Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 65627 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1750 on: May 29, 2020, 03:46:30 PM »
Fenring, thanks for that thoughtful response. I'll treasure it.  I specifically mentioned other countries that don't do social distancing, but do use masks.  Try again with a less hokey response?

It could be as simple as a lack of loud public talking.  The hardest hit countries and demographics tend to have a loud talking in public tendency.

That' s interesting. I would add that comparing countries must include things like population densities, housing (looks like living in a high rise carries more risk).... Unfortunately most comparisons on social media platforms leaves out any context to be helpful.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1751 on: May 29, 2020, 03:48:46 PM »
With regards to masks I thinking its going to come down to a market thing.

This. Cuomo passed an ordinance that allows NYC storekeepers to legally prevent anyone not wearing a mask from entering their business, at the owner's discretion.

If we assume that some business owners will allow unmasked people and some won't, the public will quickly decide who they patronize.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple.  This is similar to bars and non-smoking.  The people who are heaviest drinkers tend to also be heavy smokers, and non-smokers would generally still patronize bars that didn't ban smoking.  Therefore there were almost no bars willing to do non-smoking, even though the majority of patrons wanted non-smoking.  Similarly most people who wear masks, but probably won't refuse to shop at places where masks are optional. The most frequent shoppers are likely non mask wearers.  Therefore to get the largest customer base - most places will probably do masks optional.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1752 on: May 29, 2020, 03:49:38 PM »
Quote
But I suspect even with actual examples, the reflex to bring in other vectors to refute that masks aren't part of the success equation will remain. There are psychological reasons why even entertaining the idea of public masks as ineffective is problematic. It's eliminating one of the few things individuals feel empowered to do, to control.

Indeed, if you have a choice between HCQ and wearing face masks and the challenge is "What do you have to lose?"  it seems like a pretty easy call.

Quote
This. Cuomo passed an ordinance that allows NYC storekeepers to legally prevent anyone not wearing a mask from entering their business, at the owner's discretion.

I'm not sure how a mandatory law works in practice.  Michigan has an exception for people with a medical reason not to wear one, and shop owners don't have the right to challenge them.  I would assume the same applies in NY.

Quote
It could be as simple as a lack of loud public talking.

I can just see Trump at a rally telling people to talk quieter :).  In fact, since he holds shouting contests with reporters next to his helicopter, ...

Quote
Is it legal to enforce a public dress code.? I believe their is precedence in that we already do. I can't walk around with my dick hanging out, have to wear a life jacket if on a boat..  must wear a helmet for some team sports, certain jobs...

No shoes, no shirt...  In golf clubs there used to be a rule your shirt had to have a collar. I wonder if there are places that still require that, or require neon lime green pants.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1753 on: May 29, 2020, 04:04:26 PM »
TheDrake, if the issue of masks is that they bolster public attention and respect, like a uniform, then the argument becomes a difficult one: is it legal to enforce a public dress code because of positive effects it might have on public morale? That goes beyond 'is it effective' but into constitutional (and moral) issues. I think it goes without saying that this can be effective on the spread of COVID, because wearing a compulsory mask would obviously change the feel of life and the mindset of people. Mind you, so would forcing them to wear "pro-USA" uniforms. Forcing a public-minded obedience into everyone would undoubtedly have an effect, but then we need to ask whether that's actually ok. I think the issue ScottF is asking about is whether there's a direct medical benefit. It would be a bit silly to deny that it could have an indirect medical benefit in the form of brainwashing people. I think it's this potential brainwashing or mob mentality issue that is alarming ScottF about the mask situation.

The government forces me to wear pants for the positive effects it has on public morale. There is actually no health benefit to anyone whether I wear pants or not. There is a health benefit to wearing shoes

I'm being facetious. But I guess if someone proved that masks were not useful - as opposed to questioning it - then you're right it would be a whole different story. But to actually prove that would mean that no one should wear cloth masks, yes? Regardless of whether you are a caregiver to an infected person. Otherwise you're only proving that it has marginal benefit.

If the government distributed masks with Trump's (or Obama's) signature on it, or an American flag and mandated that you had to wear that specific mask, that would clearly be out of bounds.

Is the mask thing really just about principle? Or is non-mask wearing also a symbolic way of declaring that you don't believe other measures should be taken? That makes it a more interesting free speech argument.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1754 on: May 29, 2020, 04:22:17 PM »
The masks don't do much to stop the airflow. That's not their purpose. They help stop the water droplets the virus rides on.

It's easy enough to demonstrate too. You have someone shouting in your face with their spittle flying all over the place including into your eyes and your mouth if you open it to talk back and up your nose as you inhale and then you get that experience for a minute or so and compare it to how much of that spittle you're getting on and in you when you take out a hanky and cover their mouth with it.

There was the study quoted that the cloth mask only restrict 2% of airflow. But the question is how much do they restrict expelled droplets?

I'd be curious about something else too. If you had an infected person just sitting quietly in a room with their mouth closed at all times how much viral load would you measure in the air and on surfaces compared to if the same person were shouting, singing, laughing, and talking loudly? I don't know but it seems like it would be easy enough to measure and if it's significantly less with a quiet person breathing only through their nose than perhaps we could ask people who refuse to wear masks to at least keep your mouth shut, literally.

As for the idea about only wearing a mask if you are feeling sick well that ship sailed a long time ago. We have over a hundred thousand dead now and almost all of them got infected by someone who wasn't feeling sick, pretty much the only exceptions to that being medical personnel and close family members taking care of the ill.

Having maybe had this I think I experienced why this virus is so different. My only symptoms were very severe chest pain and trouble breathing like an asthma attack. No fever. No coughing. No aches or other pains. No headache. No reason to think I even had anything contagious until this virus came along and we learned more about it. And most people don't experience even that much. That's what makes this one so different and why we need to treat it differently.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1755 on: May 29, 2020, 07:38:06 PM »
With regards to masks I thinking its going to come down to a market thing.

This. Cuomo passed an ordinance that allows NYC storekeepers to legally prevent anyone not wearing a mask from entering their business, at the owner's discretion.

If we assume that some business owners will allow unmasked people and some won't, the public will quickly decide who they patronize.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple.  This is similar to bars and non-smoking.  The people who are heaviest drinkers tend to also be heavy smokers, and non-smokers would generally still patronize bars that didn't ban smoking.  Therefore there were almost no bars willing to do non-smoking, even though the majority of patrons wanted non-smoking.  Similarly most people who wear masks, but probably won't refuse to shop at places where masks are optional. The most frequent shoppers are likely non mask wearers.  Therefore to get the largest customer base - most places will probably do masks optional.

So in other words, the market will decide?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1756 on: May 29, 2020, 07:57:17 PM »
Quote
Quote from: LetterRip on Today at 03:48:46 PM
Quote from: ScottF on Today at 03:35:48 PM
Quote from: rightleft22 on Today at 03:27:24 PM
With regards to masks I thinking its going to come down to a market thing.

This. Cuomo passed an ordinance that allows NYC storekeepers to legally prevent anyone not wearing a mask from entering their business, at the owner's discretion.

If we assume that some business owners will allow unmasked people and some won't, the public will quickly decide who they patronize.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple.  This is similar to bars and non-smoking.  The people who are heaviest drinkers tend to also be heavy smokers, and non-smokers would generally still patronize bars that didn't ban smoking.  Therefore there were almost no bars willing to do non-smoking, even though the majority of patrons wanted non-smoking.  Similarly most people who wear masks, but probably won't refuse to shop at places where masks are optional. The most frequent shoppers are likely non mask wearers.  Therefore to get the largest customer base - most places will probably do masks optional.

So in other words, the market will decide?

That's a lovely argument, if we ignore the people who have to work in bars. Then there's the question if the market should be able to decide if it wants thousands of cases of asthma and unspecified cancer per year.

Left to its own devices, the market would decide that it is profitable to sell powerful fireworks to minors. Never mind that they launched the firework into the side of someone's house.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1757 on: May 29, 2020, 08:01:27 PM »
Ah ok, so you're not debating whether the market will decide but whether it should decide. I missed that. Do you think in this case that it should be a universal law for mandatory masks and not up to the discretion of individual business owners?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1758 on: May 29, 2020, 08:08:19 PM »
The government forces me to wear pants for the positive effects it has on public morale. There is actually no health benefit to anyone whether I wear pants or not. There is a health benefit to wearing shoes

I'm being facetious. But I guess if someone proved that masks were not useful - as opposed to questioning it - then you're right it would be a whole different story. But to actually prove that would mean that no one should wear cloth masks, yes? Regardless of whether you are a caregiver to an infected person. Otherwise you're only proving that it has marginal benefit.

My understanding of the jurisprudence on the "you can't go naked" thing has a lot more to do with "community standards" and "social norms" than anything actually codified into the Constitution or Federal Law. With some other rulings allowing communities to regulate nudity in a business because of "likely impacts to the community" which they set no actual standard for being able to demonstrate harm to the community, beyond recognizing a correlation between high crime rates and seedy businesses offering "services of a sexual nature" and as such they allowed communities to use zoning laws to keep them away.

Otherwise, the courts have simply recognized the ability of communities to regulate certain public behaviors. And in terms of Federal Law, there actually isn't one in regards to public nudity, those are all local/state level laws.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1759 on: May 29, 2020, 08:26:25 PM »
TheDeamon - exactly. So why couldn't wearing a mask be considered a "certain public behavior" in the same way? And for sake of argument, we can call it municipal not Federal

ScottF - Don't know exactly what you mean by universal, but there are plenty of local ordinances and regulations for health reasons that apply to private businesses. Smoking was mentioned, but there are tons of other ones like having a separate mop sink or public pool regulations or keeping you from raising chickens or letting a customers dog eat off your tableware. Apart from the separate discussion of whether masks benefit the public health, I don't see why all of these don't set a reasonable precedent. Of course a true anarcho-capitalist would say that any business can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't harm anyone who is not an employee or patron.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1760 on: May 29, 2020, 10:31:48 PM »
TheDeamon - exactly. So why couldn't wearing a mask be considered a "certain public behavior" in the same way? And for sake of argument, we can call it municipal not Federal

The public nudity ordinances should probably be kept in their own special category of law, because they probably derive from various cultural realities that are hard to track individually. You have a combination of religious-based customs historically, with sexual hangups that last until today, as well as a general fear of nudity nationally, the hyper-sexualization of people on the other hand, and finally the generally conservative nature of most American people compared to, say, Europeans. There's a host of reasons for nudity ordinances, and I doubt it has ever been stated as a simple "it's banned because of this one effect." The nudity thing strikes to the very core of many people and would not just shock but horrify them if dismantled. They might move away outright en masse. I don't really see how this compares with an move to make certain clothing or accessories mandatory to suit a current public policy objective.

On the one hand I can see the argument for public safety overriding comfort: this town is in danger, *you will* wear your safety gear, end of story. But on the other hand I very much doubt we can just hand-waive away the constitution and put it all in municipal discretion. Sure, a town can require hard hats at construction sites and so forth. But could a city create a law for any reason requiring men to wear a suit and tie on the street, and women a dress? I do not believe it would even be theoretically possible to pass such a law under the constitution, regardless of any perceived public benefits this might achieve. It might well improve public safety to require all citizens to wear bike helmets at all times, but again I'm sure that this is not a permissible law and would be struck down. And to be honest I'm sympathetic to the general idea of "no, you don't get to opt out of safety protocols that will harm someone else", but on the other hand I think you've all been too blaze in just saying that, sure, towns do this all the time. I don't think they do; not in the way you mean it.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1761 on: May 30, 2020, 07:28:14 AM »
Quote
I've presented quotes that show cloth masks are, at best, 2% effective.

So, what do you have to lose?

This stuck in my mind but I just couldn’t put my fingrr on it. What is there to lose, Tell people a cloth mask will protect them, wear a mask out and it’ll help them be safe. If it doesn’t help, it can’t hurt and it gives people the confidence to go out.

What is there to lose? That the argument.

Then I went to the grocery store late yesterday afternoon. I saw an elderly couple there, at least 70 years old, wearing those ridiculously ineffective cloth masks. Then I realized exactly what there is to lose.

You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1762 on: May 30, 2020, 07:35:01 AM »
Quote
I've presented quotes that show cloth masks are, at best, 2% effective.

So, what do you have to lose?

This stuck in my mind but I just couldn’t put my fingrr on it. What is there to lose, Tell people a cloth mask will protect them, wear a mask out and it’ll help them be safe. If it doesn’t help, it can’t hurt and it gives people the confidence to go out.

What is there to lose? That the argument.

Then I went to the grocery store late yesterday afternoon. I saw an elderly couple there, at least 70 years old, wearing those ridiculously ineffective cloth masks. Then I realized exactly what there is to lose.

You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.

So, given a choice you would choose an unproven medicine that has been found to have extremely serious side effects over a face covering that may or may not be effective?  Gotcha.

FWIW (not for you, since you won't care even if you believe it), the WHO recommendation to use a mask only when in the presence of someone with COVID-19 symptoms wasn't aimed at countries that have plenty of masks.  It was aimed at countries where masks are hard to get and should be conserved for the situations where they are most necessary.  They should have presented that more clearly, but apparently chose not to in order to curb the perception that some countries are more privileged than others.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1763 on: May 30, 2020, 07:36:46 AM »
You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.
If it's no worse than the flu, why do you really care - or are you suggesting we need to change our attitudes and behaviours around annual influenza outbreaks?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1764 on: May 30, 2020, 07:45:14 AM »
Quote
If it's no worse than the flu, why do you really care - or are you suggesting we need to change our attitudes and behaviours around annual influenza outbreaks?

I mentioned earlier that I got the senior flu shot last October and still came down with the flu over the winter.  I caught the flu because I spent 5 days in January in a crowded casino playing in a pool tournament, eating and sleeping poorly.  Next October I'll get the flu shot again, but I'll also consider curbing my trips to crowded places and will wear a mask when I expect to be mingling with others.  If there's a vaccine, I'll have to weigh the risks of taking it before it's been "crowd blessed".  I'll also have to think about whether it's wise to go to next year's tournament.  It sucks to live in the real world.  Maybe Crunch's fantasy reality would be better...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1765 on: May 30, 2020, 08:38:37 AM »
You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.
If it's no worse than the flu, why do you really care - or are you suggesting we need to change our attitudes and behaviours around annual influenza outbreaks?

As usual, you go for the half quote. It’s no worse than the flu for young and healthy people. You really gotta get back to yoyr “intellectual honesty” roots. What you’re doing now is a very bad look for you.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1766 on: May 30, 2020, 08:44:22 AM »
Quote
I've presented quotes that show cloth masks are, at best, 2% effective.

So, what do you have to lose?

This stuck in my mind but I just couldn’t put my fingrr on it. What is there to lose, Tell people a cloth mask will protect them, wear a mask out and it’ll help them be safe. If it doesn’t help, it can’t hurt and it gives people the confidence to go out.

What is there to lose? That the argument.

Then I went to the grocery store late yesterday afternoon. I saw an elderly couple there, at least 70 years old, wearing those ridiculously ineffective cloth masks. Then I realized exactly what there is to lose.

You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.

So, given a choice you would choose an unproven medicine that has been found to have extremely serious side effects over a face covering that may or may not be effective?  Gotcha.

Another dishonest mischaracterization. It’s kind of your schtick.

HCQ has proven antiviral and anti inflammatory effects. It’s been in use for over 70 years for precisely that reason. It’s primary purpose was antivirus. Did you know that? I think you don’t.

In all those decades these insanely serious side effects were not an issue. It’s so dishonest to pretend they were.

Trump has really broken you. I mean really, at a fundamental level.


Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1767 on: May 30, 2020, 09:23:22 AM »
You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.

You've been the person who's been constantly saying that it's just a flu, bro -- that it's all a vast conspiracy to hurt the American economy -- and now you have the audacity to tell other people that they're putting vulnerable people at risk.

*censored* you and your misanthropic psychopathic mass-murderous attitude both.

Aris Katsaris: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 02:56:22 AM by OrneryMod »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1768 on: May 30, 2020, 09:25:58 AM »
Quote
Another dishonest mischaracterization. It’s kind of your schtick.

HCQ has proven antiviral and anti inflammatory effects. It’s been in use for over 70 years for precisely that reason. It’s primary purpose was antivirus. Did you know that? I think you don’t.

In all those decades these insanely serious side effects were not an issue. It’s so dishonest to pretend they were.

Trump has really broken you. I mean really, at a fundamental level.

OMG!!!!  I had no idea that HCQ has been used for 70 years to treat malaria and is a key treatment for Lupus!!!!!!  Who could have known that? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You need to get on the horn with the NEJM, JAMA, the WHO and the FDA, because they apparently don't realize how beneficial HCQ is for treating COVID-19!!!!

You may have just saved brazillions of lives!

HOW COULD I BE SO STUPID? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1769 on: May 30, 2020, 09:43:11 AM »
You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.

You've been the person who's been constantly saying that it's just a flu, bro -- that it's all a vast conspiracy to hurt the American economy -- and now you have the audacity to tell other people that they're putting vulnerable people at risk.

*censored* you and your misanthropic psychopathic mass-murderous attitude both.

smh

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1770 on: May 30, 2020, 09:45:54 AM »
Quote
Another dishonest mischaracterization. It’s kind of your schtick.

HCQ has proven antiviral and anti inflammatory effects. It’s been in use for over 70 years for precisely that reason. It’s primary purpose was antivirus. Did you know that? I think you don’t.

In all those decades these insanely serious side effects were not an issue. It’s so dishonest to pretend they were.

Trump has really broken you. I mean really, at a fundamental level.

OMG!!!!  I had no idea that HCQ has been used for 70 years to treat malaria and is a key treatment for Lupus!!!!!!  Who could have known that? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You need to get on the horn with the NEJM, JAMA, the WHO and the FDA, because they apparently don't realize how beneficial HCQ is for treating COVID-19!!!!

You may have just saved brazillions of lives!

HOW COULD I BE SO STUPID? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

You’re welcome. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1771 on: May 30, 2020, 09:53:13 AM »
smh

*censored* you you vile psychopath, and your psycho villain of a president both.

Aris Katsaris: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 02:56:12 AM by OrneryMod »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1772 on: May 30, 2020, 09:57:03 AM »
Golly, Gosh and Gee, the Crunch political view of the world is like nature, red of tooth and claw.  The only way that really works (in reality, that is) is if you're the top predator.  If you're not, you'll bite your own leg off to get out of a trap.  You seem to be hobbling badly these days.  As Hobsen once said of your (spiritual, at least) predecessor, what we need on the forum are more conservatives we can talk to, but instead we have you.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1773 on: May 30, 2020, 10:04:08 AM »
smh

*censored* you you vile psychopath, and your psycho villain of a president both.

Wow, you got the most sever case of TDS I’ve ever seen. You might want to take a break.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1774 on: May 30, 2020, 10:16:22 AM »
It may be even higher than this.  You don't need a certificate to die from COVID, and since car traffic is way down we can't claim that surplus auto accident deaths are misfiled under COVID.

Quote
The number of people reported to have died of the novel coronavirus in the United States surpassed 100,000 this week, a grim marker of lives lost directly to the disease, but an analysis of overall deaths during the pandemic shows that the nation probably reached a similar terrible milestone three weeks ago.

Between March 1 and May 9, the nation recorded an estimated 101,600 excess deaths, or deaths beyond the number that would normally be expected for that time of year, according to an analysis conducted for The Washington Post by a research team led by the Yale School of Public Health. That figure reflects about 26,000 more fatalities than were attributed to covid-19 on death certificates during that period, according to federal data.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1775 on: May 30, 2020, 11:03:44 AM »
smh

*censored* you you vile psychopath, and your psycho villain of a president both.

Completely serious question: do you spend a lot of time on social media, getting angry at things you see people post? I'm asking because I've known a few people who are basically hooked on the outrage treadmill. Some of them post stuff about Trump daily, some of them just read thing after thing that upsets them and have to vent to their friends about it. This type of activity is like a masochistic drug and it's not good for them. So if this is you, you might want to consider your well being. If not, then I guess never mind.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1776 on: May 30, 2020, 11:22:47 AM »
People who post those kinds of things are often either very young or have other challenges regulating their emotions. In either case it's seldom worth the calories to engage.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1777 on: May 30, 2020, 11:26:26 AM »
Aris, you do seem a bit frustrated... to put this mildly, that seemed a bit out of control.

ScottF, do you think that post was in any way helpful?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1778 on: May 30, 2020, 11:38:48 AM »
It was mostly directed to Fenring as my opinion on how to react to posters that appear out of control. I wouldn't be a good judge as to its helpfulness.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1779 on: May 30, 2020, 11:48:16 AM »
Yes, and it was gratuitously passive-aggressive and condescending. Fenring was sincerely concerned, and your post was... I won't characterize it any further.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1780 on: May 30, 2020, 11:49:01 AM »
Interesting new theory that COVID-19 is actually a vascular disease using a respiratory pathway into the body.  What do our (actual) experts here think?

Quote
In April, blood clots emerged as one of the many mysterious symptoms attributed to Covid-19, a disease that had initially been thought to largely affect the lungs in the form of pneumonia. Quickly after came reports of young people dying due to coronavirus-related strokes. Next it was Covid toes — painful red or purple digits.

What do all of these symptoms have in common? An impairment in blood circulation. Add in the fact that 40% of deaths from Covid-19 are related to cardiovascular complications, and the disease starts to look like a vascular infection instead of a purely respiratory one.

Months into the pandemic, there is now a growing body of evidence to support the theory that the novel coronavirus can infect blood vessels, which could explain not only the high prevalence of blood clots, strokes, and heart attacks, but also provide an answer for the diverse set of head-to-toe symptoms that have emerged.

“All these Covid-associated complications were a mystery. We see blood clotting, we see kidney damage, we see inflammation of the heart, we see stroke, we see encephalitis [swelling of the brain],” says William Li, MD, president of the Angiogenesis Foundation. “A whole myriad of seemingly unconnected phenomena that you do not normally see with SARS or H1N1 or, frankly, most infectious diseases.”

“If you start to put all of the data together that’s emerging, it turns out that this virus is probably a vasculotropic virus, meaning that it affects the [blood vessels],” says Mandeep Mehra, MD, medical director of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1781 on: May 30, 2020, 01:32:47 PM »
Yes, and it was gratuitously passive-aggressive and condescending. Fenring was sincerely concerned, and your post was... I won't characterize it any further.

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, and suggest that it could be a kindness to bluntly tell someone what they are doing, so long as care is the motive. For instance, telling someone who has problems regulating their emotions "Look, you have problems regulating your emotions" is really something they need to hear, and not after much delay or pussyfooting. I agree that we don't want this to be dismissive or condescending, and I don't really know what ScottF's exact purpose was in writing that.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1782 on: May 30, 2020, 01:53:02 PM »
Given how provocative, downright insulting and tone-deaf Crunch is I find it slightly amusing that you are nit-picking the fine points of Aris' pushback. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1783 on: May 30, 2020, 02:15:02 PM »
Given how provocative, downright insulting and tone-deaf Crunch is I find it slightly amusing that you are nit-picking the fine points of Aris' pushback.

Actually that isn't what we're discussing at all. We're discussing the fine points of ScottF's reply to me. Strange this should be your take-away. Are you sure you're reading these exchanges carefully?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1784 on: May 30, 2020, 02:37:25 PM »
Curious deflection, like analyzing blood spatter instead of the murder.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1785 on: May 30, 2020, 02:38:56 PM »
Curious deflection, like analyzing blood spatter instead of the murder.

It's a deflection to tell you that you appear to be clueless about what we're talking about? I see. I still can't help feeling that most of your posts are outright trolling, where you make up something and when told point blank what you're doing you accuse that person of "deflecting" (whatever that means).

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1786 on: May 30, 2020, 03:12:42 PM »
At least you're predictable to keep telling me what I mean when I say things.  I can't help you with the intent or clarity of your own posts.  There's a pattern there, too.

Tell me what I'm thinking now?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1787 on: May 30, 2020, 04:33:14 PM »
Given how provocative, downright insulting and tone-deaf Crunch is I find it slightly amusing that you are nit-picking the fine points of Aris' pushback.

A post who's only content is a profanity laden ad hominem is a sign of surrender. I’ve not seen crunch post in that specific manner.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1788 on: May 30, 2020, 05:05:10 PM »
Profanity is your trigger?  Ad hominem is his go-to response.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1789 on: May 30, 2020, 09:22:56 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/lessons-from-japan-on-containing-coronavirus-could-help-us-reopen-safely-160105489.html

"The other big lesson from Japan is that masks work. Face coverings have been universal there for months, in large part because “Japanese people [already] feel comfortable wearing masks on a daily basis,” as Shigeru Omi, vice chairman of the Japanese government’s expert coronavirus panel, recently explained. “Many people are allergic to pollen, so they do this during the cedar pollen season from the beginning of the year until spring, as well as to protect against influenza.” As evidence of the efficacy of masks, Japan did not trace any clusters to its notoriously crowded commuter trains, where riders are usually alone and not talking, their mouths and noses fully covered."

"As of Friday, the country of 126 million people — more than a quarter of whom are over 65 — had reported just 16,673 cases and 886 deaths."

If we had been wearing masks from the beginning our death toll if it followed their trend might only be less than 3000 souls. They have crowded trains full of people and they didn't find clusters most certainly because almost everyone was wearing masks and not talking much. So simple. So obvious. And yet we still won't do it.

The other thread about the great unmasking is taking on a new meaning as more and more people decide to throw off their masks and throw all caution and common sense, along with the virus, to the winds.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1790 on: May 30, 2020, 11:54:42 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/lessons-from-japan-on-containing-coronavirus-could-help-us-reopen-safely-160105489.html

"The other big lesson from Japan is that masks work. Face coverings have been universal there for months, in large part because “Japanese people [already] feel comfortable wearing masks on a daily basis,” as Shigeru Omi, vice chairman of the Japanese government’s expert coronavirus panel, recently explained. “Many people are allergic to pollen, so they do this during the cedar pollen season from the beginning of the year until spring, as well as to protect against influenza.” As evidence of the efficacy of masks, Japan did not trace any clusters to its notoriously crowded commuter trains, where riders are usually alone and not talking, their mouths and noses fully covered."

"As of Friday, the country of 126 million people — more than a quarter of whom are over 65 — had reported just 16,673 cases and 886 deaths."

If we had been wearing masks from the beginning our death toll if it followed their trend might only be less than 3000 souls. They have crowded trains full of people and they didn't find clusters most certainly because almost everyone was wearing masks and not talking much. So simple. So obvious. And yet we still won't do it.

The other thread about the great unmasking is taking on a new meaning as more and more people decide to throw off their masks and throw all caution and common sense, along with the virus, to the winds.

So why do you think that the WHO's official guidance is for the general public not wear masks? Why do you think doctors are publishing peer reviewed articles in the New England journal of medicine saying that masks are primarily psychological devices and offer little/no benefit?  Why did the CDC Infectious disease center publish publish a study concluding there was no evidence that masks reduced transmission of the flu? Conspiracy?  Are the Japanese simply aware of things that they are not?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2020, 11:57:29 PM by ScottF »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1791 on: May 31, 2020, 02:18:45 AM »
If we had been wearing masks from the beginning our death toll if it followed their trend might only be less than 3000 souls. They have crowded trains full of people and they didn't find clusters most certainly because almost everyone was wearing masks and not talking much. So simple. So obvious. And yet we still won't do it.

It isn't just the not talking much, they don't speak loudly like us Americans like to. Volume is normally going to be a function of expelled air as well, so we're more prone to doing things that would spread it in general.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1792 on: May 31, 2020, 06:16:23 AM »
Quote
So why do you think that the WHO's official guidance is for the general public not wear masks? Why do you think doctors are publishing peer reviewed articles in the New England journal of medicine saying that masks are primarily psychological devices and offer little/no benefit?  Why did the CDC Infectious disease center publish publish a study concluding there was no evidence that masks reduced transmission of the flu? Conspiracy?  Are the Japanese simply aware of things that they are not?

The WHO hasn't said explicitly, but I've read that their guidance on restricting the use of masks is intended to target developing world countries that don't have enough medical supplies, doctors and hospitals to serve a widespread epidemic.  They're promoting masks for where they would be most needed and beneficial.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1793 on: May 31, 2020, 06:22:06 AM »
If we had been wearing masks from the beginning our death toll if it followed their trend might only be less than 3000 souls. They have crowded trains full of people and they didn't find clusters most certainly because almost everyone was wearing masks and not talking much. So simple. So obvious. And yet we still won't do it.

It isn't just the not talking much, they don't speak loudly like us Americans like to. Volume is normally going to be a function of expelled air as well, so we're more prone to doing things that would spread it in general.

I can't quite get my mind around this argument.  When I am out and about I don't run into a lot of "big talkers".  People in stores don't talk to each other, diners in restaurants keep their voices down to keep their conversations private, students at lectures and audiences in (most) concerts aren't spittling all over each other, commuters on trains keep to themselves or talk softly so as not to be rude.  The only venues where people whoop it up are sporting events and social clubs/bars.  You won't be able to get those crowds to talk softly, keep their distance or wear masks, so if big talking is a big problem those places will need to change.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1794 on: May 31, 2020, 07:20:02 AM »
I posted this in another thread, but it refers to a discussion in this thread more closely...

Yes, they may end up being the control group I initially thought the UK was going to be.

Sort of; they closed large gatherings, high schools, colleges, and have people practicing social distancing. Sweden is a model for society after the full lock downs quash this initial spread. Their strategy isn't let the virus run rampant through younger people to build herd immunity in their society. What we need to see is if their measures are enough to keep the virus under control when implemented before the number of cases explodes.

At the beginning of this month Sweden's COVID-19 fatality rate per capita was 30% higher than the US.  Now it's about 36% higher.  They are protecting their elderly, but their overall approach isn't working all that well for the general population.  Their economy isn't likely to do better than their neighbors that implemented much stronger protective measures and have much lower fatality rates.

We need to stop selectively comparing and contrasting the US to other countries looking for escapes or excuses to avoid doing what needs to be done.  It may be too late for the first wave of the virus, which IMO will be the most deadly and destructive, but there are more waves to come that will cause great harm and havoc.  I haven't heard of a single recommendation from the CDC or White House for what they plan to do about this in the fall.  That is a reprehensible and immoral failure that borders on criminal.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1795 on: May 31, 2020, 08:37:35 AM »
Time to take a step back on the HCQ controversy.  There is a challenge to the large-scale observational study of HCQ in hospitals:

Quote
More than 100 scientists have raised concerns over a influential study of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine that led the World Health Organisation to suspend clinical trials to determine if the drugs could be an effective treatment for Covid-19.

Published last week in The Lancet, the large-scale study suggested the malaria drugs could be dangerous to people with severe cases of Covid-19, increasing the risk of abnormal heart rhythms and even death.

Now, scientists across the world are asking the research team, led by Harvard professor Dr Mandeep Mehra, to release its data for further analysis and independent academic review.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1796 on: May 31, 2020, 11:51:45 AM »
A number of the HCQ studies have been problematic. It's good to see that more people are realizing this and willing to look objectively at it. One would hope that would be the default, but things got tainted the moment Trump starting touting HCQ.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1797 on: May 31, 2020, 12:19:09 PM »
They're promoting masks for where they would be most needed and beneficial.

This is accurate. But my spider-sense goes off when we have to search for subtext on what an accepted authority really means when they publish guidance that directly opposes trending beliefs.

I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't seem logical that the WHO would issue pandemic guidance to the public that can easily be interpreted as "that doesn't mean us" by anyone who wanted to speculate so.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1798 on: May 31, 2020, 12:24:56 PM »
Why would it make sense *not* to wear a mask for a virus that is transmitted through exhalation by asymptomatic and presympotmatic infectees?  Does the WHO not know that's how COVID is transmitted?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1799 on: May 31, 2020, 01:17:01 PM »
Why would it make sense *not* to wear a mask for a virus that is transmitted through exhalation by asymptomatic and presympotmatic infectees?  Does the WHO not know that's how COVID is transmitted?

Fomites.  Masks concentrate the virus and increase face touching both of by the infected and by the non-infected.  So you end up with concentrated doses of virus transferred from the mask from the infected; to surfaces; then from surfaces to the non-infected.  It actually isn't clear whether fomites is the dominant route of transmission (people are highly likely to touch the same surfaces in the same locations - door handles, edges of counters, handles for sinks and toilets, etc. - so a compelling case for fomites can be made). There is supposedly a CDC paper that says that fomite transmission isn't significant - but I've not seen it.

Also masks can give people a false sense of security, and result in reduced social distancing.