NFR Do Yourself a Favor.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jake Dogfish

Active Member
I have been trying to restrain myself. It is this sort of thinking that has led to numbers like 22,461,696 and 378,204. It is why our hospital systems are now overwhelmed.

I hate to say, because you may be an otherwise very decent person, but I am glad you are not my neighbor and don't live in my community.
Why? I always wear a mask in public and follow all the guidelines.
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
Why? I always wear a mask in public and follow all the guidelines.
Your question led me to believe you were a pandemic denier. Perhaps I misunderstood you, if I did, my apologies.

Why do some roads require studs or chains during winter storms, why don't we need them all the time? The mask-wearing ordinances are temporary measures to try an limit the spread of the SARS-COV2 virus. We do not need them all the time because we are not always in the midst of a deadly pandemic with a novel and deadly virus for which we have no immunity.

You will sometimes notice individuals who wear masks all the time in public (ie, even when not in the midst of a pandemic). These individuals are likely immune-compromised and need to wear them for their self-protection. In the current environment, we should all wear for self-protection, protection of our families and our community.

Thank you for wearing a mask.
 

jccady

New Member
As the studies pile up, the evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger.


For the sake of your family, your neighbors and your community, please just wear a mask, it is not a lot to ask.

cheers
Where is the study with evidence piling up? The is a decision analytical model of the spread of CV if you make the assumption that a pre-symptomatic person has 75% of the transmission rate of a symptomatic person.

Here is the method: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that this decision analytical study, which involved no enrollment of human subjects, did not require institutional review board approval."

You do know "Where the Red Fern Grows" was not about growing ferns don't you?
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
Where is the study with evidence piling up? The is a decision analytical model of the spread of CV if you make the assumption that a pre-symptomatic person has 75% of the transmission rate of a symptomatic person.

Here is the method: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that this decision analytical study, which involved no enrollment of human subjects, did not require institutional review board approval."

You do know "Where the Red Fern Grows" was not about growing ferns don't you?
Correct, it is a modeling study. No patients or subjects were "enrolled" in the study, thus; IRB approval was not needed.

In case you are unaware, IRBs are boards that review clinical study protocols and Informed Consent Forms, etc, to ensure the studies are ethical and safe for subjects to be enrolled. This in no way invalidates the study. JAMA is a highly respected journal and this study went through extensive peer review.

Cheers
 

jccady

New Member
Correct, it is a modeling study. No patients or subjects were "enrolled" in the study, thus; IRB approval was not needed.

In case you are unaware, IRBs are boards that review clinical study protocols and Informed Consent Forms, etc, to ensure the studies are ethical and safe for subjects to be enrolled. This in no way invalidates the study. JAMA is a highly respected journal and this study went through extensive peer review.

Cheers
That's not of evidence piling up of the asymptomatic spread of CV that you claim it is, that's people doing mathematical modeling using made up assumptions.
 
Last edited:

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
That's not of evidence pulling up of the asymptomatic spread of CV that you claim it is, that's people doing mathematical modeling using made up assumptions.
Whatever you say sir. I am not going to bother arguing with you, I likely will not change your mind. I will let others decide for themselves.

As of 3 p.m. ET Saturday, a total of 2,003,618 new Covid-19 cases had been reported in January.

I am going to wear a mask, and for your sake, and that of your family and community, hope you do too.

Cheers
 

MGTom

Living at the place of many waters
WFF Supporter
In between everything I think I learned some stuff in here. But I got a question that no one seems to address, at least I can't find it as it pertains to the studies above. If a mask is 95% effective, then it is ineffective for 5 out of 100 exposures, right. So it seems to me if a person desires not to get COVID they should still not be in contact with other people, or at least keeping it to an absolute minimum with both parties masked up. Seems to me these studies are used to say it's ok to go out do stuff if everybody wears a mask. Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
In between everything I think I learned some stuff in here. But I got a question that no one seems to address, at least I can't find it as it pertains to the studies above. If a mask is 95% effective, then it is ineffective for 5 out of 100 exposures, right. So it seems to me if a person desires not to get COVID they should not be in contact with other people, or at least keeping it to an absolute minimum with both parties masked up.
Correct, and I am not even sure of the 95% effectiveness, it depends on the mask, distance, and length of exposure; but they absolutely decrease your risk (just as seat belts decrease risk of death in an automobile accident or not smoking decrease your risk of cancer, does not eliminate risk, only decreases). Many individuals with impaired immunity and other very high risk individuals have been doing exactly as you say.

It is all about decreasing your risk and the risk to your family and others as much is tolerable - if you are wearing a mask, I am wearing a mask and we are > 6 to 10 feet apart, outside for a brief encounter, risk is relatively (very?) small. If you and I are in a crowded bar, no masks, talking at high volume, cheering at the game on the TV, well, pretty risky behavior, and we have not only put ourselves at risk, but now our families that we go home to.

Cheers
 

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
In between everything I think I learned some stuff in here. But I got a question that no one seems to address, at least I can't find it as it pertains to the studies above. If a mask is 95% effective, then it is ineffective for 5 out of 100 exposures, right. So it seems to me if a person desires not to get COVID they should still not be in contact with other people, or at least keeping it to an absolute minimum with both parties masked up. Seems to me these studies are used to say it's ok to go out do stuff if everybody wears a mask. Am I missing something?
I don't think that's how it works Tom. The mask is supposed to be capable of stopping 95% of the aerolized droplets of moisture a person exhales or sneezes or coughs, if I understand it correctly. Doesn't mean 5 out of one hundred are going to get Covid. At 95% reduction, the reduction of infection should be even greater because of the greatly, can I say HUGELY, reduced exposure to virus cells.
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
I don't think that's how it works Tom. The mask is supposed to be capable of stopping 95% of the aerolized droplets of moisture a person exhales or sneezes or coughs, if I understand it correctly. Doesn't mean 5 out of one hundred are going to get Covid. At 95% reduction, the reduction of infection should be even greater because of the greatly, can I say HUGELY, reduced exposure to virus cells.
Yes, Salmo, you are correct, and I apologize that I missed that part, and again, it depends on the quality of the mask.



cheers
 

Rocking Chair Fan

No more hot spotting
Another way to look at it is social distance, being outdoors and use of masks reduce viral load. The greater the viral load, the greater chance of one getting sicker and potentially dying. Also the larger the viral load, the more shedding of the virus aka droplets and aerosol transmission.
 

MGTom

Living at the place of many waters
WFF Supporter
I'm still pretty much hiding at home, and I mask and often glove up. I was that sickly kid that got everything. When schools normal get I seem to something each fall and again late winter. Thanks for the responses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwg

jccady

New Member
Whatever you say sir. I am not going to bother arguing with you, I likely will not change your mind. I will let others decide for themselves.

As of 3 p.m. ET Saturday, a total of 2,003,618 new Covid-19 cases had been reported in January.

I am going to wear a mask, and for your sake, and that of your family and community, hope you do too.

Cheers
Change my mind on what? You are presenting a computer model using assumptions as the scientific fact that 75% of all cases are spread from asymptomatic carriers.

Your quoted study has nothing to do with the 2,003,618 except that it says, if we take their assumptions then we can assume that 1,502,716 of the cases were the result of spread of asymptomatic carriers. There is no study that supports the 1,502,716 of the cases were actually spread by asymptomatic carriers.

I don't care if you go out to the river in a hazmat suit if it makes you feel better and safer but that doesn't mean you get to tell everyone else they have to as well because of mathematical model that makes it conclusions based on the arbitrary assumptions of a computer geek in a statistical modeling computer lab.

And if you are going to make a case for something, try using actual studies rather than statistical modeling programs, one Neil Ferguson in the world is enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top