keep anything close to healthcare sanitation of masks even further taint the data?
it is on this reasoning that I state that we cannot trust any data saying masks improve things.
. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Restaurants prove this. Except for the servers, the entire restaurant is full of people not wearing masks. When you get up to go to bathroom you are supposed to put mask on. (Compliance90%?). When you leave you are supposed to put mask on (compliance 80%?). Your mask is supposed to cover nose and mouth (compliance 90%?). The tables are set so no customers are within 6 feet of each other (compliance <50% for sure, at least where I’ve been eating).Quote: AZDuffmanThat is a false statement. You flip-flopped it I will not speculate on intent.
"85% of people who catch Covid were mask wearers" is the correct statement.
This can be compared to the old Camel ad stating "More Doctors Smoke Camel Than Any Other Brand!"
Well, Camel was at the time the #1 cigarette. So more doctors will smoke it. More Landmen will smoke it. More actuaries will smoke it. At least assuming an even distribution. Actuaries might have preferred Lucky Strike. But the point is the point.
To draw a valid conclusion you have to know what percent of people are wearing masks regular. If it were exactly 85% then we could conclude that masks do nothing to prevent catching the virus. If it were 50% then we would conclude masks actually increase your chance of getting it since 85% of people came from 50% of the population that wore masks.
But it is not quite so simple. Masks are mandatory in certain pubic areas and this varies by state. Here in PA you are supposed to wear your mask while not seated in a restaurant but may remove it at the table. I have walked in without one when I forgot it in the car and was not challenged, so compliance varies. Meanwhile, I have heard in OR restaurants are still locked down tight for the most part. Meanwhile, seating here has gone from a strict every other booth to most booths filled but tables have thinned out.
Last week I worked a poker tournament that I only took on a condition of "no mask." Around 30 people, almost all male if that matters, and the only mask wearer was a woman giving massages. I have a regular "mo mask" condition on gigs I work, working about one every other month. OTOH, I know of people who the family wears masks at home, all the time.
Thus, who is the mask wearer? And then does the fact that few people keep anything close to healthcare sanitation of masks even further taint the data?
it is on this reasoning that I state that we cannot trust any data saying masks improve things.
I still have been getting massages. Half the time, face up, I have to wear a mask. Face down in that donut I don’t.
Where I disagree with AZ is that I do believe wearing a mask, even though it is not consistent, does confer ‘some’ protection. I do NOT believe that any scientist can reliably tell us how much.
Quote: SOOPOOI’m assuming you have misquoted them. Is it ‘of the people who have caught Covid, 85% wore masks’?
It was a direct quote. I won't say of whom, but it can be easily searched on.
Quote: SOOPOO. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Restaurants prove this. Except for the servers, the entire restaurant is full of people not wearing masks. When you get up to go to bathroom you are supposed to put mask on. (Compliance90%?). When you leave you are supposed to put mask on (compliance 80%?). Your mask is supposed to cover nose and mouth (compliance 90%?). The tables are set so no customers are within 6 feet of each other (compliance <50% for sure, at least where I’ve been eating).
I still have been getting massages. Half the time, face up, I have to wear a mask. Face down in that donut I don’t.
Where I disagree with AZ is that I do believe wearing a mask, even though it is not consistent, does confer ‘some’ protection. I do NOT believe that any scientist can reliably tell us how much.
Soopoo,
Isn't the Crux of the argument that masks aren't showing to be as effective as hoped because people are exposed when not wearing them in restaurants and even when wearing them in the home?
Would that not be like saying condom's are not successful at stopping (certain) STD spread because people don't always wear them?
I never took the second statement to.mean the condoms don't work but that people aren't doing the proper thing (i.e. condoms do work if only they were always used)
And this is on top of my skepticism of studies in general where the subject's actions with respect to the study are not completely monitored. I have heard of too many studies where the subjects falsified their own data. I had a friend who participated in some sort of exercise study, and laid on the couch and shook her pedometer to get in the requisite number of steps.
I agree. If you believe that the virus is transmitted via respiratory droplets (which seems to be the case for Covid), wearing a mask must provide some level of protection.Quote: SOOPOOWhere I disagree with AZ is that I do believe wearing a mask, even though it is not consistent, does confer ‘some’ protection.
You can prove this to yourself simply by putting your hand directly in front of your mouth and exhale. If done without a mask, you can feel the condensation of the droplets on your fingers. If done with a mask, you don't feel the condensation.
I also agree with this. I suspect the level of protection is less (possibly significantly less) than what 'popular opinion' believes.Quote:I do NOT believe that any scientist can reliably tell us how much.
Quote: darkozSoopoo,
Isn't the Crux of the argument that masks aren't showing to be as effective as hoped because people are exposed when not wearing them in restaurants and even when wearing them in the home?
Would that not be like saying condom's are not successful at stopping (certain) STD spread because people don't always wear them?
I never took the second statement to.mean the condoms don't work but that people aren't doing the proper thing (i.e. condoms do work if only they were always used)
Your post is accurate. But then so was mine. My point is there is NO WAY to accurately figure out how effective mask wearing is on slowing or stopping the spread. Since we are as a society not willing to actually enforce any real restrictions, as restaurants prove, we will never know what could have been achieved.
I’ve been pseudo locked down. But wife’s daughters.... not so much. They still interact with friends. Who interact with their friends. Who got a tattoo. Who went to the mall. Who found a new boyfriend. Etc....
My guess is that there have not yet been any of these, or at least not any recently. I have read of one study from last November that was highly qualified as to its relevance to covid, mask-wearing, and infections. I won't cite it because it's not apropos of the situation as we see it now, with widely varying rules, rates of compliance, and follow-up as to who got covid, and whether or not mask-wearing was a factor.
Again, cite an actual study, usually quite length, dense, and difficult to follow, rather than a talking head, from any of the universally biased, left and right, who have an agenda.
That's not a political statement. It won't be until years from now that the traditional scientific method will or even CAN be applied to this. Nothing we hear or read in the media can possibly be accurate - there simply has not been enough time and studies to have been completed to allow for an accurate conclusion.
I agree that it makes sense that mask-wearing might reduce spread. But I say that only from my own common sense view of it. Recall that in the past it was commonplace to believe that you had to wait an hour after lunch until you could go back in the water. That WonderBread built strong bodies twelve ways. That doctor's preferred Chesterfield cigarettes.
I find it confusing that folks say "listen to the science" when there is NO REAL SCIENCE. Real science relies on observation and careful clinical, statistical analysis, not on offhand casual observation of conditions in nearby restaurants along with interviews asking people what they do at home. Taking a poll is not science.
Quote: SOOPOO. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Restaurants prove this. Except for the servers, the entire restaurant is full of people not wearing masks. When you get up to go to bathroom you are supposed to put mask on. (Compliance90%?). When you leave you are supposed to put mask on (compliance 80%?). Your mask is supposed to cover nose and mouth (compliance 90%?). The tables are set so no customers are within 6 feet of each other (compliance <50% for sure, at least where I’ve been eating).
I still have been getting massages. Half the time, face up, I have to wear a mask. Face down in that donut I don’t.
Where I disagree with AZ is that I do believe wearing a mask, even though it is not consistent, does confer ‘some’ protection. I do NOT believe that any scientist can reliably tell us how much.
Lots of things might offer "some" protection. A sandwich bag with one of those simple trashbag ties might offer "some" protection if a condom is not available. My position is that in a hospital type settings the masks are either disposable and frequently replaced or are washed and sanitized regular. Neither is done by at least 90% of people wearing masks in public for the virus.
Now we are hearing calls to double or even triple mask! By suggesting this are they de facto saying the mask you have been wearing for 10 months was not adequate?
May you live in interesting times!
