Covid 19 vs Trump

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for taking a stab at this.  Most I've engaged with don't seem to want to share their thoughts on this issue. 

 

You haven't answered the question, but we're getting there.  "Not nearly as dangerous", what does that mean to you?  Would you attribute 5% of the new cases/deaths to the outdoor protests? 10%?  0? 

 

And does it make a difference if we call one a protest and one a rally?  Is that the magic to the virus running rampant in one situation and encountering deflector shields in the other?  

It means it’s much safer 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

24 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I've been pro-mask since the beginning because I work in a health care setting, and because they help.  Because that's what the science tells us.  And I also walked in one of the walks in my hometown, at which everyone had on masks.  And from what I could tell, many in the larger marches did as well (not to mention they were outside which helps alleviate spread).  And those who didn't were stupid (including those who, for example, stormed the Michigan statehouse, who as I recall were on the right side of the political spectrum).  and before you even try to get into the violence, I want anyone, right or left, who gets violent and loots and such to be thrown in jail.

 

So, in your words, you can go **** yourself.  

OMF...thanks for chipping in. You've mentioned the science so maybe you can help.

 

Individuals who gather at events outside by the tens of thousands...do they contribute to the spread or not?  Assuming they do, what percentage would you attribute to the infection/death rate?  

 

I wear a mask, am unconvinced it truly helps me, but social distance and have all along.  I shut my office down, arranged for people to work from home for an extended period of time at substantial cost on a personal level.  

 

Thanks. 

[Orlando Tim]

36 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Outside protesters are not nearly as dangerous as the indoor rallies 

We are going in the wrong direction.  

Tibs you are smiling about more deaths? Seems wrong to me. As for the indoor vs outdoor venues- if you have similar numbers it is obviously better to be outside because of the open air but if you are packing people in then it is bad either inside or outside- just ask Cuomo about the concert on long island last week.

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, bilzfancy said:

If everyone is wearing a mask but I'm not, what's the problem? If I get the virus, it's on me, but if everyone else is wearing one then I can't spread it, right?

It's the opposite. Wearing it doesn't protect you, it protects everyone else from you. The funny analogy going around now is to pretend masks are pants and the virus is pee. If you aren't wearing pants and you pee on someone who is wearing pants they still get wet.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Tibs you are smiling about more deaths? Seems wrong to me. As for the indoor vs outdoor venues- if you have similar numbers it is obviously better to be outside because of the open air but if you are packing people in then it is bad either inside or outside- just ask Cuomo about the concert on long island last week.

Fair question, I thought I made a frown face, but it went smiley, I changed it 

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

OMF...thanks for chipping in. You've mentioned the science so maybe you can help.

 

Individuals who gather at events outside by the tens of thousands...do they contribute to the spread or not?  Assuming they do, what percentage would you attribute to the infection/death rate?  

 

I wear a mask, am unconvinced it truly helps me, but social distance and have all along.  I shut my office down, arranged for people to work from home for an extended period of time at substantial cost on a personal level.  

 

Thanks. 

Yes. they probably do.  I have been doing science for 40 years,, so I am trained to look at the data and the variables therein.  So one of the variables there was number of individuals.  Too many for the Covid era to be sure; defeats the purpose of distancing.  . One of the other variables is mask wearing.  From videos I saw many protesters were wearing masks.  In the one walk I did in my hometown folks were asked not to participate without wearing one.  The biggest variable was protesters were outside which allows better dissipation of droplets and aerosols.  

 

What percentage would I attribute to the protests?  Minimal, maybe 5-10%.  Just a guess of course, but the bulk of transmission would be from individuals in enclosed spaces who refuse to adopt mitigating strategies.  

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I've been pro-mask since the beginning because I work in a health care setting, and because they help.  Because that's what the science tells us.  And I also walked in one of the walks in my hometown, at which everyone had on masks.  And from what I could tell, many in the larger marches did as well (not to mention they were outside which helps alleviate spread).  And those who didn't were stupid (including those who, for example, stormed the Michigan statehouse, who as I recall were on the right side of the political spectrum).  and before you even try to get into the violence, I want anyone, right or left, who gets violent and loots and such to be thrown in jail.

 

So, in your words, you can go **** yourself.  

 

Is "Science" the other janitor at the nursing home who shared the teachings of CNN with you at the water cooler?

 

Or is "Science" the John Kerry of the CDC who was against the masks before he was for them? 

 

Or is "Science" one of the BLM dudes who "opened your eyes" and convinced you to ¢uck for them? Is he the one who told you putting a bandana over your face was more effective than wrapping it around your dick and using it as a condom?

 

Does virtue signaling by marching in protest of an abstract concept you can't define or quantify, and with no clear demands or objectives enhance the effectiveness of the mask or is this universally effective?

 

Did "Science" suddenly figure out for the first time in April that masks stop the spread of viruses? If, according to "Science," you can gather en masse in the streets risk free as long as you have a thin layer of cloth covering your pie hole, why did we shut everything down in the first place, and why aren't we reopening everything now?

 

Also, does this "Science" dude have a method by which we could better understand national trends on subjects like police shootings by race, or is anecdotal evidence his preferred approach?

 

Thanks in advance, dude. I don't have access to this guy so I appreciate you sharing his teachings with us.

[oldmanfan]

13 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Is "Science" the other janitor at the nursing home who shared the teachings of CNN with you at the water cooler?

 

Or is "Science" the John Kerry of the CDC who was against the masks before he was for them? 

 

Or is "Science" one of the BLM dudes who "opened your eyes" and convinced you to ¢uck for them? Is he the one who told you putting a bandana over your face was more effective than wrapping it around your dick and using it as a condom?

 

Does virtue signaling by marching in protest of an abstract concept you can't define or quantify, and with no clear demands or objectives enhance the effectiveness of the mask or is this universally effective?

 

Did "Science" suddenly figure out for the first time in April that masks stop the spread of viruses? If, according to "Science," you can gather en masse in the streets risk free as long as you have a thin layer of cloth covering your pie hole, why did we shut everything down in the first place, and why aren't we reopening everything now?

 

Also, does this "Science" dude have a method by which we could better understand national trends on subjects like police shootings by race, or is anecdotal evidence his preferred approach?

 

Thanks in advance, dude. I don't have access to this guy so I appreciate you sharing his teachings with us.

As I said I have a 40 year career in science and research so take your pithy little janitor thing and stick it.

 

Science progresses as more data is obtained.  Experiments are done in many labs to inform on things like how the Corona virus is spread, and that it is spread via aerosols and droplets, and that masks can help slow down that spread.  We were advised not to wear N95 or surgical masks early on in the crisis to make sure front line health care workers had access to those supplies.  As the science advances our knowledge of how to combat things increases and advice changes.  Scientists are right now working feverishly on developing effective vaccines and treatments, and these will hopefully lead us out of the pandemic.  In the interim, we use the mitigating strategies that science tells us will help to decrease transmission.  I'd explain more but you apparently have neither the ability to understand, or the willingness to under stand. 

 

As for the protests, I participated because I have friends who have been impacted negatively by racial profiling.  And yes accumulation of data on that will help us understand the issue better, and figure out how to move forward.  And that includes gaining data on crime and how to help police get rid of that as well.  I am very much pro-police, thank you.

 

So again, in your words go **** yourself.

Edited July 31, 2020 by oldmanfan

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, bilzfancy said:

If everyone is wearing a mask but I'm not, what's the problem? If I get the virus, it's on me, but if everyone else is wearing one then I can't spread it, right?

 

then you are clueless. 

 

It is not on you when you infect someone else.  If they die... Will you not give a shite?  

 

YOU PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING A FRAUD!!!  

Does this make you PRO CHOICE?

 

Don't interfere with my body?

 

I guess you feel the same about abortion and Birth Control pills. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

46 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes. they probably do.  I have been doing science for 40 years,, so I am trained to look at the data and the variables therein.  So one of the variables there was number of individuals.  Too many for the Covid era to be sure; defeats the purpose of distancing.  . One of the other variables is mask wearing.  From videos I saw many protesters were wearing masks.  In the one walk I did in my hometown folks were asked not to participate without wearing one.  The biggest variable was protesters were outside which allows better dissipation of droplets and aerosols.  

 

What percentage would I attribute to the protests?  Minimal, maybe 5-10%.  Just a guess of course, but the bulk of transmission would be from individuals in enclosed spaces who refuse to adopt mitigating strategies.  

First--thanks for the honest reply.  In the interest of full disclosure, I've read more than a few of your posts on various subjects and often wondered if you should add 'cranky' to your screen name. ? I don't think we would agree on many issues, but I respect the fact that you took the time to reply.  As noted earlier, people with all sorts of opinions on the governmental shut down of our economy seem to develop alligator arms when I inquire on this issue. 

 

I'm not a scientist, but really enjoy watching the behavior of those suggesting XXX for the masses and operating on a YYY basis (this is the extent of my dive into data).  With that in mind, here's some feedback:

• I think when you mix fear, medicine, salvation and money, there is a tendency for those in power to attempt to grab more power.  In this case, fear is (you're going to die or at least kill everyone around you!), medicine (the science behind covid), salvation (you--individually, submit to THE order to save you and everyone around you!), and money (COVID is making lots of people and enterprises lots of money), there is a high likelihood of abuse by those in power;
• I think COVID is serious and needs to be taken as such, but we've transitioned from common sense to abuse of power to smother the economy for political purposes;
• There seems to be room for debate about approach and the science behind successfully navigating the COVID outbreak, but those who speak out against the lockdown of the economy are branded deniers.  Same as it ever was.

 

So using the 150,000+ COVID deaths, in your guesstimate 7,500 - 15,000 deaths resulted from COVID. Based on a quick Google search, that number represents between 10.1% and 21.1% of the population of the Town of Tonawanda...and no politician, health provider or social do-gooder is out sounding a massive alarm about the dangers these protests pose?  

In the neighborhood I grew up in, I'd think if you walked down the street and found a dead body in the driveway of every 5th house, it would be considered newsworthy. 

 

The second point on all this.  Just using some anecdotal numbers, I'd say a minimum of 10-15% of the people I encounter out and about are not following the instructions listed on the mask box in English/Spanish/German and French.  I see noses exposed, breach of mask on either side, non-compliant masks and the like.  In other words, mask discipline is sorta suspect.  So, in a gathering of 25,000 people packed tightly together in a highly emotional and charged state, assuming a 10% mask discipline issue, that's 2500 people around all sorts of bodily fluids, droplets and aerosols.  They disturb the mask to catch a better breath, they rub and pick their nose, wipe sweat from their face and flick it about, they drink fluids to stay hydrated, and quite likely a substantial % seek hydration from a communal source.   I'd be the number is substantially higher (maybe closer to 50% over a 5 or 6 hour protest) but this works for now.  So, let's assume 2,500 people lacking mask discipline each encounter 25 people people in there social group in the immediate days after a protest...well, that's a substantial exposure imo.

 

Third point.  Protests are not spontaneous in many cases, it's not like 5 individuals gathered a on street corner suddenly start a protest.  The individuals protesting arrive at a location by many means of transport---walking, riding a bus, personal auto, rental cars, train, plane, UHaul box trucks, riding a bike.  Along the way there, and on the way 'home', they use public facilities, transportation, food stores, McDonalds, thruway rest stops and encounter all sorts of people unaffiliated with the protests just trying to make a living.  They go to Walmart, Target, a restaurant to eat, 7-11 and Wegmans.  They engage, eat, sleep, drink, vomit, excrete, copulate and so on--hopefully not in that order.

 

Here's my point.  Personally, I think you are extraordinarily low on your estimates.  It makes no sense to me.  Be that as it may, our elected leaders advise us under threat of law and financial ruin that 25,000 people gathering pose little risk, but 12 family members spending time together over Memorial Day represents 2 too many.  They tell us that droplets dodge protestors packed like sardines on a public street, but that business owners will be crushed if they have more than 15 people in a place rated for 50 unless they serve Super-sized Nachos with the beer the customer ordered.  They tell us church services must be suspended or moved on line, but applaud 40 unmasked MomsAgainstSomeStuff linked arm and arm.  

 

In the end, assuming you are correct, it would appear the 7,500-15,000 dead is a price worth paying to defund the police.  That number will surely rise to God knows what, and it seems an extraordinarily high price for progress.  

 

Or, our elected leaders are playing a much longer game and it really doesn't matter who gets trampled along the way. 

 

Thanks again.  I really do appreciate it. 

 

[bilzfancy]

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

then you are clueless. 

 

It is not on you when you infect someone else.  If they die... Will you not give a shite?  

 

YOU PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING A FRAUD!!!  

I asked a question, nothing more, how can I infect someone if they're all wearing a mask? Are you saying masks don't work?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

It means it’s much safer 

Which is markedly different than 'safe'. 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Which is markedly different than 'safe'. 

Degrees of safe. Trump’s rally was really unsafe. Herman Cane found out the hard way 

[bilzfancy]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Degrees of safe. Trump’s rally was really unsafe. Herman Cane found out the hard way 

IF he got it at the rally, zero proof that's the case since he was in Arizona and other places before and after the rally

[Rob's House]

17 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

As I said I have a 40 year career in science and research so take your pithy little janitor thing and stick it.

 

Science progresses as more data is obtained.  Experiments are done in many labs to inform on things like how the Corona virus is spread, and that it is spread via aerosols and droplets, and that masks can help slow down that spread.  We were advised not to wear N95 or surgical masks early on in the crisis to make sure front line health care workers had access to those supplies.  As the science advances our knowledge of how to combat things increases and advice changes.  Scientists are right now working feverishly on developing effective vaccines and treatments, and these will hopefully lead us out of the pandemic.  In the interim, we use the mitigating strategies that science tells us will help to decrease transmission.  I'd explain more but you apparently have neither the ability to understand, or the willingness to under stand. 

 

As for the protests, I participated because I have friends who have been impacted negatively by racial profiling.  And yes accumulation of data on that will help us understand the issue better, and figure out how to move forward.  And that includes gaining data on crime and how to help police get rid of that as well.  I am very much pro-police, thank you.

 

So again, in your words go **** yourself.

 

So is COVID-19 more susceptible to masks than other Corona viruses? If so, how? If not, are you suggesting that "Science" just learned for the first time ever that masks do stop the transmission of these viruses?

 

And, if we're still accumulating data, because we really don't know and are trying to mitigate in the meantime, doesn't it seem highly irresponsible to gather in mass numbers for weeks on end relying on a thin piece of cloth that the CDC said was ineffective to stop the transmission of a disease so deadly that we must shut down society, despite untold destruction, to stop its spread?

 

Also, wrt police shootings, should we use the data we've accumulated for decades, or should we use the inductive approach relying on selectively chosen anecdotal evidence until we can accumulate data to support the preferred narrative?

 

Just trying to figure out how to "do science."

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

First--thanks for the honest reply.  In the interest of full disclosure, I've read more than a few of your posts on various subjects and often wondered if you should add 'cranky' to your screen name. ? I don't think we would agree on many issues, but I respect the fact that you took the time to reply.  As noted earlier, people with all sorts of opinions on the governmental shut down of our economy seem to develop alligator arms when I inquire on this issue. 

 

I'm not a scientist, but really enjoy watching the behavior of those suggesting XXX for the masses and operating on a YYY basis (this is the extent of my dive into data).  With that in mind, here's some feedback:

• I think when you mix fear, medicine, salvation and money, there is a tendency for those in power to attempt to grab more power.  In this case, fear is (you're going to die or at least kill everyone around you!), medicine (the science behind covid), salvation (you--individually, submit to THE order to save you and everyone around you!), and money (COVID is making lots of people and enterprises lots of money), there is a high likelihood of abuse by those in power;
• I think COVID is serious and needs to be taken as such, but we've transitioned from common sense to abuse of power to smother the economy for political purposes;
• There seems to be room for debate about approach and the science behind successfully navigating the COVID outbreak, but those who speak out against the lockdown of the economy are branded deniers.  Same as it ever was.

 

So using the 150,000+ COVID deaths, in your guesstimate 7,500 - 15,000 deaths resulted from COVID. Based on a quick Google search, that number represents between 10.1% and 21.1% of the population of the Town of Tonawanda...and no politician, health provider or social do-gooder is out sounding a massive alarm about the dangers these protests pose?  

In the neighborhood I grew up in, I'd think if you walked down the street and found a dead body in the driveway of every 5th house, it would be considered newsworthy. 

 

The second point on all this.  Just using some anecdotal numbers, I'd say a minimum of 10-15% of the people I encounter out and about are not following the instructions listed on the mask box in English/Spanish/German and French.  I see noses exposed, breach of mask on either side, non-compliant masks and the like.  In other words, mask discipline is sorta suspect.  So, in a gathering of 25,000 people packed tightly together in a highly emotional and charged state, assuming a 10% mask discipline issue, that's 2500 people around all sorts of bodily fluids, droplets and aerosols.  They disturb the mask to catch a better breath, they rub and pick their nose, wipe sweat from their face and flick it about, they drink fluids to stay hydrated, and quite likely a substantial % seek hydration from a communal source.   I'd be the number is substantially higher (maybe closer to 50% over a 5 or 6 hour protest) but this works for now.  So, let's assume 2,500 people lacking mask discipline each encounter 25 people people in there social group in the immediate days after a protest...well, that's a substantial exposure imo.

 

Third point.  Protests are not spontaneous in many cases, it's not like 5 individuals gathered a on street corner suddenly start a protest.  The individuals protesting arrive at a location by many means of transport---walking, riding a bus, personal auto, rental cars, train, plane, UHaul box trucks, riding a bike.  Along the way there, and on the way 'home', they use public facilities, transportation, food stores, McDonalds, thruway rest stops and encounter all sorts of people unaffiliated with the protests just trying to make a living.  They go to Walmart, Target, a restaurant to eat, 7-11 and Wegmans.  They engage, eat, sleep, drink, vomit, excrete, copulate and so on--hopefully not in that order.

 

Here's my point.  Personally, I think you are extraordinarily low on your estimates.  It makes no sense to me.  Be that as it may, our elected leaders advise us under threat of law and financial ruin that 25,000 people gathering pose little risk, but 12 family members spending time together over Memorial Day represents 2 too many.  They tell us that droplets dodge protestors packed like sardines on a public street, but that business owners will be crushed if they have more than 15 people in a place rated for 50 unless they serve Super-sized Nachos with the beer the customer ordered.  They tell us church services must be suspended or moved on line, but applaud 40 unmasked MomsAgainstSomeStuff linked arm and arm.  

 

In the end, assuming you are correct, it would appear the 7,500-15,000 dead is a price worth paying to defund the police.  That number will surely rise to God knows what, and it seems an extraordinarily high price for progress.  

 

Or, our elected leaders are playing a much longer game and it really doesn't matter who gets trampled along the way. 

 

Thanks again.  I really do appreciate it. 

 

I think you misconstrued my percentage estimate.  I thought you meant the percentage of deaths from protestors in a given community, not for the overall country.  So take say say in LA where they had a lot of protestors,  that to me would be around 5-10% of the number of infections in LA at the very most.

 

The 150,00 deaths attributed to Corona should rightfully be attributed to the virus in my opinon.  I know the hospital network I work for does not fudge that stuff, or there'd be hell to pay when we get audited.   I'll give you an example of a friend from church who unfortunately died from Covid.  He had a recent bout of pancreatitis, and had some underlying respiratory issues (mild COPD).  Both of those were pre-existing conditions, but were managed very well with different medications.  But when he got the Covid virus, it kicked his respiratory issues into overdrive, and they in the end could not compensate for the added burden.  another example would be patients with diabetes, again a chronic condition but can be managed.  When they get hit with Covid though, Covid exacerbates the damaging effects of diabetes, in that diabetes is really a vascular disease, and Covid ravages the vascular system. 

 

I don't envy governmental leaders right now.  I agree some of the decisions don't make sense.  Like why in Nevada casinos can be open but churches can't.  I think if we all went along with the recommendations of hand washing, masks, and distancing, we' could go a long way in knocking this thing down.  But it seems clear that the public won't do that on their own (at least not in my city).  So I understand the mandates for masks, etc. - it sucks to be sure but they have the charge of the public health.  

 

I would rather focus on Covid, and really do not understand how that somehow gets conflated with the protests and such.  All I can say to that is I am pro-police, and I think saying defund the police is stupid.  Retraining the police, adding funds for that and for more social workers to de-escalate things before police need to come in, and using funds to get overstressed police counseling, or to increase training, I'm all for.  But I am also all for using the justice system to charge and imprison police that overstep things and criminally abuse their authority.  

 

Appreciate the dialog.  Don't mean to sound cranky with the other  guy, but I get tired of the insults.  Thanks for reminding me to be above that level of discourse.  

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Degrees of safe. Trump’s rally was really unsafe. Herman Cane found out the hard way 

I understood. You're suggesting that not one of the hundreds of thousands of people attending protests found anything out "the hard way".  Because they were outside. 6' apart. Masked up. And arrived by transporter like in the old Star Trek show.  Mmmmmm'kay.

[RiotAct]

it gets conflated with the protests because the powers that be have drilled into our heads that certain rights and privileges meed to be temporarily suspended for the greater good (which is understandable), and yet the protests / takeovers are fine because... reasons.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

 

So is COVID-19 more susceptible to masks than other Corona viruses? If so, how? If not, are you suggesting that "Science" just learned for the first time ever that masks do stop the transmission of these viruses?

 

And, if we're still accumulating data, because we really don't know and are trying to mitigate in the meantime, doesn't it seem highly irresponsible to gather in mass numbers for weeks on end relying on a thin piece of cloth that the CDC said was ineffective to stop the transmission of a disease so deadly that we must shut down society, despite untold destruction, to stop its spread?

 

Also, wrt police shootings, should we use the data we've accumulated for decades, or should we use the inductive approach relying on selectively chosen anecdotal evidence until we can accumulate data to support the preferred narrative?

 

Just trying to figure out how to "do science."

I would have to look at the data on other corona viruses.  It is likely they did not receive as much research or attention; the current pandemic is much more damaging which attracts more research attention.  Not hat it makes that right.

 

Yes, it was not advisable to gather in large groups.  I did not condone that anywhere.  What I did say is that protests are outside which helped mitigate, and that in the walk I did outside everyone was asked to wear masks or not participate.  We had about 100 people total.  

 

How you do science is to make an observation, form a hypothesis to explain the observation, then do experiments and/or gather data to test your hypothesis.  That is the scientific method.  And yes, it should be used to address police shootings and other social issues.

[Gary M]