Methinks you need to leave Hamilton out of this. Now Jefferson? That fucker was capable of anything.
Even if true, so what? Those voting districts with the population density to use voting machines will vote reliably blue anyway.
Printable View
Methinks you need to leave Hamilton out of this. Now Jefferson? That fucker was capable of anything.
Even if true, so what? Those voting districts with the population density to use voting machines will vote reliably blue anyway.
First of all, you are assuming that the observations about bacterial pneumonia and influenza in the PRE-ANTIBIOTIC ERA have some applicability to covid in 2020. That’s quite a leap.
You imply, I think, that bacteria are the real culprit in covid because of masks, because masks can get full of saliva and probably bacteria, and maybe it’s the bacteria from masks that are killing people, not covid. Again, a huge leap for which there should be ample evidence if it were true, but there is not.
All the germs that are in your mask are also already in your mouth and throat all the time, since that’s where they came from. Your immune system keeps them at bay. Unless, perhaps, you have something else causing immunosuppression or inflammation that allows the bacteria to flourish. Like maybe you aspirate some stomach acid, or have HIV, or have a viral infection of the respiratory tract like flu or maybe covid.
Masks probably do accumulate germs, but they’re the germs you already have, and they are already making (or not making) you sick before you put on the mask. That seems obvious to me. If you have evidence showing otherwise, I’m open to changing my opinion. But the paper you linked to didn’t say what you claimed it did.
Masks are annoying, and if they’re harmful it’s only politically. Nobody using a mask properly is getting sick from it.
Wichita County uses voting machines. They are ubiquitous now.
1. How many people are using a mask properly? You can't even get the nursing staff to wash their hands, much less rely on the 105s to use a mask properly.
2. The premise of the whole goddamn thing is false: COVID-19 has an average survival rate of 99.97%, making it a disease the general public needs to go ahead and contract, not avoid.
You are being rather obtuse. That “leap” is the main point of the paper, stated in the abstract:Quote:
Originally Posted by jfsully
This paper is (casually) cited not for its content on masks, but for its attention to second-order factors.Quote:
If severe pandemic influenza is largely a problem of viral-bacterial copathogenesis, pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone (e.g., influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs). Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should also be high priorities for pandemic planning.
These are utterly ignored in our pandemic response. It is possible that masks, through their primary, overt mechanism, inhibit the spread of disease. (Intuitively. It’s complicated.) It is also possible that the perfunctory, 2-week old masks sitting in car door sills are an unintended, covert risk to health, not to mention other aspects of existence. What is most evident is the shocking inability to openly, rigorously account for both costs and benefits of mandatory public health measures.
Thank you, Shiva. And no offense was intended, JF. Sometimes I don't express my thoughts well in writing.
My point is... the total body of evidence for and against is lacking, and there are far more (and larger) assumptions required to accept masks as valid. There are some assumptions in what I say, but here's the rub:
If I'm right, masks were murderous. If I'm wrong, then they were just worthless. Both are travesties. And if people were right about masks, then Rip has pointed out that no body wears the damn things "properly" in the best of times.
Let me elaborate: nobody using a mask properly, and the vast majority using the mask improperly, are not getting sick from the mask. I haven’t heard of a confirmed illness due to a mask, but there’s always somebody out there doing something like wearing underwear on their face to make a point, right?
Well, the number in the US is probably more like 99.3%, as the overall IFR is looking like 0.7% in the US, and around 1% for developed countries in general, as some European countries have more old people than we do. Of course this is because the survival is about 95% for people over 70 and essentially 100% for kids, so the “overall” IFR isn’t that useful. Healthy young people shouldn’t worry for themselves if they get covid. Older people are rolling a 1/20 chance of death if infected, and a higher chance of getting pretty sick but surviving, and should act accordingly, whatever that means to them.
The paper was mentioned thusly:
Except the paper didn’t mention masks. So, casually misleading, sure.Quote:
Fauci, legitimately, co-authored a paper discussing how masks exacerbated the primary condition driving fatality in Spanish Flu: bacterial pneumonia.
My other point was that bacterial pneumonia is not likely to be nearly the factor today as compared to 1918, precisely because we know about antibiotics. Nobody working in doctors offices or hospitals caring for patients with breathing problems is unaware of the likelihood of bacterial pneumonia as a cofactor.
Yes, there is a theoretical risk of illness from moldy masks, or whatever, but this remains theoretical. If your mask is gross, wash it or throw it out. Not hard. Mask use is very high up here in Massachusetts, but we are not seeing any pattern yet of mask-related illness. Exactly how helpful masks are to contain spread of Covid is debatable, but the downsides aren’t health-related.
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
Anybody looked at the cdc excess mortality data?
1) it looks like covid excess mortality is converging with standard threshold
2) highest category for excess deaths is Alzheimer disease and dementia
Attachment 7493
Attachment 7494
Hilarious if it wasn't so true.
"So why does it really matter if somebody pretends to be Kamala Harris? Kamala Harris herself is pretending to be Kamala Harris. The cold-blooded prosecutor sending people to state prison for marijuana offenses has become the proud pot-smoking crusader for criminal justice reform. The privileged mixed-race scion of a Stanford professor and an Indian cancer researcher now poses as a devout Baptist who loves Tupac. Given Harris’s abominable polling numbers last year, it’s entirely possible that an actor will be able to play the role better than the candidate herself. In fact, the only downside to having a Kamala Harris impersonator is that it seems like a suboptimal use of resources. The campaign’s would be far better off training an army of body doubles for more popular Democrats like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, or The Rock. The last thing the Biden campaign needs to do is remind everyone that come January she’s as likely to be president as Biden himself."
Will the real Kamala Harris please stand up? | Spectator USA
That’s something that has come up in this thread previously, and is why most “studies” on masks are laughable (due to lab simulations.)
I will repeat, NO SCIENTIST WORKING IN A BSL 3 or 4 LAB WOULD EVER WEAR A CLOTH MASK.
Why is that? Seriously, why not? A handkerchief? A “sock”? Surgical masks do help surgeon’s to keep from spitting on their patient’s open wounds and they also protect from back splatter on the surgeon.
When it comes to aerosolized viral particles, it’s laughable any physician would think masks work on the street, in a grocery store, in a pub.
And alas, like you implied, wearing a mask (that doesn’t work) improperly really doesn’t work at all.
When Trump got the ‘Rona, the media went ballistic saying he got it because he never wore a mask.
But masks protect others, not you!