# Run away from no-mask people



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

In the past several months, I have run away from no-mask people every day. It even gets into my dream and becomes my nightmare (being chased by a group of no-mask people).

Those no-mask people mess up my daily running. When I run, if I see a no-mask person, I will turn around. After I have turned around many times, I lose tracking my running distance. This bother me big time.

When you hike on a trail that the trail is very narrow, a group of no-mask people walk toward your direction. You cannot move to the side 6 feet away. What will you do?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the past several months, I have run away from no-mask people every day. It even gets into my dream and becomes my nightmare (being chased by a group of no-mask people).
> 
> Those no-mask people mess up my daily running. When I run, if I see a no-mask person, I will turn around. After I have turned around many times, I lose tracking my running distance. This bother me big time.
> 
> When you hike on a trail that the trail is very narrow, a group of no-mask people walk toward your direction. You cannot move to the side 6 feet away. What will you do?


stay home bud, its the only safe place from the no mask people apocalypse 

i went to chess  cliib to night and every one was wearibg a mask, just as the laws says they must, when stood up. 

then they sat down 2 feet away from each other and took their masks off, 

i put a plastic carrier bag with eye holes over my head and then welders goggles,  i lost all my games for some reason


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 14, 2020)

I am doing my running in a big park, zig-zagging around and through the various soccer fields and such.  Right now, the parks in my area are not being heavily used.  I’m rarely closer than fifty yards from someone.  It’s not an issue for me.

I do get annoyed when I’m downtown on the sidewalk where people are, or in a store, and people don’t wear a mask.  It’s just a courtesy and respect issue and it is absolutely effective in limiting the spread of Covid.  This isn’t difficult.  Wear the mask.  It doesn’t hurt.  It doesn’t threaten your personal liberties.  The fact that people resist wearing the mask is the reason we still have Covid out of control.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I am doing my running in a big park, zig-zagging around and through the various soccer fields and such.  Right now, the parks in my area are not being heavily used.  I’m rarely closer than fifty yards from someone.  It’s not an issue for me.
> 
> I do get annoyed when I’m downtown on the sidewalk where people are, or in a store, and people don’t wear a mask.  It’s just a courtesy and respect issue and it is absolutely effective in limiting the spread of Covid.  This isn’t difficult.  Wear the mask.  It doesn’t hurt.  It doesn’t threaten your personal liberties.  The fact that people resist wearing the mask is the reason we still have Covid out of control.


well of course it threatens your personal liberties, ir rather ur doesnt threaten them it removes at least one of them


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Oct 14, 2020)

I would keep going.        If its that bad previous advise of stay home/just go short distances.

Also, mask exemptions exist and even if they dont offically exist people will still claim medical exemption from it.       Plenty of people dont around me/dont keep distance.    Still really funny how they dont respect your space MORE after explicitly being told to respect it.



Addendum: and i am pretty sure you only have to wear them inside for most places?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Rat said:


> I would keep going.        If its that bad previous advise of stay home/just go short distances.
> 
> Also, mask exemptions exist and even if they dont offically exist people will still claim medical exemption from it.       Plenty of people dont around me/dont keep distance.    Still really funny how they dont respect your space MORE after explicitly being told to respect it.
> 
> ...


your more at risk of being beaten to death in an argument about masks ir distance than you are from the virus


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Rat said:


> I would keep going.        If its that bad previous advise of stay home/just go short distances.
> 
> Also, mask exemptions exist and even if they dont offically exist people will still claim medical exemption from it.       Plenty of people dont around me/dont keep distance.    Still really funny how they dont respect your space MORE after explicitly being told to respect it.
> 
> ...


in most public places you only have to wear then inside if your stood up


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

I just finished my 3 miles running 10 minutes ago. During my running, I have met 2 persons who had mask on. I also met 3 persons who had no mask on. When I met those 3 no-mask people, I just turned around.

If there is a group of people that don't have mask on that walked toward you, and you have no safe distance to get away, what will you do? You may

- back up the 1st time,
- back up the 2nd time, even
- back up the 3rd time.

Are you gong to back up forever? What will you do?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just finished my 3 miles running 10 minutes ago. During my running, I have met 2 persons who had mask on. I also met 3 persons who had no mask on. When I met those 3 no-mask people, I just turned around.
> 
> If there is a group of people that don't have mask on that walked toward you, and you have no safe distance to get away, what will you do? You may
> 
> ...


cant you run past them backward,  then it would just be like runnibg past them forwards


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> cant you run past them backward,  then it would just be like runnibg past them forwards


The problem is the running path that started from my house is not a wide road. If 2 persons walked side by side on the road, for me to pass them, I won't have that safe 6 feet distance.

It's not a good feeling to be squeezed by no-mask people. I don't want to use my MA to get into violence (may be I should). But I don't know what to do.

Any suggestion?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem is the running path that started from my house is not a wide road. If 2 persons walked side by side on the road, for me to pass them, I won't have that safe 6 feet distance.
> 
> It's not a good feeling to be squeezed by no-mask people. I don't want to use my MA to get into violence (may be I should). But I don't know what to do.
> 
> Any suggestion?


youve got a big garden, mark a track on it and do laps

swing you rice flails as you run, it amazibg how much room they will give you


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

Since I started this thread in the General MA Talk session, I have to discuss MA in this thread.

What MA technique is safe to use against a no-mask opponent? Your thought?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since I started this thread in the General MA Talk session, I have to discuss MA in this thread.
> 
> What MA technique is safe to use against a no-mask opponent? Your thought?


ive told you swing your flails  they will jump in a hedge to avoid you


----------



## Saheim (Oct 14, 2020)

I thought this was a joke, at first. I try to social distance as best I can but rarely wear a mask. The truth is I'm just not that worried about it and YES requiring me to wear a mask would be infringement on my liberty. My face, my right, don't like it, stay away from me. Likewise, on private property,  it is the manager's right to tell me to leave.

Governor of KS did an E.O. requiring masks. Some counties are willing to enforce it, other (mine) will not. Also I never wear one on duty. I was at an extremely crowded event where I probably would have liked to have worn one but I am fairly convinced my Chief does not like the idea of masked police. Btw that was a couple months ago and I am fine but, then again, my doctor is pretty convinced I already had it back in January and says getting it again is unlikely.  You can say how wrong he is but I haven't gotten it (again) so.....

I believe the real reason for pushing masks was two fold: (1) aid in mob violence which paves the way for (2) Furthering "gait recognition" programs and rake in money from a source that was (until now) negated by facial recognition.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

Saheim said:


> I thought this was a joke, at first. I try to social distance as best I can but rarely wear a mask. The truth is I'm just not that worried about it and YES requiring me to wear a mask would be infringement on my liberty. My face, my right, don't like it, stay away from me. Likewise, on private property,  it is the manager's right to tell me to leave.
> 
> Governor of KS did an E.O. requiring masks. Some counties are willing to enforce it, other (mine) will not. Also I never wear one on duty. I was at an extremely crowded event where I probably would have liked to have worn one but I am fairly convinced my Chief does not like the idea of masked police. Btw that was a couple months ago and I am fine but, then again, my doctor is pretty convinced I already had it back in January and says getting it again is unlikely.  You can say how wrong he is but I haven't gotten it (again) so.....
> 
> I believe the real reason for pushing masks was two fold: (1) aid in mob violence which paves the way for (2) Furthering "gait recognition" programs and rake in money from a source that was (until now) negated by facial recognition.



Yep, you're from Kansas alright.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> your more at risk of being beaten to death in an argument about masks ir distance than you are from the virus


As you always ask, do you have any figures for this claim? How many people have been beaten to death in an argument about masks?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yep, you're from Kansas alright.


*Gov. Kelly: Mask mandate still in effect in Kansas

JOHNSON COUNTY, Kan. — Gov. Laura Kelly and Johnson County officials are reminding residents the mask order remains in effect.*


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> your more at risk of being beaten to death in an argument about masks ir distance than you are from the virus


Who beats whom to death? 

- No-mask guy beats mask guy to death?
- Mask guy beats no-mask guy to death?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

Saheim said:


> I thought this was a joke, at first.


It's not a joke when someone has to deal with something like this for the past 7 months. I truly want my life to go back to normal again.

I'm suppose to be in California right now. Since the California situation is not any better than the situation in Texas, I remain in Texas this year, I just find out that one of my favor hiking trail in California has been closed.

*Pismo Preserve trails closed after crowds create coronavirus concerns*

*https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article241438946.html*


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

Officials on Monday closed the popular Pismo Preserve coastal trails indefinitely after crowds flocked to the destination over the weekend — creating concerns about coronavirus transmission.

The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County — the nonprofit that oversees the 11 miles of trails that opened on Jan. 25 — opted to close the hiking area after issuing warnings urging visitors to maintain proper social distancing protocol.

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article241438946.html


----------



## skribs (Oct 14, 2020)

Two factors to consider are how long you're in close proximity to another person, and whether or not they get droplets on you.  There's a big difference in passing by a group with no masks, compared with hanging out with a group with no masks.

You could also get a face shield and wear that in addition to your mask.  Mask protects others from you, face shield protects you from others.  Just wash your hands before you touch your face, and wash the face shield.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Oct 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since I started this thread in the General MA Talk session, I have to discuss MA in this thread.
> 
> What MA technique is safe to use against a no-mask opponent? Your thought?



The same one you put in the title.

Run, as in, gallop the trail you're walking in reverse, as fast as possible.

You can always attempt the trail again, assuming you don't catch, die, or spread a killer virus.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> As you always ask, do you have any figures for this claim? How many people have been beaten to death in an argument about masks?


well quite a few, but i didnt say peopke were more at risk, i said kung fu wang was more at risk, he is socialy distancing of the first order, so he chance of catching iit is virtualy nil, his change of getting into conflict over it sees a lot higher, who dies, him or the other guy us open to question


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Who beats whom to death?
> 
> - No-mask guy beats mask guy to death?
> - Mask guy beats no-mask guy to death?


im outtibg money on you to win


----------



## Leviathan (Oct 15, 2020)

I ab-so-lu-te-ly don't care if someone does not wear a mask.

I work in a rather large company in Hamburg in Germany and I commute with the train. I haven't had any single day of remote working since outbreak of covid 19. I haven't been infected or at least haven't had any symptoms.

I completely trust my immune system.

I understand that some people are very afraid of that virus but I absolutely do not share their fear.

For clarity purpose: I wear a mask when I have to. Otherwise I don't.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> well quite a few, but i didnt say peopke were more at risk, i said kung fu wang was more at risk, he is socialy distancing of the first order, so he chance of catching iit is virtualy nil, his change of getting into conflict over it sees a lot higher, who dies, him or the other guy us open to question


And how do you know his chance is virtually nil? We have no way of knowing if there will be a spike near him, and at thw same time something happens forcing him to be exposed, such as something unrelated forcing him to go to the hospital. Or a change in mindset in the future causing him to become more relaxed.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> And how do you know his chance is virtually nil? We have no way of knowing if there will be a spike near him, and at thw same time something happens forcing him to be exposed, such as something unrelated forcing him to go to the hospital. Or a change in mindset in the future causing him to become more relaxed.


his current chances are virtually nil, he could of course have a very fat man with civid fall on him from a 20 storey building, thats covered in the virtual part of virtually nil


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

This is the way that I look at this issue.

I'll never walk toward someone within 6 feet distance without a mask on. I won't allow anybody to walk toward me within 6 feet distance without a mask on. Is that a fair requirement?

The issue is if someone insists to walk toward me within 6 feet distance without a mask on, that person can be dangerous to my life. Do I have the right to protect myself?

Your thought?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> his current chances are virtually nil, he could of course have a very fat man with civid fall on him from a 20 storey building, thats covered in the virtual part of virtually nil


Ah, his current chances. Missed that part.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 15, 2020)

There is a lot of false and misinformation about Covid-19 and there is still a lot unknown.
There is a lot that is known and it is now beginning to shown that even people who wear masks are testing positive with Covid-19 and the death rate is far less than what was originally expected. Yesterday some of Biden's staff (who wear masks) have been tested positive.

We need to be careful but not 'fearful'. Many now life in fear; the emotional distress aroused by an impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined). Covid-19 is real but I don't life in fear of it. I wear a mask where required but not when in the open and other's aren't around me. The experts have for several months been saying it is time in contact with others who are contagious with covid which makes getting the disease not just in passing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

Danny T said:


> I wear a mask where required but not when in the open and other's aren't around me.


I don't do any differently than the way you are doing.

I do exactly as Dr Fauci has suggested. Put mask under my chin when I run. Move up when I see people. Move back down after I have pass them.








Danny T said:


> The experts have for several months been saying it is time in contact with others who are contagious with covid which makes getting the disease not just in passing.


Not sure about this.

I suppose to be in California right now. I don't know California is any safer than Texas, I didn't go. I used to run on Pismo Beach. I don't know how to deal with no-mask people on the beach.






I just find out that one of my favor hiking trail has been closed.

The Pismo Preserve is closed until further notice, due to concerns about the recreation area's capacity for adequate social distancing among visitors, the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County announced Monday. The preserve has been extremely popular since opening to the public Jan.Mar 23, 2020

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article241438946.html


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the way that I look at this issue.
> 
> I'll never walk toward someone within 6 feet distance without a mask on. I won't allow anybody to walk toward me within 6 feet distance without a mask on. Is that a fair requirement?
> 
> ...


its a personal responsibility issue, its up to you to keep away from people, not theirs to keep away from you.


----------



## Bruce7 (Oct 15, 2020)

Danny T said:


> There is a lot of false and misinformation about Covid-19 and there is still a lot unknown.
> There is a lot that is known and it is now beginning to shown that even people who wear masks are testing positive with Covid-19 and the death rate is far less than what was originally expected. Yesterday some of Biden's staff (who wear masks) have been tested positive.
> 
> We need to be careful but not 'fearful'. Many now life in fear; the emotional distress aroused by an impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined). Covid-19 is real but I don't life in fear of it. I wear a mask where required but not when in the open and other's aren't around me. The experts have for several months been saying it is time in contact with others who are contagious with covid which makes getting the disease not just in passing.



2 people 3 block down from me dead.
200,000 people dead.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

Danny T said:


> There is a lot of false and misinformation about Covid-19 and there is still a lot unknown.


Do you think this picture is fake?


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think this picture is fake?


it looks photo shopped, badly


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think this picture is fake?


i mean why would you bury people on a beach, its really really hard to dig a hole,


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> i mean why would you bury people on a beach, its really really hard to dig a hole,


If you think that picture is fake, do you believe in this?

Herman Cain (December 13, 1945 – July 30, 2020).


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you think that picture is fake, do you believe in this?
> 
> Herman Cain (December 13, 1945 – July 30, 2020).


im not sure what you mean, i know people who have died because of the covid shut down stopped them getting treatment for non covid illness, i know people who have been committed to institutions because the isolation drove them mad

i dont however know anyone or know of anyone known to someone i know who has died of covid, that as far as my limited data can go, shows not having covid is more dangerous


----------



## mograph (Oct 15, 2020)

Much of science is not correctly taught in schools: in there, it's all about dissecting frogs and making stuff explode.
So let me (with a B.Sc. I acquired at age 57) share with you guys a key axiom about science. Some of you might already know.

*It's all about likelihood and probability.
*
If you ever read scientific papers, you'll find that they never say "this is certain." They only ever say "this is *likely*," if that. That's because they are aware of the changing nature of science, where new discoveries can change existing paradigms. It's not a bug, it's a *feature* of science; otherwise we would still be drilling holes in people's head to let out evil spirits or whatever.

So SARS-CoV-2 is a very new virus. We just don't have a lot of data on how it affects people, how it behaves, and so on. We are dealing with natural processes, and that takes time. So anything that comes out of the testing is a provisional conclusion: it is _likely_ that the virus behaves this way, based on what we know now. All conclusions in science are provisional.

What does that have to do with masks? Back to probability and likelihood. The following actions *decrease the likelihood that you will get COVID-19*, because they decrease the likelihood that the SARS-CoV-2 virus will enter your lungs or eyes:

wearing a mask yourself (more layers, less permeable: lower likelihood)
being around people wearing masks
wearing a shield

maintaining a distance of at least 6 feet
being outdoors or in a place with good air circulation
washing your hands before you touch your face
All of those will *decrease the likelihood* that the virus will enter your body, and in some cases, decrease the likelihood that asymptomatic you will spread the virus to other people. Sure, maybe the wind blew that sick guy's spittle in the other direction -- that's why the odds are lower that you'll get it outside. 

So this is why a lot of people don't wear masks outside, or just wear masks and no shields. We're all adults, and we take reasonable risks every day. We drive on the highway; we eat food other people cook. But there's a line: we don't drive drunk, and we might avoid street food in a strange place. 
The line, for me with this virus, is indoor/outdoor. 

indoors, I always wear a mask and keep my distance.
outdoors, I don't wear a mask if I'm moving and keeping my distance. But if people might get closer than six feet, I wear it.
Nobody cares if we're fearful or not. People are saying that wearing a mask is being fearful, and that's BS. *We can be fearful and wear a mask, or just be responsible and wear a mask. *I'm not afraid of sharks, but I won't swim in shark-infested waters because that would not be a good idea. Similarly, not wearing a mask in close quarters to show that we're not afraid is just stupid, and selfish. If we don't care about your own health, we need to care about other people. We might have it, not get sick, but we might breathe it out to other people who might not be as strong as us.

As for the drunk driving analogy, imagine driving drunk with a baby in the car. It's not just about the driver, and this mask thing is not just about the mask wearer. It's also about the people around the mask-wearer.

Until we get a reliable vaccine, we just need to do what it takes to *reduce the odds* that we'll get it, and *reduce the odds *that we'll transmit it to someone else.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

I'm supposed to be in Pismo Beach, CA right now. In the following clip, you can see many people walk on the street without mask. On the street, I just don't know how to deal with that many people without mask.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Gov. Kelly: Mask mandate still in effect in Kansas
> 
> JOHNSON COUNTY, Kan. — Gov. Laura Kelly and Johnson County officials are reminding residents the mask order remains in effect.*



Yes, I am aware of her "order". Like I said, each county is choosing,  for itself, whether or not they enforce it.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 15, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yep, you're from Kansas alright.



Actually,  I'm not BUT I fit in right away. Definitely found the rest of "my people".


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm supposed to be in Pismo Beach, CA right now. In the following clip, you can see many people walk on the street without mask. On the street, I just don't know how to deal with that many people without mask.


in the uk your sort of obliged to know where you are
in the states they put up signs in 9 foot letters


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

I just borrow someone's comment in another forum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People on here joke about covid anxiety, but my wife works in a hospital and people are still dying. In fact, I have several docs in the family, and they are all watching people get sick, die, or be left with lasting ill effects. It's just not worth it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> in the uk your sort of obliged to know where you are
> in the states they put up signs in 9 foot letters


My concern is, why did the California government closed down the hiking trail if outdoor is safe?


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My concern is, why did the California government closed down the hiking trail if outdoor is safe?


 coz its California


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> coz its California


That's where I belong.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 15, 2020)

Leviathan said:


> I ab-so-lu-te-ly don't care if someone does not wear a mask.
> 
> I work in a rather large company in Hamburg in Germany and I commute with the train. I haven't had any single day of remote working since outbreak of covid 19. I haven't been infected or at least haven't had any symptoms.
> 
> ...



Same here - My company (i have two jobs) sent all "non essential" employees home to work remotely. I am essential so I still had to come in, since the beginning. There are A LOT of "essentials" and we work in close proximity every day. 

We take precautions (masks required if within 6', wipe down surfaces, etc) but have had a few "positives". Most were back to work in a short period of time saying they never really felt bad enough to call in (under pre covid conditions).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 15, 2020)

Leviathan said:


> I ab-so-lu-te-ly don't care if someone does not wear a mask.


It's good to be young. When we were young, we thought we were all supermen.

17 years ago, I went to Taipei, Taiwan during 2003 when SARS was in Taiwan. I walked on the Taipei street and could not see anybody. I went to a movie. There were only 2 other persons besides myself. I didn't know what happened there and I had no mask on. When I came back from Taiwan, I then realized there was a SARS in Taiwan. My manager was very nervous and worried I might brought SARS back into US.

Today when I look back, it's truly amazing that back in Taipei, Taiwan 2003, I could not see anybody on the most crowed movie theatre distract in Taipei (similar to the 5th Avenue in NYC). Those people in Taiwan did know how to protect themselves.

Here is how Xi Men Ding, Taipei, Taiwan looks like today. Back in 2003 SARS times, the entire street was empty. I don't believe this can happen in any city in US.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> i dont however know anyone or know of anyone known to someone i know who has died of covid, that as far as my limited data can go, shows not having covid is more dangerous



I have 2 for that one, for them going on death certificates.    


I just need to reiterate for clarity thread wise, not everywhere has mandated you ave to wear it 24/7, most have only mandated it for indoor public areas and when you obviously arent eating etc.     The only option is going to be just stay home/avoid contact at all until its over.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you hike on a trail that the trail is very narrow, a group of no-mask people walk toward your direction. You cannot move to the side 6 feet away. What will you do?


I'll wave and smile, and they'll see my smile because I am outside and I am not wearing a mask, either.

CDC Study Finds Vast Majority of Those Infected with COVID-19 ‘Always’ Wore Masks - Daily Citizen


----------



## Buka (Oct 17, 2020)

A good friend of mine lost both his otherwise healthy parents to Covid in one week.
A friend of mine lost her son.
I've lost a few other people I know.

But I shall refrain from sharing my opinion about people who don't wear masks because I don't want to be banned from our forum.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 17, 2020)

JP3 said:


> I'll wave and smile, and they'll see my smile because I am outside and I am not wearing a mask, either.
> 
> CDC Study Finds Vast Majority of Those Infected with COVID-19 ‘Always’ Wore Masks - Daily Citizen



There are numerous reports out that explain how the study is being misinterpreted. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> its a personal responsibility issue, its up to you to keep away from people, not theirs to keep away from you.


From a personal safety perspective yes.  But from  a society perspective no.  For example,  it's your responsibility to stay away from me if I'm swinging swords around in public as I walk through the store.  But from a public safety perspective.  I shouldn't be swinging my swords like that because it presents a danger to the general public.  

Public safety will always win over, Personal desires, which is what a mask really is.  When people say that wearing a masks takes away their freedom, then simply ask what freedom does it take away?  It takes a way a desire, but not a freedom.  If you don't want to wear a mask, then don't be around other people.  That way your desire doesn't become a public safety issue.   If I want to walk around swinging my swords in public, then I shouldn't do it around other people in public.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> i mean why would you bury people on a beach, its really really hard to dig a hole,







This is some clarification on the photo that Wang showed


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 17, 2020)

Buka said:


> A good friend of mine lost both his otherwise healthy parents to Covid in one week.
> A friend of mine lost her son.
> I've lost a few other people I know.
> 
> But I shall refrain from sharing my opinion about people who don't wear masks because I don't want to be banned from our forum.


That's sad.  I bet you do have choice words.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> I would keep going.        If its that bad previous advise of stay home/just go short distances.
> 
> Also, mask exemptions exist and even if they dont offically exist people will still claim medical exemption from it.       Plenty of people dont around me/dont keep distance.    Still really funny how they dont respect your space MORE after explicitly being told to respect it.
> 
> ...


To your addendum - it shouldn't be about "have to". It's such an easy thing for anyone to do, unless they have really severe asthma or emphezema or such (in which case, they should be protecting themselves in every way they possibly can, as they are at very high risk). And while outdoors is usually less dangerous for transmission (air currents break up the "clouds" of virus people leave in the air, so there's no high concentration), that's only true in relatively sparsely populated areas. If 40 people are hanging around together outside, that has the potential to overcome that advantage (unless there's a strong wind).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2020)

JP3 said:


> I'll wave and smile, and they'll see my smile because I am outside and I am not wearing a mask, either.
> 
> CDC Study Finds Vast Majority of Those Infected with COVID-19 ‘Always’ Wore Masks - Daily Citizen


That's not at all what that study found. It wasn't even what that study examined. The completely misrepresented statistic is that roughly 85% of the subjects who tested postiive were mask wearers. Rougly 88% of those who tested negative were mask wearers.

But the science has long been clear that there's minimal (if any) self-protection from wearing a cloth mask. You wearing a mask is in case you are infected and don't know it (infected people are potentially infectious several days before they show significant symptoms), to reduce your chances of transmitting to the next person.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2020)

Danny T said:


> There is a lot of false and misinformation about Covid-19 and there is still a lot unknown.
> There is a lot that is known and it is now beginning to shown that even people who wear masks are testing positive with Covid-19 and the death rate is far less than what was originally expected. Yesterday some of Biden's staff (who wear masks) have been tested positive.
> 
> We need to be careful but not 'fearful'. Many now life in fear; the emotional distress aroused by an impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined). Covid-19 is real but I don't life in fear of it. I wear a mask where required but not when in the open and other's aren't around me. The experts have for several months been saying it is time in contact with others who are contagious with covid which makes getting the disease not just in passing.


The mask isn't primarily to protect the wearer. That folks with masks get COVID is not surprising. There's some evidence (and reasonable immunological models to explain it) that there's some small protection for the wearer with even cloth masks. But the real point is to prevent outward transmission. Like many diseases, an infected person has a period of time when they are infectious but not yet showing symptoms, so they are likely unaware of their infection. If they have a mask on, they reduce the chance of accidentally giving someone a potentially fatal disease. By just having a mask on, which really takes almost no effort.

And while passing a single person who is also moving about is unlikley to provide enough viral transmission, when you're somewhere where there are multiple people you're passing, statistics get involved. There will be instances where multiple infectious people are in the same relative area. If they aren't wearing masks, they leave a viral "cloud". With enough of them leaving some of that in the same area (as they pass through), there can be enough virus in the air for transmission. (As I understand it, we become "infected" when more virus enters our system than our system can deal with. Without a vaccine, for most of us that amount appears to be fairly small.)

As for the death rate being less than was expected....200,000 is more than enough for me. Just sayin.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You wearing a mask is in case you are infected and don't know it (infected people are potentially infectious several days before they show significant symptoms), to reduce your chances of transmitting to the next person.


Why this simple reason is so difficult for people to understand?

You put on mask to protect others. Will that make you feel good and be proud of yourself?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why this simple reason is so difficult for people to understand?
> 
> You put on mask to protect others. Will that make you feel good and be proud of yourself?


I don't think it's hard to understand.  I think it's selfishness.  The excuse for people not wearing mask is always about them.  It's never about "What can I do to help prevent the spread".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think it's hard to understand.  I think it's selfishness.  The excuse for people not wearing mask is always about them.  It's never about "What can I do to help prevent the spread".


Yesterday when I did my 3 miles running, I saw someone 30 feet away who walked toward me. I moved my mask from under my chin to my face. When I passed him (he also had mask on), he said, "Thank you!" That made me feel real good.


----------



## Buka (Oct 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think it's hard to understand.  I think it's selfishness.  The excuse for people not wearing mask is always about them.  It's never about "What can I do to help prevent the spread".



You’re right. It was just like the dick heads who wouldn’t wear a seat belt when that law was passed. Now, if they found out their grand kids weren’t wearing them, they’d kick their butts.

As for masks, I’m tired of hearing “this is a free country”. Says who? Whatcha getting for free?

And Karma is a bee-atch. She also wears a mask and has Covid. She’s gonna’ take it off and cough right in some non wearers faces.

Good enough for em’. I’ll shed no tears.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 18, 2020)

Buka said:


> You’re right. It was just like the dick heads who wouldn’t wear a seat belt when that law was passed. Now, if they found out their grand kids weren’t wearing them, they’d kick their butts.
> 
> As for masks, I’m tired of hearing “this is a free country”. Says who? Whatcha getting for free?
> 
> ...



"Says who"? Really? Wow.

As for me getting it (again?) I don't want you to shed tears for me. If you honestly have to ask "says who?", I can honestly say there is nothing I would ever want from you.


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 18, 2020)

Lol... well said @Buka.

Well KungFu Wang it's mandatory here in our state so we don't have to worry about that situation. But yeah that would be awkward.. but unsure if it constitutes needing to physically defend oneself, UNLESS they are intentionally approaching you with harmful intent and being purposeful in their breaching social distance.

As uncomfortably masks are it's for the safety and consideration of everyone, a very small thing we can do compared to the potential horrific alternative, so am quite okay with it being mandatory here.


----------



## Buka (Oct 18, 2020)

Saheim said:


> "Says who"? Really? Wow.
> 
> As for me getting it (again?) I don't want you to shed tears for me. If you honestly have to ask "says who?", I can honestly say there is nothing I would ever want from you.



Sounds good to me.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> From a personal safety perspective yes.  But from  a society perspective no.  For example,  it's your responsibility to stay away from me if I'm swinging swords around in public as I walk through the store.  But from a public safety perspective.  I shouldn't be swinging my swords like that because it presents a danger to the general public.
> 
> Public safety will always win over, Personal desires, which is what a mask really is.  When people say that wearing a masks takes away their freedom, then simply ask what freedom does it take away?  It takes a way a desire, but not a freedom.  If you don't want to wear a mask, then don't be around other people.  That way your desire doesn't become a public safety issue.   If I want to walk around swinging my swords in public, then I shouldn't do it around other people in public.


well its a thorny issue, certainly since awareness of the disease started, very few got covid who didnt volunteer to be around other people.

if your scared stop in, its that simple, but we have a few hypochondriacs wanting everybody else to change their behaviour, to ease their irrational fear

if your living in a family environment then the place your most at risk is at home and thats where people dont wear masks, then if they get it they are then blaming everyone else for their lack of care for themselves

if im out and about, i avoid crowded places, but then i always did, i keep out of other peoples space, if they come into mine im quite happy about that, yes come and sit next to me, yes give me a hug shake my hand, im good with that

my chance of dieing  in the next year is 1 in 100,000, covid has only changed that by a few fractions of a percentage point, it may have actually reduced it as there is less traffic about

i see people taking their masks of to have a cigy and drink beer and stuff a burgers down, yea thats sensible covid is a lot more dangerous than beer and cigs and junk food,,, NOT


----------



## Saheim (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> well its a thorny issue, certainly since awareness of the disease started, very few got covid who didnt volunteer to be around other people.
> 
> if your scared stop in, its that simple, but we have a few hypochondriacs wanting everybody else to change their behaviour, to ease their irrational fear
> 
> ...



History will not be kind to us, especially seeing as how the most common type of mask being worn (gaiter) has been shown to cause as much as a 10% INCREASE in the number of droplets while making them smaller and allowing them to travel further which quite possibly HELPS SPREAD the virus (look it up)

But hey, we love knee jerk reactions and feeling like we're safe, so......


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Saheim said:


> History will not be kind to us, especially seeing as how the most common type of mask being worn (gaiter) has been shown to cause as much as a 10% INCREASE in the number of droplets while making them smaller and allowing them to travel further which quite possibly HELPS SPREAD the virus (look it up)
> 
> But hey, we love knee jerk reactions and feeling like we're safe, so......


there was study released by oxford university a couple of weeks ago saying much the something, in general terms the various controls are having the effect of making it worse, they are not just useless, they are worse than doing nothing

then you add in the health economic and well being costs of the controls and you see that the mismanagement is a far greater threat to society than the disease

yes i think it will be tought and research for a thousand years on how NOT to react in a health crisis

they will be laughing at our stupidity, much as we do when the reaction to the plague was to kill all the cats and dogs that were keeping the rats down, im sure they thought it a good idea as well


----------



## Saheim (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> there was study released by oxford university a couple of weeks ago saying much the something, in general terms the various controls are having the effect of making it worse, they are not just useless, they are worse than doing nothing



Yes but they make us FEEL safe and that is what is really important.  Like the pistol in the bottom of a woman's purse that would take her 3 minutes to put into play.  Might not actually help BUT it makes her FEEL safer. Plus everyone else is doing it and we wanna feel like part of the herd.

But, then again, I don't get flu shots and I ride (and crash) motorcycle with no helmet which is crazy...... except for the fact that, statistically speaking, 98% of the injuries suffered by motorcyclists are below the neck.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 18, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Yes but they make us FEEL safe and that is what is really important.  Like the pistol in the bottom of a woman's purse that would take her 3 minutes to put into play.  Might not actually help BUT it makes her FEEL safer. Plus everyone else is doing it and we wanna feel like part of the herd.
> 
> But, then again, I don't get flu shots and I ride (and crash) motorcycle with no helmet which is crazy...... except for the fact that, statistically speaking, 98% of the injuries suffered by motorcyclists are below the neck.


I am with you. If someone does not want to wear a mask or helmet I am cool with it. But I am also cool with wanting to wear them as well. 
That said I do wear a skid lid when riding my bike. I factory raced Enduro for Yamaha for two years Way back in 80-81. Some of the falls I took trying to get through some of the technical stuff back then made me appreciate every piece of protective equipment I was wearing. I bounce my head off tree limbs and rocks more times than I care to remember. 
What I do think is totally stupid is seeing people who ride while wearing no shirt, shorts, and flip-flops. To me that is way more than just asking for a serious case of road rash.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I am with you. If someone does not want to wear a mask or helmet I am cool with it. But I am also cool with wanting to wear them as well.
> That said I do wear a skid lid when riding my bike. I factory raced Enduro for Yamaha for two years Way back in 80-81. Some of the falls I took trying to get through some of the technical stuff back then made me appreciate every piece of protective equipment I was wearing. I bounce my head off tree limbs and rocks more times than I care to remember.
> What I do think is totally stupid is seeing people who ride while wearing no shirt, shorts, and flip-flops. To me that is way more than just asking for a serious case of road rash.


massive thread swerve, but then there are connections, between the people you see with a 500 quid crash helmet and short and flip flops whizzing about and the deluded wearing masks with no change of behaviour

the only conclusion you make is they have never burn through a pair of heavy leather pants skidding along the road


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Yes but they make us FEEL safe and that is what is really important.  Like the pistol in the bottom of a woman's purse that would take her 3 minutes to put into play.  Might not actually help BUT it makes her FEEL safer. Plus everyone else is doing it and we wanna feel like part of the herd.
> 
> But, then again, I don't get flu shots and I ride (and crash) motorcycle with no helmet which is crazy...... except for the fact that, statistically speaking, 98% of the injuries suffered by motorcyclists are below the neck.


 well thats not how it is here, to the most part, the government keep complaining that the general population it not taking it seriously at all and keep trying to ramp up the fear factor, with very little effect, people generally are just not scared of it, not in the slightest

that any number of the controls have absolutely no logic at all isnt helping their credibility at all, so the government keep upping the fines, people are scared of a 10,000 quid fine, so it works to that extent, except when they are pretty sure nobody is watching then they go back to normal

 the latest counter productive measure, is to give the police access to the test and trace data, so they can go round to those supposed to self isolated and hit them with a big fine, im betting the number of people giving correct info medum to low and soon to get even lower. i mean why would you willingly participate in that


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> The mask isn't primarily to protect the wearer. That folks with masks get COVID is not surprising. There's some evidence (and reasonable immunological models to explain it) that there's some small protection for the wearer with even cloth masks. But the real point is to prevent outward transmission. Like many diseases, an infected person has a period of time when they are infectious but not yet showing symptoms, so they are likely unaware of their infection. If they have a mask on, they reduce the chance of accidentally giving someone a potentially fatal disease. By just having a mask on, which really takes almost no effort.
> 
> And while passing a single person who is also moving about is unlikley to provide enough viral transmission, when you're somewhere where there are multiple people you're passing, statistics get involved. There will be instances where multiple infectious people are in the same relative area. If they aren't wearing masks, they leave a viral "cloud". With enough of them leaving some of that in the same area (as they pass through), there can be enough virus in the air for transmission. (As I understand it, we become "infected" when more virus enters our system than our system can deal with. Without a vaccine, for most of us that amount appears to be fairly small.)
> 
> As for the death rate being less than was expected....200,000 is more than enough for me. Just sayin.


i asked yopu a few months back if you had any actual science to show that masks have any measurable effect on the spread of covid and despite a lot of waffle YOU NEVER DID PROVIDED ANY,

Since the uk chief medical adviser was asked the same question and he said no, no actual hard science, but he thought they might help,


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> if your living in a family environment then the place your most at risk is at home and thats where people dont wear masks, then if they get it they are then blaming everyone else for their lack of care for themselves


This isn't direct at you, based on what you are saying you are doing the things that help reduce the spread of the viruses.  When I say You, it is in the general sense and not personally directed at you.


If you are at home with a family unit and everyone in that unit is doing what they should to minimize the risk then your chances of getting sick from someone in that house is slim.  The issue with family is that people are having family who live outside of the house are visiting each other.  People make the assumption that just because they are family that it's safe for them to come visit without a mask. 

1.  This is how some family members get sick.
2. Then you have house with younger family members who think that they aren't going to get sick because they are young.  So the younger family is slack on protecting themselves.  I see it all the time where I live where parents are out with kids.  Parents have their masks on, but their children do not.  What they fail to realize is that if the child catches Covid-19 then that child will bring it back home where no one is wearing a mask.
3. Family members who believe differently.  I have also seen it where the Husband doesn't wear a mask but the wife and children do. This runs the same scenario as#2

While many people have gotten sick, there are many family units who have not gotten sick with Covid-19



jobo said:


> but we have a few hypochondriacs wanting everybody else to change their behaviour, to ease their irrational fear


This is true, but I'm not a hypochondriac and I want people to change their behavior so that we can lower the cases of infection so that things can reopen and get back on track.

The best way to end a pandemic is to stop giving it bodies to infect.  The best way to do this is through Isolation.  But you have to do Isolation all at once and not as a patch work.   If the US would have done strict Isolation for 3 months and masks for those who go out,  Then we would be in a much better position and we wouldn't be complaining about how things are.  Italy had a severe lock down this is what they went through after they took it seriously.  Had they been more serious about it, then that first way would have been much smaller






This is the U.S. with people complaining about how wearing a mask some how takes away their freedom, and how Covid-19 is fake,  hear immunity, and that it's just like the flu.  We never went into lock down as a nation.  We patchwork everything and this is the result.  The U.S. is like a football team. Everyone runs the same play.  Instead of doing that, The quarterback ran his own play, the defensive line did their own thing, the the receivers did their own play and what they thought was best.  When people aren't on the same plan then nothing works.  It's not theory, it's right here.  As a country we can't be on different different game plans and think that everything is going to be just fine. 

Again if a person isn't willing to change their behavior to keep you safe as a citizen and to hep get the pandemic under control.  I think of all of the businesses that have changed their behavior in order to help keep their employees and customers safe.  Many of them doing it on their own and requiring their customers to do the same.  I don't hear people complaining to these companies how wearing a mask takes away their masks.

To me it's really simple,  People don't want businesses to be shut down?  Then ask what can you do to stop the spread so that businesses can open up.  Then do what is recommended by the experts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 18, 2020)

Saheim said:


> History will not be kind to us, especially seeing as how the most common type of mask being worn (gaiter) has been shown to cause as much as a 10% INCREASE in the number of droplets while making them smaller and allowing them to travel further which quite possibly HELPS SPREAD the virus (look it up)
> 
> But hey, we love knee jerk reactions and feeling like we're safe, so......


I don't see many people wearing gaiter masks where I live.  I see most people where the surgical masks, and the other masks that looks similar but more fashionable.  

I've actually seen an increase of mask use where I live. The only group of people that I see who don't wear masks are those in the Hispanic Population.   For every black or white person that I see without a mask, I would have seen 5 Hispanics not wear a mask.  So when I hear the numbers that Hispanics are most likely to be infected, then it makes sense to me.  They don't wear their masks like they should.

Black people in my area used to be similar but now I see more black people with masks which is good. I also hear less whining about a mask.  Which is good.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This isn't direct at you, based on what you are saying you are doing the things that help reduce the spread of the viruses.  When I say You, it is in the general sense and not personally directed at you.
> 
> 
> If you are at home with a family unit and everyone in that unit is doing what they should to minimize the risk then your chances of getting sick from someone in that house is slim.  The issue with family is that people are having family who live outside of the house are visiting each other.  People make the assumption that just because they are family that it's safe for them to come visit without a mask.
> ...


the number of people your in close confines with increase your risk exponentially

and thats by and large your family, if you all live in a bubble thats ok, but people dont. in the country they sent the kids back to school, three weeks later the rate shot up, coincidence ? i thing not

if they are doing that, there is no point doing anything else at all

isolating your self including from your family will definitely work, there no evidence that anything else will work at all, and much of it runs the risk of increasing infection by just moving the problem somewhere else

they are never going to stop the spread, until everyone has caught it or its mutated its self out of existence or they have a vaccine, to pretend otherwise is stupid


----------



## mograph (Oct 18, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Yes, I am aware of her "order". Like I said, each county is choosing,  for itself, whether or not they enforce it.


Well, that’s good, because travel between counties in the US is prohibited, isn’t it? Then there’s no way the disease can be transmitted across county lines. Good plan, that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 18, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Lol... well said @Buka.
> 
> Well KungFu Wang it's mandatory here in our state so we don't have to worry about that situation. But yeah that would be awkward.. but unsure if it constitutes needing to physically defend oneself, UNLESS they are intentionally approaching you with harmful intent and being purposeful in their breaching social distance.
> 
> As uncomfortably masks are it's for the safety and consideration of everyone, a very small thing we can do compared to the potential horrific alternative, so am quite okay with it being mandatory here.


Even in places here where it's technically mandatory, at least 25% of the people ignore the requirement. And it's not enforced, so they can.


----------



## Buka (Oct 18, 2020)

You can't fix stupid.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 18, 2020)

mograph said:


> Well, that’s good, because travel between counties in the US is prohibited, isn’t it? Then there’s no way the disease can be transmitted across county lines. Good plan, that.



Worked so far. The sky does not appear to be falling in my county.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Even in places here where it's technically mandatory, at least 25% of the people ignore the requirement. And it's not enforced, so they can.


I think it's more than 25% in Texas.

In my today's 3 miles running, I only met 3 persons. All of them don't have mask on.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think it's more than 25% in Texas.
> 
> In my today's 3 miles running, I only met 3 persons. All of them don't have mask on.


is it legal required outside in texas, ??


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

i cant help thinking the alamo wouldnt have happen if they had a masks only policy


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> is it legal required outside in texas, ??


CORONAVIRUS
*Here's where masks are and aren't required under new Texas face covering mandate*
Masks are required in commercial entites, public buildings and outdoor public spaces that don't allow for social distancing, under the executive order.

Here's where masks are and aren't required under new Texas face covering mandate | wfaa.com

Punishments for not wearing a mask where required.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> CORONAVIRUS
> *Here's where masks are and aren't required under new Texas face covering mandate*
> Masks are required in commercial entites, public buildings and outdoor public spaces that don't allow for social distancing, under the executive order.
> 
> Here's where masks are and aren't required under new Texas face covering mandate | wfaa.com


im non the wiser,do you need a mask to walk down the road?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> im non the wiser,do you need a mask to walk down the road?


You should if you walk with a group of people, or social distance is not possible.

When a group of no-mask people walk toward me in a hiking trail where I have no space to step to the side is what bother me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 19, 2020)

*Covid-19: China's Qingdao to test nine million in five days*


----------



## Ivan (Oct 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the past several months, I have run away from no-mask people every day. It even gets into my dream and becomes my nightmare (being chased by a group of no-mask people).
> 
> Those no-mask people mess up my daily running. When I run, if I see a no-mask person, I will turn around. After I have turned around many times, I lose tracking my running distance. This bother me big time.
> 
> When you hike on a trail that the trail is very narrow, a group of no-mask people walk toward your direction. You cannot move to the side 6 feet away. What will you do?


Sounds like you're paranoid. Especially if you expect people to wear mask outside. I am a "no mask" myself - I will avoid wearing one if I don't absolutely have to. Why? Because I want to - I find it weird doing **** someone tells me to do on TV because of a disease that has affected no one I know, or their relatives etc.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 19, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Sounds like you're paranoid.



And your qualifications to make that diagnosis are?



> Especially if you expect people to wear mask outside. I am a "no mask" myself - I will avoid wearing one if I don't absolutely have to. Why? Because I want to - I find it weird doing **** someone tells me to do on TV because of a disease that has affected no one I know, or their relatives etc.



Don't smoke. It kills a lot of people. Now, if you don't personally know someone who has died of lung cancer, you're going to ignore that?
That doesn't strike you as a stupid thing to do?


----------



## Ivan (Oct 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> And your qualifications to make that diagnosis are?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nah not really. If I wanna smoke, I will smoke - If I don't I won't. 
As for qualifications, I don't need any - the guy has nightmares about running away from people without masks.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> As you always ask, do you have any figures for this claim? How many people have been beaten to death in an argument about masks?


NO figures, but....

Bus driver beaten to death after asking passengers to wear face masks: "It's barbaric"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-mask-dispute-incidents-1.5753777

https://abcnews.go.com/US/incompreh...-erupt-amid-covid-19-crisis/story?id=70494577

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/05/masks-protests-coronavirus/

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/...s-walmart-employee-enforcing-rule-video-shows

https://www.kpax.com/news/crime-and...-face-mask-wearing-at-whitefish-grocery-store


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2020)

Masks become a flash point for protests and fights as businesses, beaches and parks reopen


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2020)

'Incomprehensible': Confrontations over masks erupt amid COVID-19 crisis


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2020)

Man without mask shoves Walmart employee trying to enforce rule, video shows


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 19, 2020)

To be fair, someone could spend the whole day finding links about mask incidents and it would still only consist of a fraction of a percentage of of the population. And of course what is easily found is the standard media hype in their effort to have enough blather to fill their 30 minute to 1 hour time slot.
I imagine you could pick almost any topic and find similar videos.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think it's more than 25% in Texas.
> 
> In my today's 3 miles running, I only met 3 persons. All of them don't have mask on.


Outdoors, the numbers go down dramatically. But at least outdoors the risk is substantially lowered, to start with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> im non the wiser,do you need a mask to walk down the road?


Not if it's not crowded - that's what the "that don't allow for social distancing" refers to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Sounds like you're paranoid. Especially if you expect people to wear mask outside. I am a "no mask" myself - I will avoid wearing one if I don't absolutely have to. Why? Because I want to - I find it weird doing **** someone tells me to do on TV because of a disease that has affected no one I know, or their relatives etc.


Just because you find it weird, that's not really a good reason to ignore the experts who actually study this stuff.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Just because you find it weird, that's not really a good reason to ignore the experts who actually study this stuff.


which experts say run away ?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 19, 2020)

elder999 said:


> NO figures, but....
> 
> Bus driver beaten to death after asking passengers to wear face masks: "It's barbaric"
> 
> ...


But those are not figures. Unless you're going to post 220,000 similar links, it's not relevant to his (initial) claim.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 19, 2020)

elder999 said:


> NO figures, but....
> 
> Bus driver beaten to death after asking passengers to wear face masks: "It's barbaric"
> 
> ...


But those are not figures. Unless you're going to post 220,000 similar links, it's not relevant to his (initial) claim.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 19, 2020)

elder999 said:


> NO figures, but....
> 
> Bus driver beaten to death after asking passengers to wear face masks: "It's barbaric"
> 
> ...


But those are not figures. Unless you're going to post 220,000 similar links, it's not relevant to his claim.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> But those are not figures. Unless you're going to post 220,000 similar links, it's not relevant to his (initial) claim.


nono no

MY chances and probably your chances of dieing from the virus are practically nil
my and probably your chances of being attacked if you go round getting into mask arguments on either side are much higher

ive had a big guy threatening me on the bus already, if id have taken him up on it and quite sure he would have come at me swinging


----------



## Buka (Oct 19, 2020)




----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Buka said:


> View attachment 23231


did you know gullible isnt in the dictionary ?


----------



## Saheim (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Just because you find it weird, that's not really a good reason to ignore the experts who actually study this stuff.



You mean NOW that the "experts" are no longer saying - do NOT wear a mask, unless you work in the medical field? I am sure I am not the only one who remembers the experts ridiculing folks for wearing them, right?

To the poster who asked what qualifications he had to determine KFW was paranoid- I didn't hear anyone ask for the qualifications asked of the people who referred to us naked facers as "selfish". So selfish is an opinion but paranoid is a mental condition that requires special training to diagnose?

The fact that someone would view a "mandate" the same as a "law" is greater cause for alarm than a virus with inflated number (yes, I KNOW they do, seen it) and a 2% mortality rate.


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> there was study released by oxford university a couple of weeks ago saying much the something, in general terms the various controls are having the effect of making it worse, they are not just useless, they are worse than doing nothing
> 
> then you add in the health economic and well being costs of the controls and you see that the mismanagement is a far greater threat to society than the disease
> 
> ...


Which oxford study?  Was it this one?
Research finds that inadequate US pandemic response cost more American lives than World War I



> ... from March to July this year, Europe had a 28% lower rate of excess deaths than the US - contrary to claims by President Donald Trump that Europe experienced greater excess mortality than the US. Dr Janine Aron and Professor John Muellbauer’s research suggests that around 57,800 Americans would have survived had the US managed the pandemic as effectively as Europe. In other words, the US’s poor pandemic response may have cost the country more lives than World War I.



Or was it from this Oxford article from way back in July?  Face coverings made compulsory after Oxford COVID-19 study inspires debate


> Face coverings have not been widely worn in the UK, in spite of the pandemic. The Leverhulme-led study shows cloth face coverings, even homemade masks of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of the virus – both for the wearer and those around them. And the study reveals that, once the WHO announced there was a pandemic in mid-March, within days many countries around the world had already recommended wearing face masks. Nations including South Korea, Japan and a series of African countries, experienced in handling previous epidemics including SARs and Ebola, have experienced very low numbers of deaths and transmission.



As time has marched on, we've learned more about masks.  There is a new study that is in the process of peer review.  Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Update August 4, 2020.



> In countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing, per-capita coronavirus mortality increased on average by just 15.8% each week, as compared with 62.1% each week in remaining countries. Conclusions. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> Which oxford study?  Was it this one?
> Research finds that inadequate US pandemic response cost more American lives than World War I
> 
> 
> ...


, no non of them, try again


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> which experts say run away ?


Where in my post did I suggest doing that?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 19, 2020)

Last night, one of my neighbor, a 80 some years old lady knocked on my front door wanted to visit my wife and talked about some dog business. I put my mask on and open the front door. She didn't have mask on. I didn't let her in. When she saw my wife came to the front door also had a mask on, she felt it might be improper for this visiting, and said she didn't want to interrupt the dinner (it was not dinner time). This is the no-mask lady that I always have to turn around when I ran.

Will you 

- visit someone's house without putting on a mask? 
- let someone into your house without a mask on? 

Your thought?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Saheim said:


> You mean NOW that the "experts" are no longer saying - do NOT wear a mask, unless you work in the medical field? I am sure I am not the only one who remembers the experts ridiculing folks for wearing them, right?
> 
> To the poster who asked what qualifications he had to determine KFW was paranoid- I didn't hear anyone ask for the qualifications asked of the people who referred to us naked facers as "selfish". So selfish is an opinion but paranoid is a mental condition that requires special training to diagnose?
> 
> The fact that someone would view a "mandate" the same as a "law" is greater cause for alarm than a virus with inflated number (yes, I KNOW they do, seen it) and a 2% mortality rate.


You're talking about early advice, which was mostly focused on keeping masks available for front-line medical staff, and the advice was around prevention of GETTING, not prevention of TRANSMISSION.

And the fact that advice changes is NOT - I repeat NOT - in any way an indication that the people giving it are confused. It means their knowledge progressed. This is how science works: they give the best answer they have, and revise it when new information is available.

As to the next bit, "paranoid" is a psychological condition, something that should be left to those trained in it. "Selfish" is an opinion of behavioral traits - something we're all qualified to do. So, yes, to your question. Though I'm confused as to why you asked me that. 

Inflated number? 220,000 doesn't care about what the % is, nor why you claim it is inflated. You are repeating bad information you were fed. I'll keep following the advice of those actually using good data analysis and research.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Where in my post did I suggest doing that?


he was laughing at wangs run away solution and you corrected him dont find it weird  listen to experts, so ,,,,


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You're talking about early advice, which was mostly focused on keeping masks available for front-line medical staff, and the advice was around prevention of GETTING, not prevention of TRANSMISSION.
> 
> And the fact that advice changes is NOT - I repeat NOT - in any way an indication that the people giving it are confused. It means their knowledge progressed. This is how science works: they give the best answer they have, and revise it when new information is available.
> 
> ...


if they have changed advice, its a fair indication that they were wrong in the first place, which its self is a fair indication they might be wrong now


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> he was laughing at wangs run away solution and you corrected him dont find it weird  listen to experts, so ,,,,


Actually, I commented on him saying he wasn't going to wear a mask unless required, because he found it weird to follow instructions (you can go read the rest if you want to know). Maybe comment on what I said, rather than the part I didn't mention.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> if they have changed advice, its a fair indication that they were wrong in the first place, which its self is a fair indication they might be wrong now


So, your thought is that literally everything in physics is probably wrong, since it has basically all been revised as we've learned more?

That's a ludicrous line of logic, and you know it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> he was laughing at wangs run away  ,,,,


What will be my options, jumping kick my no-mask opponent down? I think turning around, and run away is a much better solution.

I follow Dr. Fauci's suggestion.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What will be my options, jumping kick my no-mask opponent down? I think turning around, and run away is a much better solution.


you dont need to tell me, i wasnt laughing at you


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

Saheim said:


> You mean NOW that the "experts" are no longer saying - do NOT wear a mask, unless you work in the medical field? I am sure I am not the only one who remembers the experts ridiculing folks for wearing them, right?
> 
> To the poster who asked what qualifications he had to determine KFW was paranoid- I didn't hear anyone ask for the qualifications asked of the people who referred to us naked facers as "selfish". So selfish is an opinion but paranoid is a mental condition that requires special training to diagnose?
> 
> The fact that someone would view a "mandate" the same as a "law" is greater cause for alarm than a virus with inflated number (yes, I KNOW they do, seen it) and a 2% mortality rate.


I recall the experts saying don't wear the N95 masks because we don't have enough of them, and the folks in the hospitals and other front line people needed the PPE. 

I really don't think you understand how significant even a 2% mortality rate is.  Consider cancer... all kinds of cancer.  It's ubiquitous.  People, just about every person, takes reasonable precautions to mitigate their risk of getting cancer.  From wearing sunscreen to quitting (or never starting) smoking.  Eating better, getting colonoscopies, mammograms, etc.  In addition, we as a culture have committed significant resources and energy into finding effective treatment and cures.  The mortality rate for all kinds of cancer combined is less than .2%.  The reason that cancer is so visible is that it affects so many people.  We have over 16 million cancer survivors in the USA, and every family has felt that burden.

2% (actually, it's closer to 3% than 2) mortality is literally 2 out of every 100 people who gets it dies.  Think about it like this.  We know that coronavirus is highly contagious like the flu.  The CDC estimates that between 9 million and 65million Americans get the flu each year.  We're on the low end of the incidence rate for Covid now, at over 8 million and growing.  When 9 million people get the flu, about 12k end up passing away.  We know that with 8.2 million people contracting Covid, over 220k have died. 

Let's consider what the numbers will look like if we get to the high end of the incidence range (65 million).  At 65 million cases of the flu, the CDC says that about 61,000 Americans have died.  If 65 million people get COVID, at a 2% mortality rate (which is actually a little optimistic) we are looking at losing 1.3 million people.  That's what we have to look forward to, if people aren't smart about this thing.

Now, the good news is that vaccines look like they're on the horizon.  But we have to get there, and wouldn't it suck to be the last person to die from Covid?


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, your thought is that literally everything in physics is probably wrong, since it has basically all been revised as we've learned more?
> 
> That's a ludicrous line of logic, and you know it.


well yes, quantum mechanics indicates/ means that everything we call reality including physics is probably wrong

thats not me saying it, its main stream scientific opinion saying it, which means they might be wrong as well

you just cant trust them


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> , no non of them, try again


If you could share a link.  I looked through the Oxford website and didn't find anything to support your claim.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> I recall the experts saying don't wear the N95 masks because we don't have enough of them, and the folks in the hospitals and other front line people needed the PPE.
> 
> I really don't think you understand how significant even a 2% mortality rate is.  Consider cancer... all kinds of cancer.  It's ubiquitous.  People, just about every person, takes reasonable precautions to mitigate their risk of getting cancer.  From wearing sunscreen to quitting (or never starting) smoking.  Eating better, getting colonoscopies, mammograms, etc.  In addition, we as a culture have committed significant resources and energy into finding effective treatment and cures.  The mortality rate for all kinds of cancer combined is less than .2%.  The reason that cancer is so visible is that it affects so many people.  We have over 16 million cancer survivors in the USA, and every family has felt that burden.
> 
> ...


yes, 2% of 300,000,000 is a lot of people, but come on to completely ruin the lives of the other 98% because of the financial meltdown, in fact america financial l melt down will plunge countless millions around the globe in to poverty, is a step to far, when all they( the vulnerable) have to do is stop home and if they wont do that they have volunteered


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> If you could share a link.  I looked through the Oxford website and didn't find anything to support your claim.


il have a look, i havent read it, only a report about it


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> il have a look, i havent read it, only a report about it


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes, 2% of 300,000,000 is a lot of people, but come on to completely ruin the lives of the other 98% because of the financial meltdown, in fact america financial l melt down will plunge countless millions around the globe in to poverty, is a step to far, when all they( the vulnerable) have to do is stop home and if they wont do that they have volunteered


2% of 65 million is a lot of people, and it's very possible that if we don't get our act together, we'll hit that mark.

To be clear, I'm talking about wearing a mask and being sensible, not shutting everything down.   We've had some real missteps in this country, where a stimulus bill actually did more to bailout the wealthy and we're looking at a real **** show for a lot of folks once landlords start acting on those evictions they've got all queued up.  I agree completely that our country has suffered greatly from lack of leadership at the top.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> I recall the experts saying don't wear the N95 masks because we don't have enough of them, and the folks in the hospitals and other front line people needed the PPE.
> 
> I really don't think you understand how significant even a 2% mortality rate is.  Consider cancer... all kinds of cancer.  It's ubiquitous.  People, just about every person, takes reasonable precautions to mitigate their risk of getting cancer.  From wearing sunscreen to quitting (or never starting) smoking.  Eating better, getting colonoscopies, mammograms, etc.  In addition, we as a culture have committed significant resources and energy into finding effective treatment and cures.  The mortality rate for all kinds of cancer combined is less than .2%.  The reason that cancer is so visible is that it affects so many people.  We have over 16 million cancer survivors in the USA, and every family has felt that burden.
> 
> ...


Thanks for spelling that out. I hadn't gotten around to looking for (or running, myself) the numbers on what that would % would mean with projected (and derived) infection rates.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well yes, quantum mechanics indicates/ means that everything we call reality including physics is probably wrong
> 
> thats not me saying it, its main stream scientific opinion saying it, which means they might be wrong as well
> 
> you just cant trust them


Actually, no it doesn't. It suggests that everything we know needs an adjustment. We know (by testing the math and using physical experiments) that most of it is correct - there are just some parts we (the human race) haven't gotten around to looking at until relatively recently, so the assumptions about what happens at those levels are likely incorrect. That doesn't magically invalidate everything above it, any more than the discovery of smaller particles invalidated the entirety of the physics built upon the assumption that nothing was smaller than an atom.

As for the rest, you're just arguing to argue. You know it, and so do I.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes, 2% of 300,000,000 is a lot of people, but come on to completely ruin the lives of the other 98% because of the financial meltdown, in fact america financial l melt down will plunge countless millions around the globe in to poverty, is a step to far, when all they( the vulnerable) have to do is stop home and if they wont do that they have volunteered


"completely ruin"?

And have you factored in the cost - both economic and psychological - of more people dying? Or are you just assuming the economy will be spectacular while more people die?


----------



## mograph (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You're talking about early advice, which was mostly focused on keeping masks available for front-line medical staff, and the advice was around prevention of GETTING, not prevention of TRANSMISSION.


No-maskers don't think about the welfare of other people. All they care about is their own welfare, which is why they only care about the effect of the mask on the _wearer, _not on the people _around_ the wearer.

A big problem with individualist societies is their very narrow definition of "kin."


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> "completely ruin"?
> 
> And have you factored in the cost - both economic and psychological - of more people dying? Or are you just assuming the economy will be spectacular while more people die?


but you haven't stopped people dieing and your ruining the economy, so,,,,,


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, no it doesn't. It suggests that everything we know needs an adjustment. We know (by testing the math and using physical experiments) that most of it is correct - there are just some parts we (the human race) haven't gotten around to looking at until relatively recently, so the assumptions about what happens at those levels are likely incorrect. That doesn't magically invalidate everything above it, any more than the discovery of smaller particles invalidated the entirety of the physics built upon the assumption that nothing was smaller than an atom.
> 
> As for the rest, you're just arguing to argue. You know it, and so do I.


well no9, quantum mechanics indicates that what ever you've just measured almost certainly doesn't exist, that somewhat more than an adjustment


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

From the CDC:  Janet Parker was the last person to die of smallpox. It was 1978, and Parker was a medical photographer at the Birmingham University Medical School in England and worked one floor above the Medical Microbiology Department where smallpox research was being conducted. She became ill on August 11 and developed a rash on August 15 but was not diagnosed with smallpox until 9 days later.

I'm confident will we overcome this pandemic.  But someone will be the last person to die.  I don't want that to be me or anyone I know.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> From the CDC:  Janet Parker was the last person to die of smallpox. It was 1978, and Parker was a medical photographer at the Birmingham University Medical School in England and worked one floor above the Medical Microbiology Department where smallpox research was being conducted. She became ill on August 11 and developed a rash on August 15 but was not diagnosed with smallpox until 9 days later.
> 
> I'm confident will we overcome this pandemic.  But someone will be the last person to die.  I don't want that to be me or anyone I know.


why is being the last to die worse than being the third last to die ?


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> From the CDC:  Janet Parker was the last person to die of smallpox. It was 1978, and Parker was a medical photographer at the Birmingham University Medical School in England and worked one floor above the Medical Microbiology Department where smallpox research was being conducted. She became ill on August 11 and developed a rash on August 15 but was not diagnosed with smallpox until 9 days later.
> 
> I'm confident will we overcome this pandemic.  But someone will be the last person to die.  I don't want that to be me or anyone I know.


im wondering what went wrong , that someone working in a building with  smallpox get a rash and doesnt think @@i wonder if thats small pox


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> nono no
> 
> MY chances and probably your chances of dieing from the virus are practically nil
> my and probably your chances of being attacked if you go round getting into mask arguments on either side are much higher
> ...


Yeah. You clarified your claim after the initial post. My comment was on how I read the claim.


----------



## Ivan (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Just because you find it weird, that's not really a good reason to ignore the experts who actually study this stuff.


Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths, and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths, and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.


no ivan dont ask reasonable scientific question or they will just start calling you stupid

over here we have a 10pm curfew, coz covid only come out at night to dance


----------



## mograph (Oct 19, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths, and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.


That's not on the experts, that's on the public health representatives who have to _interpret_ the experts, and balance public safety with people's desire to do what they want. Don't blame the experts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2020)

JP3 said:


> I'll wave and smile, and they'll see my smile because I am outside and I am not wearing a mask, either.
> 
> CDC Study Finds Vast Majority of Those Infected with COVID-19 ‘Always’ Wore Masks - Daily Citizen



What do you believe this article from Focus on the Family indicates?  I would appreciate your personal interpretation.  Thx.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2020)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ltjBT_TuUVA


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths.


Come on, man.  You really believe this?


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  You really believe this?



Of course they do. And Covid will disappear completely on November 4th. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths, and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.


You have evidence of them being bribed, or are you just parroting the talking heads claiming it must happen because it's possible?

As for the cutoff point, you do realize it has to happen SOMEWHERE, right? Or are you thinking they can write mandates that cover all possible situations with flexibility?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> Of course they do. And Covid will disappear completely on November 4th.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In Europe and Asia, too!


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You have evidence of them being bribed, or are you just parroting the talking heads claiming it must happen because it's possible?
> 
> As for the cutoff point, you do realize it has to happen SOMEWHERE, right? Or are you thinking they can write mandates that cover all possible situations with flexibility?


well yes it has to happen some where, or does it ? if they wont tell us why 6 is the scientific thresh hold, why not 16 or 26 or 6000 all of those count as '' somewhere''


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well yes it has to happen some where, or does it ? if they wont tell us why 6 is the scientific thresh hold, why not 16 or 26 or 6000 all of those count as '' somewhere''


I think you're confusing a policy decision with a scientific recommendation.  At some point, someone will make what they consider to be a reasonable policy decision.  Disagreeing with a policy cab be a matter of opinion.  

For example, we can disagree on the specific threshold, and still agree that there should be some threshold.  The actual number is based on available information, the decision maker's risk tolerance, the stakes involved, legality, or a number of other factors.  

Point is, is you think 6 is too cautious, I get it.  But as Gerry says, it has to be somewhere.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think you're confusing a policy decision with a scientific recommendation.  At some point, someone will make what they consider to be a reasonable policy decision.  Disagreeing with a policy cab be a matter of opinion.
> 
> For example, we can disagree on the specific threshold, and still agree that there should be some threshold.  The actual number is based on available information, the decision maker's risk tolerance, the stakes involved, legality, or a number of other factors.
> 
> Point is, is you think 6 is too cautious, I get it.  But as Gerry says, it has to be somewhere.


well yes its a political decision , that was far than made,clear by gerry, in fact as its politics he,shouldnt have mentioned it at all


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 19, 2020)

Buka said:


> View attachment 23231


One my favorite sayings. Pretty much lives large no matter where I am.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 19, 2020)

My sister in-law works at a hospital. She sees it everyday and states it is definitely real. 

My wife manages a grocery store, and is strict about wearing a mask. She will have your butt arrested if you are not wearing one and refuse to leave. Not one positive case at the store, the other stores were laxed and didn't care, every other store had cases.

Besides, we have been dealing with what to wear in stores as long as I can remember.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service"

Never understood what the big deal is about wearing a mask. Sure I have heard the "Freedom" crowd...but Freedom does not Grant you the right to risk another's life.


----------



## Ivan (Oct 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Sure I have heard the "Freedom" crowd...but Freedom does not Grant you the right to risk another's life.


----------



## Ivan (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  You really believe this?


Absolutely.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Absolutely.



I begin to understand why your mommy worries about you.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> My sister in-law works at a hospital. She sees it everyday and states it is definitely real.
> 
> My wife manages a grocery store, and is strict about wearing a mask. She will have your butt arrested if you are not wearing one and refuse to leave. Not one positive case at the store, the other stores were laxed and didn't care, every other store had cases.
> 
> ...


freedom generally does give you the right to risk another life, they only legislates to the effect of how much risk you can place another in, it cant reduce all risk to others to zero even if it wanted to, even if that was desirable, with out removing ALL freedom and even then there would still be residual risk

in the UK they have removed not only our constitutional freedoms, which are somewhat woolly, but a number of  our inalienable human rights, which clear are not as inalienable as we thought

Americans of course dont have inalienable human rights so they have less to complain about


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> did you know gullible isnt in the dictionary ?


REALLY! Is it really not in there wow...


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 20, 2020)

Ivan said:


> , and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.





jobo said:


> well yes it has to happen some where, or does it ? if they wont tell us why 6 is the scientific thresh hold, why not 16 or 26 or 6000 all of those count as '' somewhere''



Lol.. the specific numbers they use is NOT some magical figure. It's part of a "package" of measures as a collective of public health advice. You can't look at and isolate one specific thing separate from the rest and criticise it.

Eg. People keep constantly keep asking our state premier why in the city people can't travel more than 5km, what is it about the figure "5km". It's not something you can look at in isolation, but in conjunction with the whole. It's a measure to prevent movement. They've gotta draw the line SOMEwhere, what else could they possibly do, be wishy washy about it or just cut it off at a certain number, applied to everyone equally?

I'm seeing incredible immaturity in this thread. It's rather intriguing to see the exact intention and position people are operating out of. Makes getting through this whole darn thing united and together that much more difficult huh...


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Lol.. the specific numbers they use is NOT some magical figure. It's part of a "package" of measures as a collective of public health advice. You can't look at and isolate one specific thing separate from the rest and criticise it.
> 
> Eg. People keep constantly keep asking our state premier why in the city people can't travel more than 5km, what is it about the figure "5km". It's not something you can look at in isolation, but in conjunction with the whole. It's a measure to prevent movement. They've gotta draw the line SOMEwhere, what else could they possibly do, be wishy washy about it or just cut it off at a certain number, applied to everyone equally?
> 
> I'm seeing incredible immaturity in this thread. It's rather intriguing to see the exact intention and position people are operating out of. Makes getting through this whole darn thing united and together that much more difficult huh...


yes you are correct, it is a ''package'' its a whole package of arbitrary numbers that have no science behind them , which is some what worse

i dont me wrong, if someone could explain the package to the point i found it convincing id go along with it, but as yet no one has, which leaves me to conclude they are just making things up

as a general rule do you always believe what politicians are telling is true, i dont, they have been known to make things up, i cant see why this would be different, can you ?

specifically ask, '' how many lives would it cost, if the group size was increased to 10 and the distance to 20, they wont answer coz they dont know'' its more than feasible the answer could be non 

then ask , if reducing groups and distance is effective why havent they reduced the group size to 3 and the distance to 2

they wont answer that either. because they have just plucked number out of a hat


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes you are correct, it is a ''package'' its a whole package of arbitrary numbers that have no science behind them , which is some what worse
> 
> i dont me wrong, if someone could explain the package to the point i found it convincing id go along with it, but as yet no one has, which leaves me to conclude they are just making things up
> 
> as a general rule do you always believe what politicians are telling is true, i dont, they have been known to make things up, i cant see why this would be different, can you ?



No science behind them... okay. Just some fiction stuff someone wrote to control people. Riiiiiight.

That's quite a conclusion to end up at, that they're clearly making it up if the thousands upon thousands of collective research hours hasn't been explained to you.

If the FBI swarm into the place you're in yelling: "Everyone leave right now, there's a bomb!", would you go to them "Hmm, now a bomb you say. Can you explain to me the scientific reasoning of how a bomb explodes, why that's dangerous, with proof that it is indeed of such a dangerous nature, and also how running away could possibly prevent the danger factor to me? Can you prove it won't have a blast radius larger than the distance I would be able to escape to? What if there is a bomb over there too? Probably should just stay put, it's most likely making me MORE at risk by running away... you must be lying if you can't provide this. "

Seems an odd way of approaching quite a deadly pandemic..

The thing is, you've just jumped to the opposite conclusion, which is that because there's no proof of all the specific measures they're undertaking that they can show YOU, they MUST be making it up.

No I don't always believe what politicians say, but do you ever trust anyone with any expertise? Ever? Serious question. Or do you need them to go through the 4-10 years or so of study, research papers, intense examination, thesis' etc. Feels a bit like spitting on peoples' hard work and credentials. There is alot out there explaining this stuff, it seems not good enough for you, and others. The sheer amount of work people are putting into understanding the virus and keeping people safe is unprecedented and beyond exhausting.

To me it's about actually accepting what is going on, and actually being cooperative with society as a whole to work together, help each other out in getting out of this. Looking out for each other. The virus takes 'freedom' away, not the government.

You can't see why this would be different? The fact that the whole world is literally being affected by this virus? You can't see how this could be different? I'm not saying that it's impossible there isn't any political nonsense going on, but come on dude.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> No science behind them... okay. Just some fiction stuff someone wrote to control people. Riiiiiight.
> 
> That's quite a conclusion to end up at, that they're clearly making it up if the thousands upon thousands of collective research hours hasn't been explained to you.
> 
> ...


ok then you answer those questions that you havent bothered to ask

ive asked on here and then people rather than admit they dont know start making personal remarks

there has indeed been a lot of research,, and they still cant answer simple questions, do you perhaps think that they haven't got the answer yet

ive seen the above be asked of UK politicians and government scientists and they wont answer

you wont answer , no one will answer , strange eer


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

In 2015, Rush Limbaugh said the same stuff about smoking, @jobo.   He hadn't seen proof, it's not really hurting anyone, etc.   He probably convinced a few folks like some notable characters on this forum that warnings about the risks of smoking are overblown and taking away people's liberty etc.  

 Now he's dying from stage four lung cancer.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> In 2015, Rush Limbaugh said the same stuff about smoking, @jobo.   He hadn't seen proof, it's not really hurting anyone, etc.   He probably convinced a few folks like some notable characters on this forum that warnings about the risks of smoking are overblown and taking away people's liberty etc.
> 
> Now he's dying from stage four lung cancer.



Cancer kills a cancer. Irony can be absolutely beautiful sometimes.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> In 2015, Rush Limbaugh said the same stuff about smoking, @jobo.   He hadn't seen proof, it's not really hurting anyone, etc.   He probably convinced a few folks like some notable characters on this forum that warnings about the risks of smoking are overblown and taking away people's liberty etc.
> 
> Now he's dying from stage four lung cancer.


well i lived through smoking being a wholesome activity to being a health hazard, and it not the same at all,

there was decades of evidence available and people answered simple questions about it, but they still didn't ban it, why was that ?

if you have the answers to those simple questions please enlighten me or at least say you dont know, rather than going for false equivalency arguments


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> freedom generally does give you the right to risk another life


No, no it doesn't.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> well i lived through smoking being a wholesome activity to being a health hazard, and it not the same at all,
> 
> there was decades of evidence available and people answered simple questions about it, but they still didn't ban it, why was that ?
> 
> if you have the answers to those simple questions please enlighten me or at least say you dont know, rather than going for false equivalency arguments


You say that they're not the same at all, as though that is a fact.  However, I disagree.  In my opinion, they are very similar.  

Here are a couple of other, very similar situations: chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in football and soccer players, and black lung in coal miners and people who worked around asbestos.  Do some research.  In all three cases (smoking, CTE, and black lung) there was a progression over years from denial to deflection to acceptance.  We've moved through the entire cycle with Black Lung, though it literally took several decades to go from denial to actually admitting there is a direct causal relationship between breathing asbestos or coal dust and premature death from respiratory failure.  We are also at that point with smoking, and the timeframe was very similar.  CTE is on a similar timeline, though we're still at the point where we are saying "they know the risks."

Personally, I'm generally okay with people killing themselves slowly if they choose, provided the risks are well known and clear.  however, where it starts to affect other people (i.e., secondhand smoke and spreading a contagious virus like COVID-19), I think my right to life and the pursuit of happiness trumps (no pun intended) your right to be a selfish a-hole.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> No, no it doesn't.


LOL.  Risking someone else's life is, depending on the specifics, somewhere on the spectrum from assault to murder, depending on how successful and intentional you are.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> No, no it doesn't.


well it does, the freedom to put your kid in a car is increasing the risk to that child


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 20, 2020)

Ivan said:


>


If you wish to enjoy Freedom...you need to understand Individual Responsiblity inside a community ,in order for your freedom to be maintained and respected by those around you.

We need to remember that we share space with others.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> well it does, the freedom to put your kid in a car is increasing the risk to that child


But, you do not have the freedom, in not using a seatbelt...that is where the true risk lays. 

You have the freedom to jump off of a cliff, but you do not have the freedom to push another off and risk their lives.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> You say that they're not the same at all, as though that is a fact.  However, I disagree.  In my opinion, they are very similar.
> 
> Here are a couple of other, very similar situations: chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in football and soccer players, and black lung in coal miners and people who worked around asbestos.  Do some research.  In all three cases (smoking, CTE, and black lung) there was a progression over years from denial to deflection to acceptance.  We've moved through the entire cycle with Black Lung, though it literally took several decades to go from denial to actually admitting there is a direct causal relationship between breathing asbestos or coal dust and premature death from respiratory failure.  We are also at that point with smoking, and the timeframe was very similar.  CTE is on a similar timeline, though we're still at the point where we are saying "they know the risks."
> 
> Personally, I'm generally okay with people killing themselves slowly if they choose, provided the risks are well known and clear.  however, where it starts to affect other people (i.e., secondhand smoke and spreading a contagious virus like COVID-19), I think my right to life and the pursuit of happiness trumps (no pun intended) your right to be a selfish a-hole.


occupation health is one of my numerous post grad qualifications and im aware of all those, i was in the forefront of asbestos control in this country and no they are not at all similar to smoking or the other thinkgs you mentioned

there is an increasing body of evidence about head trauma, have they banned heading footballs or boxing, no they haven't

a government that allows heading of footballs or boxing is failing in its public health duties if there is i controvertible evidence, is there incontrovertible evidence ?

there is no evidence incontrovertible or  otherwise that reducing a group size from 8 to 6 has an effect at all on the spread of covid

if im wrong post it up, you can find it easily enough if it exists


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> occupation health is one of my numerous post grad qualifications and im aware of all those, i was in the forefront of asbestos control in this country and no they are not at all similar to smoking or the other thinkgs you mentioned
> 
> there is an increasing body of evidence about head trauma, have they banned heading footballs or boxing, no they haven't
> 
> ...


Governments tend to balance protection with freedom. Until it impacts others intolerably (either directly, like second-hand smoke - or indirectly, via the economic cost).


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

mograph said:


> No-maskers don't think about the welfare of other people. All they care about is their own welfare, which is why they only care about the effect of the mask on the _wearer, _not on the people _around_ the wearer.
> 
> A big problem with individualist societies is their very narrow definition of "kin."


Or it could be that they don't actually believe that not wearing a mask is harming anyone else, even if you believe it is.

There's no reason to automatically assume (literally) evil intentions and every reason to believe otherwise and the same goes for most people who don't want to wear a mask.  It's not because they don't care if they hurt someone else, it's because they don't believe it is hurting anyone else.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> But, you do not have the freedom, in not using a seatbelt...that is where the true risk lays.
> 
> You have the freedom to jump off of a cliff, but you do not have the freedom to push another off and risk their lives.


a seat belt may reduce the risk, the jury is still out on that one with young children

but the kid is more at risk in a car than at home, you have used your freedom to free movement and to own a motor vehicle to increase the risk to another

how many kids die or are injured in multi vehicle pile ups each year whilst sitting in their bed room, not to many i suspect


----------



## mograph (Oct 20, 2020)

Ivan said:


>


I don't think you understand what Franklin meant when he wrote “*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. *

The "essential liberty" was a legislative body's (The Pennsylvania Assembly) freedom to tax landowners (The Penn family, who governed remotely) for Pennsylvania's defense. He was _not_ talking about individual liberty, certainly not in the petty "you can't make _me_ wear a mask" way that some describe it today.

The Assembly wanted to tax the wealthy Penns' lands to pay for defense. The Penns said, "no, you can't ever tax us, but we'll give you some money to pay for the defense, as long as you never tax us. Franklin was writing about the Penns, who offered to _purchase temporary safety,_ but they did not want the _essential_ _liberty_ that comes from a governing body's ability to raise funds to defend the long-term security of the colony. 

_"... the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security."_

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Governments tend to balance protection with freedom. Until it impacts others intolerably (either directly, like second-hand smoke - or indirectly, via the economic cost).


but it just your circular argument, show that the  numbers they have come up are more effective than double the amount or less effective than half the amount


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> well it does, the freedom to put your kid in a car is increasing the risk to that child


One is not free to commit murder, though you can do it.  Freedom is doing something without reprisal or repurcussion.  Putting your child at risk involves a lot of repurcussion should the child be injured or killed.

This isn't about bubble wrapping everyone.  I think most or all countries have safety requirements for kids.  If your child is unrestrained and you get into an accident, I am pretty sure than on top of everything else you will be held accountable for failing to take reasonable steps to keep the child safe.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> My sister in-law works at a hospital. She sees it everyday and states it is definitely real.
> 
> My wife manages a grocery store, and is strict about wearing a mask. She will have your butt arrested if you are not wearing one and refuse to leave. Not one positive case at the store, the other stores were laxed and didn't care, every other store had cases.
> 
> ...


The real question at hand is how much does not wearing a mask endanger some one else' life? Those who are opposed generally believe that not wearing a mask does no more to endanger someone else's life than before COVID19.

That's what many in this thread are missing.  For some reason, many seem to believe that "no maskers," "bare-faces," or whatever, are just being selfish, immoral, and evil.  At best, many seem to believe that they are vastly smarter than the "bare-faces" because they're listening to the "right" experts.  Guess what?  They think the same thing.

This whole thread is stupid.

It's a bunch of people, on both sides, who are apparently convinced that the other side is either stupid or evil (or both).

You've all segmented into your own private little enclaves, all tribal and everything, and have both started assigning beliefs to "the other side" without ever actually, truly and honestly, looking at what the other side really believes and thinks.  This looks *very much* like the lead up to actual wars between nations where each nation begins assigning evil motives and thoughts to the other.  No one cares if what they're hearing about the other side is true or not.  They're the "others" and are therefore automatically evil and wrong.

Egads, I hate humans sometimes.  Feh!

You guys have fun with your thread here where each side mentally dehumanizes the other.  I'm going to go to the corner and pray for a giant asteroid.  Maybe the next species God puts here won't be such giant dumazzes.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> One is not free to commit murder, though you can do it.  Freedom is doing something without reprisal or repurcussion.  Putting your child at risk involves a lot of repurcussion should the child be injured or killed.




freedom is the ability to make choices, the state restricts some choices, like murder or put caveats on them, like a driving licence

but the point im dealing with is the state does not restrict all choices that increase the risk to others,
i spent a big chunk of my life doing risk assessment that could seriously impact the well being of others. the government required it, they didn't expect more of us than to reduce the risk to an ''acceptable'' amount, that was and still is a value judgement of cost against consequence

we were still putting people at risk

if you accept that, then we can avoid a circular argument


----------



## mograph (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Or it could be that they don't actually believe that not wearing a mask is harming anyone else, even if you believe it is.
> 
> There's no reason to automatically assume (literally) evil intentions and every reason to believe otherwise and the same goes for most people who don't want to wear a mask.  It's not because they don't care if they hurt someone else, it's because they don't believe it is hurting anyone else.


Well, it's not as if non-maskers are epidemiologists who have done multiple studies that show that masks are completely ineffective in protecting _people around the mask wearer._ In other words, non-maskers have no _direct_ evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of masks: *there is uncertainty*, from their perspective. 

Scientists say something, government says something, and nobody is seeing people drop like flies in the streets, foaming at the mouth. There is conflicting information. There is uncertainty.

So, in the face of uncertainty, they do _not_ decide to be prudent. 
*They do not decide to wear a mask just in case it might actually protect other people.*

They want to think of themselves as strong, independent people, partly because of their national culture.
But they also want to think of themselves as good, caring people (_not_ evil).

But what do they do? How do they resolve this conflict, this cognitive dissonance?
They tell themselves that they are _not_ hurting people in order to maintain their self-image as both strong, and caring: *they tell themselves (and others) that masks do not protect other people. *

People do this sort of thing all the time.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

mograph said:


> Well, it's not as if non-maskers are epidemiologists who have done multiple studies that show that masks are completely ineffective in protecting _people around the mask wearer._ In other words, non-maskers have no _direct_ evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of masks: *there is uncertainty*, from their perspective.
> 
> Scientists say something, government says something, and nobody is seeing people drop like flies in the streets, foaming at the mouth. There is conflicting information. There is uncertainty.
> 
> ...


Run away from no-mask people


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> To your addendum - it shouldn't be about "have to". It's such an easy thing for anyone to do, unless they have really severe asthma or emphezema or such (in which case, they should be protecting themselves in every way they possibly can, as they are at very high risk). And while outdoors is usually less dangerous for transmission (air currents break up the "clouds" of virus people leave in the air, so there's no high concentration), that's only true in relatively sparsely populated areas. If 40 people are hanging around together outside, that has the potential to overcome that advantage (unless there's a strong wind).



its very much the minority that wear them outside, and when they dont have to.     Its not the law to wear them outside here so the police cant do anything, and thats also why there is a space reccomendation and a group size limit.  

I dont overly care anymore, i am probbly going to get what ever if i get what ever.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont overly care anymore, i am probbly going to get what ever if i get what ever.


Remember, when you "flatten the curve," the area under the curve is still the same.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Remember, when you "flatten the curve," the area under the curve is still the same.



I mean its not my job to enforce laws to begin with and i have no authorty to enforce them, its down to the police.  And police assets should have been considered before making any laws.    Its also down to the buinsseses to regulate it.

Actually, given how the medical sector is kind of busy, you probably couldnt get a print of of your medical record to properly dispute in court if you had exemption.    So best hope you didnt loose it or decide that you could just get another copy.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> The real question at hand is how much does not wearing a mask endanger some one else' life? Those who are opposed generally believe that not wearing a mask does no more to endanger someone else's life than before COVID19.
> 
> That's what many in this thread are missing.  For some reason, many seem to believe that "no maskers," "bare-faces," or whatever, are just being selfish, immoral, and evil.  At best, many seem to believe that they are vastly smarter than the "bare-faces" because they're listening to the "right" experts.  Guess what?  They think the same thing.
> 
> ...


I don't believe anyone is evil, but I do know, that wearing mask does protect from infections.

Doctors operating on patients in hospital is pretty much a dead give away.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> I don't believe anyone is evil,


That's good to hear but you should know there are plenty who apparently do. 

Example:
Run away from no-mask people

I've seen this exact sentiment expressed a lot.



> but I do know, that wearing mask does protect from infections.
> 
> Doctors operating on patients in hospital is pretty much a dead give away.


That's been questioned recently too.  With some actual data to back it up.  It seems the best way to protect has little to do with a mask and much more to do with making sure that "Doctors operating on patients" aren't sick when they do so.  No, I don't care to argue it.  You can find it easily enough on duck-duck-go I suspect. It's been referenced a thousand times.  But I've also found that people who are advocates for masks have reasons to put less trust in those reports, just the same way that those who are advocates for no masks have reasons to put less trust in the reports advocating for masks.

I guess what I'm saying is that there has been some information recently that OR masks have less to do with preventing transmission of disease than does the care-provider making sure to not operate if they known they're sick but that I don't expect it to make anyone change take a second look at their current position.

In fact, now that I <ahem> "say it out loud" I don't know why I'm writing it.  So I'll stop.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 20, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Well I am distrustful of these experts given how many were bribed to class deaths as COVID deaths, the situations under which deaths are labelled COVID deaths, and also just the fact that they seem to think 6 people mixing is safe, but as soon as it becomes 7, I get fined.



Funny you mention the numbers. A friend of mine was quarantined,  until both of his children could be tested. The first child came back negative. The test on the second child wasn't coming back as fast. He got into a huge argument with the hospital because they told him that they were just going to consider that a positive. He was adamant that they would NOT list his child as having a virus unless they could detect it, that they could either take another test OR wait for the original test to come back. They waited, the original test came back negative. During the wait, the hospital did their best to convince him to just allow them to say his child had it. More covid means more money, folks. This ain't that complex.

As for the arguing just for the sake of arguing (that wasn't you) - I am not arguing, at all. I am saying I will wear or not wear what I want. I do not care who wears a mask, good for them.  I am not going to be forced to do (or refrain from doing) what i feel i shouldn't (or should) do.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> That's been questioned recently too.  With some actual data to back it up.  No, I don't care to argue it.


Yeah I have seen, the haphazard data. But I agree, everyone has a right to question whatever they want.

And I don't care to argue about it myself. I simply step away from those who choose not to wear one.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> freedom is the ability to make choices, the state restricts some choices, like murder or put caveats on them, like a driving licence
> 
> but the point im dealing with is the state does not restrict all choices that increase the risk to others,
> i spent a big chunk of my life doing risk assessment that could seriously impact the well being of others. the government required it, they didn't expect more of us than to reduce the risk to an ''acceptable'' amount, that was and still is a value judgement of cost against consequence
> ...


I disagree.  Freedom isn't the ability to make a choice.  Consider slavery.  If we use your definition of the term, then slaves were free, because they could choose to flee at any time.  This is, of course, ridiculous.  

We can all make any choice we want, but freedom is the ability to do so without fear of repercussion.  And just to be clear, freedom is often contextual.  In America, we enjoy freedom of speech which doesn't mean we can say anything we want, whenever we want, without fear of repercussion.  It is a contextual liberty.  Same with the 2nd amendment.  

Your argument is circular.  On that we can agree.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

mograph said:


> They want to think of themselves as strong, independent people, partly because of their national culture.
> But they also want to think of themselves as good, caring people (_not_ evil).


Completely agree with your entire post.  In particular, the sort of cognitive dissonance you mention above is apparent in some members of this forum.  They don't wear masks for whatever reason.  They behave in a way that is selfish and can be very cruel (because 2% of people who get this disease die from it), but are willing to accept outrageous claims from sketchy sources that are demonstrably untrue in order to reconcile the conflict between their actions and their self image.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> I disagree.  Freedom isn't the ability to make a choice.  Consider slavery.  If we use your definition of the term, then slaves were free, because they could choose to flee at any time.  This is, of course, ridiculous.
> 
> We can all make any choice we want, but freedom is the ability to do so without fear of repercussion.  And just to be clear, freedom is often contextual.  In America, we enjoy freedom of speech which doesn't mean we can say anything we want, whenever we want, without fear of repercussion.  It is a contextual liberty.  Same with the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Your argument is circular.  On that we can agree.


i dont think we should stray in to slavery as a comparison. it get very emotive and reasoned argument goes out of the window

but yes at first glance a slave who chose to flee was free at least for a while or longer if they made to the underground railway

but the point of freedoms is you dont have to run to be able to choose, you can choose to stay and still be free, so no not the best point for your argument

i agree with your second point, but freedom from the state is to be free reprocusion by the state,

life generally has repercussion, my freedom to walk has worn out my shoes, thats a repercussion of freedom


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Run away from no-mask people


Feel better?


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Remember, when you "flatten the curve," the area under the curve is still the same.


Right, but flattening the curve isn't about stopping people from getting it.  It's about helping to ensure that if you need a bed in an ICU, there is room available for you when you get there.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> i dont think we should stray in to slavery as a comparison. it get very emotive and reasoned argument goes out of the window
> 
> but yes at first glance a slave who chose to flee was free at least for a while or longer if they made to the underground railway
> 
> but the point of freedoms is you dont have to run to be able to choose, you can choose to stay and still be free, so no not the best point for your argument


LOL.  Slavery is simply the clearest example I could think of where people can make choices but we would (probably) agree are not enjoying any freedom or personal liberty.  And, while I'm not entirely surprised, I'm still disappointed that even in this example we cannot agree that slaves were not free.  That's sad and also darkly humorous.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> but it just your circular argument, show that the  numbers they have come up are more effective than double the amount or less effective than half the amount


What's the circle? I think you're combining several people's responses and responding as if we were a single person.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> its very much the minority that wear them outside, and when they dont have to.     Its not the law to wear them outside here so the police cant do anything, and thats also why there is a space reccomendation and a group size limit.
> 
> I dont overly care anymore, i am probbly going to get what ever if i get what ever.


To be clear, I wear them outside only when I'm around people.  My wife and I don't routinely wear them when we walk the dogs, and if we run into other people, we just cross the street.  I wear them inside all the time when I'm out among the English (aka, at the store, etc).


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

Hey, can anyone share some actual data from experts that suggest we shouldn't wear masks, or that masks don't do anything, or that masks are a bad idea?   Kirk makes a good point.  Those of us who listen to experts might just be listening to the wrong experts.  @lklawson , some links would be helpful.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> What's the circle? I think you're combining several people's responses and responding as if we were a single person.


ive been subjected to your circular argument for several months now, this is just the latest instalment, so nnnnnnnno, its just you im talking to


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Funny you mention the numbers. A friend of mine was quarantined,  until both of his children could be tested. The first child came back negative. The test on the second child wasn't coming back as fast. He got into a huge argument with the hospital because they told him that they were just going to consider that a positive. He was adamant that they would NOT list his child as having a virus unless they could detect it, that they could either take another test OR wait for the original test to come back. They waited, the original test came back negative. During the wait, the hospital did their best to convince him to just allow them to say his child had it. More covid means more money, folks. This ain't that complex.
> 
> As for the arguing just for the sake of arguing (that wasn't you) - I am not arguing, at all. I am saying I will wear or not wear what I want. I do not care who wears a mask, good for them.  I am not going to be forced to do (or refrain from doing) what i feel i shouldn't (or should) do.


Additional money for COVID treatments, so far as I could find, is restricted to Medicare or Medicaid (I've forgotten which - might be both). Insurance companies (who pay the majority of those bills in the US) don't seem to have a different rate. They pay for the treatment, not the cause. Per billing folks, they don't even have a way to code it for the insurance company to know it is COVID.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> I wear them inside all the time when I'm outside the house.


Will you let someone coming through your front door and inside your house without mask on? 

I decide to hang a sign on my front door.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive been subjected to your circular argument for several months now, this is just the latest instalment, so nnnnnnnno, its just you im talking to


The old "I know you are but what am I" gambit.  Haven't seen that one in a while.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive been subjected to your circular argument for several months now, this is just the latest instalment, so nnnnnnnno, its just you im talking to


So, that's "I'm just gonna call it circular, because I'm not paying attention to it and don't have any real point."

Gotcha.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Will you let someone coming through your front door and inside your house without mask on?
> 
> I decide to hang a sign on my front door.


No way.  We've had several contractors and folks come into the house.  They wear a mask, we stay at least 6 feet away from them at all times, and we limit where they go.  We pay attention to what they touch so that we can wipe that stuff down after they leave.  We aren't over-zealous about it, and don't act crazy.  But we are careful.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> LOL.  Slavery is simply the clearest example I could think of where people can make choices but we would (probably) agree are not enjoying any freedom or personal liberty.  And, while I'm not entirely surprised, I'm still disappointed that even in this example we cannot agree that slaves were not free.  That's sad and also darkly humorous.


 , but i did agree

freedom of choice must mean that what ever you choose you are free,setting up a false dichotomy about slavery is intellectual dishonesty on your part, they wernt free until the state said they were., then they wernt free till the state stopped pretending they were free and actually gave them equal freedoms, about 1970 give or take


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, that's "I'm just gonna call it circular, because I'm not paying attention to it and don't have any real point."
> 
> Gotcha.


but ive been paying attention with baited breath waiting for you to provided some science since about march, dont tell me i missed it, can you link it please


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> No way.  We've had several contractors and folks come into the house.  They wear a mask, we stay at least 6 feet away from them at all times, and we limit where they go.  We pay attention to what they touch so that we can wipe that stuff down after they leave.  We aren't over-zealous about it, and don't act crazy.  But we are careful.


if thats not over zealous what is ?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> Feel better?


No.  Humanity still sucks.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Will you let someone coming through your front door and inside your house without mask on?
> 
> I decide to hang a sign on my front door.


ive been doing my level best to catch since about April, and nothing, this thing is dam hard to catch, unless i didst notice perhaps, i did feel a bit rough for two or free days in june, perhaps that was it ? bit of a non event if it was


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> if thats not over zealous what is ?


All pretty easy stuff to do.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> Hey, can anyone share some actual data from experts that suggest we shouldn't wear masks, or that masks don't do anything, or that masks are a bad idea?   Kirk makes a good point.  Those of us who listen to experts might just be listening to the wrong experts.  @lklawson , some links would be helpful.


Have you seen the NYT article suggesting that the COVID testing is miscalculated and is giving between 60-ish-% and 90% false positive?  That would mean that COVID19 is actually less transmissible than a medium-to-heavy Flu season.  And few people are suggesting masking up everyone person for a Flu season.

There are others, of course, but I'm kinda depressed about how this is turning into two factions fighting with each other and apparently COVID just being a proxy for other arguments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive been doing my level best to catch since about April, and nothing, this thing is dam hard to catch, unless i didst notice perhaps, i did feel a bit rough for two or free days in june, perhaps that was it ? bit of a non event if it was


Some folks get infected and never show symptoms. Some estimates (hard to say with any certainty without really high levels of testing) put the asymptomatic people as the large majority of those infected. And some folks have very mild symptoms (which might actually be almost the same as "asymptomatic").

The problem is you never know if you have it and can infect until after you've been that way for a while.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Have you seen the NYT article suggesting that the COVID testing is miscalculated and is giving between 60-ish-% and 90% false positive?  That would mean that COVID19 is actually less transmissible than a medium-to-heavy Flu season.  And few people are suggesting masking up everyone person for a Flu season.
> 
> There are others, of course, but I'm kinda depressed about how this is turning into two factions fighting with each other and apparently COVID just being a proxy for other arguments.


If that were true, the virus would be both less infectious and more lethal than currently thought.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> If that were true, the virus would be both less infectious and more lethal than currently thought.


Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

Apparently the CDC says you shouldn't run the cycle more than 30 times at the absolute most and most of the testing is running 35 to 40 cycles.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
> 
> Apparently the CDC says you shouldn't run the cycle more than 30 times at the absolute most and most of the testing is running 35 to 40 cycles.
> 
> ...


Interesting. That may account for a lot of the "asymptomatic" folks. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> if thats not over zealous what is ?


It's pretty easy, actually.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Have you seen the NYT article suggesting that the COVID testing is miscalculated and is giving between 60-ish-% and 90% false positive?  That would mean that COVID19 is actually less transmissible than a medium-to-heavy Flu season.  And few people are suggesting masking up everyone person for a Flu season.
> 
> There are others, of course, but I'm kinda depressed about how this is turning into two factions fighting with each other and apparently COVID just being a proxy for other arguments.


Well, hold on.  Before you give up on humanity, I'd like to think this through.  I haven't seen the NYT article about testing.  I'll look for it. Testing is a pretty big issue, and getting accurate tests is really important. EDIT: I see you posted a link later.  I'll give it a read.

But just think about the implications of what you're saying above.  The mortality rate is the death toll as a percentage of total cases.  Right now, in the USA, according to the CDC and WHO, we think there have been somewhere a little north of 8 million cases.  We know that 220,000 have died.  So, 1, 2, skip a few...  that's a mortality rate of roughly 2.75%, more than 10x what we see with influenza according to the CDC.

If you're now suggesting that the tests are delivering a false positive by let's say 60%, that would suggest to me that we didn't have 8 million cases.  Instead, we actually might have had 40% of that, which is about 3,200,000 cases.  If this is true, the disease is far more dangerous than we are talking about.  220,000 as a percentage of 3.2 million would mean there is an actual mortality rate of almost 7%.

The flu comparison is one I've thought about a little.  We don't wear masks to mitigate the risk of getting the flu, but we do try to mitigate risks, in particular for people who are at high risk (elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, etc).  Washing hands is encouraged, and we generally have an annual flu shot that everyone is encouraged to get.  If the mortality rate of influenza were higher than .3% or less, I expect we'd give it more attention.  But even so, we do hear forecasts in the news when they expect it to be a bad year for influenza, and there is a heightened awareness and marketing of reasonable safety precautions.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

well Manchester has now been placed in tier 3 lock down, im not even sure what that is, i think its just locked down

however the situation in Manchester is so bad they have delayed it till Friday ????????


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> Well, hold on.  Before you give up on humanity, I'd like to think this through.  I haven't seen the NYT article about testing.  I'll look for it. Testing is a pretty big issue, and getting accurate tests is really important. EDIT: I see you posted a link later.  I'll give it a read.
> 
> But just think about the implications of what you're saying above.  The mortality rate is the death toll as a percentage of total cases.  Right now, in the USA, according to the CDC and WHO, we think there have been somewhere a little north of 8 million cases.  We know that 220,000 have died.  So, 1, 2, skip a few...  that's a mortality rate of roughly 2.75%, more than 10x what we see with influenza according to the CDC.
> 
> ...


false accounting

its demographic dependent, so,, the morality rate for the old is considerable, the mortality rate for the rest of us, doesnt break one%

WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE FIGURES THAT CAME OUT OF CHINA

AND ITS JUST AS LIKELY THAT CASES HAVE BEEN UNDER REPORTED AS OVER REPORTED


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> Well, hold on.  Before you give up on humanity, I'd like to think this through.


Too late.  I've already started the Ritual to Cthulhu.



> But just think about the implications of what you're saying above.  The mortality rate is the death toll as a percentage of total cases.  Right now, in the USA, according to the CDC and WHO, we think there have been somewhere a little north of 8 million cases.  We know that 220,000 have died.  So, 1, 2, skip a few...  that's a mortality rate of roughly 2.75%, more than 10x what we see with influenza according to the CDC.
> 
> If you're now suggesting that the tests are delivering a false positive by let's say 60%, that would suggest to me that we didn't have 8 million cases.  Instead, we actually might have had 40% of that, which is about 3,200,000 cases.  If this is true, the disease is far more dangerous than we are talking about.  220,000 as a percentage of 3.2 million would mean there is an actual mortality rate of almost 7%.


Yes.  I know.  There is concurrent information which suggest that the mortality rate is greatly inflated to.  One example is by "symptom diagnosis" for COVID (which does seem to happen a lot) and then attaching the death.  So someone dies, and, among other things, has symptoms which are consistent with COVID (or seasonal allergies) but no virology test is run.  But it's still recorded as a COVID death.  Another example is the difference between Flu and COVID recorded deaths.  Typically when a person dies of a co-morbidity while having the Flu, it's recorded as a result of the co-morbidity.  But it's the other was around with COVID.  When a person dies of a co-morbidity while having COVID, then COVID is listed as the cause.  I don't want to say this is "right" or "wrong" but I do want to say that it inflates the morbidity rate above that of other viruses and gives a over-large impression.  If the Flu and everything else was recorded the same way, it would change how some people look at it.



> The flu comparison is one I've thought about a little.  We don't wear masks to mitigate the risk of getting the flu, but we do try to mitigate risks, in particular for people who are at high risk (elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, etc).  Washing hands is encouraged, and we generally have an annual flu shot that everyone is encouraged to get.  If the mortality rate of influenza were higher than .3% or less, I expect we'd give it more attention.  But even so, we do hear forecasts in the news when they expect it to be a bad year for influenza, and there is a heightened awareness and marketing of reasonable safety precautions.


You're right that when I got the Flu back in Feb, when I was convinced it was more than just a cold after a few hours at work, I went home.  I self-quarantined myself away from vulnerable populations, such as my parents and granmother.  

To be honest, it was the worst Flu I've ever had, and I've gotten the Flu several times.  I, literally, coughed myself unconscious at least twice.  Yes, I blacked out from coughing.  When not passed out I spent about a week in bed wondering if death would embrace me in her dark arms.  If I'd gotten any worse, I'd would have gone to the Emergency Room or Urgent Care.  And I had shortness of breath for the next month or so.  Then the whole COVID thing broke and I decided to get an Antibodies test.  I mean, the symptoms were so right along the lines with COVID.  But, nope.  No anti-bodies.  Then a close friend who got the same symptoms at the same time told me that he got tested right away for the Flu and it came back positive.  Either I got the Flu from him or we got it from the same third-person.

Make no mistake, the Flu can be a killer.

And yes, like I said, I self-quarantined.  But no one said, "you need to wear a mask in public just in case you might have the Flu again."

I see a big double-standard.

Fortunately, I'm about half-way through the Ritual to Cthulhu now.






Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Too late.  I've already started the Ritual to Cthulhu.
> 
> Yes.  I know.  There is concurrent information which suggest that the mortality rate is greatly inflated to.  One example is by "symptom diagnosis" for COVID (which does seem to happen a lot) and then attaching the death.  So someone dies, and, among other things, has symptoms which are consistent with COVID (or seasonal allergies) but no virology test is run.  But it's still recorded as a COVID death.  Another example is the difference between Flu and COVID recorded deaths.  Typically when a person dies of a co-morbidity while having the Flu, it's recorded as a result of the co-morbidity.  But it's the other was around with COVID.  When a person dies of a co-morbidity while having COVID, then COVID is listed as the cause.  I don't want to say this is "right" or "wrong" but I do want to say that it inflates the morbidity rate above that of other viruses and gives a over-large impression.  If the Flu and everything else was recorded the same way, it would change how some people look at it.
> 
> ...


Okay, so we're on the same page with regards to the flu.  So, now it's just a matter of figuring out who these other "experts" are you mentioned.  I've seen some of these reports you mention that discuss co-morbidity.  I didn't see any of them coming from any experts.  In fact, the only ones I saw were from propaganda outlets (like actual, conspiracy theory, whackadoo sites intentionally peddling misinformation for political gain).  Are you saying that there are some credible experts with evidence that the morbidity rates for COVID are lower than reported?  I'd like to see that.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> false accounting
> 
> its demographic dependent, so,, the morality rate for the old is considerable, the mortality rate for the rest of us, doesnt break one%
> 
> ...


Did your caps lock get stuck?

Personally, I'm very fond of my 85 year old dad, and I'm interested in keeping the old codger around as long as I can.  I'd feel pretty rotten if I brought a disease into his home that killed him.  Especially if I did it carelessly and with disregard to his health.  Knowing that the morbidity (morality? ) rate is so much higher for senior citizens than the flu (by an order of magnitude), I'm genuinely confused why anyone would fail to be careful.  I mean, even if you're at a reasonably low risk for serious complications, just knowing you could kill a person at the local pub seems like incentive enough to be careful.

In related news, there is something that the CDC puts out that might help this discussion related to the topic of co-morbidity.  It's an excess deaths report on the CDC website that is intended to specifically address the concerns mentioned by Kirk above.
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

There's a report on this site here that compares excess deaths including and excluding available COVID19 reports:
Tableau Public




If you look at it, you can see that for the past few years, things have gone just about according to schedule.  Each bar in the chart represents a week.  The image is just a quick screen grab, but you it's an interactive chart, that you can look at the link above.  You'll also find the methods along with some cautions about lag times.  The chart above is the USA as a whole, but you can also get really granular.  It's pretty interesting, but in a nutshell, where you see the plus signs, you can see a higher than expected death rate in that week.  The closer to present you get, the less accurate they are because as I mentioned above, there is a lag with reporting.  But the cases go up, not down, so you can see that even based on existing data, there are more deaths than expected by a lot in the USA.

So, as an example, in week ending April 18, 2020, the CDC expected between 55,689 and 57,632 deaths.  However, a total of 76,694 deaths have been reported for that week so far.  3% more people died than expected that week not including COVID19, and they estimate that between 33 and 38% more died due to the Coronavirus.  

Did everyone counted have just COVID19?  Certainly not.  Were there any missed diagnoses?  Maybe.  But we know that these estimates are generally pretty close, and that there is a noticeable spike in deaths, to the tune of 33 to 38% more in that week.

Point is, if you're suggesting that the morbidity is being overestimated, the data suggests the opposite. If anything, there are likely more deaths related to covid than are being reported, because more people in general are dying than expected, even if we take out the COVID reports.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

related to the excess death reports from the CDC, I noticed there was a spike in December 2017 and January 2018.  Not sure what that is from, but now I'm very curious what was going on back then to cause a spike in deaths.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> related to the excess death reports from the CDC, I noticed there was a spike in December 2017 and January 2018.  Not sure what that is from, but now I'm very curious what was going on back then to cause a spike in deaths.


IIRC, that was a really bad Flu season.  Perhaps as much as 80,000 deaths, ims, depending on how it's counted.  I think that the official totals are 800,000 hospitalized and 60,000+ deaths.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> Did your caps lock get stuck?
> 
> Personally, I'm very fond of my 85 year old dad, and I'm interested in keeping the old codger around as long as I can.  I'd feel pretty rotten if I brought a disease into his home that killed him.  Especially if I did it carelessly and with disregard to his health.  Knowing that the morbidity (morality? ) rate is so much higher for senior citizens than the flu (by an order of magnitude), I'm genuinely confused why anyone would fail to be careful.  I mean, even if you're at a reasonably low risk for serious complications, just knowing you could kill a person at the local pub seems like incentive enough to be careful.
> 
> ...




no i type with out looking at the screen, then cant be asred to retype it with out the caps lock, sometimes i typed two hundred words, then realise i havnt turn the keyboard on, thats annoying

he is your dad, not mine, its your job to keep him safe, if old people want to go to the pub and run the risk who am i to tell them they are wrong and there are lots of them who do, they would sooner die than stop in isolation, literally and isolation is the only safe place for them, as if you haven't noticed masks and beer have an incompatibility issue

maybe the increased death rate are from the covid victims who die from the controls and not the disease ? among many other related issues domestic violence and child abuse has gone through the roof in the uk


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> related to the excess death reports from the CDC, I noticed there was a spike in December 2017 and January 2018.  Not sure what that is from, but now I'm very curious what was going on back then to cause a spike in deaths.


at guess id say that was Christmas related


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> he is your dad, not mine, its your job to keep him safe, if old people want to go to the pub and run the risk who am i to tell them they are wrong and there are lots of them who do, they would sooner die than stop in isolation, literally and isolation is the only safe place for them, as if you haven't noticed masks and beer have an incompatibility issue


So @lklawson , I don't want to presume to speak for other people.  But when I describe people who don't wear masks as selfish, this is the kind of attitude I mean.  It's a childish selfishness that makes them very susceptible to misleading propaganda.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> So @lklawson , I don't want to presume to speak for other people.  But when I describe people who don't wear masks as selfish, this is the kind of attitude I mean.  It's a childish selfishness that makes them very susceptible to misleading propaganda.


its all getting very personal steve, do you expect me to drink beer through a mask ? or do you want me to take your responsibility for the safety of your dear old dad


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> its all getting very personal steve, do you expect me to drink beer through a mask ? or do you want me to take your responsibility for the safety of your dear old dad


Does it feel personal?  Sorry about that... you just presented such a clear case in point.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> To be clear, I wear them outside only when I'm around people.  My wife and I don't routinely wear them when we walk the dogs, and if we run into other people, we just cross the street.  I wear them inside all the time when I'm out among the English (aka, at the store, etc).




I am exempt, i dont wear them.     Buisnesses dont really enforce it where i am at and the police dont really sit around to make sure they enforce it.   (hell they barely did the 1 metre spacing as they still kept the checkout ailse filled with items to literally make it imposible to stay 2 meters away from people until recently)


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> I am exempt, i dont wear them.     Buisnesses dont really enforce it where i am at and the police dont really sit around to make sure they enforce it.   (hell they barely did the 1 metre spacing as they still kept the checkout ailse filled with items to literally make it imposible to stay 2 meters away from people until recently)


businesses have no duty to enforce it, except maybe pubs, certainly the only time ive been pulled by a business has been in pubs. licensees have quit heavy liabilities in all this

im expecting the police to get their act together and start handing out more tickets


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> businesses have no duty to enforce it, except maybe pubs, certainly the only time ive been pulled by a business has been in pubs. licensees have quit heavy liabilities in all this
> 
> im expecting the police to get their act together and start handing out more tickets


Not sure what it's like in the UK, but in the USA, we have a bit of a mess.  First, I totally agree that a business shouldn't be made to enforce the rules. I think I've mentioned that my first job was at McDonald's.  A good first job overall, but I worked at two of them near the University of Washington.  The first was located on "The Ave" in Seattle, where there were a lot of homeless teens, drugs, and crime.  The second was down the street from Greek row.  At both, there were a lot of fights in the parking lot, and occasionally in the store, and who would they send out to break the fights up?  Me or one of my buddies.   Point is simply that I am acutely aware of how these folks must feel when they are forced to confront a customer.  And in particular, in this country, people who don't wear their masks are generally looking for confrontation, which just makes it more tenuous for the people who are just trying to make a living.

Second, as weird as this may sound, we have a problem where some cops (generally county sheriffs) are elected.  This leads them to believe that they can choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, and they will direct their deputies to do the same.  So, you have in some areas, usually rural or semi-rural, a county sheriff will overtly declare that they are not going to enforce a law that they disagree with.  Often, in the past, it's been related to gun laws.  But recently, most of these same guys are undermining efforts to get people to wear a dang mask, practice social distancing, or take other State or locally mandated precautions.

Add that to the failure of leadership at the federal level and here we are.  


Rat said:


> I am exempt, i dont wear them.     Buisnesses dont really enforce it where i am at and the police dont really sit around to make sure they enforce it.   (hell they barely did the 1 metre spacing as they still kept the checkout ailse filled with items to literally make it imposible to stay 2 meters away from people until recently)


This guy.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> So @lklawson , I don't want to presume to speak for other people.  But when I describe people who don't wear masks as selfish, this is the kind of attitude I mean.  It's a childish selfishness that makes them very susceptible to misleading propaganda.














Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Not sure what it's like in the UK, but in the USA, we have a bit of a mess.  First, I totally agree that a business shouldn't be made to enforce the rules. I think I've mentioned that my first job was at McDonald's.  A good first job overall, but I worked at two of them near the University of Washington.  The first was located on "The Ave" in Seattle, where there were a lot of homeless teens, drugs, and crime.  The second was down the street from Greek row.  At both, there were a lot of fights in the parking lot, and occasionally in the store, and who would they send out to break the fights up?  Me or one of my buddies.   Point is simply that I am acutely aware of how these folks must feel when they are forced to confront a customer.  And in particular, in this country, people who don't wear their masks are generally looking for confrontation, which just makes it more tenuous for the people who are just trying to make a living.
> 
> Second, as weird as this may sound, we have a problem where some cops (generally county sheriffs) are elected.  This leads them to believe that they can choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, and they will direct their deputies to do the same.  So, you have in some areas, usually rural or semi-rural, a county sheriff will overtly declare that they are not going to enforce a law that they disagree with.  Often, in the past, it's been related to gun laws.  But recently, most of these same guys are undermining efforts to get people to wear a dang mask, practice social distancing, or take other State or locally mandated precautions.
> 
> ...


its a tapestry here, we have one set of laws for the whole country but dozens of police forces, who prioritise them in different ways, dependent on which important citizen is complaining about what or the whim of the chief constable, or any particular police man. then we have bilaws, that relate to one specific town many of them a 100 years old or more, that no one knows exist, apart from the copper who has just taken a dislike to you and want to do you for something and indeed ancient country wide laws, that have slipped from collective memory, but you can still be prosecuted for if they want to

for instance gambling in a public library, being drunk in a pub, using lewd language more or less anywhere, its such that the well researched copper find all most anything you do contravenes some ancient law,

generally speaking laws fall in to three categories, flavour of the month, like they decided to clamp down on something lots of people have been doing for year, like cycling on the pavement/side walk

bread and butter stuff and

a whole load of cant be arsed getting out of my car? doing the paper work laws, unless they have indeed taken a dislike to you.

the problem with the police and covid early on was they were enforcing a whole load of laws that didn't actually exist, partly coz they were very keen and partly because the government kept issues very badly issued laws, that nobody understood

they got criticised very strongly about that by some very important people including senior judges and ministers, so they backed off , a lot, possibly to much, they wernt going to enforce them if they were going to get hung out to dry

way back,i had a prolonged conversation with copper, on my way to the shops, about my justification for being out,,,, going to the shop,,,, and his insistence that i could only go to a ;''local shop'' which isn't what the law actually said, but we wernt arguing that point, we were arguing the fact i had no obligation to tell him where i lived, so he couldn't know if i was shopping local or not

since then they have had a resurgence of interest and seem to have found their ticket books again

the government was quite recently talking about having an ''army'' of volunteer covid warden spying on citizens and taking pictures/reporting to the police. comparisons with the starzi seemed to knock that idea on the head


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> its a tapestry here, we have one set of laws for the whole country but dozens of police forces, who prioritise them in different ways, dependent on which important citizen is complaining about what or the whim of the chief constable, or any particular police man. then we have bilaws, that relate to one specific town many of them a 100 years old or more, that no one knows exist, apart from the copper who has just taken a dislike to you and want to do you for something and indeed ancient country wide laws, that have slipped from collective memory, but you can still be prosecuted for if they want to
> 
> for instance gambling in a public library, being drunk in a pub, using lewd language more or less anywhere, its such that the well researched copper find all most anything you do contravenes some ancient law,
> 
> ...


I love that you call them coppers.  Reminds me of the old Mickey Spillane books.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Alright!  So, who's taken some time to look at the CDC website?  I take it we all agree now that, if anything, COVID19 is being under-reported, that legitimate experts all agree that wearing masks is a good idea, that there is evidence that masks work, and that the bunk about co-morbidity is propaganda.  Next time this comes up, I'll just refer back to this post to remind everything that we reached a consensus.


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Alright!  So, who's taken some time to look at the CDC website?  I take it we all agree now that, if anything, COVID19 is being under-reported, that legitimate experts all agree that wearing masks is a good idea, that there is evidence that masks work, and that the bunk about co-morbidity is propaganda.  Next time this comes up, I'll just refer back to this post to remind everything that we reached a consensus.


the cdc are knee deep in this nonsence,  you need to find an aurthorative impartial source if you want to claim victory

the issue is less virology,  so much as sociology,  controls only work if you get people to take them seriously and you take in the social structures people operate with in, just shouting and threatning and tryibg to scare people  doesnt work. CLEARLY, your shouting scaremongering  and personal attacks have convinved no one

all the current controls, if they have any validity at all, which is distictly in question, do is move the problem elsewhere


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> the cdc are knee deep in this nonsence,  you need to find an aurthorative impartial source if you want to claim victory
> 
> the issue is less virology,  so much as sociology,  controls only work if you get people to take them seriously and you take in the social structures people operate with in, just shouting and threatning and tryibg to scare people  doesnt work. CLEARLY, your shouting scaremongering  and personal attacks have convinved no one
> 
> all the current controls, if they have any validity at all, which is distictly in question, do is move the problem elsewhere


How about the WHO?


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> How about the WHO?


it was their &&&& up in the first place, told everyone it wasnt that bad and china had it all under control," no dont bother to close the borders, itll be fine"

i wouldnt trust them to tell me the time with my own watch

yes thank you virology dept, think we give it to the socialogists and the economists to sort it out from here,


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> it was their &&&& up in the first place, told everyone it wasnt that bad and china had it all under control," no dont bother to close the borders, itll be fine"
> 
> i wouldnt trust them to tell me the time with my own watch
> 
> yes thank you virology dept, think we give it to the socialogists and the economists to sort it out from here,


lol. Okay man.


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> lol. Okay man.


im angry at the sheer incomompitance of our leaders, well my leaders, i have little idea whats happing here, let alobe the states

so its all going well, and they send the kids back to schools,
.right all wear masks and socialy distance, you will wont you ?

oh yes said the gang of rowdy 14 yo, who have no concept of mortality and imdiatly went back to sharing cans of coke, kissing behind the bike shed, spitting and fighting and generaly being 14

now come on, anyone with half a brain could have predicted that, but not our govenment experts, if they manage to supervise them in the school, which seems unlikely, the little Bs all walk home together

now they have had to close everything down again, which also wont make much differance


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Oct 22, 2020)

Actually, i dont think this supercedes the Data proection act or the european version of it. (cant remmebr its acornym ever)   So by that merit i dont think i am lawfully required to prove to a buisness i am exempt or not through a medical doccument.    I certainly wouldnt nor reccomend anyone walk around with a medical report in their pocket on this matter, and thats a protected doccument under that act.


----------



## jobo (Oct 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Actually, i dont think this supercedes the Data proection act or the european version of it. (cant remmebr its acornym ever)   So by that merit i dont think i am lawfully required to prove to a buisness i am exempt or not through a medical doccument.    I certainly wouldnt nor reccomend anyone walk around with a medical report in their pocket on this matter, and thats a protected doccument under that act.


well no you dont have to prove your exception, but then the businesses dont have to provided you with service either if you dont, which then leaves you to take court action under the disability act, you get a couple of grand a time, so may be a good pass time

there badges knocking about saying '' im exempt '' that you dont need to prove your medical condition to get, which businesses seem to accept

you may have to prove your exception if the police ticket you, or you may not the law is far from clear


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Actually, i dont think this supercedes the Data proection act or the european version of it. (cant remmebr its acornym ever)   So by that merit i dont think i am lawfully required to prove to a buisness i am exempt or not through a medical doccument.    I certainly wouldnt nor reccomend anyone walk around with a medical report in their pocket on this matter, and thats a protected doccument under that act.


Not very familiar with the UK.  Can you explain how an act that appears to be about protecting how your personal information is stored electronically relates to wearing a mask to help mitigate the spread of a virus during a pandemic?  I'm not seeing a connection.


----------



## jobo (Oct 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> Not very familiar with the UK.  Can you explain how an act that appears to be about protecting how your personal information is stored electronically relates to wearing a mask to help mitigate the spread of a virus during a pandemic?  I'm not seeing a connection.


he cant, but i will, the data protection requirements are   not about how its stored so much as who has access to it

anyone who decides to collect your ( medical) data so you dont have to wear a mask, would have to jump through considerable hoops in order to meet the requirements to protect that data, its not just protecting its its being able to prove your protecting it with infrastructure and thats massively expensive

far more cost and trouble than even a medium to large sized business could be expected to invest in order to get three pounds off you for a coffee

costa coffee refused to take my name and address, as they wernt able to protect the data


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 26, 2020)

Yesterday when I ran, I met a guy who had face mask on. He said, "We are all good citizen." His comment made me to feel very good.

It has been a month since we discuss face mask last time. Do we agree that face mask is more and more important today than a month ago?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yesterday when I ran, I met a guy who had face mask on. He said, "We are all good citizen." His comment made me to feel very good.
> 
> It has been a month since we discuss face mask last time. Do we agree that face mask is more and more important today than a month ago?


From what you said in the past, it seems like you are coming across more people with with masks.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> From what you said in the past, it seems like you are coming across more people with with masks.


If 70% of the US population can have face mask on, the US virus can be under controlled.

Can you believe that my wife gave a a birthday gift, a Airinum x MoMA Reflective Urban Air Mask that cost $145 on Ebay.

One day my wife saw a movie star online who had a face mask on. She used magnifying glass to find the bland name of that face mask. She then ordered it on Ebay for me.

Limited Edition -  Airinum x MoMA Reflective Urban Air Mask Sz Large  | eBay


----------



## Leviathan (Nov 27, 2020)

No: The virus will spread anyway. Masks may slow it down a bit but not more than that. We've been wearing a mask for months already and the virus has kept spreading. 

What matters is a good immune system.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Nov 27, 2020)

Ya just stay home. Stay safe


----------



## lklawson (Nov 27, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yesterday when I ran, I met a guy who had face mask on. He said, "We are all good citizen." His comment made me to feel very good.
> 
> It has been a month since we discuss face mask last time. Do we agree that face mask is more and more important today than a month ago?


Nope.  Look around you nationally.  There is no agreement.  Don't pretend there is.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If 70% of the US population can have face mask on, the US virus can be under controlled.
> 
> Can you believe that my wife gave a a birthday gift, a Airinum x MoMA Reflective Urban Air Mask that cost $145 on Ebay.
> 
> ...


thats got an exhaust valve right on the front, im not sure how that stops covid from spreading, not such a good citizen ?


----------



## Saheim (Nov 27, 2020)

More important, now? Nope, just as important as it ever was...... at making people FEEL safe.

Bottome line - when a virus can be transmitted, during the incubation period, and you are facing exponential spreading, there are really two option: (1) move out into the woods and avoid ever seeing another human (2) get exposed.

Herd immunity is the only real defense.  But hey, I got no problem with folks wearing masks, rock on! They look so stylishly compliant.

Edit - if we were all "good citizens", we'd still be British colonies.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> More important, now? Nope, just as important as it ever was...... at making people FEEL safe.
> 
> Bottome line - when a virus can be transmitted, during the incubation period, and you are facing exponential spreading, there are really two option: (1) move out into the woods and avoid ever seeing another human (2) get exposed.
> 
> ...


Do you think what happened in the 18th century causing the US (or any other British colony at their time) to revolt is equivalent of mask wearing? 

Also do you think obeying recommendations that a government of officials you put in power, and being "compliant" and "good citizens" in regards to listening to the people you choose to govern you is inherently a bad thing? Because that's what it sounds like, so it makes me wonder if you follow other laws/recommendations that they set.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Herd immunity is the only real defense.


  Sweden tried this theory already and it failed. They have even said as much.

Herd immunity only works in the context of using a vaccine.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Sweden tried this theory already and it failed. They have even said as much.
> 
> Herd immunity only works in the context of using a vaccine.


well its working better than the states, the uk, germany, france and a hpst of ither places, sweeden is only 31st on the deaths per million list.


so its better


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Sweden tried this theory already and it failed. They have even said as much.
> 
> Herd immunity only works in the context of using a vaccine.


This is such a simple and clear point.  It’s astounding so many folks don’t get it.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> This is such a simple and clear point.  It’s astounding so many folks don’t get it.


well its both simple and clear, but its also incorrect, which spoils it somewhat


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2020)

During my 3 miles running, when I put face mask on in front of people and people said "Thank you!" They knew I did that for them and not for myself.

To be able to protect others just make me to feel great.


----------



## Saheim (Nov 27, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Do you think what happened in the 18th century causing the US (or any other British colony at their time) to revolt is equivalent of mask wearing?
> 
> Also do you think obeying recommendations that a government of officials you put in power, and being "compliant" and "good citizens" in regards to listening to the people you choose to govern you is inherently a bad thing? Because that's what it sounds like, so it makes me wonder if you follow other laws/recommendations that they set.



(1) Equivalent? No. Comparable? Absolutely.

(2) Inherently a bad thing? When done out of fear and blind faith, Absolutely!

As for what I follow or do not - I do not recognize a gvt as having any "authority" over how i care for my own safety. If I am not ACTIVELY interfering with someone else (no, breathing doesn't count). Then I consider laws pertaining to my activity illegitimate. I use the word "laws" loosely as there have been very few (if any) mask "laws" simply E.O.'s and "mandates" which is an even bigger abuse of "authority" as only the legislative branch has the power to create "law".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> This is such a simple and clear point.  It’s astounding so many folks don’t get it.


 Yep.  I'm always amazed. All people have to do is read the news from a reliable source or in this case actually listen to what the health officials are saying in Sweden. 
Here are just some of recent headlines
*Sweden sees no sign of COVID-19 immunity in population exposure, says country’s top epidemiologist source*: https://fortune.com/2020/11/25/sweden-herd-immunity-antibodies-lockdown/

*Suddenly, Swedes are ‘very worried’ that the ‘herd immunity’ strategy is no match for COVID *
Suddenly, Swedes are 'very worried' that the 'herd immunity' strategy is no match for COVID

*Sweden Sees No Signs So Far Herd Immunity Is Stopping Virus *Sweden Sees No Signs So Far Herd Immunity Is Stopping Virus

Here's my favorite Headline.  I don't see where the confusion is :*Sweden has admitted its coronavirus immunity predictions were wrong as cases soar across the country*
Sweden Sees No Signs So Far Herd Immunity Is Stopping Virus

Here's another one


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep.  I'm always amazed. All people have to do is read the news from a reliable source or in this case actually listen to what the health officials are saying in Sweden.
> Here are just some of recent headlines
> *Sweden sees no sign of COVID-19 immunity in population exposure, says country’s top epidemiologist source*: https://fortune.com/2020/11/25/sweden-herd-immunity-antibodies-lockdown/
> 
> ...


but they are still tons better than america, britain france germany etc.
so wrobg or not, they are still doibg better than a lit of countries in preventibg deaths


----------



## Saheim (Nov 27, 2020)

2017 there were 79,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S.

2019 there were 22,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S.

Look it up.

Pretty amazing how we just beat Flu eh? I mean that is apx a 70% reduction. Amazing. Wonder how we did that.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> 2017 there were 79,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S.
> 
> 2019 there were 22,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S.
> 
> ...


Yeah it's amazing that the things that help prevent covid-19 also help prevent the spread of influenza.  Turns out, washing your hands frequently, social distancing, wearing a mask and not going out when you're sick are pretty effective strategies with the flu.

Or are you talking about just the normal fluctuations that occur year to year depending upon how virulent the strain of flu is, and how effective the shot is?  Honestly, your point is a little silly either way, but I'm not sure which brand of crazy you're endorsing.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> (1) Equivalent? No. Comparable? Absolutely.


 Anything is comparable if you try hard enough. But I think that there's a very big difference here, when the issue back then was a lack of representation, and we have that representation now. It's apples to oranges.



> (2) Inherently a bad thing? When done out of fear and blind faith, Absolutely!


 It's not blind faith. All the information is out there, about what is and isn't helpful. Making an informed decision to limit interactions and wear masks when you do interact isn't blind faith at all. 



> As for what I follow or do not - I do not recognize a gvt as having any "authority" over how i care for my own safety. If I am not ACTIVELY interfering with someone else (no, breathing doesn't count). Then I consider laws pertaining to my activity illegitimate. I use the word "laws" loosely as there have been very few (if any) mask "laws" simply E.O.'s and "mandates" which is an even bigger abuse of "authority" as only the legislative branch has the power to create "law".


First, that was the reason I put laws/recommendations. Because for the most part these haven't been laws, but I believe in some places (maybe not the US, but in other countries as well) there have been. So I included both. Second, it's not only related to your own safety. Masks are used specifically to help other people, and you are correct, no law can interfere with you breathing. They can however, interfere with you breathing on someone else, if breathing on them can cause harm to said person.

To me, driving is a good example of this. 

I don't feel that seatbelts should be mandatory, with the exception of children under an age where they can't make informed decisions. Mainly because we should be able to determine for ourselves if we want to take the risks involved (however I also feel insurances/governments shouldn't have to cover the expense of someone getting into an accident without a seatbelt, as now you are putting a financial burden in the form of taxes and/or higher insurance premiums for your own carelessness).

I do, however, feel that blowing a stop sign or red light should be illegal. Because when you're doing those activities, you are actively endangering others even if 99 times out of 100 you're not causing damage, and the potential result of that damage is death of another human being.

Masks are much more similar to the second example. You're not likely to cause anyone else's death by not wearing one, but you are actively taking that risk with someone else's life, and therefore a law can be made about it. And even if you somehow convince me that A) a mask is not helpful in spreading the disease, and B) You having a contagious disease does not increase the chance others will get the same contagious disease, then the first example would still apply. In which case, not wearing a mask should be grounds for having to pay for all the treatment out of pocket, rather than impact other people's insurance premiums and/or taxes. Is that something you're willing to pay out of pocket for, personally?


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> 2017 there were 79,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S. 2019 there were 22,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S. Look it up. Pretty amazing how we just beat Flu eh? I mean that is apx a 70% reduction. Amazing. Wonder how we did that.



Wait a minute. I´m not sure I´m following you here. 

There are many strains of seasonal flu, and we don´t get hit hard by the same strain every year. In addition, many people get flu vaccines, but the vaccines that are produced are formulated in advance based on a "best guess" of which strain seems most likely to hit us the following winter (based on data about what's already circulating in the southern hemisphere). Sometimes they get it right and the vaccine is reasonably effective, other times they get it wrong, and the vaccine is next to useless. 

So considering all that, of course common seasonal flu deaths fluctuate widely from year to year. So what´s your point? 

If we want to get to a level of "herd immunity" without completely overwhelming our health-care system and having massive fatality rates, the logical thing is to try to _slow down_ the spread of the virus at least until we can get a substantial portion of the population vaccinated  ...perhaps by late spring or early summer. So, how do we slow down contagion? Masks, distancing, hand-washing, and common sense can't hurt.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> but they are still tons better than america, britain france germany etc.
> so wrobg or not, they are still doibg better than a lit of countries in preventibg deaths



A lot of the countries who are doing bad are the same countries that are complaining about wearing masks.   Most of the countries who didn't complain about wearing masks are doing better than Sweden.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> 2017 there were 79,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S.
> 
> 2019 there were 22,000 deaths from Flu, in the U.S.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what your point of this is. But I just looked it up. Here are the deaths per year according to the CDC by flu since the 2011-2012 season, rounded to the nearest hundred.

10-11: 36.7k
11-12: 12.4k
12-13: 42.6k
13-14: 37.9k
14-15: 51.4k
15-16: 22.7k
16-17: 38.2k
17-18: 61.1k
18-19: 34.2k
19-20: Estimated 22k

So you (or whomever made this point that you're repeating) took the largest number out of the last decade to compare with this year. Not really genuine if what you're going for is showing a decreasing trend, as there seem to be random years that have spikes. And there could easily be a flu spike next year or the year after, and 22k is not out of the ordinary for other years this decade.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I'm not sure what your point of this is. But I just looked it up. Here are the deaths per year according to the CDC by flu since the 2011-2012 season, rounded to the nearest hundred.
> 
> 10-11: 36.7k
> 11-12: 12.4k
> ...


Some people really need to reconsider their information sources and find one that's more reliable.


----------



## Saheim (Nov 27, 2020)

Actually I simply Googled it the number I got was 79k for 2017 and 22k for 2019.

Now couple that with that fact that I personally know people who had to get into a heated argument, with hospital staff, to avoid a "positive" result being put on their child's medical record PRIOR to the results coming back (which turned out NEGATIVE btw) and the "covid death" numbers start to make more sense.

Right now, a geezer with flu like symptoms dies,  how do you think it gets logged? More numbers means more money.

If a business does not want me coming in without a mask, they have every right to require one, it is their business.  On public property,  if someone is concerned about my lack of a mask, they are welcome to take off running. Apparently,  it works good, the OP hasn't gotten it yet (afaik).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Right now, a geezer with flu like symptoms dies, how do you think it gets logged? More numbers means more money.


This is incorrect.  More numbers doesn't mean more money. They aren't going to treat you for Covid if you don't have it.  That's just a waste of time, medicine, and space that could be used for someone who actually has Covid.



Saheim said:


> . On public property, if someone is concerned about my lack of a mask, they are welcome to take off running. Apparently, it works good, the OP hasn't gotten it yet (afaik).


Mentalities like yours is why things are often worse than they really need to be.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Actually I simply Googled it the number I got was 79k for 2017 and 22k for 2019.
> 
> Now couple that with that fact that I personally know people who had to get into a heated argument, with hospital staff, to avoid a "positive" result being put on their child's medical record PRIOR to the results coming back (which turned out NEGATIVE btw) and the "covid death" numbers start to make more sense.
> 
> ...


I remember people who think the same way as you once thought.
1. Covid-19 is just like the flu
2. Covid -19 is hoax
3. Covid -19 has had fewer deaths than the flu.  Why don't we show the same concern about the flu.
4. There will be a Vaccine for Covid -19 in 2 or 3 months (back in may)
5. The virus will go away in the Summer
6. People are over reacting
7. Covid-19 doesn't affect young people
8. Herd immunity works

So far all have been shown to be wrong by the actual events that are occurring daily.   When it all comes down to it.  

I'm curious to know what you are doing to help reduce the spread of Covid-19.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 2. Covid -19 is hoax ... So far all have been shown to be wrong ...


You miss the one - the U.S. is "rounding the corner".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You miss the one - the U.S. is "rounding the corner".


yep. you are right.. I forgot that one.. "Rounding the Corner"  With 100, 000+ daily cases and hospitals over capacity, I think it's safe that one is wrong too.

The only thing one can learn from all of that information is that those who believed those things don't have accurate or reliable information and that whatever they say about Covid should be quickly ignored.

I forgot one more.   "If Biden Wins, then we won't hear anything else about Covid."  My co-worker told me that one.  

People say that more Covid cases = more money for doctors.   I wonder why we don't hear.  More Covid Deaths = More money for the funeral homes.


----------



## Saheim (Nov 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I remember people who think the same way as you once thought.
> 1. Covid-19 is just like the flu
> 2. Covid -19 is hoax
> 3. Covid -19 has had fewer deaths than the flu.  Why don't we show the same concern about the flu.
> ...



At one of my jobs, I am required to wear a mask and social distance. Outside of work, I occasionally wear one (dependingon where I am shopping). Beyond that, I am not doing much. I don't get too close to folks anyway and practice good hygien. I am pretty durable, I will roll the dice. Plus, my doctor is pretty sure I have already had it once and was fine. YMMV


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2020)

I have not had my hair cut since January, 2020. Does anybody go to barber shop, or dentist this year?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have not had my hair cut since January, 2020. Does anybody go to barber shop, or dentist this year?


I cut my own hair. Only way to mess up a bald head is to leave patches of hair lol.

I scheduled my dentist and my son's dentist appointment before things got bad in Georgia.  I knew ahead of time that I didn't want to take a chance during the winter months when people are already getting sick from cold and flu.


I've been to the dentist twice.  I was nervous about it the first time, but once I got inside, it was easy to see that they were taking it serious.  My son has been once.  So at the dentist and the doctors office, the only ones allowed in is the patient that they are seeing.  They are strict about everyone's safety and that's what I like to see.  Some of the precautions from those businesses who take Covid-19 seriously have been impressive.

Some have been really bad, unfortunately many of the Hispanic shops are the worst place to go.  There's a Hispanic grocery close to where I live, where no one wears a mask.  That grocery was always busy pre-Covid-19 and they were busy during the earlier months before people wore masks. But from observations, it looks as if people rather shop at businesses that require everyone to wear a mask.  There is another grocery that is popular with Hispanics and they are busy as well, but they require masks and everyone wears them.

Other than that, it looks like more people here are definitely taking it more seriously now


----------



## jobo (Nov 28, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> A lot of the countries who are doing bad are the same countries that are complaining about wearing masks.   Most of the countries who didn't complain about wearing masks are doing better than Sweden.


im bit sure what your saying here, are you sugesting that complaining about madks is more dangeroud than not wearing masks 

coz germany , whoch is a near neibour of sweden has been largly wraring masks,  where as swden has actively discouraged wearibg masks, but germany has a higher death rate per million ,

that takes some expkaining if masks actually work, can you explain it ?


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 28, 2020)

Steve said:


> Yeah it's amazing that the things that help prevent covid-19 also help prevent the spread of influenza.  Turns out, washing your hands frequently, social distancing, wearing a mask and not going out when you're sick are pretty effective strategies with the flu.
> 
> Or are you talking about just the normal fluctuations that occur year to year depending upon how virulent the strain of flu is, and how effective the shot is?  Honestly, your point is a little silly either way, but I'm not sure which brand of crazy you're endorsing.


Honestly, your inference is silly as well. You do not find it even a little ironic that the year to year deaths are strikingly similar even with 'new' virus going around that is SO deadly? C'mon man. You surely aren't naive enough to think there is the real possibility this thing, or something like it, has been going around for years/decades/centuries. I think this is the point @Saheim is trying to make. Especially if you factor on countries like the US, England, and Sweden where masks  have not been prevalent. And factor in most of Asia, where masks have been used for years, and the infection rates are still high. Call it natural selection or whatever you want. To quote Einstein "mother nature is a fickle *****".


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 28, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I'm not sure what your point of this is. But I just looked it up. Here are the deaths per year according to the CDC by flu since the 2011-2012 season, rounded to the nearest hundred.
> 
> 10-11: 36.7k
> 11-12: 12.4k
> ...



Okay then; lets take 11-12, 15-16, & 19-20. Strikingly Low compared to other 'normal' years in recent history. Whichever side of the argument you want to be on the numbers do not lie. And again, this is the year with the 'deadly' virus lurking around. Plus it is virtually impossible to have anything close to accurate, disseminating  numbers this year, since a heavy portion of the numbers are classified Covid, whether it is/was the actual illness or not. In aggregate the numbers do not lie.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> im bit sure what your saying here, are you sugesting that complaining about madks is more dangeroud than not wearing masks
> 
> coz germany , whoch is a near neibour of sweden has been largly wraring masks,  where as swden has actively discouraged wearibg masks, but germany has a higher death rate per million ,
> 
> that takes some expkaining if masks actually work, can you explain it ?


According to John Hopkins.  Germany has 19 deaths per 100K people   Sweeden has 65 deaths per 100K people.


----------



## Steve (Nov 28, 2020)

Threads like this, I just remind myself that we need to take care of those who are too foolish to do it themselves.


JowGaWolf said:


> According to John Hopkins.  Germany has 19 deaths per 100K people   Sweeden has 65 deaths per 100K people.


don't confuse them with facts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 28, 2020)

Steve said:


> Threads like this, I just remind myself that we need to take care of those who are too foolish to do it themselves.
> don't confuse them with facts.


It's selfish public behavior indeed.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 28, 2020)

Steve said:


> Threads like this, I just remind myself that we need to take care of those who are too foolish to do it themselves.
> don't confuse them with facts.


I'll try to see if I can find some more numbers on this one.  Maybe one with a date


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 28, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll try to see if I can find some more numbers on this one.  Maybe one with a date


 I wasn't too sure about this site before as I haven't used it before.  I gave it a try an it still comes out close to what John Hopkins was reporting.  Nice little site for Comparison.  I'll probably use this site and just verify it with John Hopkins, the CDC, and WHO.   
Source:  Germany vs Sweden Coronavirus cases: day by day comparison






So as of today Germany went up a point in the death rate from 19 to 20.   Sweden is at a 2.7% rate,  which I learned from the news today (according to doctors who track virus updates), that measuring the Percentage for the death rate is not a good way to measure the death rate because it's a percentage of the total number of cases.  The more cases you have the easier it is to get a low death rate percentage.

Soooo. I'm going to stick with the 100K mark.   I'm not going to deal with the 1million mark that some people try to use.  I don't think all of the medical sites that I get my sources from use 100K.   Based on the chart above  Germany is doing much better than Sweden. In terms of the death rage for every 100K people.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 28, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's selfish public behavior indeed.


Video #1.  Now the world knows why the U.S. is in bad shape.  The sad part is that there are a lot of people like him in the U.S.  I work with one.  He's a calmer version of that guy in the video,  but he says some of the same thing.   Always whining about a mask.

Video #2:  " I have a breathing problem"  That's some B.S.   Most people who have breathing problems that bad are usually carrying around oxygen.  My uncle had a breathing problem,  he wore a mask.  There's no way he in the world that he would have that much oxygen to argue.  My uncle had a breathing problem.  My uncle died from his breathing problem earlier this year.  He didn't die from Covid-19. He died because he had a breathing problem.  This is what people who have breathing problems look like.





With all of that yelling, she clearly didn't have a breathing problem.  If she actually had a breathing problem, say asthma, her doctor would have told her to wear a mask because Covid would make her existing breathing problems worse.


Unfortunately there is a lot of that type of logic going around .  This is what I hear on the East Coast USA


----------



## Saheim (Nov 29, 2020)

You are basing your belief on mask vs breathing problem on a sample of one?

I can tell you YES the mask most definitely makes my asthma worse. I have to carry my inhaler on my person, if I am covering both my nose and my mouth (with a mask).  If I am not wearing one, I can leave my inhaler in my bag.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2020)

Leviathan said:


> No: The virus will spread anyway. Masks may slow it down a bit but not more than that. We've been wearing a mask for months already and the virus has kept spreading.
> 
> What matters is a good immune system.


The immune system isn't reliably much help against a new virus - it doesn't have the information to create antibodies before the virus load in the body gets too high and starts causing problems.

Masks make a big difference. I've been watching some studies of transmission, and they provide significant reduction in transmission in both directions, but more on the outgoing side. That means that if 30% aren't wearing masks, there's a non-zero number of those who are spreading the virus. And evidence strongly suggests SARS-COV2 is mostly super-spread, meaning most folks don't spread much, but a minority spread it incredibly effectively. You only need one of those in an area, not wearing a mask, to cause big problems.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats got an exhaust valve right on the front, im not sure how that stops covid from spreading, not such a good citizen ?


Those with exhaust valves may actually make it spread further, because of the way the air comes out of most of them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2020)

Saheim said:


> More important, now? Nope, just as important as it ever was...... at making people FEEL safe.
> 
> Bottome line - when a virus can be transmitted, during the incubation period, and you are facing exponential spreading, there are really two option: (1) move out into the woods and avoid ever seeing another human (2) get exposed.
> 
> ...


Ignore the science. That works.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2020)

Saheim said:


> (1) Equivalent? No. Comparable? Absolutely.
> 
> (2) Inherently a bad thing? When done out of fear and blind faith, Absolutely!
> 
> As for what I follow or do not - I do not recognize a gvt as having any "authority" over how i care for my own safety. If I am not ACTIVELY interfering with someone else (no, breathing doesn't count). Then I consider laws pertaining to my activity illegitimate. I use the word "laws" loosely as there have been very few (if any) mask "laws" simply E.O.'s and "mandates" which is an even bigger abuse of "authority" as only the legislative branch has the power to create "law".


You potentially spreading a deadly virus is ABSOLUTELY actively interfereing with others. Period.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2020)

Saheim said:


> Actually I simply Googled it the number I got was 79k for 2017 and 22k for 2019.
> 
> Now couple that with that fact that I personally know people who had to get into a heated argument, with hospital staff, to avoid a "positive" result being put on their child's medical record PRIOR to the results coming back (which turned out NEGATIVE btw) and the "covid death" numbers start to make more sense.
> 
> ...


COVID reported deaths are pretty well aligned (though a bit low) with the excess death rate since COVID came to the US. Are you asserting there's a different pandemic responsible for the excess death rate?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2020)

Saheim said:


> At one of my jobs, I am required to wear a mask and social distance. Outside of work, I occasionally wear one (dependingon where I am shopping). Beyond that, I am not doing much. I don't get too close to folks anyway and practice good hygien. I am pretty durable, I will roll the dice. Plus, my doctor is pretty sure I have already had it once and was fine. YMMV


You are rolling the dice with others' lives. Not acceptable behavior.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 29, 2020)

Saheim.
I'm basing my statements of mask vs breathing based on what doctors say, which is echoed by the video, which is echoed by what I've seen in my home and with other people.   Will there be exceptions?  Yes.  there always is.  Very few things in life are 100% all the time.

When I had breathing problems, due to pollution,  I would have similar Asthma symptoms,  that feeling of not getting air was like drowning out of water.  I always carried my inhaler with me and used it often, probably at least twice a day minimum.  So the fact that you carry an inhaler with you doesn't mean much to me.  I carried mine with me all the time in my 30's and that was before masks.

If your mask is triggering your asthma then I would recommend that you wear a mask that doesn't trigger your asthma. Not all masks are the same.  I once got a bad box of max, that would make my throat and lung burn when I wore it.  My wife had the same reaction.  Instead of being an Anti-masker, I contributed what I was experiencing to crappy mask of low quality.  So a bought a different brand and didn't have the same problem.

If your current mask is giving you problems, try a different mask. Especially if you are wearing the same mask and expecting things to get better by wearing that same mask. Not all masks are the same.  An N-95 mask that is used with yard work and carpentry is more difficult to breath in than a surgical n-95 masks.  Some of the cloth masks are easier to breath in, depending on the layers being used and how tight the weaving is.  

From personal experience, where you live can be a big trigger of your Asthma.  In the U.S. people in the city develop Asthma more than those who don't live in the city, due to the pollution.  So while you may not be able to move from where you live, it's something to think about.

My breathing issues were so bad, that my doctors were 2 steps from diagnosing me as having COPD.  It took 3 years for "normal breathing" to return.  I used to live in a big city and over the years my breathing deteriorated.  The only thing that made me move was asking a group of inner city kids how many had asthma. Most of them raised their hand.  A custodian was walking by and he stuck his head in the room and said that he has it too.  So I left the city.

I was fine after 3 years of breathing cleaner air.  I no longer experience any of the breathing issues that I once had.  I can literally run and do cardio until my muscles fail and I won't have breathing problems.  I've just come to accept that sometimes where I live matters.  There are certain parts of the U.S that are really bad for my breathing.  

Just something to think about.   Not saying you fall into that same category,  but if you ever take a trip far from where you live and you notice a big positive change in your breathing then that may be the case.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 29, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You are rolling the dice with others' lives. Not acceptable behavior.


I agree with that completely.  If people want to take a gamble with there health, then they should only do so when it only affect them.

I'm pretty sure no one wants me to sit next to them when I prove that I can hold a grenade in my hand so tight that I can suppress the explosion completely.  It's one thing if my actions only affect me.  But it's totally different when my action may cause injury or death to others around me.   Covid-19 is just like that.  If I'm wrong and I'm around others, then others will be negatively affected by my actions.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 29, 2020)

This is what the CDC and doctors say about masks.
*Should People With Asthma Wear Face Coverings or Masks?*
“For people with very mild asthma or well-controlled asthma, it’s probably not going to be an issue,” said Dr. David Stukus, member of the Medical Scientific Council for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA). “For people who have very severe disease and have frequent exacerbations, ER visits, hospitalizations, require lots of medications and frequent symptoms, it might cause more issues for those folks.”
Source: Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America

"In partnership with pulmonologists from Michigan Medicine, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Asthma Program would like to help promote mask use for people with asthma. In the general media, there has been an upswing in information stating that people with asthma can’t or shouldn’t wear masks. *This is not true as an absolute statement,* and we offer the following information to help inform the public and health care providers about mask use for people with asthma or any severe lung disease."
Source: Michigan Medicine University of Michigan.

" *All of the major medical associations who care for patients with asthma have issued a joint statement saying that people with asthma and other severe lung diseases should wear masks to help prevent the spread of COVID-19*, along with practicing physical distancing and washing their hands frequently. People with asthma who are not actively having an asthma attack can breathe through a cloth or standard medical masks without difficulty when inactive or doing light physical activity, such as walking. The gaps between mask fibers and around the edges of the mask allow for sufficient airflow so that there is no risk of buildup of carbon dioxide or deficiency in oxygen. During the pandemic, people who are actively having breathing problems should stay at home except to seek medical care, and when seeking medical care, should follow the masking guidelines of their medical provider."
Source: Michigan Medicine University of Michigan.

"
*Follow your Asthma Action Plan*

Keep your asthma under control by following your asthma action plan.
Avoid your asthma triggers.
Continue current medications, including any inhalers with steroids in them (“steroids” is another word for corticosteroids). Know how to use your inhaler.
Do not stop any medications or change your asthma treatment plan without talking to your healthcare provider.
Talk to your healthcare provider, insurer, and pharmacist about creating an emergency supply of prescription medications, such as asthma inhalers. Make sure that you have 30 days of non-prescription medications and supplies on hand in case you need to stay home for a long time.
Take steps to help yourself cope with stress and anxiety.
As more cases of COVID-19 are discovered and our communities take action to combat the spread of disease, it is natural for some people to feel concerned or stressed. Strong emotions can trigger an asthma attack.
For information on administering asthma medication in schools, visit K-12 Schools and Child Care Programs.
Source:  CDC: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Now if someone wants to disagree with me.  then all I can say is Email these professionals and tell them that they are wrong.


----------



## Saheim (Dec 3, 2020)

JowGaWolf -

I appreciate the long, informative post. Sincerely. It obviously comes from a desire to be helpful. You're sharing your experiences and suggesting how they might apply to mine, for the purpose of helping. Noble, really, I respect and appreciate that effort.

That said, I do not plan on posting in this thread anymore. We have reached an impasse. I will never agree that anyone has the right to tell me I must cover my nose and mouth (other than on THEIR property) and many of you will never agree that I have every right to choose what I wear or do not.

That is just where we are at. Nothing will be accomplished by pushing further, so I will not. We all do what we feel we must.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with that completely.  If people want to take a gamble with there health, then they should only do so when it only affect them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure no one wants me to sit next to them when I prove that I can hold a grenade in my hand so tight that I can suppress the explosion completely.  It's one thing if my actions only affect me.  But it's totally different when my action may cause injury or death to others around me.   Covid-19 is just like that.  If I'm wrong and I'm around others, then others will be negatively affected by my actions.


but people can choose, not to sit next to you, with a granade or with out a mask,

i wint down to my bar yesterday, which is doiing take outs only, my ussual mo is to get a cofee and sit outside and chat to people, now there are no tables, so me and the ussual sisp4cts all sat on a bench and chatted, some guy on the bench already, packed up and left, thats him taking personal responsibility,

nb the law only says no tables, i went to another bar today, where they have removed the tables and left the chairs, good thibking i say


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2020)

Saheim said:


> JowGaWolf -
> 
> I appreciate the long, informative post. Sincerely. It obviously comes from a desire to be helpful. You're sharing your experiences and suggesting how they might apply to mine, for the purpose of helping. Noble, really, I respect and appreciate that effort.
> 
> ...


To be clear, I think you have every right to wear a mask or not, but you are not protected from the consequences of your actions, whether they are social or legal.  You don't have a right to walk around without a mask in a business that mandates them, and still patronize that business.  If you attempt to do so, they have the right to show you the door.  If there are fines or other civil penalties involved, you can certainly choose not to wear a mask, but that doesn't protect you from the fines you may incur.  If you are a business owner and choose not to enforce regulations requiring masks, that is your right.  But you should be prepared to accept the consequences for your actions.

In the same way, you have the right to not wear a seatbelt or to not observe the speed limit.  Just don't act like a baby when you are called on it and held accountable.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 3, 2020)

Steve said:


> To be clear, I think you have every right to wear a mask or not, but you are not protected from the consequences of your actions, whether they are social or legal.  You don't have a right to walk around without a mask in a business that mandates them, and still patronize that business.  If you attempt to do so, they have the right to show you the door.  If there are fines or other civil penalties involved, you can certainly choose not to wear a mask, but that doesn't protect you from the fines you may incur.  If you are a business owner and choose not to enforce regulations requiring masks, that is your right.  But you should be prepared to accept the consequences for your actions.
> 
> In the same way, you have the right to not wear a seatbelt or to not observe the speed limit.  Just don't act like a baby when you are called on it and held accountable.



I dont know if there is a legal precident about clothing or face coverings for buisnesses.   ie forcing somone to wear X clothing to shop there.    

For what i mean there is, its legally mandated here for buisnesses to require it, but if that requirement is dropped from the law if they still mandate are there any protections for it?                I dont know, i think banning on clothing is deemed a really petty thing that no one has actually done it.   (could pull the relgious card, they cant deny you here for public access shops, so pull the mask coverings are against your religion)

This is more of a curio if anyone is up on case law for it.    If anything there is more protections for wearing say religious clothing etc, than lack of clothing.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont know if there is a legal precident about clothing or face coverings for buisnesses.   ie forcing somone to wear X clothing to shop there.
> 
> For what i mean there is, its legally mandated here for buisnesses to require it, but if that requirement is dropped from the law if they still mandate are there any protections for it?                I dont know, i think banning on clothing is deemed a really petty thing that no one has actually done it.   (could pull the relgious card, they cant deny you here for public access shops, so pull the mask coverings are against your religion)
> 
> This is more of a curio if anyone is up on case law for it.    If anything there is more protections for wearing say religious clothing etc, than lack of clothing.


there is no legal mandate in the uk for burssness to mandate or enfoce face covering, with the possible exception of pubs, ive told you this last time you said it


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont know if there is a legal precident about clothing or face coverings for buisnesses.   ie forcing somone to wear X clothing to shop there.
> 
> For what i mean there is, its legally mandated here for buisnesses to require it, but if that requirement is dropped from the law if they still mandate are there any protections for it?                I dont know, i think banning on clothing is deemed a really petty thing that no one has actually done it.   (could pull the relgious card, they cant deny you here for public access shops, so pull the mask coverings are against your religion)
> 
> This is more of a curio if anyone is up on case law for it.    If anything there is more protections for wearing say religious clothing etc, than lack of clothing.


No Shirt, No Mask, No Service? - FindLaw

I've said this before, as have others, but as long as the store isn't discriminating based on a protected base, they are 100% within their rights to show you the door.

Just to take this further down the logical chain, since we're talking about "rights."  You have the right to not wear a mask, but that doesn't protect you from the consequences of not wearing a mask, which could include not being able to by your toilet paper or coffee at the grocery store.  In turn, by denying you access to the store (which is the business owner's/manager's rights), you have the right to shop elsewhere.  Everyone has to be accountable for their choices.


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont know if there is a legal precident about clothing or face coverings for buisnesses.   ie forcing somone to wear X clothing to shop there.
> 
> For what i mean there is, its legally mandated here for buisnesses to require it, but if that requirement is dropped from the law if they still mandate are there any protections for it?                I dont know, i think banning on clothing is deemed a really petty thing that no one has actually done it.   (could pull the relgious card, they cant deny you here for public access shops, so pull the mask coverings are against your religion)
> 
> This is more of a curio if anyone is up on case law for it.    If anything there is more protections for wearing say religious clothing etc, than lack of clothing.


The UK rules according to Face coverings: when to wear one, exemptions, and how to make your own

Looks like it's a civil penalty resulting in monetary fines.  I don't know if a £100 is a big deal or not to you guys (it would be to me) but it can get expensive pretty quickly by doubling at each citation, up to £6,400.  Yikes:


*Enforcement measures for failing to comply with this law*
Premises where face coverings are required should take reasonable steps to promote compliance with the law.

The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.

If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.

Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.

After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 4, 2020)

I seems some people are completely missing the realistic and practical business matters in all this. By all means a business is within their rights to deny service to anyone for a plethora of reasons, masks being one of many. However, to what end? How strong and long can these actions be against something that is debatable at best and political at worst? 
Businesses are already taking an extreme economic hit from all of this. By in large they welcome Any business. Naturally a prudent business owner is going to monitor and remedy any serious infraction (someone appearing sick, being adversarial about wearing/not wearing a mask, etc...). But this idea that the onus is on the business owner it wrong and just does not work. And to compound this by trying to plant the idea that this is okay thinking is also wrong. Why are you advocating More government control? Do you want the guy selling you 'widgets' to have that kind of control over your actions? Do you as a sentient not think for yourself and use caution when caution is due? If you do not want to go buy a 'widget' don't do it. If you need a 'widget' and feel the need, mask up and go. Quit worrying about what everyone else is doing. Silly hall monitor mentality.

You want to talk about something that is easier controlled at the retail level? Distribution of consumables. The average Walmart knows from sales experience what their volume is on consumables is any given month. It is what they do. This is the easiest point of control to prevent glutting and over buying of certain products and greatly reduce the anxiety for many. Really, really common sense that seems to escape many people. 
However, from the bean counter perspective I get it since this is the truest form of supply and demand. "Sell it while you have it". 
From the manufacturing perspective this is maddening. You would be amazed at how wrong things can go very quickly when trying to manufacture a product beyond the capabilities of the equipment and people making it. I have seen this over and over, and over, and over.

So setting on your high horse and saying any and everything is someone else's responsibility is just very sad and pathetic. And with your apparent level of life experience I would think you see this better. Even non profits have to have at the very least a zero balance sheet. How do you think for profit businesses will ever survive with the mentality you mention?


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> No Shirt, No Mask, No Service? - FindLaw
> 
> I've said this before, as have others, but as long as the store isn't discriminating based on a protected base, they are 100% within their rights to show you the door.
> 
> Just to take this further down the logical chain, since we're talking about "rights."  You have the right to not wear a mask, but that doesn't protect you from the consequences of not wearing a mask, which could include not being able to by your toilet paper or coffee at the grocery store.  In turn, by denying you access to the store (which is the business owner's/manager's rights), you have the right to shop elsewhere.  Everyone has to be accountable for their choices.


your tstger distoring the term " right"

clearly if there is legal sanction you dont have the right not to wear a mask,  you have the option to not compky with the law, as you do with any law, but you certainly dont have a right to do so

unless you invoke the universal declation of human rights, which doesnt apply to americans anyway and thats a bit silent on the topic of masks anyway, the right to free association, free movement etc is however in there.

there are varius court caes against the uk govenment for breach of the udhr pending


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I seems some people are completely missing the realistic and practical business matters in all this. By all means a business is within their rights to deny service to anyone for a plethora of reasons, masks being one of many. However, to what end? How strong and long can these actions be against something that is debatable at best and political at worst?
> Businesses are already taking an extreme economic hit from all of this. By in large they welcome Any business. Naturally a prudent business owner is going to monitor and remedy any serious infraction (someone appearing sick, being adversarial about wearing/not wearing a mask, etc...). But this idea that the onus is on the business owner it wrong and just does not work. And to compound this by trying to plant the idea that this is okay thinking is also wrong. Why are you advocating More government control? Do you want the guy selling you 'widgets' to have that kind of control over your actions? Do you as a sentient not think for yourself and use caution when caution is due? If you do not want to go buy a 'widget' don't do it. If you need a 'widget' and feel the need, mask up and go. Quit worrying about what everyone else is doing. Silly hall monitor mentality.
> 
> You want to talk about something that is easier controlled at the retail level? Distribution of consumables. The average Walmart knows from sales experience what their volume is on consumables is any given month. It is what they do. This is the easiest point of control to prevent glutting and over buying of certain products and greatly reduce the anxiety for many. Really, really common sense that seems to escape many people.
> ...


the issue is they ate scared, they have been told to be scared, even though stadtically most of them are at negligible  risk of serious harm, and they javent challenged this intellectually and asked' how much risk EXACTLY.

then they have been told to wear masks to cut a neglable risk by an unspecified amount

and because they are scared, they compky again with out question and blame people who have chalkeng3d the natative for thibgs getting worse, when they would have got worse anyway,

that way the govenment escapes blame for lack of preparation and stupid actions as we all blame each other

i see bidens team of exsperts, has come up with the idea of requesting americans to wear a mask and,,, no thats it, ask them nicely , yes that will work,,,, not


----------



## Steve (Dec 4, 2020)

jobo said:


> your tstger distoring the term " right"
> 
> clearly if there is legal sanction you dont have the right not to wear a mask,  you have the option to not compky with the law, as you do with any law, but you certainly dont have a right to do so
> 
> ...


So then, considering there is a mandate to wear masks in parts of the usa and in the uk, we agree that you do not, in fact, have a right to not wear a mask.  Glad that's settled.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> So then, considering there is a mandate to wear masks in parts of the usa and in the uk, we agree that you do not, in fact, have a right to not wear a mask.  Glad that's settled.


yea but thats in direct contradiction to what you claimed above, so its settled only to the extent your admiting what you wrote above is tosh.

your right are govened by the country you live in, they can remove those right by law, leeavibg you only with a claim to a high court or civil disobediance, to yry and reclaim the rights you had removed

in olden days your coubtry would have launched  an armed uprising against having its rights removed,  now its just a case of not wearibg a mask in walmart

itcseems to have lost some back bone since the days of the founding fathers

as i said american dont have inailable right like most of the rest of the world, so its a slightly diffetent conversation in civilised countries


----------



## Steve (Dec 4, 2020)

jobo said:


> yea but thats in direct contradiction to what you claimed above, so its settled only to the extent your admiting what you wrote above is tosh.
> 
> your right are govened by the country you live in, they can remove those right by law, leeavibg you only with a claim to a high court or civil disobediance, to yry and reclaim the rights you had removed
> 
> ...


To be clear, I was using the term in the same way you guys were using it, to make the point that even if you feel you have a "right" to not wear a mask, your free will to act out does not protect you from the consequences of your action.  I sincerely appreciate that you are now agreeing with me that you do not actually have that right.  I consider that progress.  And frankly, if you and others agree to use the term "right" in this way, we'll all communicate better.  

Regarding the rest, if you haven't read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, I think you'd enjoy it.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> No Shirt, No Mask, No Service? - FindLaw
> 
> I've said this before, as have others, but as long as the store isn't discriminating based on a protected base, they are 100% within their rights to show you the door.
> 
> Just to take this further down the logical chain, since we're talking about "rights."  You have the right to not wear a mask, but that doesn't protect you from the consequences of not wearing a mask, which could include not being able to by your toilet paper or coffee at the grocery store.  In turn, by denying you access to the store (which is the business owner's/manager's rights), you have the right to shop elsewhere.  Everyone has to be accountable for their choices.



It might just fall under so petty it hardly ever happens then.   Which to be fair banning somone because they come into a supermarket wearing something you dont like is pretty petty. 

I am kind of waiting for the case law in this post it not being the law anymore, should be intresting and i wonder how many will adopt the religion reason to circumvent it.    There is bound to be a few people who are terrified of it so mandate masks for years to come after it has faded out of legislation, there is always one alarmist after all. 

Oh second, since i am exempt, they cant force me to wear a mask really can they?   Or would it be as for deemed petty so no one really does it.



Never the less for any opinions on this, the legal cases once this has all passed and the retroactive revision on any disputed legality here on a legal note shall be intresting.  (i would say current, but good luck if they shut down lawyers offices  )


Addendum: i dont know if it was clear, i meant can they make you wear X or remove X if there is no law mandating you wear X or remove X.   And any related case law for forcing somone to say wear a mask years after the law no longer mandates it.  (actually i think not just down to the fact people usually dont want you wearing them as you can easily rob the place)   But hypothetically we are using masks here.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> To be clear, I was using the term in the same way you guys were using it, to make the point that even if you feel you have a "right" to not wear a mask, your free will to act out does not protect you from the consequences of your action.  I sincerely appreciate that you are now agreeing with me that you do not actually have that right.  I consider that progress.  And frankly, if you and others agree to use the term "right" in this way, we'll all communicate better.
> 
> Regarding the rest, if you haven't read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, I think you'd enjoy it.


so to be clear you wete using it wrongly

as i said  now for the third time

the term right has a different meaning in the states than it does in countries that have ratified the declearation of human rights,


here, the govenment cant just pass a law which contradicts the declratation of human rights, with out being able to defend its srlf in court as to the requirment and the proportionality,  

so when wr say i have the right to fo something or not do something, it relatrs to an aspect of law not available in yoyr country,  so we can both be correct,, unless context is given


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2020)

Rat said:


> It might just fall under so petty it hardly ever happens then.   Which to be fair banning somone because they come into a supermarket wearing something you dont like is pretty petty.
> 
> I am kind of waiting for the case law in this post it not being the law anymore, should be intresting and i wonder how many will adopt the religion reason to circumvent it.    There is bound to be a few people who are terrified of it so mandate masks for years to come after it has faded out of legislation, there is always one alarmist after all.
> 
> ...


rat ,shops are not enfocing masks where it is the law, it seems unlikely they will when it isnt.

bussness can generally mandate a dress code, as a conditipn of entry, night clubs and restraunts do it all the time, shops some what less so, though they probebly could if they wanted to, provifed they steer clear of discrimination on protected characteristics, your medocal condition may be one such,

the issue,  is touve got to get past the guy on the door, who almost certainly hasnt read the equality act and will stick to what ever his last instruction was or perhaps just make them up,

i couldnt get in a shop with my emotional  support dog diring lock down despite the fact id been going in for years before , coz the big guy on the doir said no,  had to make a scene,  block the queue up and require the manager  to protect my equality


----------



## Steve (Dec 4, 2020)

jobo said:


> so to be clear you wete using it wrongly
> 
> as i said  now for the third time
> 
> ...


Two observations.  First, I agree I was using it wrong, as I was using it as you and others were using it, which was also wrong.  As I said before, I will heartily agree that it is not an appropriate use of the term. In fact, much of the debate recently has been trying to get you and others to understand this simple truth.  So, I think it's good that we agree that you do not, in fact, have the right to choose to not wear a mask.  Progress.  You have come around.  Now, if we can just get some of the other hold outs to understand that they do not have any rights along these lines, we'd be golden.

Second, a little more meta, but you seem to be compelled to argue against any point, even points you've made yourself.  I get a kick out of it, but you should know that it makes you susceptible to being manipulated into literally arguing with yourself.  In fact, you seem unable to stop yourself from being contrary, even if someone is agreeing with you.  For example, you have argued both that you do have a right to not wear a mask and that you don't.  It makes it impossible to believe you are sincere when you discuss things, because you seem to be more interested in the act of arguing than in the discussion itself.  You're like Daffy Duck in this cartoon:


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> Two observations.  First, I agree I was using it wrong, as I was using it as you and others were using it, which was also wrong.  As I said before, I will heartily agree that it is not an appropriate use of the term. In fact, much of the debate recently has been trying to get you and others to understand this simple truth.  So, I think it's good that we agree that you do not, in fact, have the right to choose to not wear a mask.  Progress.  You have come around.  Now, if we can just get some of the other hold outs to understand that they do not have any rights along these lines, we'd be golden.
> 
> Second, a little more meta, but you seem to be compelled to argue against any point, even points you've made yourself.  I get a kick out of it, but you should know that it makes you susceptible to being manipulated into literally arguing with yourself.  In fact, you seem unable to stop yourself from being contrary, even if someone is agreeing with you.  For example, you have argued both that you do have a right to not wear a mask and that you don't.  It makes it impossible to believe you are sincere when you discuss things, because you seem to be more interested in the act of arguing than in the discussion itself.  You're like Daffy Duck in this cartoon:


id be intrested if you could quote where ive said you have a right not to wear a mask, by you i mean you, as a american citizen, it sounds like a strawman your outtibg forwarss to cover up you misusing the term right.

but again, its fair to speculate that many aspects of the covid conyrols in the uk have breached my and everyones else human rights as declared  in the universal decrlaration of human right and enshrine in uk law as the human right act, this may very well ibclude excluding peipke coz they wont wear a mask.

many of these issues are currently workibg there way through the legal system, so its only speculation at this point, but it could yet turn out to be true that i have a right not to wear a mask, in the uk obviously,

if/ when it gets that far, the govenment will have to prove that the mandate on masks was proportionate,  which of course they cant do, as there is no data to supprt there use in lowering the spread of the disease


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 5, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> How strong and long can these actions be against something that is debatable at best and political at worst?


There's a whole lot of science AND real-world evidence contrary to that statement. They inarguably help reduce spread. The only argument is over the percentages.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 5, 2020)

jobo said:


> even though stadtically most of them are at negligible risk of serious harm,


You'd have to define negligible. And I think you'd misdefine it. You have bought into the idea that younger and healthy people aren't really at much risk. Talk to the folks treating patients, and to some of the formerly healthy folks who have long-term (we don't yet know how long) cognitive and pulmonary issues from this virus.


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You'd have to define negligible. And I think you'd misdefine it. You have bought into the idea that younger and healthy people aren't really at much risk. Talk to the folks treating patients, and to some of the formerly healthy folks who have long-term (we don't yet know how long) cognitive and pulmonary issues from this virus.


neglagble means so low as to be statistically insignificant, is your dictonary broken ?

it is nt however zero, so yes an insignificant number of healthy people will be very poirly with it, this isnt of course insignificant to the peopke involved ir there family, just to the population as a whole


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> There's a whole lot of science AND real-world evidence contrary to that statement. They inarguably help reduce spread. The only argument is over the percentages.


Agree. Science may be a stretch since science seems impotent in it's ability to do anything about this virus. Now money on the other hand.... In regards to real world evidence; the 'evidence' has been so tainted and convoluted I do not ever see a real truth coming to the surface. 
So what are the inarguable percentages of death from cold, flu, pneumonia or other seasonal deaths? What are the inarguable percentages on the number of deaths identified as a Covid "related" death that were anything but? Yes, I know the last question can never be answered but I hope it helps make my point.


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> There's a whole lot of science AND real-world evidence contrary to that statement. They inarguably help reduce spread. The only argument is over the percentages.


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,


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 5, 2020)

Rat said:


> It might just fall under so petty it hardly ever happens then.   Which to be fair banning somone because they come into a supermarket wearing something you dont like is pretty petty.
> 
> I am kind of waiting for the case law in this post it not being the law anymore, should be intresting and i wonder how many will adopt the religion reason to circumvent it.    There is bound to be a few people who are terrified of it so mandate masks for years to come after it has faded out of legislation, there is always one alarmist after all.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 5, 2020)

Steve said:


> Two observations.  First, I agree I was using it wrong, as I was using it as you and others were using it, which was also wrong.  As I said before, I will heartily agree that it is not an appropriate use of the term. In fact, much of the debate recently has been trying to get you and others to understand this simple truth.  So, I think it's good that we agree that you do not, in fact, have the right to choose to not wear a mask.  Progress.  You have come around.  Now, if we can just get some of the other hold outs to understand that they do not have any rights along these lines, we'd be golden.
> 
> Second, a little more meta, but you seem to be compelled to argue against any point, even points you've made yourself.  I get a kick out of it, but you should know that it makes you susceptible to being manipulated into literally arguing with yourself.  In fact, you seem unable to stop yourself from being contrary, even if someone is agreeing with you.  For example, you have argued both that you do have a right to not wear a mask and that you don't.  It makes it impossible to believe you are sincere when you discuss things, because you seem to be more interested in the act of arguing than in the discussion itself.  You're like Daffy Duck in this cartoon:


ha ha ha ha. I haven't read the post, but the cartoon is a classic.  So much truth in that lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 5, 2020)

jobo said:


> neglagble means so low as to be statistically insignificant, is your dictonary broken ?
> 
> it is nt however zero, so yes an insignificant number of healthy people will be very poirly with it, this isnt of course insignificant to the peopke involved ir there family, just to the population as a whole


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?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 5, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. Science may be a stretch since science seems impotent in it's ability to do anything about this virus. Now money on the other hand.... In regards to real world evidence; the 'evidence' has been so tainted and convoluted I do not ever see a real truth coming to the surface.
> So what are the inarguable percentages of death from cold, flu, pneumonia or other seasonal deaths? What are the inarguable percentages on the number of deaths identified as a Covid "related" death that were anything but? Yes, I know the last question can never be answered but I hope it helps make my point.


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.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 5, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. Science may be a stretch since science seems impotent in it's ability to do anything about this virus. Now money on the other hand.... In regards to real world evidence; the 'evidence' has been so tainted and convoluted I do not ever see a real truth coming to the surface.
> So what are the inarguable percentages of death from cold, flu, pneumonia or other seasonal deaths? What are the inarguable percentages on the number of deaths identified as a Covid "related" death that were anything but? Yes, I know the last question can never be answered but I hope it helps make my point.


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.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 5, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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,


----------



## JP3 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2020)

JP3 said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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


----------



## jobo (Dec 6, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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.*
> ...


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


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 6, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2020)

JP3 said:


> "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*
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 6, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 6, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> 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.


You're still parroting the claims that there's widespread malfeasance by the medical industry. Prove it. Not an anecdote here and there, but the systemic malfeasance you're claiming. You won't be able to.

You seem to assume I'm getting my information from sources like nightly news. I don't ever see the nightly news. I get my news from multiple sources and multiple countries. If there's a conspiracy in the American medical system, it seems other countries are in on it. Which is just ridiculous.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 6, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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.*
> ...


As support, here are some links regarding the US excess death rate:

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and ...).
Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) (the US graph in this one is pretty clear and grim)

Excess Deaths From COVID-19 and Other Causes, March-July 2020
That's three different sources, all with reasonably similar data and analysis.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 6, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


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


I'm pretty sure it's a misused statistic. I think he's probably using the rate for the general population, which doesn't really apply at an individual level, because that's not how statistics work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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,
> 
> ...


As I suspected, you've misused the statistic. That's not how statistics work. What that number really means is that if you pick a person at random, there's a 1 in 100,000 chance they'll experience an untimely death this year. But that's not generalizable to individuals. As I said before, you don't seem to understand statistics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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


I'd need to see proof on that last claim. That sounds pretty out there.


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> As I suspected, you've misused the statistic. That's not how statistics work. What that number really means is that if you pick a person at random, there's a 1 in 100,000 chance they'll experience an untimely death this year. But that's not generalizable to individuals. As I said before, you don't seem to understand statistics.


of course its generalizable, taking in to account that some ossues like being old increase the chances, i clearly said, i have a 1, in a 100,000 chance, not everybody did, but, im a random person ,there are another 70 million random people in this country, so its much the same for most people


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'd need to see proof on that last claim. That sounds pretty out there.


il dig out the bbc news report, it was only last week,  but the bbc have a habit of deletibg controversial  items

here we go

Covid-19: 'Do not resuscitate' decisions complaints up


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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.


yes we do, otherwise its a meaningless number

if a product claim it will reduce my chance of a heart attack by 30% that sounds really impresive, but inless we know ehat the chances are if me havibg a heart attack with out the product it means nothing at all, as my chances of having a heart attack are neglable, then thats a 30%decrease  on an infintesmal number

if you want to say wearibg a madk reduces my chance of getting the virus,by 30% then its beholdent on you to know what my chances are with out it.  you cant calulate the former unless you kbow the latter


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So you're okay with hospitalization and long-term cognitive and respiratory effects. Got it.


strawman, the death toll in this coubtry is unaccepable high,  but that arises for a lack of planning,, poor impkimentation and out right neglect,

my wearibg ir not wearing mqsk would have no bearing on reducing that,, in fact the bulk of the deaths were in care homes in the first wave, that were just abanded by govenment, at the time we were beibg told not to wear a mask and as i wasnt wandering aimlessly round care homes with ir with iyt a mask,, non of those are down to me .

what they were doibg was readmitting residents from hospital, with out any tests or protection and thus killing people by the 10s, of thousands


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You're still parroting the claims that there's widespread malfeasance by the medical industry. Prove it. Not an anecdote here and there, but the systemic malfeasance you're claiming. You won't be able to.
> 
> You seem to assume I'm getting my information from sources like nightly news. I don't ever see the nightly news. I get my news from multiple sources and multiple countries. If there's a conspiracy in the American medical system, it seems other countries are in on it. Which is just ridiculous.



Fair enough. But we are on a MA forum; pretty much everything said could be claimed as anecdotal is you wish. 
Do you not agree that hospitals/doctors are getting incentives for Covid cases? Here is just one of countless sources: Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patientsFact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients
So yea, 'proving it' is not rocket science. People seeing it for what it is just takes good old common sense.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Certainly not me since it appears they are playing within the rules that have been afforded them by our government. Pretty easy dots to connect there as well if you are willing to look for And see them. 

But simple old fashioned capitalism at all cost? Yes, most definitely.


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> 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.


Simple truth is if someone is determined to be ignorant and selfish, you aren't going to convince them to do it on their own.  They will say some of the most outlandish things to rationalize their selfish and self-destructive behavior.  And these folks, like toddlers, simply need to be told what to do.  Like toddlers, they are too selfish to understand that you are keeping them from their own self-destructive behavior.  And like most children, they will rant and rave and throw temper tantrums, because they are too immature to see or care about things that don't directly affect them.


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

Steve said:


> Simple truth is if someone is determined to be ignorant and selfish, you aren't going to convince them to do it on their own.  They will say some of the most outlandish things to rationalize their selfish and self-destructive behavior.  And these folks, like toddlers, simply need to be told what to do.  Like toddlers, they are too selfish to understand that you are keeping them from their own self-destructive behavior.  And like most children, they will rant and rave and throw temper tantrums, because they are too immature to see or care about things that don't directly affect them.


it seems to be the mask people that are acting irationaly with out evidence of risk

ive been through the uk figures,  and nothing in that sugrsts to me either im at elivated risk or i am seriously elivating the risk to society as a whole.

just throwing blanket insults at peopke who have considered the available data, and have a different perspective, doesnt mean your correct, just rude


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'm pretty sure it's a misused statistic. I think he's probably using the rate for the general population, which doesn't really apply at an individual level, because that's not how statistics work.


You can't argue with the tangible outcomes.  There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths.  So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others.  As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.

To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle.  With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID.  Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease.  Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country.  So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate.  While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.

Also of interest, when talking about mitigation strategies such as wearing a mask, social distancing, etc, over 70% of the members of Congress who have tested positive for COVID are GOP, which is also statistically predictable based on their behaviors.

As I said before, we know what's causing the spread, and we know how to prevent it.  It's just a matter of dealing with the toddler's who are selfish, ignorant, and unreasonable.

Edit:  Just to be clear, everything we're seeing with those who have become infected is in line with what we're seeing on a larger scale among everyone who is infected.  What is controllable is how many folks are becoming infected.  So, within the microcosm of the Trump inner circle, those who are infected range from about 90% with mild or minimal symptoms, 10% or so with more severe symptoms, including a need for hospitalization, and 2% who actually died.  

What is controllable is how many are infected, and we can see that a much higher percentage of republicans are testing positive because of their behaviors, which means more will be hospitalized and more will die needlessly.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 7, 2020)

Steve said:


> You can't argue with the tangible outcomes.  There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths.  So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others.  As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.
> 
> To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle.  With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID.  Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease.  Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country.  So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate.  While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.
> 
> ...



This is an incredibly crass, selfish, and arrogant post. But like I have said before, you are consistent. 
And yes, I realize you have me on ignore and do not see this post; but everyone else does. 
And you missed a decimal on the stats. But I am certain you already know this.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 7, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Fair enough. But we are on a MA forum; pretty much everything said could be claimed as anecdotal is you wish.
> Do you not agree that hospitals/doctors are getting incentives for Covid cases? Here is just one of countless sources: Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patientsFact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients
> So yea, 'proving it' is not rocket science. People seeing it for what it is just takes good old common sense.
> 
> ...


Here's something from that link you posted?  The claim came from a meme.  No one actually looked at the numbers?   Then they post this "*Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000."   *You can't compare a Pneumonia diagnosis with a Covid-19 diagnosis.  The tests aren't the same, the care isn't the same, and risk to the care takers and the other patients in the hospital aren't the same."  Pneumonia is not the same as Covid-19  They are two different things.  So why would it be $5000 for Covid-19? It wouldn't. One would be more than the other because one requires more resources than the other to treat and diagnose.


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2020)

Steve said:


> You can't argue with the tangible outcomes.  There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths.  So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others.  As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.
> 
> To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle.  With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID.  Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease.  Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country.  So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate.  While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.
> 
> ...


Too late to edit this one, but just adding some additional information:

More Than 50 People In Trump’s Orbit Have Contracted Covid-19

To reiterate the point, the infection rates are certainly higher than necessary, and a lot of those folks didn't need to get sick at all.  In particular, the ones who are at higher risk of complications, like the president, Giuliani, Christi, Hermann Cain, and any others who have been hospitalized.  Mr. Cain's untimely death, out of 50 people, represents a 2% death rate, which is on the high end of what we're seeing across the nation.

Here's some CDC information regarding hospitalization rates, and I recommend you also dig around to find their regional baseline percentages to compare what a "normal" flu season looks like:  COVIDView, Key Updates for Week 48

It's not quite apples to apples, because the hospitalization rates seem to be based on total population per 100,000, and not based on percentage of positive cases.  I'd be interested in seeing that (i.e., percentage of positive tests requiring hospitalization), if anyone has a link.  We know for sure that four members of the white house's inner circle have been hospitalized, which is about 8% of the known cases.

And what really bothers me about this is that they have been spreading their germs all over the place without regard for those who may end up getting sick, in particular those who will undoubtedly end up needing medical intervention, and the 1 to 2% of them who will die.  It's just totally unnecessary.  And like children, it's not important to them unless it directly affects them.  Very frustrating.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 7, 2020)

Steve said:


> Simple truth is if someone is determined to be ignorant and selfish, you aren't going to convince them to do it on their own.  They will say some of the most outlandish things to rationalize their selfish and self-destructive behavior.  And these folks, like toddlers, simply need to be told what to do.  Like toddlers, they are too selfish to understand that you are keeping them from their own self-destructive behavior.  And like most children, they will rant and rave and throw temper tantrums, because they are too immature to see or care about things that don't directly affect them.


Giuliani has Covid now.  I guess we'll find out how bad it is in the upcoming week.


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2020)

And in related news, here in Washington State, 7 elderly men have died from COVID after some staff there attended a wedding and contracted the virus.  Moses Lake is in Grant County, which is in Eastern Washington, a much more conservative area of the State than on this side of the Cascade Mountains.  

Coronavirus: 7 Washington nursing home residents die of COVID-19 after staffers attend wedding


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Giuliani has Covid now.  I guess we'll find out how bad it is in the upcoming week.


Well, he's in the hospital.  He's not in great health and he's in his 70s, so he's definitely at high risk for complications.  That said, he has access to top tier health care, so he's got every chance of recovering.  Fingers crossed for a full recovery.


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

Steve said:


> You can't argue with the tangible outcomes.  There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths.  So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others.  As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.
> 
> To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle.  With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID.  Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease.  Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country.  So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate.  While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.
> 
> ...


the trump adminstration are not representative of the population, so no not a microcosm,  and far to small a sample size to say anything  about the wider population


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

Steve said:


> You can't argue with the tangible outcomes.  There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths.  So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others.  As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.
> 
> To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle.  With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID.  Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease.  Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country.  So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate.  While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.
> 
> ...


could you post this data you cla8m you i have,  ive asked before but you just oist nonsence and then another claim saying there is data

in particular,  this data that shows a causation vetween behavours and the ibfection rate, nb not correlation,  causation


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

in other news in the uk,the death rate from flu and associated conditions exceeded the covid deaths last week


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This is an incredibly crass, selfish, and arrogant post. But like I have said before, you are consistent.
> And yes, I realize you have me on ignore and do not see this post; but everyone else does.
> And you missed a decimal on the stats. But I am certain you already know this.


i think he has me on ignore as well, either that ir he is igboribg me manually,  he likes to rant with out interruption by facts


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 7, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's something from that link you posted?  The claim came from a meme.  No one actually looked at the numbers?   Then they post this "*Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000."   *You can't compare a Pneumonia diagnosis with a Covid-19 diagnosis.  The tests aren't the same, the care isn't the same, and risk to the care takers and the other patients in the hospital aren't the same."  Pneumonia is not the same as Covid-19  They are two different things.  So why would it be $5000 for Covid-19? It wouldn't. One would be more than the other because one requires more resources than the other to treat and diagnose.



Okay I guess? So what is your point in parsing out that part of the article? The "claim" is from USA Today; what you mean by it being a meme I have no clue. It does appear to be the Highlight article if that is what you mean.

Like I said that is just one of countless articles related to the point, I just grabbed the one that was easiest at the time since I was already working.

And you conveniently left the most poignant part of the article out where it explains; "But if it's COVID-19 pneumonia, then it's $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000." It really helps to read the whole think.

You honestly do not get this?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> of course its generalizable, taking in to account that some ossues like being old increase the chances, i clearly said, i have a 1, in a 100,000 chance, not everybody did, but, im a random person ,there are another 70 million random people in this country, so its much the same for most people


No, that's not how statistics work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes we do, otherwise its a meaningless number
> 
> if a product claim it will reduce my chance of a heart attack by 30% that sounds really impresive, but inless we know ehat the chances are if me havibg a heart attack with out the product it means nothing at all, as my chances of having a heart attack are neglable, then thats a 30%decrease  on an infintesmal number
> 
> if you want to say wearibg a madk reduces my chance of getting the virus,by 30% then its beholdent on you to know what my chances are with out it.  you cant calulate the former unless you kbow the latter


We don't need to know how many people are infected to understand how many it has killed or hospitalized. The number that are infected but don't fit those two groups don't change anything about those two groups, as a % of the total population. (would only change what % of the infected - not the total population - make it to those two groups).

You are now mixing statistics AND confusing my comment. The 30% was one number I saw, and I said it wasn't a clear number. But you know you're trying to confuse the issue rather than discuss it. If you have an actual point or question, I'm happy to address them. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your attempts to obfusccate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> strawman, the death toll in this coubtry is unaccepable high,  but that arises for a lack of planning,, poor impkimentation and out right neglect,
> 
> my wearibg ir not wearing mqsk would have no bearing on reducing that,, in fact the bulk of the deaths were in care homes in the first wave, that were just abanded by govenment, at the time we were beibg told not to wear a mask and as i wasnt wandering aimlessly round care homes with ir with iyt a mask,, non of those are down to me .
> 
> what they were doibg was readmitting residents from hospital, with out any tests or protection and thus killing people by the 10s, of thousands


Ah, gotcha. So science doesn't matter. You're just making conclusions from tiny bits of experience, rather than looking at the large-group studies and reviews that contradict you. As expected.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Fair enough. But we are on a MA forum; pretty much everything said could be claimed as anecdotal is you wish.
> Do you not agree that hospitals/doctors are getting incentives for Covid cases? Here is just one of countless sources: Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patientsFact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients
> So yea, 'proving it' is not rocket science. People seeing it for what it is just takes good old common sense.
> 
> ...


Medicare pays hospitals a tiny additional amount. That's just Medicare. Insurance and Medicaid do not.

So what you've "proved" is that there's a potential incentive for Medicare fraud. That doesn't prove it is happening. It doesn't take rocket science to see that distinction.

As for conspiracy, you're claiming the medical field - including administrators, doctors, and others - are committing large-scale fraud. That's rather the definition of conspiracy. Just because you'd do it, that doesn't mean doctors are doing it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

JP3 said:


> "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*
> 
> ...


By the way, I went and looked for info on Legionnaire's risk being elevated, and all I could find was that the elevated risk at present is due to shut-down builldings (water sitting in pipes, etc.), with no mention of masks increasing the general risk. Can you point me to something?


----------



## mograph (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> By the way, I went and looked for info on Legionnaire's risk being elevated, and all I could find was that the elevated risk at present is due to shut-down builldings (water sitting in pipes, etc.), with no mention of masks increasing the general risk. Can you point me to something?


There might be four reasons for an increase in Legionella diagnoses during the pandemic:

shut-down buildings, as you describe, and 

_mis_diagnosis of COVID-19 as Legionella. (similar symptoms)
increased exposure to Legionella contaminated hospital spaces
COVID-19-exascerbated vulnerability to Legionella in some patients
... that inferred from the non-peer-reviewed After coronavirus, another hidden respiratory disease lurks in the buildings we left behind

But can you get Legionella from your mask? Only if you soak your mask in standing water from a source with Legionella bacteria present, I think. If you've just been breathing through your own mask, no. Ask the Experts - Legionella.org


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Medicare pays hospitals a tiny additional amount. That's just Medicare. Insurance and Medicaid do not.
> 
> So what you've "proved" is that there's a potential incentive for Medicare fraud. That doesn't prove it is happening. It doesn't take rocket science to see that distinction.
> 
> As for conspiracy, you're claiming the medical field - including administrators, doctors, and others - are committing large-scale fraud. That's rather the definition of conspiracy. Just because you'd do it, that doesn't mean doctors are doing it.


Just a couple of things.  First, the allegation that hospitals are committing large scale insurance fraud as a form of profiteering on this pandemic is ridiculous.  Like other notable current events, there is simply no evidence that this is happening.  I mean, beyond the suggestion that higher costs incurred by hospitals result in higher payouts from Medicare... which seems reasonable and not nefarious.  

That said, Medicare is insurance.  It is an entitlement program that is paid for in part by a Medicare payroll tax during one's working years, and then an optional coverage that includes a premium that is subsidized by the Federal Government.  Medicare is managed federally, and not everyone qualifies.  You have to have worked long enough to be insured, or be the spouse or dependent of someone who is insured.

Medicaid is also insurance.  It is a needs based insurance program that is administered by each State and has unique rules for eligibility and coverage from State to State.  There is some baseline for consistency mandated by the Federal Government, that most States adhere to in order to qualify for significant Federal funding that they would lose if they don't comply.  Medicaid eligibility is based on financial need.  

All that said, I think you're onto something in your final statement.  What we've seen in the last four years is a lot of folks projecting their own lack of integrity on everyone else.  I realize now that they just simply can't conceive that folks aren't grifting the system because it would never occur to them not to do so themselves.  Everything they accuse others of being, they are themselves.  It's a depressing thought, I know.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Medicare pays hospitals a tiny additional amount. That's just Medicare. Insurance and Medicaid do not.
> 
> So what you've "proved" is that there's a potential incentive for Medicare fraud. That doesn't prove it is happening. It doesn't take rocket science to see that distinction.
> 
> As for conspiracy, you're claiming the medical field - including administrators, doctors, and others - are committing large-scale fraud. That's rather the definition of conspiracy. Just because you'd do it, that doesn't mean doctors are doing it.


Just plain denial. Like I said before, and will say again, that was just the first article I came to. Anyone who chooses to even moderately search this stuff, and lives in some realm of reality, can find this stuff with ease. That you choose not to in on you.

What difference does it make that this article was about only one area of insurance and health care payment? Why would any thinking person not understand if this is being done in one area it would be fare across insurance/payment mediums? Are the amounts different? I would imagine most certainly worse for private insurance.

Shouldn't the bigger offense here be that since Medicare is paid from working people's payroll tax and federal income tax for all the non working people, isn't this this the height of double-dipping?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just a couple of things.  First, the allegation that hospitals are committing large scale insurance fraud as a form of profiteering on this pandemic is ridiculous.  Like other notable current events, there is simply no evidence that this is happening.  I mean, beyond the suggestion that higher costs incurred by hospitals result in higher payouts from Medicare... which seems reasonable and not nefarious.
> 
> That said, Medicare is insurance.  It is an entitlement program that is paid for in part by a Medicare payroll tax during one's working years, and then an optional coverage that includes a premium that is subsidized by the Federal Government.  Medicare is managed federally, and not everyone qualifies.  You have to have worked long enough to be insured, or be the spouse or dependent of someone who is insured.
> 
> ...


 
A very cogent explanation of certain elements of Medicare. However, nothing you said has anything to do with this thread and everything to do with your typical agenda against conservatism or at least the last administration. Dude.


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No, that's not how statistics work.


yes /thats exactly how stats work


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, gotcha. So science doesn't matter. You're just making conclusions from tiny bits of experience, rather than looking at the large-group studies and reviews that contradict you. As expected.


science matters a great deal, you just havent got any to back up your numerous claims.

otherwise yous stop this silly dance and post it


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> We don't need to know how many people are infected to understand how many it has killed or hospitalized. The number that are infected but don't fit those two groups don't change anything about those two groups, as a % of the total population. (would only change what % of the infected - not the total population - make it to those two groups).
> 
> You are now mixing statistics AND confusing my comment. The 30% was one number I saw, and I said it wasn't a clear number. But you know you're trying to confuse the issue rather than discuss it. If you have an actual point or question, I'm happy to address them. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your attempts to obfusccate.


we need to know what ny risk of catchibg the virus is before you can say a mask reduces it by 30% 

its not me thats obfusccating,
tou have abandand the 30% claim and changed the topic completly 

so, a question

if you dont kbow what my risk of catching the virus is, how can you say a mask reduces that by any% youve now elected to make up for the purpose of this discusion


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Medicare pays hospitals a tiny additional amount. That's just Medicare. Insurance and Medicaid do not.
> 
> So what you've "proved" is that there's a potential incentive for Medicare fraud. That doesn't prove it is happening. It doesn't take rocket science to see that distinction.
> 
> As for conspiracy, you're claiming the medical field - including administrators, doctors, and others - are committing large-scale fraud. That's rather the definition of conspiracy. Just because you'd do it, that doesn't mean doctors are doing it.



Honestly, if a hospital _was _going to engage in Medicare fraud, that seems like such a... petty and lowball way to go about it anyway. There was a local case here where a medical practice was engaging in Medicare fraud, by billing Medicare for a large number of procedures that they didn't actually do. IIRC, they'd see a patient, do some procedure, and then also bill Medicare for some other procedures. They got many, many millions of dollars this way. Now the doctors are in prison, of course, because Medicare does check up on things. Faking a few dozen Covid cases to get an extra $7,000 per person seems like it'd be a pretty amateur criminal enterprise. Like is that really worth the risk of never being able to work again?


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, gotcha. So science doesn't matter. You're just making conclusions from tiny bits of experience, rather than looking at the large-group studies and reviews that contradict you. As expected.


You're arguing with children.  They are intrinsically unreasonable and no amount of common sense, evidence, or logic will convince them.  They are quite simply barren ground for reasonable discussion.  And until they mature, it's much easier to let rant and rave and carry on, and we can just advocate for things that will (hopefully) save them from themselves.  

There are so many folks on this forum who are reasonable and mature.  Much healthier to discuss things with them, and actually learn a thing or two, than get mired in a trip through crazy town.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> We don't need to know how many people are infected to understand how many it has killed or hospitalized. The number that are infected but don't fit those two groups don't change anything about those two groups, as a % of the total population. (would only change what % of the infected - not the total population - make it to those two groups).
> 
> You are now mixing statistics AND confusing my comment. The 30% was one number I saw, and I said it wasn't a clear number. But you know you're trying to confuse the issue rather than discuss it. If you have an actual point or question, I'm happy to address them. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your attempts to obfusccate.



This is very bad logic until you know the hard numbers for COD.
To answer one of your previous questions with a question; show me where stats are Not getting blended? And to give an answer with your own answer, you Can't. 
So if this is sound logic (which it isn't) explain the countless articles similar to the one I recently posted?

It would seem it is you attempting to obfuscate with your very circular answer.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2020)

WaterGal said:


> Honestly, if a hospital _was _going to engage in Medicare fraud, that seems like such a... petty and lowball way to go about it anyway. There was a local case here where a medical practice was engaging in Medicare fraud, by billing Medicare for a large number of procedures that they didn't actually do. IIRC, they'd see a patient, do some procedure, and then also bill Medicare for some other procedures. They got many, many millions of dollars this way. Now the doctors are in prison, of course, because Medicare does check up on things. Faking a few dozen Covid cases to get an extra $7,000 per person seems like it'd be a pretty amateur criminal enterprise. Like is that really worth the risk of never being able to work again?


But if you read the article I attached you will see hospitals are 'playing within the rules' by adding Covid to the diagnosis, when it really has nothing to do with it. 
To my knowledge there is not even a standard vehicle in place to confirm case classification. 
To be clear, I am not questioning the integrity of doctors in large since they are typically not the ones responsible for billing.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're arguing with children.  They are intrinsically unreasonable and no amount of common sense, evidence, or logic will convince them.  They are quite simply barren ground for reasonable discussion.  And until they mature, it's much easier to let rant and rave and carry on, and we can just advocate for things that will (hopefully) save them from themselves.
> 
> There are so many folks on this forum who are reasonable and mature.  Much healthier to discuss things with them, and actually learn a thing or two, than get mired in a trip through crazy town.


Like I have said many times now you are consistent. You name call and disparage when things do not go your way. Childish action.
Surely even you understand a smidge of elegant diatribe is still just diatribe.


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2020)

WaterGal said:


> Honestly, if a hospital _was _going to engage in Medicare fraud, that seems like such a... petty and lowball way to go about it anyway. There was a local case here where a medical practice was engaging in Medicare fraud, by billing Medicare for a large number of procedures that they didn't actually do. IIRC, they'd see a patient, do some procedure, and then also bill Medicare for some other procedures. They got many, many millions of dollars this way. Now the doctors are in prison, of course, because Medicare does check up on things. Faking a few dozen Covid cases to get an extra $7,000 per person seems like it'd be a pretty amateur criminal enterprise. Like is that really worth the risk of never being able to work again?


how are medicare goibg to check yp when the bodies have either been burried or cremated,?


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 8, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> But if you read the article I attached you will see hospitals are 'playing within the rules' by adding Covid to the diagnosis, when it really has nothing to do with it.



I read the article you linked to. It said there is absolutely no evidence that that's ever happened in the US, and that even the guy who made the meme/video isn't saying it's actually happened.



> To be clear, I am not questioning the integrity of doctors in large since they are typically not the ones responsible for billing.



So are you saying that hospital administrators are engaging in felony Medicare fraud so their hospital can make an extra ten or twenty thousand a year? Or medical billing employees?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Just plain denial. Like I said before, and will say again, that was just the first article I came to. Anyone who chooses to even moderately search this stuff, and lives in some realm of reality, can find this stuff with ease. That you choose not to in on you.
> 
> What difference does it make that this article was about only one area of insurance and health care payment? Why would any thinking person not understand if this is being done in one area it would be fare across insurance/payment mediums? Are the amounts different? I would imagine most certainly worse for private insurance.
> 
> Shouldn't the bigger offense here be that since Medicare is paid from working people's payroll tax and federal income tax for all the non working people, isn't this this the height of double-dipping?


Again, what you showed was that there was potential. Where's your proof of widespread fraud?

There is no Covid bonus in private insurance. The pay is per procedure, not per ailment. My wife works in medical billing, and I've asked. You should try asking someone who knows. (And, yeah, she'd have to be part of that conspiracy you're promoting.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> we need to know what ny risk of catchibg the virus is before you can say a mask reduces it by 30%
> 
> its not me thats obfusccating,
> tou have abandand the 30% claim and changed the topic completly
> ...


I never made that claim. I simply passed along a number because someone asked what numbers I'd seen. Want to see what their calculations were? Go look it up. But you won't, because it might say something you don't want to know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This is very bad logic until you know the hard numbers for COD.
> To answer one of your previous questions with a question; show me where stats are Not getting blended? And to give an answer with your own answer, you Can't.
> So if this is sound logic (which it isn't) explain the countless articles similar to the one I recently posted?
> 
> It would seem it is you attempting to obfuscate with your very circular answer.


No. You don't need to know the infection rate to know the death rate, if you're measuring it at the death rate. That's like saying you can't know how big a car's gas tank is without knowing what MPG it gets. Death rate can be measured (not mortality rate for the infected - death rate in the general population).

I _know_ you studied this somewhere along the way. You do know this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> But if you read the article I attached you will see hospitals are 'playing within the rules' by adding Covid to the diagnosis, when it really has nothing to do with it.
> To my knowledge there is not even a standard vehicle in place to confirm case classification.
> To be clear, I am not questioning the integrity of doctors in large since they are typically not the ones responsible for billing.


I didn't see an article that showed where hospitals were playing with the numbers (committing fraud). Did I miss it, or are you misreading the USA Today fact check article you posted, which explicitly said there was no evidence of this widespread practice?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 9, 2020)

WaterGal said:


> I read the article you linked to. It said there is absolutely no evidence that that's ever happened in the US, and that even the guy who made the meme/video isn't saying it's actually happened.


Thank you.  I tried to point that out to him from that same article.  I even pointed out that the guy original saw a meme and ran with it.  So from the very beginning he wasn't looking at data. The guy picked up his assumption from a picture found on social media.  

I don't know how he can't read that in the article.  This world has gone crazy


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 9, 2020)

Just on the insurance fraud note, i will wait until after and when proper investigation can be done on death cetificates etc.    given services are disrupted currently and you can commisiona  investigation of a relitives death certificate and faking them isnt uncommon or unheard of.  that and insurance companies etc do their own invesitgations if money is to be awarded and the like.     So just wait until a proper investigation is to be able to be done on the dipsuted cases.   Given there are i think several hundred thousand of them across the U.S, it might take some time, no doubt some of those will eb fraudulent or at least investigated to see their legiitmatacy.


That and i think some of the people who give Death certifiates in the U.S are a little ehh, or the positions can vary by county greatly.    (in regards to compotence and corruption)     When ever money is involved, just presume some degree of corruption, its a pretty good rule of thumb.


----------



## jobo (Dec 9, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I never made that claim. I simply passed along a number because someone asked what numbers I'd seen. Want to see what their calculations were? Go look it up. But you won't, because it might say something you don't want to know.


occording to the bbc, the death to infection rate is one in a thousand in the uk, it only makes a statement with no back ground data, but they have got it from somewhere.

afyer hust one day of administering this very safe vaccine the uk regulators have have warned peopke woth comprmised immune systems in that they have allegies, that the vacine isnt safe for them, rraely one day to discover this, just what was happening in the trials? i wonder what they will find after a week or two?

as it people with comprmised imnune systems that are specifically at risk, one wonders at the effectivness of a vacine they cant use


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 9, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't see an article that showed where hospitals were playing with the numbers (committing fraud). Did I miss it, or are you misreading the USA Today fact check article you posted, which explicitly said there was no evidence of this widespread practice?


I suppose it is quite easy not to see what is right in front of you when you are not looking for it. 
But I didn't figure for the niave type. It is the typical informational article where the writing is laid out plainly and clearly enough for everyone to process. Then the normal legal mumbo jumbo or appropriate qualifiers to keep the writer or paper out of trouble. 
No one is saying it's not unsavory. But that doesn't make it any less true. Just read the article man.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 9, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No. You don't need to know the infection rate to know the death rate, if you're measuring it at the death rate. That's like saying you can't know how big a car's gas tank is without knowing what MPG it gets. Death rate can be measured (not mortality rate for the infected - death rate in the general population).
> 
> I _know_ you studied this somewhere along the way. You do know this.



death rate
/ˈdeTH ˈˌrāt/

_noun_

the ratio of deaths to the population of a particular area or during a particular period of time, usually calculated as the number of deaths per one thousand people per year.
mor·tal·i·ty
/môrˈtalədē/

_noun_

death, especially on a large scale.
You are correct that it is gross data. But you are a little late to the dance. Several, several posts back, possibly in a different thread the death rate stats were posted for as far back as the last decade. Again, showing this year is as low as the 2008-ish dip. I suppose this would make mortality rate irrelevant for this year.

None the less the point to my reply was the permanent inability to parse the data categorically which could be argued in a weird way to say it has nothing to do with death rate. Even though those are the very deaths we are talking about. 
Another insensitivity in all of this I suppose.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 9, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Thank you.  I tried to point that out to him from that same article.  I even pointed out that the guy original saw a meme and ran with it.  So from the very beginning he wasn't looking at data. The guy picked up his assumption from a picture found on social media.
> 
> I don't know how he can't read that in the article.  This world has gone crazy



Just do the work and look for information outside your clear and personal bias. 

What you don't seem to understand is that I am not mad at doctors or even hospitals. There are people paid to game the system in every business type I can think of, with very noble titles like accountant, etc... It does get very distasteful when it crosses over into genre typically known for very high ethics. 
When the 'gaming' massively compounds the data for a Global pandemic, this becomes something altogether different. If this thing is as bad as some of you really want it to be I would say this action borders on being an aid to genocide since we are Way past the point where science would usually rely fully on control groups. 
Too many of you are looking at this through the head of a needle.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 9, 2020)

WaterGal said:


> I read the article you linked to. It said there is absolutely no evidence that that's ever happened in the US, and that even the guy who made the meme/video isn't saying it's actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that hospital administrators are engaging in felony Medicare fraud so their hospital can make an extra ten or twenty thousand a year? Or medical billing employees?



Yes. In some form. I cannot say whether it is administrators or bean counters or the stock boards, but they are all complicit. 
There are countless articles across the country. Here is one from California regarding $69M in Covid fraud. COVID-19 Fraud Investigations Begin | Medtrade


----------



## Steve (Dec 9, 2020)

WaterGal said:


> I read the article you linked to. It said there is absolutely no evidence that that's ever happened in the US, and that even the guy who made the meme/video isn't saying it's actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that hospital administrators are engaging in felony Medicare fraud so their hospital can make an extra ten or twenty thousand a year? Or medical billing employees?





JowGaWolf said:


> Thank you.  I tried to point that out to him from that same article.  I even pointed out that the guy original saw a meme and ran with it.  So from the very beginning he wasn't looking at data. The guy picked up his assumption from a picture found on social media.
> 
> I don't know how he can't read that in the article.  This world has gone crazy


So, on one hand, we have side eyed conspiracy theories that are spread without evidence or even any actual assertions from the folks who are being quoted.  I mean, the entire article in question is a fiction that is being discussed as a hypothetical question.  "Jensen didn't explicitly make that claim. He simply suggested there is an "avenue" to do so now that "plausible" COVID-19, not just laboratory-confirmed, cases can be greenlighted for Medicare payment and eligible for the 20% add-on allowed under the relief act."

And on the other hand, we have actual evidence and documentation of how folks are actually profiteering on the pandemic, whether it's skimming from the paycheck protection program (PPP)

Donald Trump and Jared Kushner receive $3.65m in PPP loan money, report says
Follow the Money
New PPP Loan Data Reveals Most Of The $525 Billion Given Out Went To Larger Businesses—And A Few With Trump, Kushner Ties

Or using privileged information to make millions on the stock market based. 
Sen. Richard Burr and the coronavirus insider trading scandal, explained

Or how billionaires like Bezos and others are profiteering:
Pandemic 'Profiteers': Why Billionaires Are Getting Richer During An Economic Crisis : Consider This from NPR

I mean, if folks are well positioned and inclined to profit on the misery of others, there are some really effective ways to go about it. 

All of that said, I appreciate that conservatives are pointing out one of the major issues with the American healthcare system, which is that it is a for-profit system.  If you removed the imperative to operate medical facilities as businesses, you will remove the incentive for driving profit.  So, the next time folks talk about single payer healthcare or a public option, (and it looks like a public option is very likely ) I expect conservatives' hearty endorsement.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 9, 2020)

*Admin's Note:*

Political discussions are not allowed on Martialtalk.com. 

If you wish to engage in such discussions, use the Forum Foundry's US Message Board.  

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This discussion is now closed.  Please do not engage in further such discussions here, or warning points will be issued.


----------

