|
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. |
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On December 12 2021 08:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 07:50 WombaT wrote:On December 12 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 07:10 Erasme wrote:
How is wearing a mask during public transit affecting your life BlackJack ? You make it sound as some kind of herculean task, so i'd like to hear why you think so. I said nothing about it affecting my life. I have no issue wearing a mask. I have an issue with people thinking they get to be the deciders of what is an acceptable risk and what is selfish behavior. You never see these people calling out others for wearing cloth masks even though we know that cloth masks are pretty trash compared to surgical masks or n95s. Maybe if they brought the same energy to the cloth mask wearers I would actually believe them that they care about preventing transmission and not just virtue signaling. Well no, why would they? Yeah let’s apply the same energy to people using sub-optimal masks as those who just refuse to use masks for whatever reason they have. They’re not remotely equivalent and you must know this. Ridiculous post, and you’re usually pretty sensible By "sub-optimal" do you mean terrible? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/are-cloth-masks-effective-for-covid-surgical-masks-vs-kn95-explained.htmlShow nested quote +In an August study, currently under peer review, a group of researchers from universities including Yale and Stanford found that surgical masks are 95% effective at filtering out virus particles — compared to just 37% for cloth masks. No mask = 0% Cloth mask = 37% Surgical mask = 95% Imagine being 10x more concerned about going from 0% to 37% than from 37% to 95%.
37% from 0 is a literal mathematically infinitesimal jump up
Using better masks is a huge step up again Seems a sensible push to me, just ignores a lot
There’s a huge difference in people advocating for more effective mask wearing because it’s more effective and those doing so from a position of trying to justify their skepticism over mask wearing full stop.
You 100% know this and I’m genuinely disappointed you’re pursuing this particular line of inquiry, you have to know it’s bollocks.
It’s a bullshit attempt at point scoring and even in that guise is totally off base.
Come on man
|
On December 12 2021 08:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 08:10 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 07:50 WombaT wrote:On December 12 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 07:10 Erasme wrote:
How is wearing a mask during public transit affecting your life BlackJack ? You make it sound as some kind of herculean task, so i'd like to hear why you think so. I said nothing about it affecting my life. I have no issue wearing a mask. I have an issue with people thinking they get to be the deciders of what is an acceptable risk and what is selfish behavior. You never see these people calling out others for wearing cloth masks even though we know that cloth masks are pretty trash compared to surgical masks or n95s. Maybe if they brought the same energy to the cloth mask wearers I would actually believe them that they care about preventing transmission and not just virtue signaling. Well no, why would they? Yeah let’s apply the same energy to people using sub-optimal masks as those who just refuse to use masks for whatever reason they have. They’re not remotely equivalent and you must know this. Ridiculous post, and you’re usually pretty sensible By "sub-optimal" do you mean terrible? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/are-cloth-masks-effective-for-covid-surgical-masks-vs-kn95-explained.htmlIn an August study, currently under peer review, a group of researchers from universities including Yale and Stanford found that surgical masks are 95% effective at filtering out virus particles — compared to just 37% for cloth masks. No mask = 0% Cloth mask = 37% Surgical mask = 95% Imagine being 10x more concerned about going from 0% to 37% than from 37% to 95%. 37% from 0 is a literal mathematically infinitesimal jump up Using better masks is a huge step up again Seems a sensible push to me, just ignores a lot There’s a huge difference in people advocating for more effective mask wearing because it’s more effective and those doing so from a position of trying to justify their skepticism over mask wearing full stop. You 100% know this and I’m genuinely disappointed you’re pursuing this particular line of inquiry, you have to know it’s bollocks. It’s a bullshit attempt at point scoring and even in that guise is totally off base. Come on man
0% to 1% is also a literal mathematical infinite jump up then 
Also if you understood my point correctly you would understand that it's not about "skepticism over mask wearing full stop." It's entirely about people that think they get to decide the appropriate level of risk to not be a douchebag. Apparently the line between being a selfish douchebag and not being a selfish douchebag is somewhere between blocking 0 to 37% of your virus particles.
Or we can agree with Liquid`Drone's nuanced position that mask-wearing should be predicated upon how busy the hospitals are, the current level of community spread, etc. Do you think that anyone bothered to look up the level of community spread in GoTunk!'s region of Chile was at or what the medical experts there are saying before they criticized him for not wearing a mask?
|
On December 12 2021 08:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 07:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 11 2021 21:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2021 22:49 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 15:08 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2021 12:47 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 10:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Nah that doesn't matter at all; didn't you see the *gasp* for effect!? Did I consider that, *gasp*, some people just want to be selfish dickbags? Why yes. Yes I have. Doesn't mean you can't be fucking stupid in addition to. I have to remember sometimes to take some dark comfort from Darwin's learnings. I really doubt either of you have truly isolated yourself from all forms of public entertainment and communal interactions for the last 21 months. Have you seen a movie/show/play, gone out to eat, done any traveling, etc.?? Unless you've truly isolated yourself for the last 21 months all you are really announcing is that you think you get to decide the line between acceptable risk and selfishness. That's not selflessness, that's arrogance. Actually, yes, with the exception of going to work and doing the occasional mandatory errand (e.g., buying groceries), I've been doing that very serious level of isolation. But that's way more extreme than what we were talking about, anyway - that people should at least be willing to wear masks if the situation calls for it, as per medical safety guidelines. If you're actively ignoring medical guidelines, you either don't trust the experts or you don't care about doing your part to minimize risk. Those are the two groups. Same here. I've limited to essential trips to the store, work now that I've landed a new job(which fortunately is remote 2 days a week, and in general is very safe), and very limited gatherings, usually of 5 people or less, and also preceded/followed with some level of complete shut in to be safe. So yeah, I'm a little frustrated when people boast that they know what they're doing when they don't do even the bare minimum, which as you point out, is all we were talking about before the standard became total isolation. In that case I take back what I said. You both talk the talk and walk the walk so you've obviously earned the right to ridicule us selfish assholes that just want to live our lives. My only remaining question is what is the end-game for either of you? COVID isn't going to be eradicated anytime soon so...? It doesn't need to be eradicated. Eradicating a virus is virtually impossible. We just need it to not be causing death or long term effects. Omicron is a sign of hope that we can reach that eventually. I think you are essentially approaching the idea of "just wanting to live your life" incorrectly. In WW2, there was rationing. In many other periods of human existence, we didn't really have a choice what luxuries came and went. It is easy to look back in history and find times when the situations of the time made life worse than the ideal. It feels like you start from the basic premise that you deserve all of the luxuries you have had before. It feels like you view the world as fundamentally providing rather than a result of circumstance. I think this perspective is immature and kind of absent minded. When you can look back at history and see oscillations in quality of life, luxuries, etc, it seems inappropriate for you to get so whiny about a pandemic making life worse. This will likely not be the last time in your life that quality of life goes down. You are not owed "just trying to live my life". Just FYI, the so called "medical experts" here in the US don't advocate for the level of isolation that DarkPlasmaBall and NewSunShine have chosen for themselves or for your ideas that we "shouldn't have tourism." They understand that millions of people support their livelihoods from entertainment, tourism, restaurants, etc. They are capable of looking at more than just COVID deaths/hospitalizations. They also understand how socioeconomic status affects health and how much life expectancy will be lost when you'd rather have these people in the bread line. There's a reason why the medical experts and governments don't adopt your idea of "we shouldn't have tourism." It's not because you care so much more about human life than them, it's because your ideas are really really dumb. It feels like rather than addressing what I said, you are just sticking your tongue out at me here. Why not respond to what I said?
I have no idea how you want me to respond to your post. You essentially surmised that I'm hear to whine about my quality of life decreasing during the pandemic and I'm not entitled to keep the same quality of life. My quality of life has actually been at an all-time high. I've made more than twice as much money this year than any other year of my life, I've traveled just as much this year than any other year, going to Hawaii, Costa Rica, Sedona, Florida, Vegas Portland, Seattle, multiple National Parks, etc. I got to see my 2 favorite comedians Dave Chappelle and Louis CK in concert. You may not be aware of this but the whole country has been pretty much fully open for many months now.
So yeah, I didn't respond to what you actually said because I'm not here to brag about how well things have been going for me. How about instead you try to defend your ridiculous ideas of exiling the unvaccinated or ending all tourism instead of just deflecting any criticism as people whining about their quality of life decreasing?
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On December 12 2021 08:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 08:36 WombaT wrote:On December 12 2021 08:10 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 07:50 WombaT wrote:On December 12 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 07:10 Erasme wrote:
How is wearing a mask during public transit affecting your life BlackJack ? You make it sound as some kind of herculean task, so i'd like to hear why you think so. I said nothing about it affecting my life. I have no issue wearing a mask. I have an issue with people thinking they get to be the deciders of what is an acceptable risk and what is selfish behavior. You never see these people calling out others for wearing cloth masks even though we know that cloth masks are pretty trash compared to surgical masks or n95s. Maybe if they brought the same energy to the cloth mask wearers I would actually believe them that they care about preventing transmission and not just virtue signaling. Well no, why would they? Yeah let’s apply the same energy to people using sub-optimal masks as those who just refuse to use masks for whatever reason they have. They’re not remotely equivalent and you must know this. Ridiculous post, and you’re usually pretty sensible By "sub-optimal" do you mean terrible? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/are-cloth-masks-effective-for-covid-surgical-masks-vs-kn95-explained.htmlIn an August study, currently under peer review, a group of researchers from universities including Yale and Stanford found that surgical masks are 95% effective at filtering out virus particles — compared to just 37% for cloth masks. No mask = 0% Cloth mask = 37% Surgical mask = 95% Imagine being 10x more concerned about going from 0% to 37% than from 37% to 95%. 37% from 0 is a literal mathematically infinitesimal jump up Using better masks is a huge step up again Seems a sensible push to me, just ignores a lot There’s a huge difference in people advocating for more effective mask wearing because it’s more effective and those doing so from a position of trying to justify their skepticism over mask wearing full stop. You 100% know this and I’m genuinely disappointed you’re pursuing this particular line of inquiry, you have to know it’s bollocks. It’s a bullshit attempt at point scoring and even in that guise is totally off base. Come on man 0% to 1% is also a literal mathematical infinitesimal jump up Also if you understood my point correctly you would understand that it's not about "skepticism over mask wearing full stop." It's entirely about people that think they get to decide the appropriate level of risk to not be a douchebag. Apparently the line between being a selfish douchebag and not being a selfish douchebag is somewhere between blocking 0 to 37% of your virus particles. Or we can agree with Liquid`Drone's nuanced position that mask-wearing should be predicated upon how busy the hospitals are, the current level of community spread, etc. Do you think that anyone bothered to look up the level of community spread in GoTunk!'s region of Chile was at or what the medical experts there are saying before they criticized him for not wearing a mask?
Ok great but what’s your point?
Is masking sufficient or deficient? Which is it? You seem to delight in playing Devil’s advocate and changing tack when it suits.
A call for ‘nuance’ being ‘oh someone agrees with this point I made’ so they’re obviously nuanced
It’s bollocks, you’re consistently talking bollocks on this subject, maybe I’m being too harsh here but fuck sake
|
On December 12 2021 02:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2021 11:56 RKC wrote:
What's equally as bad (or even worse) than disinformation is hate speech.
There's a lot of subtle anti-Asian rhetoric insinuating that their governments and societies are backward. Yes, of course governance and education is not as good as Western liberal democracies. Yes, of course it's possible that statistics are less reliable there due to less transparency.
As someone with close familial and cultural ties to that part of the world (and more appraised of the real situation on the ground), I find some of the comments here are misleading, stereotypical, and insulting. To put it bluntly - you have no experience and credibility to speak for Asia, so don't make it seem like you do (and no, simply citing random online links of news sites which are equally prone to bias doesn't add anything to your views).
Still, I'm all for free speech and prefer to avoid personal attacks. So I'll just leave this general comment. But I just hope people can take this as a friendly precautionary advice for future posting... To what are you referring? I think, while not necessarily always informed with intimate personal experience or knowledge that folks have been quite complimentary about how the Covid response has been managed in Asia. Indeed many have expressed that the pre-existing culture of mask wearing that preceded Covid in many countries and that culture of consideration in terms of trying to minimise spreading of illness was a positive thing that many Western individualist values in this domain were inferior to. Unless there’s some exchange I’ve missed, indeed the general sentiment seems to be actively against the efforts of some to stigmatise China over the Covid issue.
Someone was dismissing East-Asian culture of wearing mask due to necessity from air pollution rather than health consciousness to avoid spread of infectious disease (confusing cities with seasonal haze problems). Another was insinuating a government using cremation as a means to hide COVID deaths.
Asia has its hits and misses with managing the pandemic. But it's frustrating to see how our laws, policies, and culture being mispresented to support whatever Western narrative that a particular poster wants to spin. Prime example being the stereotypical notion that most people follow SOP and take the jab because our subservient nature being ruled under autocratic policies (and past experiences with deadly flus). Whilst the subservience theory may hold true for general political and governance matters (free speech, corruption, etc), health is a different kettle fish altogether. Is it not possible that some Asian communities are just wiser in preserving their health and avoiding self-harm compared to more liberal capitalist societies?
Asia may be inferior to the West in many aspects of political, economic and cultural life. But that doesn't mean the region is terrible at managing the pandemic (or merely fluking through with better health outcomes).
Anyway, this isn't really a big deal. It's just mildly frustrating when any attempt by anyone to share different experiences (non-America and continental Europe) gets dismissed or trivialised.
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On December 12 2021 10:38 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 02:36 WombaT wrote:On December 11 2021 11:56 RKC wrote:
What's equally as bad (or even worse) than disinformation is hate speech.
There's a lot of subtle anti-Asian rhetoric insinuating that their governments and societies are backward. Yes, of course governance and education is not as good as Western liberal democracies. Yes, of course it's possible that statistics are less reliable there due to less transparency.
As someone with close familial and cultural ties to that part of the world (and more appraised of the real situation on the ground), I find some of the comments here are misleading, stereotypical, and insulting. To put it bluntly - you have no experience and credibility to speak for Asia, so don't make it seem like you do (and no, simply citing random online links of news sites which are equally prone to bias doesn't add anything to your views).
Still, I'm all for free speech and prefer to avoid personal attacks. So I'll just leave this general comment. But I just hope people can take this as a friendly precautionary advice for future posting... To what are you referring? I think, while not necessarily always informed with intimate personal experience or knowledge that folks have been quite complimentary about how the Covid response has been managed in Asia. Indeed many have expressed that the pre-existing culture of mask wearing that preceded Covid in many countries and that culture of consideration in terms of trying to minimise spreading of illness was a positive thing that many Western individualist values in this domain were inferior to. Unless there’s some exchange I’ve missed, indeed the general sentiment seems to be actively against the efforts of some to stigmatise China over the Covid issue. Someone was dismissing East-Asian culture of wearing mask due to necessity from air pollution rather than health consciousness to avoid spread of infectious disease (confusing cities with seasonal haze problems). Another was insinuating a government using cremation as a means to hide COVID deaths. Asia has its hits and misses with managing the pandemic. But it's frustrating to see how our laws, policies, and culture being mispresented to support whatever Western narrative that a particular poster wants to spin. Prime example being the stereotypical notion that most people follow SOP and take the jab because our subservient nature being ruled under autocratic policies (and past experiences with deadly flus). Whilst the subservience theory may hold true for general political and governance matters (free speech, corruption, etc), health is a different kettle fish altogether. Is it not possible that some Asian communities are just wiser in preserving their health and avoiding self-harm compared to more liberal capitalist societies? Asia may be inferior to the West in many aspects of political, economic and cultural life. But that doesn't mean the region is terrible at managing the pandemic (or merely fluking through with better health outcomes). Anyway, this isn't really a big deal. It's just mildly frustrating when any attempt by anyone to share different experiences (non-America and continental Europe) gets dismissed or trivialised.
I disagree with precisely 0% of this
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On December 12 2021 10:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 10:45 WombaT wrote:On December 12 2021 10:38 RKC wrote:On December 12 2021 02:36 WombaT wrote:On December 11 2021 11:56 RKC wrote:
What's equally as bad (or even worse) than disinformation is hate speech.
There's a lot of subtle anti-Asian rhetoric insinuating that their governments and societies are backward. Yes, of course governance and education is not as good as Western liberal democracies. Yes, of course it's possible that statistics are less reliable there due to less transparency.
As someone with close familial and cultural ties to that part of the world (and more appraised of the real situation on the ground), I find some of the comments here are misleading, stereotypical, and insulting. To put it bluntly - you have no experience and credibility to speak for Asia, so don't make it seem like you do (and no, simply citing random online links of news sites which are equally prone to bias doesn't add anything to your views).
Still, I'm all for free speech and prefer to avoid personal attacks. So I'll just leave this general comment. But I just hope people can take this as a friendly precautionary advice for future posting... To what are you referring? I think, while not necessarily always informed with intimate personal experience or knowledge that folks have been quite complimentary about how the Covid response has been managed in Asia. Indeed many have expressed that the pre-existing culture of mask wearing that preceded Covid in many countries and that culture of consideration in terms of trying to minimise spreading of illness was a positive thing that many Western individualist values in this domain were inferior to. Unless there’s some exchange I’ve missed, indeed the general sentiment seems to be actively against the efforts of some to stigmatise China over the Covid issue. Someone was dismissing East-Asian culture of wearing mask due to necessity from air pollution rather than health consciousness to avoid spread of infectious disease (confusing cities with seasonal haze problems). Another was insinuating a government using cremation as a means to hide COVID deaths. Asia has its hits and misses with managing the pandemic. But it's frustrating to see how our laws, policies, and culture being mispresented to support whatever Western narrative that a particular poster wants to spin. Prime example being the stereotypical notion that most people follow SOP and take the jab because our subservient nature being ruled under autocratic policies (and past experiences with deadly flus). Whilst the subservience theory may hold true for general political and governance matters (free speech, corruption, etc), health is a different kettle fish altogether. Is it not possible that some Asian communities are just wiser in preserving their health and avoiding self-harm compared to more liberal capitalist societies? Asia may be inferior to the West in many aspects of political, economic and cultural life. But that doesn't mean the region is terrible at managing the pandemic (or merely fluking through with better health outcomes). Anyway, this isn't really a big deal. It's just mildly frustrating when any attempt by anyone to share different experiences (non-America and continental Europe) gets dismissed or trivialised. I disagree with precisely 0% of this How about that I said that there was two better reasons then here and that helped to normalize and that it could happen here. My point was missed completely, or purposefully twisted.
That.
|
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much, regardless of who I'm talking to and what their argument happens to be that day. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks.
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks.
You forget sir that wearing a mask is tyranny
Is wearing a mask an almost no-detriment mitigation measure? Well yeah, it is but it’s tyrannical, which is the important thing
|
On December 11 2021 21:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2021 22:49 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 15:08 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2021 12:47 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 10:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 10 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Awesome! These will be most beneficial for people who already side with the science and medicine, of course, rather than those refusing to even wear masks. Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Nah that doesn't matter at all; didn't you see the *gasp* for effect!? Did I consider that, *gasp*, some people just want to be selfish dickbags? Why yes. Yes I have. Doesn't mean you can't be fucking stupid in addition to. I have to remember sometimes to take some dark comfort from Darwin's learnings. I really doubt either of you have truly isolated yourself from all forms of public entertainment and communal interactions for the last 21 months. Have you seen a movie/show/play, gone out to eat, done any traveling, etc.?? Unless you've truly isolated yourself for the last 21 months all you are really announcing is that you think you get to decide the line between acceptable risk and selfishness. That's not selflessness, that's arrogance. Actually, yes, with the exception of going to work and doing the occasional mandatory errand (e.g., buying groceries), I've been doing that very serious level of isolation. But that's way more extreme than what we were talking about, anyway - that people should at least be willing to wear masks if the situation calls for it, as per medical safety guidelines. If you're actively ignoring medical guidelines, you either don't trust the experts or you don't care about doing your part to minimize risk. Those are the two groups. Same here. I've limited to essential trips to the store, work now that I've landed a new job(which fortunately is remote 2 days a week, and in general is very safe), and very limited gatherings, usually of 5 people or less, and also preceded/followed with some level of complete shut in to be safe. So yeah, I'm a little frustrated when people boast that they know what they're doing when they don't do even the bare minimum, which as you point out, is all we were talking about before the standard became total isolation. In that case I take back what I said. You both talk the talk and walk the walk so you've obviously earned the right to ridicule us selfish assholes that just want to live our lives. My only remaining question is what is the end-game for either of you? COVID isn't going to be eradicated anytime soon so...?
On December 12 2021 07:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 11 2021 21:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2021 22:49 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 15:08 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2021 12:47 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 10:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2021 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:On December 10 2021 09:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Have you considered some young/vaccinated people know they have a higher chance to get covid without mask, but just, *gasps* don't care about mitigating further a minuscule risk? The risk was miniscule enough to kill millions across the world. Nah that doesn't matter at all; didn't you see the *gasp* for effect!? Did I consider that, *gasp*, some people just want to be selfish dickbags? Why yes. Yes I have. Doesn't mean you can't be fucking stupid in addition to. I have to remember sometimes to take some dark comfort from Darwin's learnings. I really doubt either of you have truly isolated yourself from all forms of public entertainment and communal interactions for the last 21 months. Have you seen a movie/show/play, gone out to eat, done any traveling, etc.?? Unless you've truly isolated yourself for the last 21 months all you are really announcing is that you think you get to decide the line between acceptable risk and selfishness. That's not selflessness, that's arrogance. Actually, yes, with the exception of going to work and doing the occasional mandatory errand (e.g., buying groceries), I've been doing that very serious level of isolation. But that's way more extreme than what we were talking about, anyway - that people should at least be willing to wear masks if the situation calls for it, as per medical safety guidelines. If you're actively ignoring medical guidelines, you either don't trust the experts or you don't care about doing your part to minimize risk. Those are the two groups. Same here. I've limited to essential trips to the store, work now that I've landed a new job(which fortunately is remote 2 days a week, and in general is very safe), and very limited gatherings, usually of 5 people or less, and also preceded/followed with some level of complete shut in to be safe. So yeah, I'm a little frustrated when people boast that they know what they're doing when they don't do even the bare minimum, which as you point out, is all we were talking about before the standard became total isolation. In that case I take back what I said. You both talk the talk and walk the walk so you've obviously earned the right to ridicule us selfish assholes that just want to live our lives. My only remaining question is what is the end-game for either of you? COVID isn't going to be eradicated anytime soon so...? It doesn't need to be eradicated. Eradicating a virus is virtually impossible. We just need it to not be causing death or long term effects. Omicron is a sign of hope that we can reach that eventually. I think you are essentially approaching the idea of "just wanting to live your life" incorrectly. In WW2, there was rationing. In many other periods of human existence, we didn't really have a choice what luxuries came and went. It is easy to look back in history and find times when the situations of the time made life worse than the ideal. It feels like you start from the basic premise that you deserve all of the luxuries you have had before. It feels like you view the world as fundamentally providing rather than a result of circumstance. I think this perspective is immature and kind of absent minded. When you can look back at history and see oscillations in quality of life, luxuries, etc, it seems inappropriate for you to get so whiny about a pandemic making life worse. This will likely not be the last time in your life that quality of life goes down. You are not owed "just trying to live my life". Just FYI, the so called "medical experts" here in the US don't advocate for the level of isolation that DarkPlasmaBall and NewSunShine have chosen for themselves or for your ideas that we "shouldn't have tourism." They understand that millions of people support their livelihoods from entertainment, tourism, restaurants, etc. They are capable of looking at more than just COVID deaths/hospitalizations. They also understand how socioeconomic status affects health and how much life expectancy will be lost when you'd rather have these people in the bread line. There's a reason why the medical experts and governments don't adopt your idea of "we shouldn't have tourism." It's not because you care so much more about human life than them, it's because your ideas are really really dumb.
Multiple people have already responded to your posts, so I apologize if I'm being a little redundant here. GoTuNk! was specifically referring to people who weren't following medical advice, so it has nothing to do with the fact that I've been quarantining as much as possible (even moreso than what's considered necessary by the medical community). If the scientific consensus is a specific set of suggestions, and I take them even further, I'm not expecting everyone to take them to the extent that I do. I'm expecting everyone to take them to the recommended extent.
As far as people "just wanting to live their lives", I have two points to make:
1. I've made necessary changes to my lifestyle to deal with our current reality, but I'm still absolutely enjoying my life. It would have been great to see more people (in person) on a regular basis, but accommodations have led to new hobbies (trying out new online board games with friends, learning D&D for the first time, getting into game development, and other silver linings), so I've been trying new things and making the best out of our situation.
2. The world has changed, and if someone is refusing to get vaccinated or wear a mask (assuming that's the scientific consensus) because they won't even make the bare minimum effort to protect themselves and others, then they need to grow the fuck up.
As far as what I'll be doing in the future to deal with the potentially-endemic nature of covid: I'll do what the experts recommend. For example, I get an annual flu shot, and I hope that we can eventually get to a point where an annual covid shot can make our situation reasonably manageable. I don't expect that the medical consensus will be that we ought to wear masks forever. If more people took this seriously in the first place, we wouldn't even be in a mess this extreme.
|
On December 12 2021 11:12 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks. You forget sir that wearing a mask is tyranny Is wearing a mask an almost no-detriment mitigation measure? Well yeah, it is but it’s tyrannical, which is the important thing
Yes, this is the point I was going for 
|
about 60% to 80% of old people(depending on what 'old' means here) deaths each year was caused by flu/flu complications. that will continue to happen but instead of covid flu you'll die of covid19 flu...
there will never come a point in which covid will not kill. it has forever killed and will forever kill (forever as far as your life is concerned).
|
On December 12 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 07:10 Erasme wrote:
How is wearing a mask during public transit affecting your life BlackJack ? You make it sound as some kind of herculean task, so i'd like to hear why you think so. I said nothing about it affecting my life. I have no issue wearing a mask. I have an issue with people thinking they get to be the deciders of what is an acceptable risk and what is selfish behavior. You never see these people calling out others for wearing cloth masks even though we know that cloth masks are pretty trash compared to surgical masks or n95s. Maybe if they brought the same energy to the cloth mask wearers I would actually believe them that they care about preventing transmission and not just virtue signaling.
How do you figure people are not calling out cloth masks? Seems like a bold assumption to make and generalise.
|
On December 12 2021 17:25 xM(Z wrote:
about 60% to 80% of old people(depending on what 'old' means here) deaths each year was caused by flu/flu complications. that will continue to happen but instead of covid flu you'll die of covid19 flu...
there will never come a point in which covid will not kill. it has forever killed and will forever kill (forever as far as your life is concerned).
The big difference is the overall lethality and problems outside of 'old' people. The group of 'old' people was wider and even people that normally get mildly impacted by the flu (age and general health) are having problems. Below images just look at lethality but secondary problems also seems higher.
I agree with the other point though. We will not get rid of Covid19 based on current actions taken, just have to hope for a milder mutation taking over so it becomes a "normal" flu.
https://i.insider.com/5e5fc740fee23d14eb3dd212?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3YCWMFC.png)
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1632/idt2/idt2/2808f0e3-1f2f-4778-8b5f-447923a8b931/image/816![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/68cwdpG.jpg)
|
sure but then it becomes a problem of balance between how much we should endure vs how many lives "we save".
thing is, the collateral damage needs to be accepted either way because people die and will die because of it.
this crucifying of the many to save a handful ... i mean, i'm sorry but fuck that. who wants to be protected should get the vaccine and let the others die(or live, because two thirds of them barely show symptoms).
|
On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much, regardless of who I'm talking to and what their argument happens to be that day. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks.
I've never worn any cloth masks. I only wear surgical masks or n95 respirators because the science is quite clear that these are more effective than cloth masks. I don't consider myself less selfish than you just because you choose to do the "bare minimum" when you could easily be doing just as much as me. If I was doing the "bare minimum" I wouldn't be criticizing anyone.
|
On December 12 2021 21:23 xM(Z wrote:
sure but then it becomes a problem of balance between how much we should endure vs how many lives "we save".
thing is, the collateral damage needs to be accepted either way because people die and will die because of it.
this crucifying of the many to save a handful ... i mean, i'm sorry but fuck that. who wants to be protected should get the vaccine and let the others die(or live, because two thirds of them barely show symptoms).
Getting a vaccine or temporarily wearing a mask isn't being crucified. That level of hyperbole is just plain stupid.
And... for about the millionth time... the people who are being safe and following guidelines can still be infected by people who are not, so it's not just a matter of letting the morons kill themselves while the pro-science/pro-medicine people lead unaffected lives. It's not just about helping yourself; it's also about helping your neighbor.
|
so what if you get infected if you're vaccinated?; your pro-science/pro-medicine people say you should be mostly fine.
|
On December 12 2021 21:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much, regardless of who I'm talking to and what their argument happens to be that day. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks. I've never worn any cloth masks. I only wear surgical masks or n95 respirators because the science is quite clear that these are more effective than cloth masks. I don't consider myself less selfish than you just because you choose to do the "bare minimum" when you could easily be doing just as much as me. If I was doing the "bare minimum" I wouldn't be criticizing anyone.
Are there any studies comparing surgical, n95 and multilayer cloth masks with a filter layer? I recall reading that there is a significant difference between multilayer cloth masks with filters and ordinary cloth masks. I've also noticed that most people wearing surgical/n95 masks have large gaps between their face and the mask, with the exception of medical staff wearing n95 masks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
