Run away from no-mask people

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
28,849
Reaction score
9,731
Location
Hendersonville, NC
there isnt any argument ovet the % they are effective, coz nobody knows, as no body knows, it be come very arguable if they reduce the spread at all, and even more arguable if this is more than insiginificant,
People who pay attention do know. The effect is clear, reasonably well understood, and demonstrable in a number of lab experiments.

That you don't know is only because you ignore the evidence you don't like.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,508
Location
Manchester UK
People who pay attention do know. The effect is clear, reasonably well understood, and demonstrable in a number of lab experiments.

That you don't know is only because you ignore the evidence you don't like.
well tell me then, how much does it reduce the spread? % will do fine
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,508
Location
Manchester UK
My dictionary doesn't have that definition. Here's one: "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant." (Note the lack of "statistically" in that. It's a conceptual definition, not a scientific/statistical one.)
How many deaths are insignficant? How much loss of breathing capacity or cognitive function is insignificant?
of course irs a stastical term, somethibg cant be said to be small with out the use of stastics to establish its small,
i didnt say deaths were of no significance i said the risk of a healthy person getting very ill was negligqble, insigibificant, risk
which it is

unless you have some data to the contrary, which of course you dont, again, as ussual
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
28,849
Reaction score
9,731
Location
Hendersonville, NC
well tell me then, how much does it reduce the spread? % will do fine
Here's one recent set of numbers. It may reduce outward spread by up to 50% and protects the user by maybe as much as 30% (that latter being the surprising number - it wasn't expected to be that effective against receiving). But, as I said, those percentages are what's still not clear. The lowest estimate of effectiveness I saw (against outward spread) was 10%, and that was pretty early in the understanding. Everything since seems to indicate a much higher level of suppression.

All of which is in line with comparisons between similar countries that have different levels of mask usage.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
28,849
Reaction score
9,731
Location
Hendersonville, NC
of course irs a stastical term, somethibg cant be said to be small with out the use of stastics to establish its small,
i didnt say deaths were of no significance i said the risk of a healthy person getting very ill was negligqble, insigibificant,
You don't understand language, do you?

You said their risk was negligible. The chance of being struck by a bullet from someone firing wildly across a stadium may be said to be negligble, but the risk (which incorporates the potential outcome) may not be.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,508
Location
Manchester UK
Here's one recent set of numbers. It may reduce outward spread by up to 50% and protects the user by maybe as much as 30% (that latter being the surprising number - it wasn't expected to be that effective against receiving). But, as I said, those percentages are what's still not clear. The lowest estimate of effectiveness I saw (against outward spread) was 10%, and that was pretty early in the understanding. Everything since seems to indicate a much higher level of suppression.

All of which is in line with comparisons between similar countries that have different levels of mask usage.
no, , thats useless, unless we know how lijely you are to catch it in the first place,, ie 30 % of what ?how much would me wearing a mask reduce my chance of catchibg it,, in %
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,508
Location
Manchester UK
You don't understand language, do you?

You said their risk was negligible. The chance of being struck by a bullet from someone firing wildly across a stadium may be said to be negligble, but the risk (which incorporates the potential outcome) may not be.
i understand statistics, which clearly you dont

my chance of dieing an untimely death in any given year is 1 in 100,000, the death rate in the uk is only skightly up on 2019, in some months its exactly the same to a few points, , so my chance of death from any caus, is .00000 1 % , that inits self is neglagble, my chance of covid death is a neglable % of a neglable%

ergo my risk if death has not risen by more than a negligable amount, by virtue of covid,
 
Last edited:

JP3

Master Black Belt
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
699
Location
Houston
You don't understand language, do you?be.

"Judges... score! 1 point, Gerry."

Just for the "zing" not for the content, y'all know I'm not "in" on masks as being an efficient method of doing much. Some studies make me want to swear by 'em, some seem to indicate they are dangerous to continue to wear (Legionnaire's disease making a big comeback), others show nominal numbers relating to protection. *shrug*

On a positive note, I had to visit my doc for a regular, and he mentioned that his research group is taking a hard human-study "loook" at a pharmaceutical which came out at the end of the original SARS based on research used to combat influenza and HIV... sort of a Tama-flu type of thing. SARS is/was a corona virus, as is COVID... so some smart guy wanted to give it a try. So far, he's said the results that his clinic group are finding are quite promising. Not a vaccine, but a post-infection treatment.

I thought that neat.
 

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
2,296
Location
Southeast U.S.
I separated this, because you're using whataboutism to change the topic. I'll address it, but want to keep my original topic clear.


You claim there are inarguably a percentage of deaths that aren't Covid-related, but which have been labeled as such. Where's the evidence of that? What's the clear percentage? Look at the excess death rate for 2020, and you'll see that Covid is probably responsible for MORE deaths than have been labeled as such, unless there's another epidemic going on that hasn't been detected.

So, no, you aren't making a good point. You're parroting talking points others are making without evidence behind them.
Not at all. I suggest you look at the on average Low death statistics for this year. Like I have said to others, man just look it up on more than one or two sites. Ridiculously easy to find, even if you do need spoon feeding. Hell, here on MT there are several of the statistics posted.
Just within the last month a family was on the local news because they had to sue Vanderbilt hospital to get the COD changed from Covid to the actual COD so that the person's insurance would pay. That is most certainly the tip of a very, very sad iceberg. Really rather disgusting IMHO.

I really have no idea what you mean pertaining to a 'whataboutism' or about changing the topic since I simply replied to your post. But if you need to make up a word in your argument feel free.

How someone chooses Not to see the mixing of information is beyond understanding. But like they say "ignorance is bliss". What I said was that the real numbers are already buried and tainted such that they will never really be known.

I am not a scientist nor ever claimed to be. I do not try to follow the 'information' since it really isn't all that relevant in my world. And Yes, people in my immediate family have had the virus. I have an Aunt dealing with it right now. She has been in kidney failure for about 10 years and her case has not been very bad at all. A mountain of a man who often does millwright work for me has it and has had a hard time. I say this to say none of us know for sure what it will be like if/when we get it. But I would have given you enough credit to Not blithely follow everything you are hearing on the news as the science. Was it not rather obvious early on that it was going to take some time to get any kind of handle on this?

In any kind of cause and affect measurement or control, overreaction is almost always the worst kind of action. So why you think I am in some kind of hurry I have zero clue. I am patient and trusting in the science, even though I am not following it on a minute by minute basis. For your sake I hope you are not trusting the nightly news to get your 'science'.
I follow the rules as needed. When I go to a business or customer site I mask up and wash up as needed. What more do you suggest?

Oh, and as far as parroting anyone, it would only be because they were correct.
 

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
2,296
Location
Southeast U.S.
Science isn't impotent. It's just slower than you'd wish and doesn't seem to give the answer you want. Scientific information clearly supports mask usage and clearly explains most of the effect of the mask. Any "taint" is because people look at answers from early in the disease progression and compare it to more recent advice. Science progresses. That's not a sign of confusion, but of learning and progress. Experts who lean on the evidence are pretty much all in agreement on the big questions.
To add to my other post; where did I say the science was wrong? In case you still misunderstand, I DID say what the news is spreading is questionable and what is happening in the health industry is downright unethical.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,587
Reaction score
4,879
Look at the excess death rate for 2020, and you'll see that Covid is probably responsible for MORE deaths than have been labeled as such, unless there's another epidemic going on that hasn't been detected.
This is an excellent point. Simply compare average deaths each year. People die from other diseases every year and it's unfortunately it's fairly consistent. It's consistent enough make estimates. Actual and Projected Cancer Death Rates, United States, 1975 to 2020

So if deaths are fairly predictable in a non-war environment then it's possible to see "glitches" where something out of the norm is occurs. Here are the numbers from 2018 so it doesn't include Covid-19 death rates.
Death rate for the U.S.
  • Death rate: 867.8 deaths per 100,000 population
Source: FastStats
Now I won't post the death rates for Covid-19 since I've done that already. But these are things people can search on their own just to see if what they find matches up with what they believe. The higher than normal deaths have to come from something.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,587
Reaction score
4,879
i understand statistics, which clearly you dont

my chance of dieing an untimely death in any given year is 1 in 100,000,

Way to tempt fate. Not sure how you determine that you are 1 in 100,000. Is that a guaranteed thing?
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,587
Reaction score
4,879
Some studies make me want to swear by 'em, some seem to indicate they are dangerous to continue to wear (Legionnaire's disease making a big comeback), others show nominal numbers relating to protection. *shrug*
Just compare countries who wear masks vs countries who don't wear mask If every country is dealing with the same disease, but choose different measures then you can get a good visual on what may be effective and what definitely isn't effective. There's really no need for stats in terms of mask effectiveness. Just see what has already happened. We are literally going through that experiment now.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,508
Location
Manchester UK
Way to tempt fate. Not sure how you determine that you are 1 in 100,000. Is that a guaranteed thing?
its a stastical certainty, arrived at by divding the preamature deaths in a year into the population.

certain life systle choices affect that to a relatively small degree, ridding mitirbikes, working on building sites, smoking, drug use etal , all increase your change of an untimely end in any given year, but only by a small amount,

once your dealing with large numbers, then certain truths come to light, , its very much what life insurance companies base there calcuations on, they have an extremly accurate model for predicting yoyr life expectancy, coz money

for the rest of us, circa 1 in a 1000,000 is close enough
 
Last edited:

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,508
Location
Manchester UK
This is an excellent point. Simply compare average deaths each year. People die from other diseases every year and it's unfortunately it's fairly consistent. It's consistent enough make estimates. Actual and Projected Cancer Death Rates, United States, 1975 to 2020

So if deaths are fairly predictable in a non-war environment then it's possible to see "glitches" where something out of the norm is occurs. Here are the numbers from 2018 so it doesn't include Covid-19 death rates.
Death rate for the U.S.
  • Death rate: 867.8 deaths per 100,000 population
Source: FastStats
Now I won't post the death rates for Covid-19 since I've done that already. But these are things people can search on their own just to see if what they find matches up with what they believe. The higher than normal deaths have to come from something.
possibly, but you may have to dig deeper into the numbers, there are covid related deaths, that arise from the lockdown rather than from the virus its self,

in the uk,murders are up, suicieds are up, people are beibg denied medical help, for non covid conditions, so that increases the death rate, they out a blanket do not resuscitate order on whole swavies if people, that other wise may well have survived, the elderly, the handicapped the autistic were all just left to die
 
D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
Here is a stat I am waiting for; How great the increase in masked robberies has been in 2020.

would be intreting, i have only seen banks ban non relgious face and head coverings. they usually ask you to remove face coverings, not put them on.

At least it made the roll out of face tracking CCTV effectively pointless for this year.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
28,849
Reaction score
9,731
Location
Hendersonville, NC
no, , thats useless, unless we know how lijely you are to catch it in the first place,, ie 30 % of what ?how much would me wearing a mask reduce my chance of catchibg it,, in %
No, we really don't need to know that %. It would make for a nice, clear picture, but death rates and hospitalization at the population level is where the risk is. And those numbers are pretty clear. And grim.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
28,849
Reaction score
9,731
Location
Hendersonville, NC
i understand statistics, which clearly you dont

my chance of dieing an untimely death in any given year is 1 in 100,000, the death rate in the uk is only skightly up on 2019, in some months its exactly the same to a few points, , so my chance of death from any caus, is .00000 1 % , that inits self is neglagble, my chance of covid death is a neglable % of a neglable%

ergo my risk if death has not risen by more than a negligable amount, by virtue of covid,
So you're okay with hospitalization and long-term cognitive and respiratory effects. Got it.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
28,849
Reaction score
9,731
Location
Hendersonville, NC
"Judges... score! 1 point, Gerry."

Just for the "zing" not for the content, y'all know I'm not "in" on masks as being an efficient method of doing much. Some studies make me want to swear by 'em, some seem to indicate they are dangerous to continue to wear (Legionnaire's disease making a big comeback), others show nominal numbers relating to protection. *shrug*

On a positive note, I had to visit my doc for a regular, and he mentioned that his research group is taking a hard human-study "loook" at a pharmaceutical which came out at the end of the original SARS based on research used to combat influenza and HIV... sort of a Tama-flu type of thing. SARS is/was a corona virus, as is COVID... so some smart guy wanted to give it a try. So far, he's said the results that his clinic group are finding are quite promising. Not a vaccine, but a post-infection treatment.

I thought that neat.
Just FYI, Covid is caused by a SARS virus (SARS-CoV-2, with SARS-CoV-1 being the virus that causes what we know of as "SARS"). Incidentally, 3 or 4 of the viruses that cause the common cold are also coronaviruses. There was early thought that exposure to them might provide some mitigation with Covid. Although the concept was sound, the spike proteins proved to be too different. I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about this SARS treatment yet - I try to keep an eye out for new research related to Covid. Do they have an pre-publication write-ups out that you know of?
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
28,849
Reaction score
9,731
Location
Hendersonville, NC
Not at all. I suggest you look at the on average Low death statistics for this year. Like I have said to others, man just look it up on more than one or two sites. Ridiculously easy to find, even if you do need spoon feeding. Hell, here on MT there are several of the statistics posted.
Just within the last month a family was on the local news because they had to sue Vanderbilt hospital to get the COD changed from Covid to the actual COD so that the person's insurance would pay. That is most certainly the tip of a very, very sad iceberg. Really rather disgusting IMHO.

I really have no idea what you mean pertaining to a 'whataboutism' or about changing the topic since I simply replied to your post. But if you need to make up a word in your argument feel free.

How someone chooses Not to see the mixing of information is beyond understanding. But like they say "ignorance is bliss". What I said was that the real numbers are already buried and tainted such that they will never really be known.

I am not a scientist nor ever claimed to be. I do not try to follow the 'information' since it really isn't all that relevant in my world. And Yes, people in my immediate family have had the virus. I have an Aunt dealing with it right now. She has been in kidney failure for about 10 years and her case has not been very bad at all. A mountain of a man who often does millwright work for me has it and has had a hard time. I say this to say none of us know for sure what it will be like if/when we get it. But I would have given you enough credit to Not blithely follow everything you are hearing on the news as the science. Was it not rather obvious early on that it was going to take some time to get any kind of handle on this?

In any kind of cause and affect measurement or control, overreaction is almost always the worst kind of action. So why you think I am in some kind of hurry I have zero clue. I am patient and trusting in the science, even though I am not following it on a minute by minute basis. For your sake I hope you are not trusting the nightly news to get your 'science'.
I follow the rules as needed. When I go to a business or customer site I mask up and wash up as needed. What more do you suggest?

Oh, and as far as parroting anyone, it would only be because they were correct.
you're pointing to isolated incidents. That kind of thing is going to happen to some extent, but it's almost certainly marginal.

If you honestly think there aren't a LOT of people in the hospital right now with this, you need to talk to someone who works at one. In many areas of the US, ICU's are full. Like beyond 85%, which is the danger level for the ICU system at any hospital. That's not normal, and this is the second time some areas are at that level this year. That's way beyond the level you're suggesting, and takes very little effort to confirm. You're looking for what you want to see, to convince you this isn't an issue. You're flat ignoring evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top