|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On December 25 2020 11:58 JimmiC wrote:So this started by you saying the earlier measures were a mistake, me asking if perhaps it was because the health care system was stressed and then you saying it was a myth that they were.
I literally said the exact opposite:
On December 23 2020 15:52 BlackJack wrote:
...I don't even think it was a bad idea to have the first restrictions that were put into place in March for 2 reasons: 1) PPE was in short supply and we needed to buy time for production to catch up...
That's not even a mischaracterization of my position, that's just completely making up that I said the opposite of what I said lol.
On December 25 2020 11:58 JimmiC wrote:
You have yet to show your point through data, ER's being empty has absolutely nothing to do with the stress a hospital is under. I've explained this as many ways as I can.
Anyone that works in a hospital knows how ridiculous this statement is.
So outside of the PPE shortage, which I already posted that I agreed with the lockdowns so production could catch up, the other things, like this imaginary "respiratory therapist shortage" is just fiction. Although I'm certain all you did was go to google and type "respiratory therapist shortage california" and copy/paste a bunch of links, if you actually bothered to read them you would have known that nothing in any of the articles you posted described any respiratory therapist shortage in California. They are just factoid articles that describe who respiratory therapists are, what they do, and why having a plethora of ventilators may not be enough if you don't have the people to run them. If that's incorrect feel free to quote the text from the articles that's relevant to this imaginary RT shortage in California because I just skimmed the articles so maybe I am wrong.
In fact the only article you posted about how stressed the hospital system in California is comes from present day. Do you know why that is? Because it actually is stressed right now. I can find thousands of articles showing how stressed the healthcare system is in California right now. Just like I can find thousands of articles showing how stressed NY's healthcare system was back in the spring. Yet you can't find a single article that actually shows how stressed California's healthcare system was back in the Spring. Do you know why that is? Because it wasn't and people don't write articles about imaginary things.
|
On December 25 2020 20:03 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2020 18:21 SC-Shield wrote:On December 25 2020 18:11 Simberto wrote:
Definitively gonna take it, unless something really bad appears during the next few months.
According to German priorization rules. i will probably get a dose sometime in summer, since there are about 20 million people ahead of me in line.
You always have to remember that this is not a choice between vaccine risks and no risks, it is a choice between vaccine risks and getting covid * probability of getting covid risks.I think the latter is a lot more dangerous. I'm considering the same, but I'm not sure if Pfizer's mRNA which is relatively untested/new from what I understand or the usual vaccine like Oxford's one. I guess I'll have to wait and see till vaccines are widely available. I've only understood that Pfizer's one is more effective against COVID-19. Considering the large amounts are being vaccinated each day now, it can hardly be called untested (and gone through phase 3). It's not really a new technique, just new to use on a mass scale on humans. I want the vaccine that is most effective for my age group and gender. Don't know which one that is yet, but since I am in the low risk group I am sure it will take a while before I am allowed to take a vaccine.
It'll be roughly the 1 year mark from the first trials when I get it. Pretty much going to have complete information on efficacy by then.
I also made a relatively simple model for my province, based on full vaccination by October next year, and there's a decent chance of one more wave in the March/April area assuming restrictions are slightly relaxed before vaccination numbers get high enough that cases should drop monotonically.
In basically every version I made though, at least part of summer will be saved. Most optimistic one I have has cases dropping down into the single digits/day by May, more realistic one is single digits by July, and most pessimistic one August. Key takeaways from this though is how much the next month or two matters for having a summer that is enjoyable. If a third wave is avoided, there will be an extra month or even two months of summer to enjoy.
|
On December 25 2020 20:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2020 19:11 Magic Powers wrote:On December 25 2020 17:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 25 2020 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 25 2020 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On December 24 2020 10:59 Magic Powers wrote:There's a phenomenon of infections going up and deaths not rising proportionally. This is in response to BlackJack's and JimmiC's discussion. The phenomenon has been observed in various countries like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, NL, Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US like NY, NJ and MA, just to name a few examples. In Sweden deaths have even gone down while infections were still going up https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ (that may've happened in a number of countries, but I haven't looked into it in such detail). It's a widespread phenomenon that you can observe on worldometers. But not all countries follow this trend. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan, many states in the US., and many more countries show a significant correlation between infections and deaths. And then there's deaths per million and CFR, which also vary dramatically between different countries. Another mystery that needs explanation. The point being that it's difficult to know the causes for the various observations in things like hospitalization rates, ER admission rates, etc. We just don't have the answers yet. Here's information on CFR for various countries. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ There are many factors that can explain this 1)Testing is a lot better now than it was in the Spring. So the lack of proportionality you are seeing now is actually the correct proportions of cases vs deaths, but the numbers were just so out of proportion in the Spring that the correct proportions seem "off" by comparison. 2) A larger percent of the infected are younger adults that have better outcomes 3) Treatment is better 4) The first wave killed off a lot of the vulnerable which means less vulnerable to kill off now. The supporting evidence for this is that states that had the deadliest waves in the Spring, e.g. NY/NJ are having relatively few deaths right now whereas states that never had a big first wave, e.g. California are having all-time record deaths right now. 1) I don't know what it means to say that testing has gotten "better". Better for what purpose? Also, the testing methodology varies drastically between countries, as the study on CFR shows that I'll link in this comment. Where can I find information on how the testing has changed over time? 2) Are you saying that previously the infection rate used to be higher among old(er) individuals than it has been as of late? If so, could you provide a source for this? 3) What do you mean treatment is "better", and what has made it better? 4) I haven't yet read sources for this, but it's a possible and valid explanation. There appears to be a meaningful correlation according to my own research. Unfortunately more research is needed for a definitive conclusion. In regards to point 3) "The reasons are not entirely obvious. There have been no miracle drugs, no new technologies and no great advances in treatment strategies for the disease that has infected more than 50 million and killed more than 1.2 million around the world. Shifts in the demographics of those being treated might have contributed to perceived boosts in survival. And at many hospitals, it seems clear that physicians are getting incrementally better at treating COVID-19 — particularly as health-care systems become less overwhelmed. Still, those gains could be erased by increasing case loads around the world." In short: no significant change in treatment has been observed. It can be speculated that hospitals are filled with fewer low(er)-risk individuals which would free up space and treatment for high(er)-risk individuals. But it can also be speculated that it's the opposite (for example in hospitals running at full capacity), i.e. a greater portion of the treated individuals are low(er)-risk. Also, treatment appears to be better when hospitals are less overwhelmed. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03132-4Study on CFR (July 2020) It essentially concludes that age and CFR are strongly linked. But it doesn't explain all the differences. Unfortunately the study is several months old. I wasn't able to find a more recent study that analyzes recent mortality trends and compares them with previous waves. "Our study reveals the strong and important role that the age distribution of cases can have on COVID-19 casefatality. However, even after we corrected for age distortions, important differences in CFRs remained across countries. This suggests that differences in the underlying health of a country's population and how effectively the health system cares for identified COVID-19 cases have meaningful effects on the share of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 who survive. Removing the noise from age distortions and focusing on why age-adjusted CFRs are higher in some countries than in others, and why they change within countries over time, will be essential for formulating best case strategies for preventing and reducing COVID-19 mortality." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343190396_The_Contribution_of_the_Age_Distribution_of_Cases_to_COVID-19_Case_Fatality_Across_Countries_A_9-Country_Demographic_StudyData on mortality rate trends in countries and US states (I haven't yet had time to read any of this) https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/cfed-district-data-briefs/cfddb-20200513-covid19-mortality-rate-trends-series.aspxMeta-study on IFR for additional information (not necessarily required for this discussion) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809 1) Case numbers have been known to be gated behind testing capacity for a long time for many countries and when they are it's a shit metric. Look at Swedens numbers for the two peaks, that difference is 100 % only testing. And we are still gated at the moment (just not critically as before). If you have too little tests (as in, you can't test EVERYONE) the numbers are skewed and you should look at deaths/hospital admittance for covid instead. 2) This is probably true for many countries and can be checked by looking at the ratio in age groups for people being tested positive. It can be hard to know for certain if you only tested people with severe symptoms way back but short term trends when testing are stable is a good read (in Sweden the proportion of young people went up even after testing was stable but you can't really compare to last peak because you didn't test so many young back then). You can also do antibody studies and just epidemiological studies when you test a cross section of the population. From everything I've heard it has been more young people getting it the second wave and since it's not that hard to check I assume this is correct. 3) New treatment protocols (putting patients on their belly, how to administer oxygen, waiting with ICU treatment longer, steroids etc) have improved outcomes. This is a well known fact. 4) This is historically true for every respiratory tract disease that mainly affect vulnerable people (look at past flue numbers for example with high years followed by lower ones) and it would be virtually impossible to not have this effect with covid. In regards to 2) There are other confounding variables like for example seasonal differences or policy and other things affecting behavior. Even if testing had remained exactly equal, the numbers would've likely changed. So it's not all down to testing. My question to BlackJack was about the rate of infections among old people, which would be a way to show that a smaller ratio of old people among all infected people could be expected. If the infection rate among all age groups remained stable, then the infection ratio between the groups should also stay the same. So I was hoping he'd provide information on that in particular. The news article he posted didn't contain such information. 3) I'm very interested, do you have a study on this? I'm not sure I follow what you mean by rate of infection. The rates that people are being infected are never stable. That's why the "Daily New Cases" graph are all sinusoidal in shape and not flat lined. People are being infected at a way higher rate right now then at any other time. If I am understanding you correctly.
You understand rate of infection (i.e. infection rate) correctly. But I didn't formulate my question well. I should ask: are you saying that the ratio of older people within the newly infected has gone down? If so, can I see your source?
|
|
|
On December 25 2020 22:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2020 20:44 BlackJack wrote:On December 25 2020 19:11 Magic Powers wrote:On December 25 2020 17:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 25 2020 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 25 2020 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On December 24 2020 10:59 Magic Powers wrote:There's a phenomenon of infections going up and deaths not rising proportionally. This is in response to BlackJack's and JimmiC's discussion. The phenomenon has been observed in various countries like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, NL, Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US like NY, NJ and MA, just to name a few examples. In Sweden deaths have even gone down while infections were still going up https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ (that may've happened in a number of countries, but I haven't looked into it in such detail). It's a widespread phenomenon that you can observe on worldometers. But not all countries follow this trend. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan, many states in the US., and many more countries show a significant correlation between infections and deaths. And then there's deaths per million and CFR, which also vary dramatically between different countries. Another mystery that needs explanation. The point being that it's difficult to know the causes for the various observations in things like hospitalization rates, ER admission rates, etc. We just don't have the answers yet. Here's information on CFR for various countries. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ There are many factors that can explain this 1)Testing is a lot better now than it was in the Spring. So the lack of proportionality you are seeing now is actually the correct proportions of cases vs deaths, but the numbers were just so out of proportion in the Spring that the correct proportions seem "off" by comparison. 2) A larger percent of the infected are younger adults that have better outcomes 3) Treatment is better 4) The first wave killed off a lot of the vulnerable which means less vulnerable to kill off now. The supporting evidence for this is that states that had the deadliest waves in the Spring, e.g. NY/NJ are having relatively few deaths right now whereas states that never had a big first wave, e.g. California are having all-time record deaths right now. 1) I don't know what it means to say that testing has gotten "better". Better for what purpose? Also, the testing methodology varies drastically between countries, as the study on CFR shows that I'll link in this comment. Where can I find information on how the testing has changed over time? 2) Are you saying that previously the infection rate used to be higher among old(er) individuals than it has been as of late? If so, could you provide a source for this? 3) What do you mean treatment is "better", and what has made it better? 4) I haven't yet read sources for this, but it's a possible and valid explanation. There appears to be a meaningful correlation according to my own research. Unfortunately more research is needed for a definitive conclusion. In regards to point 3) "The reasons are not entirely obvious. There have been no miracle drugs, no new technologies and no great advances in treatment strategies for the disease that has infected more than 50 million and killed more than 1.2 million around the world. Shifts in the demographics of those being treated might have contributed to perceived boosts in survival. And at many hospitals, it seems clear that physicians are getting incrementally better at treating COVID-19 — particularly as health-care systems become less overwhelmed. Still, those gains could be erased by increasing case loads around the world." In short: no significant change in treatment has been observed. It can be speculated that hospitals are filled with fewer low(er)-risk individuals which would free up space and treatment for high(er)-risk individuals. But it can also be speculated that it's the opposite (for example in hospitals running at full capacity), i.e. a greater portion of the treated individuals are low(er)-risk. Also, treatment appears to be better when hospitals are less overwhelmed. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03132-4Study on CFR (July 2020) It essentially concludes that age and CFR are strongly linked. But it doesn't explain all the differences. Unfortunately the study is several months old. I wasn't able to find a more recent study that analyzes recent mortality trends and compares them with previous waves. "Our study reveals the strong and important role that the age distribution of cases can have on COVID-19 casefatality. However, even after we corrected for age distortions, important differences in CFRs remained across countries. This suggests that differences in the underlying health of a country's population and how effectively the health system cares for identified COVID-19 cases have meaningful effects on the share of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 who survive. Removing the noise from age distortions and focusing on why age-adjusted CFRs are higher in some countries than in others, and why they change within countries over time, will be essential for formulating best case strategies for preventing and reducing COVID-19 mortality." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343190396_The_Contribution_of_the_Age_Distribution_of_Cases_to_COVID-19_Case_Fatality_Across_Countries_A_9-Country_Demographic_StudyData on mortality rate trends in countries and US states (I haven't yet had time to read any of this) https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/cfed-district-data-briefs/cfddb-20200513-covid19-mortality-rate-trends-series.aspxMeta-study on IFR for additional information (not necessarily required for this discussion) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809 1) Case numbers have been known to be gated behind testing capacity for a long time for many countries and when they are it's a shit metric. Look at Swedens numbers for the two peaks, that difference is 100 % only testing. And we are still gated at the moment (just not critically as before). If you have too little tests (as in, you can't test EVERYONE) the numbers are skewed and you should look at deaths/hospital admittance for covid instead. 2) This is probably true for many countries and can be checked by looking at the ratio in age groups for people being tested positive. It can be hard to know for certain if you only tested people with severe symptoms way back but short term trends when testing are stable is a good read (in Sweden the proportion of young people went up even after testing was stable but you can't really compare to last peak because you didn't test so many young back then). You can also do antibody studies and just epidemiological studies when you test a cross section of the population. From everything I've heard it has been more young people getting it the second wave and since it's not that hard to check I assume this is correct. 3) New treatment protocols (putting patients on their belly, how to administer oxygen, waiting with ICU treatment longer, steroids etc) have improved outcomes. This is a well known fact. 4) This is historically true for every respiratory tract disease that mainly affect vulnerable people (look at past flue numbers for example with high years followed by lower ones) and it would be virtually impossible to not have this effect with covid. In regards to 2) There are other confounding variables like for example seasonal differences or policy and other things affecting behavior. Even if testing had remained exactly equal, the numbers would've likely changed. So it's not all down to testing. My question to BlackJack was about the rate of infections among old people, which would be a way to show that a smaller ratio of old people among all infected people could be expected. If the infection rate among all age groups remained stable, then the infection ratio between the groups should also stay the same. So I was hoping he'd provide information on that in particular. The news article he posted didn't contain such information. 3) I'm very interested, do you have a study on this? I'm not sure I follow what you mean by rate of infection. The rates that people are being infected are never stable. That's why the "Daily New Cases" graph are all sinusoidal in shape and not flat lined. People are being infected at a way higher rate right now then at any other time. If I am understanding you correctly. You understand rate of infection (i.e. infection rate) correctly. But I didn't formulate my question well. I should ask: are you saying that the ratio of older people within the newly infected has gone down? If so, can I see your source?
Spain posts a whole bunch of different numbers, including "over 64 year olds." Click on the "source" links for pdfs. It takes a while and some time to make sense of, but one thing Spain succeeded in was flattening the curve significantly for the 2nd wave, especially for deaths.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/
|
Just want to point out that the ratio of old to young people infected (or any other metric examining the distribution of age among cases, like median age) is not a great measure of the impact on older people (which is why it hopefully isn't reported on much)-the easiest way to drive down the ratio of young to old infections or lower the median age of the infected is to have more young people get infected. Raw counts are much, much more informative and useful.
|
JimmiC, I think this is another case of you reading what you want to see instead of what is actually written. Again, literally nothing you provided shows any information about a shortage of RTs or ICU beds or ICU doctors in California in the spring. If you do a control + F on this page and type in California you will discover that the word California does not even appear a single time in any article text you provided. I'm not sure what you are seeing but if you think it's just me that's not seeing it because I am "beyond reach" then I think you should ask some independent parties to also read that post and see if they see anything about a shortage of ICU beds, RTs, or intensivists in California.
|
|
|
https://www.businessinsider.com/doctors-san-francisco-bay-area-hospitals-flattened-curve-eerie-quiet-2020-4
"We expected right now to be some version of what was happening in New York, and instead what we've been left with is a hospital that's about half-empty," Dr. Jahan Fahimi, the medical director of the ER at the University of California San Francisco, told Business Insider.
Emergency rooms have plenty of beds and ventilators. Doctors are taking time off, or flying to New York to help there.
The flood of cases they feared never came.
"When you're walking through the halls of the hospital, it feels a little bit eerie at times," Dr. Sam Shen, a physician in Stanford's emergency department, told Business Insider.
"We had built out a scheduling platform whereby we'd have more physicians available to work, and instead we have given more physicians time off than we had anticipated," Fahimi said.
The ER is unusually empty, he added, so they sent 12 physicians and eight nurses to New York City.
Btw I looked into the doctors that were sent to New York and other hotspots and they weren't even just emergency doctors, there were also plenty of pulmonary/ICU doctors sent
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/13/san-francisco-doctors-recount-experience-fighting-coronavirus-in-nyc.html
Dr. Maya Kotas, a pulmonary and critical care doctor
Dr. Michael Peters, a pulmonary critical care doctor
Dr. Michelle Yu, a pulmonary and critical care doctor
FYI these doctors come from some of the best and most respected teaching hospitals in the entire country. I'm sure even people outside of the U.S. have heard of Stanford. I don't know why you are convinced there is some conspiracy and they are all lying to you when they describe "half-empty hospitals" that are eerily quiet.
Conveniently the article does contain the crux of my criticism that I have been posting about:
On Monday, the six counties that first went into lockdown announced that the policies would extend through at least the end of May.
What's the response to eerily quiet, half-empty hospitals and a surge that never came? 4 more weeks of Lockdown!
This will probably be my last post on the topic. Believe whatever version of reality you want, I don't really care.
|
Maybe i post this post at a different time.
|
|
|
It seems like government officials in Bulgaria are getting the Pfizer vaccine. Also US officials like Mike Pence. Could it be indication that it's the better vaccine? We'll see. 
|
It is an indication that it is the first to get approval. Moderna will likely be the next.
We vaccinated the first here in Denmark today (together with the rest of EU) I've been on call in case of anaphylaxis and so far none of the 200 we have had through our center has experienced any side-effects.
|
|
|
I would rather compare the mental health of groups large wearing more and less masks instead of individuals. Personally, it not seeing the faces of others is a much bigger issue than wearing the mask myself. That masks is indeed not enough to stop infections is mentioned once more.
I doubt if a single person in Spain isn't breaking the safe mask-wearing guidelines multiple times every day. How can you possibly wash your hands that much and also avoid touching it?
Masks are overrated. Period.
|
|
|
On December 28 2020 00:01 Slydie wrote:I would rather compare the mental health of groups large wearing more and less masks instead of individuals. Personally, it not seeing the faces of others is a much bigger issue than wearing the mask myself. That masks is indeed not enough to stop infections is mentioned once more. I doubt if a single person in Spain isn't breaking the safe mask-wearing guidelines multiple times every day. How can you possibly wash your hands that much and also avoid touching it? Masks are overrated. Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Efficacy_studies_for_COVID-19
Saying masks are overrated is like saying condoms are overrated then proceeding to have unprotected sex.
|
On December 28 2020 00:01 Slydie wrote:I would rather compare the mental health of groups large wearing more and less masks instead of individuals. Personally, it not seeing the faces of others is a much bigger issue than wearing the mask myself. That masks is indeed not enough to stop infections is mentioned once more. I doubt if a single person in Spain isn't breaking the safe mask-wearing guidelines multiple times every day. How can you possibly wash your hands that much and also avoid touching it? Masks are overrated. Period.
How are you defining overrated in this context? How effective do you think masks are?
|
On December 28 2020 01:59 Anc13nt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2020 00:01 Slydie wrote:I would rather compare the mental health of groups large wearing more and less masks instead of individuals. Personally, it not seeing the faces of others is a much bigger issue than wearing the mask myself. That masks is indeed not enough to stop infections is mentioned once more. I doubt if a single person in Spain isn't breaking the safe mask-wearing guidelines multiple times every day. How can you possibly wash your hands that much and also avoid touching it? Masks are overrated. Period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Efficacy_studies_for_COVID-19Saying masks are overrated is like saying condoms are overrated then proceeding to have unprotected sex.
No, it isn't. I have said it before, if condoms were so difficult to use correctly the country in Europe with the most condom use also had the most sexually transmitted diseases, yes, they would be very bad.
To illustrate the madness:
If you are asymptomatic and the face mask works, there WILL be virus on it. Hence, every time you touch any part of your mask, it is of extreme importance to keep your hands clean. Also, if your hands are infected and you touch your mask, you can get infected. They MUST be worn correctly to be effective, this is very known knowledge.
The problem is that legislation focuses on MASKS ON, and some misguided (imo) legislators even punish with fines and force the population to wear them in as many situations as physically and legally possible. What do you get? Certainly not an effective tool fighting the virus!
-You would have to wash your hands up to hundreds of times a day. Accidentally touched your mask because it fell off in the wind? Wash. Cigarette break? Wash before and after. Reposition a mask falling below your face? Wash before and after. Take a bit or sip of food? Wash before and after etc. etc. etc. Nobody does this, and it should not surprise anyone that facemask use has not saved any country from locking down after a significant first outbreak.
Instead of wearing it correctly, pure idiocy occurs, where people are more concerned about covering their face than anything else, holding masks with both hands in front of their mouth etc.
Bartenders, shopkeepers etc move around a lot, and end up touching their masks all the time, and then move on to plates, cups, food and groceries. No, of course they don't have time to wash their hands every other minute. I would absolutely feel a lot safer if they just didn't wear them.
Masks also create an incredible sense of false security. No, you can NOT move closer wearing a mask, but distancing, which is much more important, tends to go out the window.
I just saw the results from another lab test where mask were proved effective. In a lab it probably was, but real life conditions is a whole different ballgame.
The whole year, people in western countries have applauded stricter mask laws, but have those laws saved any of them from imposing lockdowns or other crippling measures? Of course not. They are not compatible with everyday life. Masks are overrated.
|
On December 28 2020 05:48 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2020 01:59 Anc13nt wrote:On December 28 2020 00:01 Slydie wrote:I would rather compare the mental health of groups large wearing more and less masks instead of individuals. Personally, it not seeing the faces of others is a much bigger issue than wearing the mask myself. That masks is indeed not enough to stop infections is mentioned once more. I doubt if a single person in Spain isn't breaking the safe mask-wearing guidelines multiple times every day. How can you possibly wash your hands that much and also avoid touching it? Masks are overrated. Period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Efficacy_studies_for_COVID-19Saying masks are overrated is like saying condoms are overrated then proceeding to have unprotected sex. No, it isn't. I have said it before, if condoms were so difficult to use correctly the country in Europe with the most condom use also had the most sexually transmitted diseases, yes, they would be very bad. To illustrate the madness: If you are asymptomatic and the face mask works, there WILL be virus on it. Hence, every time you touch any part of your mask, it is of extreme importance to keep your hands clean. Also, if your hands are infected and you touch your mask, you can get infected. They MUST be worn correctly to be effective, this is very known knowledge. The problem is that legislation focuses on MASKS ON, and some misguided (imo) legislators even punish with fines and force the population to wear them in as many situations as physically and legally possible. What do you get? Certainly not an effective tool fighting the virus! -You would have to wash your hands up to hundreds of times a day. Accidentally touched your mask because it fell off in the wind? Wash. Cigarette break? Wash before and after. Reposition a mask falling below your face? Wash before and after. Take a bit or sip of food? Wash before and after etc. etc. etc. Nobody does this, and it should not surprise anyone that facemask use has not saved any country from locking down after a significant first outbreak. Instead of wearing it correctly, pure idiocy occurs, where people are more concerned about covering their face than anything else, holding masks with both hands in front of their mouth etc. Bartenders, shopkeepers etc move around a lot, and end up touching their masks all the time, and then move on to plates, cups, food and groceries. No, of course they don't have time to wash their hands every other minute. I would absolutely feel a lot safer if they just didn't wear them. Masks also create an incredible sense of false security. No, you can NOT move closer wearing a mask, but distancing, which is much more important, tends to go out the window. I just saw the results from another lab test where mask were proved effective. In a lab it probably was, but real life conditions is a whole different ballgame. The whole year, people in western countries have applauded stricter mask laws, but have those laws saved any of them from imposing lockdowns or other crippling measures? Of course not. They are not compatible with everyday life. Masks are overrated.
Honestly, you're missing the point of masks. Masks are currently not meant to prevent a lockdown. They're meant to save lives. That benefit is as good as people's culture (same as democracy). If it's well observed, then it might prevent a lockdown (see China). If it's done liberally, well, you get what you're currently seeing in Europe. I feel a lot safer with KN95 + physical distance. The point is to combine both not to rely on any single approach.
On another topic:
Bulgarian officials are totally unprepared to receive Pfizer vaccines. They use a lorry which is usually just for sausages. Sausage vaccines ftw.
+ Show Spoiler +
Also: https://darik.news/the-vaccines-came-to-plovdiv-in-a-sausage-bus-and-were-placed-in-a-soviet-zil.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gm6NI5O.jpg)
