google-site-verification=EzRt-ZmNlc4J5RNLXiuJpAEGjNviG678nNB1w49cgZg Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Unless the mask is 100% effective or you are immune, if you spend enough time in an unventilated room with an infected person, you will get infected, mask or no mask.

Quote
  • A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk.35
Quote
  • Investigations involving infected passengers aboard flights longer than 10 hours strongly suggest that masking prevented in-flight transmissions, as demonstrated by the absence of infection developing in other passengers and crew in the 14 days following exposure.36,37
Quote
  • A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.34

In other words, take it up with the CDC (and others), not me.

 

---

 

But if one insists, your "enough time" could be so flipping long as to be impractical and irrelevant for real world scenarios.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AndyK said:

Unless the mask is 100% effective or you are immune, if you spend enough time in an unventilated room with an infected person, you will get infected, mask or no mask.

that's correct, but that "enough" time is longer with masks. Plus, the viral load is lighter, which means probably (=pretty safe bet) a less severe infection, too. Never forget, we don't need to completely avoid any infections, the goal is to keep them a bit lower so health services don't get swamped with infected.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

any chance it gets so bad in the US after Thanksgiving they close State borders and limit air travel?

It's been floated, but people freak out and scream "muh liberty" when it gets too far down the tracks.

 

Of the two, I think restricting air travel would be easier to do, simply from a regulation standpoint.  On the other hand, that would also probably require federal intervention, and, well...

 

Anyway, in regards to states closing their borders to one another, near as I can tell, SCOTUS has never ruled on that exact matter, having punted on the issue waaaaaay back in 1900 (NOTE: Ignore the title of the article as it's conjecture, but the SCOTUS case I'm referencing is mentioned in the fifth through seventh paragraphs).

 

What they have ruled on, thought not recently, is that involuntary quarantine of folks is constitutional (see said link above and here as well).  However, I don't know how long it's been since it was even referenced in a SCOTUS opinion.  One I do know of is in Zemel v. Rusk (not citied in the Wikipedia link, but is referenced in the first link I mentioned).

 

However, given how much more interconnected we are now and how much more... hmmmm... individualistic/libertarian we are collectively as a society, I wouldn't put great odds at a state being able to actually close a border without federal approval.  Especially with the rise of jurisprudence surrounding the power of the federal government through the use of the Commerce Clause.

 

In fact, I tend to think involuntary quarantine itself might be on pretty shaky ground as well, given how long it has been since the Supreme Court actually looked at the issue.

 

Then again, this is an uncharted Supreme Court, in many more ways than one.

 

My instinct is to say that the current courts would nuke any attempt for a state to close its borders in this day and age, given what I think I know about the idealogical leanings of most of the Court.  But, again, wouldn't swear to it.

Edited by Porthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Porthos said:

In other words, take it up with the CDC (and others), not me.

 

---

 

But if one insists, your "enough time" could be so flipping long as to be impractical and irrelevant for real world scenarios.

 

1 hour ago, IndustriousAngel said:

that's correct, but that "enough" time is longer with masks. Plus, the viral load is lighter, which means probably (=pretty safe bet) a less severe infection, too. Never forget, we don't need to completely avoid any infections, the goal is to keep them a bit lower so health services don't get swamped with infected.

Read this

 

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html

 

The masks do little on their own, the biggest difference is made by aircraft style virus removing ventilation or fresh air flows.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brainbug said:

 

The Spanish Flu deaths in the US ist estimated at roughly 675.000 so i believe that would be the mark we would never want to see crossed.

That's less than I expected, but let's hope that we won't enter those areas.

 

I also hope the death count in Germany will continue to stay as low as it currently is (also the fact that we barely had any excess mortality (only April and in Late July / early August, but the second one was due to a heat wave).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taruseth said:

That's less than I expected, but let's hope that we won't enter those areas.

 

With the Spanish Flu figure, you also have to remember that the population in America was way smaller than today, hence the percentage of people dying of the flu was still extremely high.

2 hours ago, Taruseth said:

I also hope the death count in Germany will continue to stay as low as it currently is (also the fact that we barely had any excess mortality (only April and in Late July / early August, but the second one was due to a heat wave).

 

Right now, it does seem like the second wave is in the process of flattening so its good news that we dont have an explosion of cases like we sadly see in France, Italy or Poland. But deaths have been above 200 a day for the last 3 or 4 days and i do believe, that wont change for a few weeks. Even if cases shoud fall from now on, deaths are always lagging 3-4 weeks behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

any chance it gets so bad in the US after Thanksgiving they close State borders and limit air travel?

No for two reasons as far as closing state borders go.

A. Trump willnever do that.

B. Closing state borders might be unconstituional.

C/ Impossible to enforce anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2020 at 9:11 PM, juni78ukr said:

134 383 new cases and 1859 deaths in US. And probably it will be much worse.

143 408 new cases and 1479 deaths on Wednesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AndyK said:

 

Read this

 

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html

 

The masks do little on their own, the biggest difference is made by aircraft style virus removing ventilation or fresh air flows.

 

 

In the very article you cite, it says that the number of infections in a classroom would be more than cut in half if ONLY masks are used.  The first example of a family gathering is suggesting that transmission would be reduced by 20% if ONLY masks were used, and that is by far the least favorable scenario regarding masks.  I really don't see how that article supports the notion that, "The masks do little on their own."

 

Furthermore, nobody is suggesting that we should ONLY use masks.  The article you mention recommends using them, along with other measures.  That is what pretty much every public health agency has been saying for months now.  This article certainly doesn't say that masks are not an important protective measure.  Maybe I am missing the point you are trying to make?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six months in, and some people here are still fighitng against the measures which, by logic and science, are going t o have be taken to get  Covid under control.

The attempts to  find some kind of painless method to stop Covid have failed, and  have actually hurt us.

IN the US we have lost every bit of ground we gained in the spring. We are almost back to square one as far as the spread of Covid goes. And we all know who to thank for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sanderson said:

In the very article you cite, it says that the number of infections in a classroom would be more than cut in half if ONLY masks are used.  The first example of a family gathering is suggesting that transmission would be reduced by 20% if ONLY masks were used, and that is by far the least favorable scenario regarding masks.  I really don't see how that article supports the notion that, "The masks do little on their own."

 

Furthermore, nobody is suggesting that we should ONLY use masks.  The article you mention recommends using them, along with other measures.  That is what pretty much every public health agency has been saying for months now.  This article certainly doesn't say that masks are not an important protective measure.  Maybe I am missing the point you are trying to make?

Yes, masks are useful if you go inside for a short period, i.e popping into a shop.

 

But as the article states...

 

Quote

Masks alone will not prevent infection if the exposure is prolonged.

 

Fresh air seems to be the key to infection control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CHicago just issued a "Shelter in Place" order for the next 30 days.

Man, this Holiday season is going to suck like no other.

 

And, god, somebody still arguing against the effectiveness of masks?

 

 

No quick SIlver Bullet is going to save us, and the beleif there is one is a major reason we are in this situation.

Edited by dudalb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dudalb said:

No quick SIlver Bullet is going to save us, and the beleif there is one is a major reason we are in this situation.

yes, yes, and yes.

Even with the vaccine on the horizon, we (meaning the northern hemisphere) will have to (sorry) winter this winter without. And that means every little bit will help, and masks and distancing may not work miracles but do help more than a little. Look at other countries on the northern hemisphere - doing best are those (all of them in Asia) which have a long tradition of using masks and distancing during the flu season. Whereas in the "western" world, there's a tradition of "it's cool going to work even with a fever" which is, frankly, stupid at best, and outright dangerous in circumstances like we have now.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Horrible week as the numbers not only increase but accelerate.

Last week the numbers were +8% tests, +29% cases, +15% Hospitalizations, +14% deaths.

This week - 13, 40, 20 23

 

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AndyK said:

Yes, masks are useful if you go inside for a short period, i.e popping into a shop.

 

But as the article states...

 

 

Fresh air seems to be the key to infection control.

Okay, it appears that I was indeed understanding your argument clearly.  Your argument amounts to cherry picking evidence to suit your argument that masks don't matter all that much.  Not buying it.

 

The article you cite does indeed say that masks are a useful tool in preventing spread beyond just "popping into a shop".  Nobody is arguing that ventilation and limiting contact are key measures.  Once again, I don't see how you can square your argument with that article which clearly states that masks alone would reduce infections in a classroom by over half after two hours.  Obviously a combination of masks, ventilation, and reducing time spent in an enclosed public space is best.  No matter how you cut it, that article doesn't downplay the importance of masks in this equation.  You seem to be doing just that.  It has been over half a year now, and I'm done allowing this kind of bad-faith argument to slide.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as Trump politicized it, it was over

 

People here don't care anymore. Like mass shootings, corona is just another facet of life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DlAMONDZ said:

As soon as Trump politicized it, it was over

 

People here don't care anymore. Like mass shootings, corona is just another facet of life

If mass shootings exhibited rapid exponential growth when ignored, eventually people would care enough to stop them.

Edited by WandaLegion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DlAMONDZ said:

As soon as Trump politicized it, it was over

 

People here don't care anymore. Like mass shootings, corona is just another facet of life

I don't buiy that. When people begin to lose their jobs, they will care.

And i suspect the people who don't care are the usual suspects:college and high school  students indulging in being coll, edgy and full of Fashionable despair. They are not helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.