Coronavirus COVID-19

[SeattleGriz]

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vac ... -all-phds/

I didn't know there were so many MAGATs with PhD's. Thank you Trump!

[AshevilleApp]

Looks like Buncombe County will require masking indoors again sometime next week. I think the vote will be Tuesday, but it seems like a formality at this point. It's frustrating, but I know a couple of RN's who are pretty convincing of the need for it based on recent work experience. I trust RN's more than government officials. Shit.

Please don't.

A bit of an understatement there.

[CID1990]

I think this is the best place for this story. This is a bit of a long story but it happened last night and thought I would share.

Last night, MrsCCU, myself and some friends attended a group meeting of Drinking Liberally. My wife and her friend have gone to 1 other event and said it was lowkey but there are 1 or 2 loud members who, " make Bernie look like a Republican." Last night was my first (and last) time attending.

Let's go back a few days - on Tuesday there was a School Board meeting about a group of pro mask people tried to ask why all other safety precautions, not including masks, were removed. They weren't successful and it sounds like it's mainly due to 1 disruptive anti-masker Karen who was coughing on people, yelling at people and screaming at the children present that "their parents are killing them," as well as using time to present her "evidence" that wearing a mask for 5 minute produces dangerous levels of Carbon Monoxide and you'll die.

After that shit storm of a meeting, a Republican board member reached out to this group to apologize and said he wants to hear their concerns. They invited the man to last nights meeting.

So at the meeting, he gives his background and explains to the group why their concerns aren't being heard. TL/DR - they're disorganized and don't understand how the School Board and School District work. Having said all that, he said he was for masks.

The karens (mostly 2 women) started badgering him about 2 different questions which he tried to explain several times until he finally told them he won't answer any questions while being attacked and their tones were unacceptable. The two questions:
1. What can we do to get rid of the Superintendent (meanwhile this is the guy that for the past decade has taken our school district from the middle of the pack to the #1 district in SC.)
2. Will he appoint or request a special commission to speak with local experts/leaders and mandate masks be worn in school.

The 2nd question was asked 5x, 5 different ways and each time he said he can't promise that. That didn't go over well..at all. It's at this time that I finally spoke up and mentioned that this guy isn't going to promise something that's extremely difficult to deliver on and that he's already stated that he's having background conversations concerning COVID safety and protocols. This is where I got my first "boo". The 2nd was while asking a question, Karen #2 interrupted me, prompting me to say, " I'm speaking, don't interrupt. Don't be rude." This came with a scoff, an eat shit grin and then her looking at her husband who did nothing.

Next up, my buddy Will. He's a bigger asshole than I am. He asked the very simple question, " You, the board, the district, administrators are getting's 1000s of emails and calls but do you guys understand what this group wants?" The board member said no. That pissed off the group, to which prompted both us to say that there is zero organization, zero understanding of how this works and that's part of the problem. After getting a thank you from the board member, we can sense that "Drinking Liberally" doesn't really want outside thinkers. I even suggested that I would act as a lobbyist/liaison for the group and that was shot down.

In the end, I thanked the guy for stepping up and went home. My wife tells me that the facebook group is bitching about my buddy and I b/c we "mainsplained" something that Karen #2 agreed she didn't understand.


Not that I would go back, but i'm quite certain i'm not welcomed back at that bullshit group which is basically dominated by 2 Karens.

I'm just curious how you thought a group called drinking liberally wasn't going to be a goat fuck, and why you bothered in the first place

[AZGrizFan]

My question is this: If you’re a man, and you’re explaining something someone doesn’t understand, how can it NOT be considered “mansplaining”?

[kalm]

My question is this: If you’re a man, and you’re explaining something someone doesn’t understand, how can it NOT be considered “mansplaining”?

Would you like me to mansplain it to you?

[SuperHornet]

OH judge orders man caught with fentanyl to be vaccinated within 60 days as a condition of probation or go to jail.

That sounds kinda fishy to me. What's the connection between fentanyl and COVID? I'm also wondering if there's a racial angle here: the judge is Caucasian, while the young man involved is African-American. Has this judge made this requirement for Caucasians coming before him?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-judge-o ... 32189.html

[UNI88]

My question is this: If you’re a man, and you’re explaining something someone doesn’t understand, how can it NOT be considered “mansplaining”?

Would you like me to kalmsplain it to you?

FYP

[kalm]

Would you like me to kalmsplain it to you?

FYP

[93henfan]

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vac ... -all-phds/

So, it's clear that some people are undereducated, and some overeducated.

-93henfan, MBA

[Ivytalk]

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vac ... -all-phds/

So, it's clear that some people are undereducated, and some overeducated.

-93henfan, MBA

JSO has to find some data-driven excuse for those PhDs. I guess he’ll challenge the sample size, or some such bullshit.

[JohnStOnge]

So, it's clear that some people are undereducated, and some overeducated.

-93henfan, MBA

JSO has to find some data-driven excuse for those PhDs. I guess he’ll challenge the sample size, or some such bullshit.

I clicked on the link to the study and I don't think it's published yet. That doesn't mean it has to be wrong. But I don't think it is. Also, Iooked at the methods and I don't think they used probability sampling at all. Looks to me like it was an on line sample of opportunity thing. We'll see if the findings hold up.

For what it's worth, the American Medical Association did a survey during which 96% of physicians said they are already vaccinated and 45% of the remainder said they plan to be. That'll raise it to about 98%. See https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p ... t-covid-19.

UPDATE: The survey thing is not PEER reviewed yet. I saw that at https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19 ... 90-million. I am not a big fan of PEER review but that's mostly because I think it lets a bunch of mistakes through. In fact I KNOW it does. But let's see if it gets through PEER review and go from there.

[JohnStOnge]

Thinking again about how hard it apparently is to get people to understand that the primary purpose of mask wearing is source control. The primary benefit is that an infected person wearing a mask will reduce the risk that the infection will be passed to someone else.

In that regard, I shake my head listening to demagogues like DeSantis talking about how if a parent wants their kid to wear a mask they can just let their kid wear a mask. That completely missed the point. The risk reduction for your kid comes when all the people AROUND them wear masks. It's not when THEY wear a mask. If they go to school wearing a mask and all or half of the other kids aren't wearing masks, they're not getting the risk reduction.

Reminds me of when I read an editorial by a conservative pundit during 2020 saying the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 36a5-H.pdf shows that masks don't work because there was no significant difference between cases and controls i terms of mask wearing. No. Because that's not the kind of thing you should be looking at the assess the effectiveness of mask wearing.

The same study showed a statistically significant difference between cases and control in terms of how many of them had been to restaurants and/or bars where "None/a few" OTHER people were "following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing."

Just always bear in mind that a study comparing infection rates among people who wear masks to rates among people not wearing masks is not asking the right question if the aim is to know whether masks work.

[AZGrizFan]

Thinking again about how hard it apparently is to get people to understand that the primary purpose of mask wearing is source control. The primary benefit is that an infected person wearing a mask will reduce the risk that the infection will be passed to someone else.

In that regard, I shake my head listening to demagogues like DeSantis talking about how if a parent wants their kid to wear a mask they can just let their kid wear a mask. That completely missed the point. The risk reduction for your kid comes when all the people AROUND them wear masks. It's not when THEY wear a mask. If they go to school wearing a mask and all or half of the other kids aren't wearing masks, they're not getting the risk reduction.

Reminds me of when I read an editorial by a conservative pundit during 2020 saying the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 36a5-H.pdf shows that masks don't work because there was no significant difference between cases and controls i terms of mask wearing. No. Because that's not the kind of thing you should be looking at the assess the effectiveness of mask wearing.

The same study showed a statistically significant difference between cases and control in terms of how many of them had been to restaurants and/or bars where "None/a few" OTHER people were "following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing."

Just always bear in mind that a study comparing infection rates among people who wear masks to rates among people not wearing masks is not asking the right question if the aim is to know whether masks work.

So it’s not important for ME to wear a mask, it’s more important for YOU to wear one.

[kalm]

Thinking again about how hard it apparently is to get people to understand that the primary purpose of mask wearing is source control. The primary benefit is that an infected person wearing a mask will reduce the risk that the infection will be passed to someone else.

In that regard, I shake my head listening to demagogues like DeSantis talking about how if a parent wants their kid to wear a mask they can just let their kid wear a mask. That completely missed the point. The risk reduction for your kid comes when all the people AROUND them wear masks. It's not when THEY wear a mask. If they go to school wearing a mask and all or half of the other kids aren't wearing masks, they're not getting the risk reduction.

Reminds me of when I read an editorial by a conservative pundit during 2020 saying the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 36a5-H.pdf shows that masks don't work because there was no significant difference between cases and controls i terms of mask wearing. No. Because that's not the kind of thing you should be looking at the assess the effectiveness of mask wearing.

The same study showed a statistically significant difference between cases and control in terms of how many of them had been to restaurants and/or bars where "None/a few" OTHER people were "following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing."

Just always bear in mind that a study comparing infection rates among people who wear masks to rates among people not wearing masks is not asking the right question if the aim is to know whether masks work.

Good stuff on this as usual, my comrade!

DeSantis’s stance is purely political. He needs to show the strong leader/government is the bad guy (except when it’s me) stance to win the primary. It’s a calculated risk that Covid won’t get bad enough to hurt him more than rallying the base. Hey! What’s a few more lives anyway?

[AZGrizFan]

Thinking again about how hard it apparently is to get people to understand that the primary purpose of mask wearing is source control. The primary benefit is that an infected person wearing a mask will reduce the risk that the infection will be passed to someone else.

In that regard, I shake my head listening to demagogues like DeSantis talking about how if a parent wants their kid to wear a mask they can just let their kid wear a mask. That completely missed the point. The risk reduction for your kid comes when all the people AROUND them wear masks. It's not when THEY wear a mask. If they go to school wearing a mask and all or half of the other kids aren't wearing masks, they're not getting the risk reduction.

Reminds me of when I read an editorial by a conservative pundit during 2020 saying the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 36a5-H.pdf shows that masks don't work because there was no significant difference between cases and controls i terms of mask wearing. No. Because that's not the kind of thing you should be looking at the assess the effectiveness of mask wearing.

The same study showed a statistically significant difference between cases and control in terms of how many of them had been to restaurants and/or bars where "None/a few" OTHER people were "following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing."

Just always bear in mind that a study comparing infection rates among people who wear masks to rates among people not wearing masks is not asking the right question if the aim is to know whether masks work.

Good stuff on this as usual, my comrade!

DeSantis’s stance is purely political. He needs to show the strong leader/government is the bad guy (except for me) stance to win the primary.

If by “political” you mean “personal responsibility and freedom of choice” then yes, his stance is purely political.

[UNI88]

Thinking again about how hard it apparently is to get people to understand that the primary purpose of mask wearing is source control. The primary benefit is that an infected person wearing a mask will reduce the risk that the infection will be passed to someone else.

In that regard, I shake my head listening to demagogues like DeSantis talking about how if a parent wants their kid to wear a mask they can just let their kid wear a mask. That completely missed the point. The risk reduction for your kid comes when all the people AROUND them wear masks. It's not when THEY wear a mask. If they go to school wearing a mask and all or half of the other kids aren't wearing masks, they're not getting the risk reduction.

Reminds me of when I read an editorial by a conservative pundit during 2020 saying the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 36a5-H.pdf shows that masks don't work because there was no significant difference between cases and controls i terms of mask wearing. No. Because that's not the kind of thing you should be looking at the assess the effectiveness of mask wearing.

The same study showed a statistically significant difference between cases and control in terms of how many of them had been to restaurants and/or bars where "None/a few" OTHER people were "following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing."

Just always bear in mind that a study comparing infection rates among people who wear masks to rates among people not wearing masks is not asking the right question if the aim is to know whether masks work.

Good stuff on this as usual, my kalmrade!

DeSantis’s stance is purely political. He needs to show the strong leader/government is the bad guy (except when it’s me) stance to win the primary. It’s a calculated risk that Covid won’t get bad enough to hurt him more than rallying the base. Hey! What’s a few more lives anyway?

How much risk reduction do we have if everyone in a school wears a mask? Or everyone in a grocery store? Walking down the sidewalk/path?

I'm not against masks, especially if it means students are in-person for school but DeSantis isn't the only one whose stance is political. Biden's stances have also been political.

[BDKJMU]

ANTeeFA vs Anti Maskers brawl in LA. Looks like ANTeefa got the worst of it..The 1st minute+ is mostly chest puffing. Then all out brawl before riot police moved in.

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

Good stuff on this as usual, my kalmrade!

DeSantis’s stance is purely political. He needs to show the strong leader/government is the bad guy (except when it’s me) stance to win the primary. It’s a calculated risk that Covid won’t get bad enough to hurt him more than rallying the base. Hey! What’s a few more lives anyway?

How much risk reduction do we have if everyone in a school wears a mask? Or everyone in a grocery store? Walking down the sidewalk/path?

I'm not against masks, especially if it means students are in-person for school but DeSantis isn't the only one whose stance is political. Biden's stances have also been political.

Enough risk reduction for the vast majority of experts worldwide.

Other mitigation’s we’ve debated. Deaths, long term health effects, strain on systems, freedom, social order, and greater understanding if disease all factor in. It’s late but we can discuss further tomorrow or whenever.

I’d be curious to see which health experts are on Desantis’s side.

[UNI88]

How much risk reduction do we have if everyone in a school wears a mask? Or everyone in a grocery store? Walking down the sidewalk/path?

I'm not against masks, especially if it means students are in-person for school but DeSantis isn't the only one whose stance is political. Biden's stances have also been political.

Enough risk reduction for the vast majority of experts worldwide.

Other mitigation’s we’ve debated. Deaths, long term health effects, strain on systems, freedom, social order, and greater understanding if disease all factor in. It’s late but we can discuss further tomorrow or whenever.

I’d be curious to see which health experts are on Desantis’s side.

I'm not a sheep. I have a functioning brain that I want to use. Tell me how effective different types of masks are in reducing (not preventing) spread. It doesn't need to be exact, a range is acceptable.

- single layer cloth mask
- double layer cloth mask
- multi layer mask with HEPA filtering
- medical mask

Otherwise you're trying to blow smoke up my ass.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Thinking again about how hard it apparently is to get people to understand that the primary purpose of mask wearing is source control. The primary benefit is that an infected person wearing a mask will reduce the risk that the infection will be passed to someone else.

In that regard, I shake my head listening to demagogues like DeSantis talking about how if a parent wants their kid to wear a mask they can just let their kid wear a mask. That completely missed the point. The risk reduction for your kid comes when all the people AROUND them wear masks. It's not when THEY wear a mask. If they go to school wearing a mask and all or half of the other kids aren't wearing masks, they're not getting the risk reduction.

Reminds me of when I read an editorial by a conservative pundit during 2020 saying the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 36a5-H.pdf shows that masks don't work because there was no significant difference between cases and controls i terms of mask wearing. No. Because that's not the kind of thing you should be looking at the assess the effectiveness of mask wearing.

The same study showed a statistically significant difference between cases and control in terms of how many of them had been to restaurants and/or bars where "None/a few" OTHER people were "following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing."

Just always bear in mind that a study comparing infection rates among people who wear masks to rates among people not wearing masks is not asking the right question if the aim is to know whether masks work.

Again, ad nauseum, the reduction in risk of infection in wearing "masks" as we understand them is so negligible it is insignificant. Only if we are referring to N95 masks is the reduction in risk significant.

But we are not talking about N95 masks. We are largely talking about cotton cloth or woven polyurethane masks which 99.9% of all people are wearing.

Social distancing and heightened hygiene practices have a much more significant reduction to the risk of infection than cloth masks do. There is plenty of legitimate scholarship on this if you would bother to look it up instead of repeating this bullshit performance art misinformation about cloth masks.

[SeattleGriz]

Thinking again about how hard it apparently is to get people to understand that the primary purpose of mask wearing is source control. The primary benefit is that an infected person wearing a mask will reduce the risk that the infection will be passed to someone else.

In that regard, I shake my head listening to demagogues like DeSantis talking about how if a parent wants their kid to wear a mask they can just let their kid wear a mask. That completely missed the point. The risk reduction for your kid comes when all the people AROUND them wear masks. It's not when THEY wear a mask. If they go to school wearing a mask and all or half of the other kids aren't wearing masks, they're not getting the risk reduction.

Reminds me of when I read an editorial by a conservative pundit during 2020 saying the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 36a5-H.pdf shows that masks don't work because there was no significant difference between cases and controls i terms of mask wearing. No. Because that's not the kind of thing you should be looking at the assess the effectiveness of mask wearing.

The same study showed a statistically significant difference between cases and control in terms of how many of them had been to restaurants and/or bars where "None/a few" OTHER people were "following recommendations such as wearing a face covering or mask of any kind or social distancing."

Just always bear in mind that a study comparing infection rates among people who wear masks to rates among people not wearing masks is not asking the right question if the aim is to know whether masks work.

Again, ad nauseum, the reduction in risk of infection in wearing "masks" as we understand them is so negligible it is insignificant. Only if we are referring to N95 masks is the reduction in risk significant.

But we are not talking about N95 masks. We are largely talking about cotton cloth or woven polyurethane masks which 99.9% of all people are wearing.

Social distancing and heightened hygiene practices have a much more significant reduction to the risk of infection than cloth masks do. There is plenty of legitimate scholarship on this if you would bother to look it up instead of repeating this bullshit performance art misinformation about cloth masks.

Been gargling with some nasty ass generic scope lately in regards to heightened hygiene.

[SeattleGriz]

Guy says Ivermectin works and India is the latest to prove. I don't have the time and energy to chase down all his links, but keep reading stories like this. Outside of the US in poor countries, they are having success. Guy's an MD and says he gets great results with his patients.

One sidenote is he talks about how to inspect a Wikipedia page so you can see what was argued over for content.

Feel free to tear the article apart. I'm not married to it. Just posting because I see these types of articles and CID asked if I was an Ivermectin guy. I'm not, but these articles make me wonder if we've been missing the boat.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... 19364.html

News of India's defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one's face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.

[AZGrizFan]

I’m still struggling to understand this “much more deadly” Delta variant. In almost NO cases, in ANY state, does the death curve even remotely resemble the curves from Jan-April. Cases up 10x, deaths up 2x. I mean, it’s almost like the first two waves took out the vulnerable already, and now it’s gonna act more like the flu.

[UNI88]

I’m still struggling to understand this “much more deadly” Delta variant. In almost NO cases, in ANY state, does the death curve even remotely resemble the curves from Jan-April. Cases up 10x, deaths up 2x. I mean, it’s almost like the first two waves took out the vulnerable already, and now it’s gonna act more like the flu.

How do cases vs deaths look for the unvaccinated? Because of vaccinations, I'm not sure you can compare overall numbers from now to overall numbers from then.