Covid 19 thread

[SWAdude]

Wear a mask in crowded places, and try to keep your distance. That’s it.

And don't judge those that do not.

Don't like what you see, walkaway.

 

[XXXIVwin]

View attachment 40056View attachment 40056View attachment 40056View attachment 40056

Yeah and those people are shouting and not social distancing (kidding)

 

[XXXIVwin]

And don't judge those that do not.

Don't like what you see, walkaway.

I don’t. IRL, I haven’t given anyone shit about not wearing a mask, not one single time.

To me, I feel passionate about this as a philosophical debate, one that affects whether or not tens of thousands of people in USA will die unnecessarily.

 

[1maGoh]

because we are still learning. Which we want to do - right?

or are you thinking that science is poo pooing treatments that work for ..... why would they be doing that again?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my main problem with the changing stance of scientists is the attitude of the regular population. Kind of like how fans ruin a football team. IDGAF about the cowboys, but damn their fans are irritating as fuck. Same thing with hardcore science crowd. Hear me out.

We absolutely should follow the science. It's basically the only way to know anything. But what irritates the absolute living fuck out of me is when a single study is published with results that don't make sense to me AND everyone tells me a need to just shut up and listen to the science, they know better than me, and I must be a knuckle dragging retard because the result didn't make sense to me. And then some month or a year or whatever later, "the science" had more studies and more data and it turns out the first one was wrong. I'm not trying to say "I called it, I'll trust myself instead". I'm trying to say, maybe everyone pushing the science could stop being a dick about it. And it doesn't help that complete bullshit gets through respected peer reviewed journals in occasion. One was recently published that said there is a black hole at the center of the earth. That's a laughably absurd premise, but it got published anyway. How many really close but still wrong things do you suppose get published? I recently read another article about how reproducibility is becoming a problem in the scientific community because finding and grants mostly go to new research, not proving old research. They cited a few studies that after several years ended up getting disproved, but it took a long ass time for anything to get around to trying to duplicate it. On top of that, the studies left out let data and methods so it was ridiculously difficult to attempt to reproduce until the second team contacted the original publishers.

But hey us dumb knuckle draggers are just supposed to believe that everything published is 100% scientifically accurate and valid, that scientists are above petty things like human emotion, they can't be swayed by job security or money or power, and that they are infallible.

I asked someone here where he found the effectiveness data for masks as he was a follow the science, 100% facts, data driven type. I got a response that basically said it's old data from other studies not involving covid-19 and also here's an article about a single experiment some guy did in his wood workshop by himself with only himself as a subject while he was at home unable to carry on his normal science job.

I'm not saying that data or the assumptions made are wrong, but I'm not impressed with what's passing as cold, hard, scientific facts in that instance. That, and all the other stuff I mentioned, casts doubt on enough of everything else that I want to be doubly sure before I go off believing everything that comes out.

But hey, I'm the asshole right? Because I don't hear one person or read one article and immediately start dumb-shaming everyone into the viewpoint proposed without fact checking it first, I'm the asshole.

 

[XXXIVwin]

No, it's absolutely not a spectrum. The Country is positioned at polar opposite ends of the political spectrum right now, and that's not even debatable.

That actually made me laugh. I mean, literally. Fauci is more recognizable than any doctor in the history of doctors. The dude is on TV constantly, does countless interviews, has been on 60 minutes, is on EVERY media news outlet making statements, is in every single US media publication on the regular, was on the cover of TIME Magazine, was one of "the top 100 most influential people", and did an expose for In Style. He couldn't be silenced if you tore his lips off.


Yeah, right. It wasn't self-inflicted at all.

January 31, 2020-
Trump locks down international travel - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...ose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/

February 02, 2020-
NY Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot says, "Join the parades! Don't listen to the misinformation from the POTUS." - https://www.amny.com/editorial/city-leaders-seek-to-allay-fears-of-coronavirus-in-chinatown/

February 02, 2020-
Chair of the NY Health Council Mark Levine suggests a huge crowd is powerful defiance against 'scare tactics' of the POTUS" - [link]

February 24, 2020-
Nancy Pelosi goes into Chinatown and tells people to join the crowd. - https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...-nancy-pelosi-tours-san-franciscos-chinatown/

March 02, 2020-
Bill Deblasio urges New Yorkers to "Get out on the town despite coronavirus", and recommends some movies to see at the cinema. - [link]

March 10, 2020-
Fauci: "LOL! Stupid mask wearers."

April 03, 2020-
Schiff and Pelosi announce an investigation into Trump's handling of the coronavirus https://wbsm.com/here-come-pelosi-and-shifty-schiff-again-opinion/


Don't know what to tell you. Be boggled then.

No, it's absolutely not a spectrum. The Country is positioned at polar opposite ends of the political spectrum right now, and that's not even debatable.

We're super-polarized, no doubt. What I meant was, "the degree to which people's behaviors are affected by a leader they admire" is on a spectrum. I could've worded it better.

That actually made me laugh. I mean, literally. Fauci is more recognizable than any doctor in the history of doctors. The dude is on TV constantly, does countless interviews, has been on 60 minutes, is on EVERY media news outlet making statements, is in every single US media publication on the regular, was on the cover of TIME Magazine, was one of "the top 100 most influential people", and did an expose for In Style. He couldn't be silenced if you tore his lips off.

I'd concede that Fauci has been extremely visible. But I think it's fair to say that this has been despite the administration's frequent efforts to ignore, belittle, and discredit him. The relationship between POTUS and some of the top people on the Covid task force-- notably Redfield, Birx, and Fauci-- has been extremely strained. This new guy, Atlas (who is not even trained in epidemiology) was hired IMHO because his extreme outlier views were more compatible with the messaging that was desired.

As to confusion in January, February , and March-- yes, I'd concede to that. There was indeed a lot of confusion back then. I'd also concede that leaders from "my side" (notably deBlasio and Cuomo) made egregious errors. And yes, the messaging on masks by Fauci was a huge mistake, and I wish he had explained himself more clearly back in March (when he discouraged public mask wearing only because he was concerned about a shortage of masks for frontline workers).

But in the months of April, May, June, July, August, September, and October, IMHO the messaging from experts has been far more consistent. IMHO the "confusion and controversy" since April has been vastly overstated. HCQ? No scientific evidence to support it. Is it airborne? Yes, most probably. Do masks help prevent spread? Definitely. Social distancing important? Definitely.

Don't know what to tell you. Be boggled then.

I dunno, maybe we're talking past each other on this one. I'm just trying to make a narrow point. If POTUS had came out strongly in favor of mask use, and had been consistently pro-mask for many months, I think many of his supporters (who like him and admire him and believe what he says) would have been MORE inclined rather than less to wear masks. That's it. I'm just trying to make that narrow hypothetical point.

Would that increased mask use have made a big difference? Well, that is a separate question, and of course we tend to disagree on the answer to that question.

Anyway, agree to disagree, cheers, go Rams, etcetera.

 

[-X-]

Anyway, agree to disagree, cheers, go Rams, etcetera.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my main problem with the changing stance of scientists is the attitude of the regular population. Kind of like how fans ruin a football team. IDGAF about the cowboys, but damn their fans are irritating as fuck. Same thing with hardcore science crowd. Hear me out.

We absolutely should follow the science. It's basically the only way to know anything. But what irritates the absolute living fuck out of me is when a single study is published with results that don't make sense to me AND everyone tells me a need to just shut up and listen to the science, they know better than me, and I must be a knuckle dragging retard because the result didn't make sense to me. And then some month or a year or whatever later, "the science" had more studies and more data and it turns out the first one was wrong. I'm not trying to say "I called it, I'll trust myself instead". I'm trying to say, maybe everyone pushing the science could stop being a dick about it. And it doesn't help that complete bullshit gets through respected peer reviewed journals in occasion. One was recently published that said there is a black hole at the center of the earth. That's a laughably absurd premise, but it got published anyway. How many really close but still wrong things do you suppose get published? I recently read another article about how reproducibility is becoming a problem in the scientific community because finding and grants mostly go to new research, not proving old research. They cited a few studies that after several years ended up getting disproved, but it took a long ass time for anything to get around to trying to duplicate it. On top of that, the studies left out let data and methods so it was ridiculously difficult to attempt to reproduce until the second team contacted the original publishers.

But hey us dumb knuckle draggers are just supposed to believe that everything published is 100% scientifically accurate and valid, that scientists are above petty things like human emotion, they can't be swayed by job security or money or power, and that they are infallible.

I asked someone here where he found the effectiveness data for masks as he was a follow the science, 100% facts, data driven type. I got a response that basically said it's old data from other studies not involving covid-19 and also here's an article about a single experiment some guy did in his wood workshop by himself with only himself as a subject while he was at home unable to carry on his normal science job.

I'm not saying that data or the assumptions made are wrong, but I'm not impressed with what's passing as cold, hard, scientific facts in that instance. That, and all the other stuff I mentioned, casts doubt on enough of everything else that I want to be doubly sure before I go off believing everything that comes out.

But hey, I'm the asshole right? Because I don't hear one person or read one article and immediately start dumb-shaming everyone into the viewpoint proposed without fact checking it first, I'm the asshole.

Nice post.

For me, the absolute BEST article I've ever read on this whole damn debacle was written by Ed Yong way back on April 29, entitled "Why the coronavirus is so confusing." It's a very long article, but fascinating and super-informative, and the points he makes still hold up several months later. The whole article IMHO addresses your main point.

Quick summary: science is a process that involves taking three steps forward and two steps back. Normally, with infectious diseases, we have the benefit of decades of accumulated research and can easily discuss "settled" science. But with this novel coronavirus, since we have to figure out what to do in real time over a few short months, the "normal" swings of the scientific process seem disproportionately contradictory and confusing.

Why the Coronavirus Is So Confusing

A guide to making sense of a problem that is now too big for any one person to fully comprehend

www.theatlantic.com

If anyone wants to read this but can't access it due to a paywall at The Atlantic, I'd be happy to cut-and-paste it.

 

[XXXIVwin]

View attachment 40057

I think our Rams are gonna destroy the Niners tomorrow, the point spread is too low, I'm tempted to put money on this one

 

[Allen2McVay]

And don't judge those that do not (wear masks in crowded places).

Why should anyone be judged for needlessly putting another person’s health in jeopardy?

 

[-X-]

Why should anyone be judged for needlessly putting another person’s health in jeopardy?

Good question.

 

[RamFan503]

S Korea’s success (and single-minded devotion to mitigation) has been written about extensively, though.

S Korea threw the kitchen sink and more at Covid.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

My son was stationed in S Korea until recently. He was periodically on lock down but said most of the areas near the base were not. He was there just before Covid began and he was saying that there were a few more masks used but a great many people were already wearing them. You think getting people to wear masks where it already is a normal thing might be a bit easier? You think controlling a population that is both singularly controlled but also more used to govt control might be a little different than here?

Now he's in Germany. He says they ignore everything you would think would be logical protocols, including those "mandated". He says it's really mind boggling actually.

And yet... What European nation has a better record on Covid illness and death?

I'm not an anti-masker, and I carry hand sanitizer with me everywhere.

I simply dont buy the argument that ANYONE in politics would have handled it "better" by being more "serious" about needing to do.... name the hindsight answer here.

Ive never seen scientists and experts change their tune so much in such a short period of time in all my life.

Agreed, fair enough. Americans have a stubborn independent streak, for better and for worse.

But strong, intelligent leadership could have prevented many tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Let me get this straight. Are we talking the leaders that encouraged tourists to head to China Town sans masks? Are we talking about leadership that said to ignore the President and come to Mardi Gras? Are we talking about leadership that told people to ride the subways and enjoy the many shows in downtown? Are we talking about leadership that suggested the rest of the country should send him all their ventilators and ppe supplies and they in turn would help out when they were through this virus while putting KNOWN Covid patients in ill equiped nursing homes? Are we talking about leaders that built hospitals and sent hospital ships that went largely unused when asked for help by other leaders? Are we talking about leaders that convinced companies to switch production lines in order to supply ventilators? Are we talking about leaders that have been fast tracking potential vaccines? Are we talking about leaders that while having obvious disagreements with the professionals HE hired, have left them in place and never told them not to speak? Are we talking about leaders that tell the people they should be wearing masks everywhere and social distancing while going to dinner without a mask while sitting 2 ft from a band and its singer or getting her hair done, or jogging on a well used jogging path with her guards while not wearing a mask or....?

I find it all idiotic that some keep pointing fingers. There's an old saying. When you're pointing a finger, there are 3 pointing back at you and a thumb doing absolutely nothing.

 

[RamFan503]

And I love that the W.H.O. guy makes a statement that shutting down an economy only makes poor people poorer. Well duh.

So.... What exactly would another leader do and to what result?

 

[XXXIVwin]

Good question.

All I see in those videos are the backs of heads. Seriously. I find it extremely difficult to tell whether or not ppl are wearing masks.

Noticed that the vids are produced by right-leaning Daily Caller. Maybe I’m wrong but... sure looks to me like those vids are made in a misleading way as if to say, “See, these people gather in crowds without masks, too!”

Except....they don’t. A quick search of images (where you can actually see faces, not backs of heads!) shows that mask use in the“Women’s march” protests from today (Oct 17, 2020) was pretty high. For example:

 

[-X-]

All I see in those videos are the backs of heads. Seriously. I find it extremely difficult to tell whether or not ppl are wearing masks.

Noticed that the vids are produced by right-leaning Daily Caller. Maybe I’m wrong but... sure looks to me like those vids are made in a misleading way as if to say, “See, these people gather in crowds without masks, too!”

lol. "C'mon man!" It was shot by a woman who was AT the march.

Meanwhile, sports stadiums are empty.

 

[RamFan503]

So FINALLY an answer.

 

[XXXIVwin]

My son was stationed in S Korea until recently. He was periodically on lock down but said most of the areas near the base were not. He was there just before Covid began and he was saying that there were a few more masks used but a great many people were already wearing them. You think getting people to wear masks where it already is a normal thing might be a bit easier? You think controlling a population that is both singularly controlled but also more used to govt control might be a little different than here?

Now he's in Germany. He says they ignore everything you would think would be logical protocols, including those "mandated". He says it's really mind boggling actually.

And yet... What European nation has a better record on Covid illness and death?

I'm not an anti-masker, and I carry hand sanitizer with me everywhere.

I simply dont buy the argument that ANYONE in politics would have handled it "better" by being more "serious" about needing to do.... name the hindsight answer here.

Ive never seen scientists and experts change their tune so much in such a short period of time in all my life.


Let me get this straight. Are we talking the leaders that encouraged tourists to head to China Town sans masks? Are we talking about leadership that said to ignore the President and come to Mardi Gras? Are we talking about leadership that told people to ride the subways and enjoy the many shows in downtown? Are we talking about leadership that suggested the rest of the country should send him all their ventilators and ppe supplies and they in turn would help out when they were through this virus while putting KNOWN Covid patients in ill equiped nursing homes? Are we talking about leaders that built hospitals and sent hospital ships that went largely unused when asked for help by other leaders? Are we talking about leaders that convinced companies to switch production lines in order to supply ventilators? Are we talking about leaders that have been fast tracking potential vaccines? Are we talking about leaders that while having obvious disagreements with the professionals HE hired, have left them in place and never told them not to speak? Are we talking about leaders that tell the people they should be wearing masks everywhere and social distancing while going to dinner without a mask while sitting 2 ft from a band and its singer or getting her hair done, or jogging on a well used jogging path with her guards while not wearing a mask or....?

I find it all idiotic that some keep pointing fingers. There's an old saying. When you're pointing a finger, there are 3 pointing back at you and a thumb doing absolutely nothing.

It’s exhausting enough engaging in debate with -X-, I can’t take on you as well, 503!

As I’ve said before in this thread, I tend to watch Brian Williams (and Chris Hayes) on MSNBC, but I balance that out with watching Hannity, too. (And I read a ton of news too, from a wide variety of sources). All I can say is, when debating this stuff, it’s important to have an awareness of the points on the opposite side.

 

[-X-]

So FINALLY an answer.


View attachment 40064

Can confirm.

 

[-X-]

It’s exhausting enough engaging in debate with -X-, I can’t take on you as well, 503!

As I’ve said before in this thread, I tend to watch Brian Williams (and Chris Hayes) on MSNBC, but I balance that out with watching Hannity, too.

Well there are your first 3 mistakes.

Seriously. Pull the plug.

 

[RamFan503]

All I can say is, when debating this stuff, it’s important to have an awareness of the points on the opposite side.

And to not assume those you are debating - do not.

 

[XXXIVwin]

And to not assume those you are debating - do not.

Fair enough. Gotta say my first reaction to your post was not “hey that’s even-handed.” But I’ll take your word for it.