Trump, Melania Test Positive for COVID 19

[HappyDays]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Can you also find well designed studies that suggest that they arent? Yes. 

 

Find me a well designed study, preferably a meta-analysis of multiple studies, that fails to show masks are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19.  I posted three meta-analyses which are the gold standard in scientific research. The only link I've seen purporting to show the opposite is the one from the AAPS which I think I have soundly disproved.

[BillStime]

 

 

[HappyDays]

14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

The people spreading disinformation are those that think any old piece of cloth can prevent this virus from infecting them or others. I choose to think it is being pushed so people feel they have some measure of control over it (they do not). Even with that benign attribution, it can be harmful in leading to a false sense of security over contracting the virus.

If it worked, we would all wear masks and be done with this. The country would be open, and as soon as the virus died out, we'd dispense with the masks. However, masks do not, can not, stop the transmission.

 

I posted three different studies that show masks do reduce the spread. I don't know what other proof I can show that would change your mind. Nothing but a universally available vaccine will eradicate the virus,  but masks plus social distancing plus good hygiene are an effective combination. We now know that the virus spreads almost exclusively through respiratory droplets. This is different from the cold and the flu which can also spread through surface contact. We also know that masks help to stop or mitigate the projection of respiratory droplets. I can post every study in the world but it should also just be common sense that a mask would do that. Of course an N95 mask is more effective than a cloth mask, and the studies I posted have shown that as well. But a cloth mask is still better than nothing, especially with other preventative measures like social distancing in place. I can't understand why this is so controversial. It is the most basic of scientific truths and still we have people arguing against it.

Edited October 3, 2020 by HappyDays

[BillsFanNC]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

Find me a well designed study, preferably a meta-analysis of multiple studies, that fails to show masks are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19.  I posted three meta-analyses which are the gold standard in scientific research. The only link I've seen purporting to show the opposite is the one from the AAPS which I think I have soundly disproved.

 

I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there.  Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. 

[meazza]

57 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

Some of us use this site at work.  Can you please not ***** post nazi symbols for ***** sake ?

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

Really, Wikipedia? Is that part of the Trumpian fake news network now? Come on man.

 

The Lancet is a two century old scientific journal. What am I missing here? I'm not up to date on the latest Trumpian talking points.

 

I've gotten far less interested in politics than I used to be over the last 4 years but the disinformation campaigns surrounding covid-19 are very concerning to me. I worry that more than ever we live in an age where people are able to discern good sources. To be fair it isn't just right-wing. There are a bunch of left-wing people theorizing that Trump is faking the illness in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I can't tell if people were always this bad at separating fact from fiction or if the internet has made it worse. Certainly there are a number of political organizations driving the misinformation but at the end of the day people are eating it up.

The problem with Wikipedia as a definitive source is that anyone can edit it. The Lancet posted the findings of a study on Hydroxychloriquine a while back that didn't include zinc. They had to retract it after they were caught. 

 

The internet has made things worse..................................................................... and better. It is apparent here at PPP that a whole army of idiots with TDS and without any desire to actually discuss anything, has invaded the place and will continue to post nonsense ad nauseum and then demand that people who object to theirshit prove them wrong. On the other hand the internet has allowed the truly discerning people to research on their own and not rely on the mainstream media to feed us what they want. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I posted three different studies that show masks do reduce the spread. I don't know what other proof I can show that would change your mind. Nothing but a universally available vaccine will eradicate the virus,  but masks plus social distancing plus good hygiene are an effective combination. We now know that the virus spreads almost exclusively through respiratory droplets. This is different from the cold and the flu which can also spread through surface contact. We also know that masks help to stop or mitigate the projection of respiratory droplets. I can post every study in the world but it should also just be common sense that a mask would do that. Of course an N95 mask is more effective than a cloth mask, and the studies I posted have shown that as well. But a cloth mask is still better than nothing, especially with other preventative measures like social distancing in place. I can't understand why this is so controversial. It is the most basic of scientific truths and still we have people arguing against it.

And I have posted more than three that show masks as little more than a placebo (excepting the N95s) ... over in the COVID thread (I linked because we now have four COVID thread down here).  Feel free to go over and read. 🙂

 

[meazza]

So an anonymous White House aide contradicted the White House doctor and everyone is upset ?

 

Can these idiots stop listening to anonymous sources?

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there.  Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. 

I know. New voices are great, but sometimes...
 

[Hedge]

 

 

[HappyDays]

4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there.  Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. 

 

I'm just asking for one or two. I tried looking up some examples myself. I found a couple articles from right-wing news aggregators that again use old studies about the flu and the cold as if every virus has the same manner of spreading. The best I could find is from the CDC, and even their conclusion is in line with what I've been saying:

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

 

The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, who should as a priority be provided proper respiratory protection. Cloth masks are a more suitable option for community use when medical masks are unavailable. Protection provided by cloth masks may be improved by selecting appropriate material, increasing the number of mask layers, and using those with a design that provides filtration and fit. Cloth masks should be washed daily and after high-exposure use by using soap and water or other appropriate methods.

 

Ideally everyone would be wearing an N95 mask in public but an imperfect solution is still a solution. No one is saying mask mandates would eradicate the virus but it is helping to stop the spread while a vaccine is developed. Again, I dont know why this is so controversial.

[dickleyjones]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there.  Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. 

Rct are a terrible gold standard. They are routinely misinterpreted and misused. Damn shame really because Rct are useful, just not as useful as those invested in ebm would have you believe. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

[HappyDays]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The problem with Wikipedia as a definitive source is that anyone can edit it.

 

This is false. Wikipedia edits are subject to moderation. But what are you saying, that the AAPS is not a conservative political group? Are you saying Wikipedia is posting false information about some of the beliefs they've espoused in the past? Help me understand. Because the sources are right there for you to click on.

 

Whether you believe Wikipedia or not, do you disagree with anything I said about that link that Foxx posted?

 

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The Lancet posted the findings of a study on Hydroxychloriquine a while back that didn't include zinc. They had to retract it after they were caught. 

 

You're saying a scientific organization retracted an article that didn't pass scrutiny? And you're using this as evidence that they are biased? Wow.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

Charming? Funny? Friendly?

OH MY GOD, THE Q PEOPLE ARE RIGHT! THEY'VE REPLACED HIM WITH AN IMITATION TRUMP WHILE THE REAL ONE IS IN HIS SECRET BUNKER!!

 

[HappyDays]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It is apparent here at PPP that a whole army of idiots with TDS and without any desire to actually discuss anything, has invaded the place and will continue to post nonsense ad nauseum and then demand that people who object to theirshit prove them wrong.

 

I can't speak for others but when I make claims I show my receipts. I have noticed an unwillingness from others to do the same over these last few pages.

 

Science is hard. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm not saying we know everything about covid-19. But if you're going to make a negative claim like "masks do not reduce the spread of covid-19" I expect some level of good sourcing.

[TBBills]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

So funny when they try to post stupid fluff... Of course it's Buffalo Gal who posts it lol

[Hedge]

14 minutes ago, meazza said:

So an anonymous White House aide contradicted the White House doctor and everyone is upset ?

 

Can these idiots stop listening to anonymous sources?

 

Just for some background for those who aren't sure what Meazza is referring to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I can't speak for others but when I make claims I show my receipts. I have noticed an unwillingness from others to do the same over these last few pages.

 

Science is hard. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm not saying we know everything about covid-19. But if you're going to make a negative claim like "masks do not reduce the spread of covid-19" I expect some level of good sourcing.

It is not an unwillingness... go to the correct thread and start reading.  The links are there. 🙂
 

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

And I have posted more than three that show masks as little more than a placebo (excepting the N95s) ... over in the COVID thread (I linked because we now have four COVID thread down here).  Feel free to go over and read. 🙂

 

I highly recommend the work that this group of scientists -- mostly mechanical engineers -- is doing.

I know I post my fair share of snark here, but I am dead serious about this. I don't want people to be misinformed about the key things they can control in their lives without shutting down everything and cowering in fear at home to minimize the risk to themselves, their families, and others. And I want those who disagree with me here to be as safe as possible too, even if they are somewhat more willing to engage in all aspects of pre-COVID life than I am at the moment. We all make our choices, but those choices should be informed by the best information we have.

 

On masks (from the FAQ ... also critical are the parts about indoor air flow and air exchange rates):

 

Unfortunately there are many many misconceptions about masks, including:

• “Masks don’t work because the virus is much smaller than the pores of the mask.” First, the virus is not thought to be “naked” in the air, this is a misconception. Masks are just filters that we wear, so see this discussion below of filtering efficiency vs. size and why much of what you may hear online is wrong. Second, aerosol filtration does not work in the same way of a sieve that we may be more familiar with. Filters can capture aerosols that are much smaller than the pore size, see the Minute Physics video for a good explanation. 

• “Masks do not work.” To say that masks do not work to remove a fraction of the aerosols (being either inhaled or exhaled) contradicts basic physics. It is like saying that if you put on a coat, you will not feel warmer. If you put on a coat, it will partially impede the flow of heat away from your body. In the same way a mask impedes the flow of particles across it, by capturing many of them. There is no other possibility. Of course the real efficiency depends on how good the mask material is as a filter, and of how well the mask fits without gaps.

• “Masks only protect against ballistic droplets, not aerosols.” Again, this is another misconception. Masks always provide some partial protection against exhaled and inhaled aerosols, with the protection depending on the quality of the mask material, how well they fit (no gaps between mask and face), and the size of the aerosols that matter.

[HappyDays]

18 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

And I have posted more than three that show masks as little more than a placebo (excepting the N95s) ... over in the COVID thread (I linked because we now have four COVID thread down here).  Feel free to go over and read. 🙂

 

 

That's a 1200 page thread. I would appreciate a link without having to search for one there. I'm genuinely asking in good faith. I want to know what evidence there is that masks do not prevent the spread of covid-19.

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

That's a 1200 page thread. I would appreciate a link without having to search for one there. I'm genuinely asking in good faith. I want to know what evidence there is that masks do not prevent the spread of covid-19.

And I have over 10K posts down here. I genuinely do not have time to sort through my posts because you do not have time to sort through a thread.

Note: if I could just search masks, I would. Unfortunately, that thread is over 6 months old, and "masks" give a lot of returns.


 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I highly recommend the work that this group of scientists -- mostly mechanical engineers -- is doing.

 

Thank you for this post. This is what baffles me about the discussion. I can post study after study after study that shows masks stop the spread of a virus that spreads through respiratory droplets, but I shouldn't need to. It's basic physics. It's like posting a bunch of evidence that the world is round versus just looking at satellite pictures. There's a point where people are just being willfully obtuse about a basic fact.

 

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

And I have over 10K posts down here. I genuinely do not have time to sort through my posts because you do not have time to sort through a thread.
 

 

Okay but you're the one bringing the claim. I could have showed up in this thread saying "find the evidence that masks are effective yourself" but instead I posted a bunch of sources that i found on my own. It's telling that multiple people over the last few pages have assured me the evidence is there but won't share it with me. I even tried to find some contrary evidence myself, it just isn't there.

Edited October 3, 2020 by HappyDays

[SectionC3]

26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The problem with Wikipedia as a definitive source is that anyone can edit it. The Lancet posted the findings of a study on Hydroxychloriquine a while back that didn't include zinc. They had to retract it after they were caught. 

 

The internet has made things worse..................................................................... and better. It is apparent here at PPP that a whole army of idiots with TDS and without any desire to actually discuss anything, has invaded the place and will continue to post nonsense ad nauseum and then demand that people who object to theirshit prove them wrong. On the other hand the internet has allowed the truly discerning people to research on their own and not rely on the mainstream media to feed us what they want. 

Hoax. 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I can't speak for others but when I make claims I show my receipts. I have noticed an unwillingness from others to do the same over these last few pages.

 

Science is hard. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm not saying we know everything about covid-19. But if you're going to make a negative claim like "masks do not reduce the spread of covid-19" I expect some level of good sourcing.

Read over my original response to you. I clearly stated that I didn't necessarily disagree with you. To me the wearing of masks is a moot point and refusing to wear one is not a hill I want to die on. I don't even really want to debate it. It's not that ***** important.  I specifically told you that you made me laugh by criticizing Foxx's source but quoting Wikipedia and Lancet. Lancet tried to sneak a study in by initially misrepresenting it. When they were caught they had to retract its finding. Wikipedia is not a definitive source. End of conversation.

[HappyDays]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

I specifically told you that you made me laugh by criticizing Foxx's source but quoting Wikipedia and Lancet. Lancet tried to sneak a study in by initially misrepresenting it. When they were caught they had to retract its finding. Wikipedia is not a definitive source. End of conversation.

 

But this is the problem right here. It's easy to attack a source. It's hard to attack the information. Don't take the easy way out. It was easy for me to show that the AAPS has a history of supporting dubious scientific claims, but I went a step further and actually read the article to see where it went wrong. I didn't just criticize the source, I criticized the content.

 

I notice this tactic is very common nowadays. "That article was posted by CNN/Facebook/politician I don't agree with, therefore it is false." If you are going to forever distrust a long-standing scientific journal because of one retraction they made, you aren't acting in good faith.

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You’re in the cult.  Enjoy the Kool Aid. 

Define a cult member and what puts me in the box. 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. 

I very much dislike you and it isn't just that we disagree on most everything. You are a pompous ass that is also very boring. You add no real insights and time after time you simply post clown responses. 

[The Frankish Reich]

21 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Thank you for this post. This is what baffles me about the discussion. I can post study after study after study that shows masks stop the spread of a virus that spreads through respiratory droplets, but I shouldn't need to. It's basic physics. It's like posting a bunch of evidence that the world is round versus just looking at satellite pictures. There's a point where people are just being willfully obtuse about a basic fact.

 

If folks would read the FAQ I linked to, I think they'd have a better understanding of what masks can and can't do.

They are not a panacea. But as the CDC Director said just a week or two ago, they are absolutely the single best thing we have to slow transmission rates until a vaccine is widely available.

So in light of about 8 months of intense experience with COVID now, these are the things I do:

- I wear a mask, always, when INDOORS with people from outside my household

- I almost never wear a mask OUTDOORS unless I'm in a crowded area or with people standing/sitting nearby, like when standing in line waiting to get into a store. I eat outdoors at restaurants all the time and I don't worry about whether every human being is 6 feet away from me. I try to never eat indoors at a restaurant unless it has large windows/garage doors that are open, even if they are capacity limited. I just don't know enough about the restaurant's HVAC system. Shops with high ceilings and people spread out don't worry me as typically they have high air exchange rates.

- I go on long cycling trips (my way of avoiding the gym) and never wear a mask on those. Any close contact I have with others is fleeting.

- I have to meet with people face-to-face in my job. I wear a mask, require that they do, and I use an air purifier unit to increase air exchange rates over what my building's HVAC system provides

- Up till now I have avoiding flying on planes. There is little or no evidence of superspreader (or even ordinary spreader) events on planes. I am considering flying again, but I will avoid sitting next to a person from outside my household, and I will not take ubers or taxis unless absolutely necessary and for very short trips. Rental cars don't bother me as long as the shuttle ride is short and not overcrowded. I stay in airbnb's instead of hotels whenever possible.

-I just don't worry about surface transmission anymore. I use hand sanitizer frequently, but other than that there's little evidence of surface transmission being a problem.

 

And the recent apparent superspreader event at the White House -- the ACB nomination ceremony -- kind of confirms the core advice in the FAQ about what to avoid, how to mitigate risk, and what we needn't be too concerned about.

 

Folks, let's please take sound advice and try to get through this. We can't reopen the economy the way we'd like to if people ignore the lessons of the last 8 months.

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[BillStime]

FLABBERGASTED

 

“The roughly 100 campaign supporters who paid up to $250,000 to attend had no idea that the president had recently been exposed to the novel coronavirus and would soon test positive. One day later, New Jersey health officials are trying to locate those who attended in case anyone shook hands or snapped photos with Trump.”
 

Day after seeing Trump at Bedminster fundraiser, guests 'flabbergasted' to learn he was stricken

 

Trump has been irresponsible from the start - complete dereliction of duty.

 

LOCK HIM UP

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

But this is the problem right here. It's easy to attack a source. It's hard to attack the information. Don't take the easy way out. It was easy for me to show that the AAPS has a history of supporting dubious scientific claims, but I went a step further and actually read the article to see where it went wrong. I didn't just criticize the source, I criticized the content.

 

I notice this tactic is very common nowadays. "That article was posted by CNN/Facebook/politician I don't agree with, therefore it is false." If you are going to forever distrust a long-standing scientific journal because of one retraction they made, you aren't acting in good faith.

Damn you're obtuse. I said you made me laugh over your criticism of someone else's source while you then went ahead and quoted Wikipedia and Lancet. I didn't even say your sources were incorrect. I SIMPLY SAID YOU MADE ME LAUGH. Give it a rest. 

[B-Man]

 

 

[SectionC3]

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I very much dislike you and it isn't just that we disagree on most everything. You are a pompous ass that is also very boring. You add no real insights and time after time you simply post clown responses. 

 

Irony.  That's what I think of you, micro man!

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

FLABBERGASTED

 

“The roughly 100 campaign supporters who paid up to $250,000 to attend had no idea that the president had recently been exposed to the novel coronavirus and would soon test positive. One day later, New Jersey health officials are trying to locate those who attended in case anyone shook hands or snapped photos with Trump.”
 

Day after seeing Trump at Bedminster fundraiser, guests 'flabbergasted' to learn he was stricken

 

Trump has been irresponsible from the start - complete dereliction of duty.

 

LOCK HIM UP

 

What a bunch of a-holes.  They even treat their whale donors like trash.  Elect a clown, get a circus, I guess. 

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

So what you’re saying if we all followed the protocol of wearing masks in public and practicing social distancing you’re 100% certain that will work?  

 

Is that the protocol Donald Trump followed.

[GOBUFFALO716]

39 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I very much dislike you and it isn't just that we disagree on most everything. You are a pompous ass that is also very boring. You add no real insights and time after time you simply post clown responses. 

You lost again

 

Anyhow:

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am certainly pissed (Trump "cultist" that I am )- at CHINA. China who allowed this disease to spread, lied about it, got the WHO to lie about it, and did not share data or sources.

WTF do you expect the President of the United States to do? Hide in the basement? He has a country to run.

Why he was taken off HCQ + zinc pack as a preventative is a valid question. 

And if you tell me "masks" I will laugh in your face... with and without a mask. If masks worked the entire country would be open. Instead, places with tough mask laws are still closed (California, NYC, etc.)


 

 

Yes I will tell you masks and social distancing.

 

And the entire country isn't open because people can't seem to use common sense and do this.

 

That's not to say it's impossible to get sick if you do those things, but chances are exponentially reduced.

 

That's medical experts talking, not me.

 

Blame China all you want. Trump has mismanaged this Pandemic since it's reached our shores and now it's just caught up with him.

 

I apologize because I like you and enjoy engaging you occasionally, but yes, the fact that you can't hold this man's cavalier attitude and actions in the face of a disease that's gotten to over 7 million and killed more than 210 thousand in our country at this point, then yes, you're clearly part of the Cult-of-Trump.

[GG]

The mask debate is the polar opposite of the HCQ debate. Both offer marginal benefits in the fight vs Covid, so why not use as much protection as possible?

[BullBuchanan]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Really, Wikipedia? Is that part of the Trumpian fake news network now? Come on man.

 

The Lancet is a two century old scientific journal. What am I missing here? I'm not up to date on the latest Trumpian talking points.

 

I've gotten far less interested in politics than I used to be over the last 4 years but the disinformation campaigns surrounding covid-19 are very concerning to me. I worry that more than ever we live in an age where people are unable to discern good sources. To be fair it isn't just right-wing. There are a bunch of left-wing people theorizing that Trump is faking the illness in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I can't tell if people were always this bad at separating fact from fiction or if the internet has made it worse. Certainly there are a number of political organizations driving the misinformation but at the end of the day people are eating it up.

Certainly it's possible that he's sick, and it's also possible that a person who has been documented lying over 20,000 times in 4 years, who is losing in every political poll 4 weeks before an election, is lying for the 20,001rst time, no?

When all you do is lie, project and gaslight, how the ***** do you expect to have people take you at your word all of a sudden on a Friday afternoon? What trust has he or the unscrupulous people in his administration earned?

Edited October 3, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[HappyDays]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Certainly it's possible that he's sick, and it's also possible that a person who has been documented lying over 20,000 times in 4 years, who is losing in every political poll 4 weeks before an election, is lying for the 20,001rst time, no?

 

No, it is not possible that him and his physician and all of Walter Reed are faking his illness. It also doesn't make any sense even from a conspiracy theory mindset. Catching the virus right now while it spreads through his inner circle is the worst thing that could happen to his election chances.

[BillStime]

Trump suggested US troops or police were to blame for infecting White House staff just before he tested positive for COVID-19