12 Mississippi children in ICU, 10 on ventilators

[Hammster]

Right. "For sure" is not a useful standard.

I guess everyone should stay home since vaccines aren’t effective enough.

 

[durangodawood]

I guess everyone should stay home since vaccines aren’t effective enough.

How effective would be "enough"?

 

[Hammster]

How effective would be "enough"?

100%.

 

[durangodawood]

100%.

Untenable. In fact I dont even believe you. Would you apply that standard to any other risk analysis in your life?

 

[Hammster]

Untenable. In fact I dont even believe you. Would you apply that standard to any other risk analysis in your life?

I don’t apply it to anything. But if it’s not 100%, then everyone is still at risk to some level.

 

[probinson]

Don't you need symptoms to be contagious?

You'd think. This was the prevailing wisdom before this pandemic. Asymptomatic transmission of disease really wasn't a thing. But then, how else could you justify forcing everyone to wear a mask all the time, even if they feel perfectly fine? The only way the panic can ensue indefinitely is if we treat every other human being as nothing more than a vector of disease where it is completely unknowable if they will infect you or not.

Like most things in the pandemic, the idea of asymptomatic transmission was 'proven' by a paucity of the lowest quality evidence, because that's how The Science™ rolls.

 

[durangodawood]

I don’t apply it to anything. But if it’s not 100%, then everyone is still at risk to some level.

I asked you how effective would be enough.

 

[Hammster]

I asked you how effective would be enough.

I guess where we are at right now, since we can’t go back in time.

 

[probinson]

COVID net currently shows that the hospitalization rate for those ages 0-18 is 3/million. Hospitalization rate for myocarditis after the 2nd vaccine dose is 50/million. Therefore, the risk for 0-18 year olds being hospitalized is more than 15x higher if vaccinated vs. being infected with COVID. This is likely why the UK has opted against mass vaccination of children and teenagers. The US CDC continues to recommend that those age 12-18 be vaccinated despite data that shows the risk is 15x higher to be vaccinated. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[98cwitr]

Nooo.

You sure? Because Fauci's emails suggest otherwise. He admits that asymptomatic spread is rare. So why were people with no symptoms wearing masks for a year? It’s almost like it was all a charade.

 

[KCfromNC]

If they aren’t afraid, they are free to not stay home.

And people who are too scared to get the vaccine can make the choice not to get it and stay home as well.

I really don't get all this "fear" talk. Do adults really base health decisions on some sort of terror that random strangers might think they're afraid of something?

Gosh, honey, I'd love to get cancer treatment, but what if that makes people think I'm afraid of it. Can't have that happening. Seriously, are people that worried about meaningless stuff to put themselves at risk?

 

[KCfromNC]

So I'm curious; could you post the evidence that you believe shows masking was effective?

Could. And did. It even prompted a whole canned "masks don't prevent covid" instead of addressing the flu data that were actually linked from the post.

Not sure why "systematic review" is in quotes. The CDC did a systematic review of the effect of masking on the transmission of influenza, studying 10 RCT's on the topic and concluding that masking had no significant effect on the transmission of the flu.

Was that the review where the latest data was from 2018?

You're claiming that masking and social distancing worked to reduce the flu. I'm showing you that systematic reviews have shown that not to be the case.

Using a paper reviewing data up to 2018?

Here's yet another example of the CDC's study of masking in Delaware that cherry-picked the timeframe they studied.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the link I posted. Why bring it up if neither of us are using it for anything.

Seems that there's a quota of canned anti-mask talking points that need to be added to each post here. Curious.

And there it is; the absolutely worst way to analyze something. "We don't know what would have happened if people weren't wearing masks, so they must have worked"

Good thing I never said that. Any particular reason you'd bring it up?

 

[KCfromNC]

You sure? Because Fauci's emails suggest otherwise. He admits that asymptomatic spread is rare.

Rare is not the same as impossible. You've confirmed durangodawood's correction.

Also, going out on a limb, is it possible that we learned new things after early Feb 2020?

 

[98cwitr]

Rare is not the same as impossible. You've confirmed durangodawood's correction.

Also, going out on a limb, is it possible that we learned new things after early Feb 2020?

So biology and pathology didn't magically change with the appearance of covid as the media had us believe. Also, cloth masks do literally nothing to protect from viruses, again, another media lie. So how many lies do we need to be told to sever trust...or do we blindly keep trusting in spite of the lies?

 

[KCfromNC]

So biology and pathology didn't magically change with the appearance of covid as the media had us believe.

Huh?

Also, cloth masks do literally nothing to protect from viruses, again

Again, huh?

So how many lies do we need to be told to sever trust

Personally, for me it happened many posts back.

 

[98cwitr]

Huh?


Again, huh?



Personally, for me it happened many posts back.

I don't believe that intentionally obtuse and rhetorical questions need answers.

 

[durangodawood]

You sure? Because Fauci's emails suggest otherwise. He admits that asymptomatic spread is rare. So why were people with no symptoms wearing masks for a year? It’s almost like it was all a charade.

I truly hope youve reconsidered posting that. There is an 'edit' function, you know.

 

[probinson]

Could. And did. It even prompted a whole canned "masks don't prevent covid" instead of addressing the flu data that were actually linked from the post.

I must've missed that. Could you post the evidence you have that shows masks "worked" again?

Was that the review where the latest data was from 2018?

Using a paper reviewing data up to 2018?

Yes. It seems you and The Science™ seem to believe that viruses suddenly changed how they transmit overnight, but here in the land of reality, that's just not the case.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the link I posted. Why bring it up if neither of us are using it for anything.

Seems that there's a quota of canned anti-mask talking points that need to be added to each post here. Curious.

These aren't "anti-mask talking points". They show just how low the quality of evidence for masking is, which is incredibly important when deciding if there are benefits to mitigation measures. At least I'm posting data and evidence to support what I'm saying. You're just saying things. Things that are generally unsupported by any evidence.

Good thing I never said that. Any particular reason you'd bring it up?

Yes you did. Specifically, in post #114 you said;

Looking at covid case counts is a red herring - we don't know what would have happened if people weren't wearing masks during that time.

"We don't know what would have happened." True enough. It might have been so much better if governments and public health experts had just executed the pandemic preparedness plans that were in place. But, they didn't, and instead went with the great lockdown/masking experiment of 2020 with disastrous results.

But going back to your original point, flu cases were already on the decline before mask-use was widespread, and flu cases also declined at the same rate regardless of mask-usage and other mitigation measures as I showed with the data. So the hypothesis that mask-usage and other NPIs reduced the flu has some serious questions right out of the gate.

 

[Hammster]

And people who are too scared to get the vaccine can make the choice not to get it and stay home as well.

I really don't get all this "fear" talk. Do adults really base health decisions on some sort of terror that random strangers might think they're afraid of something?

Gosh, honey, I'd love to get cancer treatment, but what if that makes people think I'm afraid of it. Can't have that happening. Seriously, are people that worried about meaningless stuff to put themselves at risk?

You are free to get the vaccine or not get the vaccine and then stay at home or not stay at home. But if you get the vaccine and insist that everyone else does, that’s a different story.

 

[98cwitr]

I truly hope youve reconsidered posting that. There is an 'edit' function, you know.

Not at all. Why do you say that?