• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the virus sicken ad kill all it was going to in certain states?


Don't worry. His most important responsibility is handing in his homework on time. He's obviously still in the know-it-all stage of adolescence.
 
bump3...
This tells me the virus petered out in New Jersey because there aren't enough hosts left
You keep making really stupid arguments, 100% of the population in NJ has not been exposed to the virus. If you think it has, provide supporting documents.
 

When are you going to provide any evidence besides your own ideas?
 
bump...You keep making really stupid arguments, 100% of the population in NJ has not been exposed to the virus. If you think it has, provide supporting documents.

You know that how? What tests have you made? How does the virus travel? Who does it infect? What is the result of someone standing ten feet away where the other has a mask and so do you and you both get infected anyway? You nor the doctors know nothing about this. It is all guessing and speculation. It is allegory and story.

The truth is the states mentioned are densely populated and no amount of mask wearing meant diddly because thousands died AFTER any mask mandate, which came really early in those states. they have been wearing masks for months but some here have the nerve to say it was just weeks ago they started wearing masks and social distancing and THAT is why their death rate dropped. That is complete bull**** and everyone knows it.

The virus has done its thing in those areas....no more people to kill because the ones left won't get it if someone spit COVID in their face. You go ahead and ask the docs why some get it and some don't and report back to me.
 
bump4...
This tells me the virus petered out in New Jersey because there aren't enough hosts left
You keep making really stupid arguments, 100% of the population in NJ has not been exposed to the virus. If you think it has, provide supporting documents.
 

You know nothing and you're determined to explain that to us.
 

I said last week? No I didn't.. You're adding liar to being dishonest and clueless?

You are a Trumpster..
 

I'm not a conservative, but given since COVID-19 hit the US and now, we have seen things posited theories that either did not pan out, or did. One of the things we are seeing that has panned out is that masks AND social distancing are two factors that HAVE worked in either decreasing spread or have kept it from increasing. NOT a panacea as any doctor will say to you, but any real doctor (and not one who talks about having dream sex with demons causes medical problems). We are seeing it in states that don't follow these guidelines and we see it in areas that have relaxed the rules to varying degrees. Each state runs stats on this, so we can see the math and science at work here.

And speaking of science; viruses don't really work the way you presented. They don't just kill and go away, they keep on replicating until a cure is found that can kill it, or a vaccine that over the course of years, could, eventually wear the disease down to the point where it almost does't exist anymore. We've had viruses go dormant then come back. So, to say ti will go away is kind of wishful thinking.
 
I said last week? No I didn't.. You're adding liar to being dishonest and clueless?

You are a Trumpster..

When did the people in the four states with the most deaths start wearing masks and social distancing?

You're implying that it was recently and that is why their death rates plummeted, and I say that is not true. Should you contend that the "sudden" wearing of masks stopped COVID pretty much in those states, how do you explain Sweden? Sweden had relatively high death rates and I remember some of you guys saying "I told you so" three or four weeks ago when they had a spike. Now that it is stopped in its tracks in Sweden, your side is silent, scratching your heads, posting garbage opinions from Swedish health officials. What happened in Sweden is what happened in those states where the death rate was high and now it isn't. The virus can't infect any more people. Its ability to do so is gone because it has done its "job".
 

They still don't have a cure for the Spanish flu. Nor for aids, malaria, dengue disease, Respiratory Syncytial Virus and others. Where did the Spanish flu go off to? The same place that COVID will. The Spanish flu killed just about all it was capable of. The same thing is true with COVID. This is why those states who initially got hammered aren't anymore. They have been wearing masks for months, meaning they are meaningless placebos. I could see if there was verifiable proof that a state never wore masks and gt hammered and then started wearing masks and the deaths plummeted, but that is not what we have.

Sweden for the most part never wore masks. They had a high death rate and people were clapping and mocking. They aren't mocking any more. This is not a hundred people. Sweden has 10 million and no masks and yet people insist masks are needed?? Seriously?
 
You know that how?
Some of us actually listen to experts. A few even look at the evidence.


How does the virus travel?
It travels in respiratory droplets. We've know that for a few months now.


Who does it infect?
It can infect almost anyone. If there is any sort of genetic component which makes individuals more or less susceptible to infection, then we haven't found it.


What is the result of someone standing ten feet away where the other has a mask and so do you and you both get infected anyway?
Egads.

If you wear a seatbelt, it won't protect you from every possible auto accident. That doesn't change the fact that wearing a seatbelt dramatically improves your chances of survival if you get into an auto accident -- and that seat belt mandates dramatically reduce automobile deaths.

Masks do not provide 100% protection. Not even N95 masks do that. That does not change the fact that wearing a mask -- especially a surgical or N95 mask -- offers substantial protection from infectious diseases.

Masks are also not only about protection the wearer, they protect other people, because it helps prevent infected people -- many of whom don't even know they are contagious -- from spreading the virus.

Universal mask wearing will not single-handedly prevent the spread of the virus. No one claims that. But it can reduce the rate of spread, and every bit of reduction in the replication rate matters.

Here's a good illustration of how it works...




The truth is the states mentioned are densely populated and no amount of mask wearing meant diddly because thousands died AFTER any mask mandate....
Incorrect.

• New York City is nowhere near herd immunity or the "virus being done." If NY lifted all of its restrictions right now, and everyone went back to work, and NY was somehow able to quarantine everyone who comes into the state, then case rates would still explode in a few weeks.

• Again, you are blatantly ignoring the beneficial effects of social distancing.

• Again, you're ignoring observational evidence that areas with mask mandates and universal masking have lower replication rates than areas without.


The virus has done its thing in those areas....no more people to kill because the ones left won't get it if someone spit COVID in their face.
Nope, nope, nope. That is total unscientific nonsense.

The idea that "everyone who could get sick, got sick" is unscientific nonsense, which blatantly ignores a) how the virus spreads, and b) that states, counties, cities and individuals took steps to avoid getting the virus in the first place.

And of course, your claim cannot explain why Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and Spain (among others) have multiple waves:









 

You don't know that at all. You are claiming that 90% of the population is still at risk. You have no evidence of that and should cease and desist in scaring your left wing friends with such a notion. There is much that is not known about this virus, such as why the people in Sweden didn't not wear masks or lock down and now their death rate has plummeted. Get me the reason(s) for that and we can talk further.

As for your rest homes, possibly your state did a much better job that Cuomo did in not moving sick people into those confined sardine cans of germs and viruses. Naturally if a nursing home is quarantined the virus can;t get in. This is what you do with diseases. You quarantine the sick....NOT the whole population which is completely effing asinine. Don't believe me? Ask Sweden.
 
I said I wanted conservatives mainly because this is a serious OP and I need adults in the room.

Then you are fortunate to be able to vote for Biden and Harris.
 
When did the people in the four states with the most deaths start wearing masks and social distancing?
The four states with the most deaths are:

New York
New Jersey
California
Texas

NY and NJ started social distancing in mid-March. Case rates fell 2-3 weeks later, and have stayed very low. Restrictions, voluntary social distancing and mask wearing have largely stayed in place since March, with only gradual and limited rollbacks. Even with that, NJ had a small bump recently.

Texas started social distancing maybe a month ago. Case rates started to drop about 3 weeks later, and have a long way to go.

California locked down early, but opened up too fast. It doesn't help that many Californians, especially in the more conservative Central Valley, are not doing a good job distancing or wearing masks.


Sweden had relatively high death rates and I remember some of you guys saying "I told you so" three or four weeks ago when they had a spike. Now that it is stopped in its tracks in Sweden, your side is silent, scratching your heads....
Or, not.

Sweden turned out as expected. Despite a slow start, the disease hovered at a moderate level for weeks, then started to spread rapidly. People started voluntarily distancing, and the government took more steps to protect senior citizens and more egregious violations of distancing (e.g. bars and restaurants that violated rules). It just didn't require as many government mandates, because Swedes generally listen to their government.

And, of course, we've know for decades that social distancing works, especially with respiratory diseases. But hey, why pay attention to actual science and research, when you can just say whatever you want instead...?
 
I said last week? No I didn't.. You're adding liar to being dishonest and clueless?

You are a Trumpster..

When did the people in those four states start wearing masks? Cat gotchyer tongue?
 
You don't know that at all. You are claiming that 90% of the population is still at risk. You have no evidence of that....
Yeah, we do.

NY state's total population is 20 million people. The total confirmed cases is around 425k. Even if there are 10 times more cases than the confirmed number, that's only 4.25 million people -- nowhere NEAR enough to develop immunity.

Plus, since you missed it, COVID-19 didn't kill every single person over the age of 65 and every diabetic and every immune compromised person and every cancer patient and cancer survivor in New York State.

And to top it off, we don't know how long people stay immune. If it's only 3-6 months, then herd immunity is not possible without repeated vaccinations.

The idea that "everyone who could get sick, did get sick" is just ludicrous.
 
Visbek;1072448563]Some of us actually listen to experts. A few even look at the evidence.

Keep listening to Fauci


It travels in respiratory droplets. We've know that for a few months now.

How far. How long? What human tests have been made. How many died and how many lived in their scientific studies?



It can infect almost anyone. If there is any sort of genetic component which makes individuals more or less susceptible to infection, then we haven't found it.
You don't know this at all. Where is your evidence? I say it's not true. The burden is on you to prove an unsubstantiated CLAIM that you just parroted from someone else.


Seems an awful lot of people got killed wearing seat bets (masks) Do you have any proof of how many died NOT wearing masks versus those who died even though they wore masks. Strike that....you DON'T.

Masks do not provide 100% protection. Not even N95 masks do that. That does not change the fact that wearing a mask -- especially a surgical or N95 mask -- offers substantial protection from infectious diseases.

Want to mandate everyone have an N95 mask approved by you? This is just a pipedream and a nothing statement. People are wearing tshirt material.

Masks are also not only about protection the wearer, they protect other people, because it helps prevent infected people -- many of whom don't even know they are contagious -- from spreading the virus.

A mask protects you from getting the virus from a healthy person? All it does is give you snowflakes peace of mind that you're controlling others.

Universal mask wearing will not single-handedly prevent the spread of the virus. No one claims that. But it can reduce the rate of spread, and every bit of reduction in the replication rate matters.

Good. Tell that to the 150,000 plus who died while a mask mandate was in effect. They'll be happy to know that.

Here's a good illustration of how it works...


Not one ounce of evidence for that poster. None. Just lab wonks with a report that isn't peer reviewed or scientifically based.




So say you. What evidence do you have of what you say. People are still dying in other states where they ARE wearing masks, meaning masks are useless. The virus will do what it does, regardless of masks. The reason they are is because where the death rates are 1200 to 800 per million in those 4 states and only 200-600 in the other states...........the states with the lower deaths per millions still have lots of people at risk whereas the states who have already paid the price DON'T. Simple as that.

• Again, you are blatantly ignoring the beneficial effects of social distancing.

Right and people still died.

• Again, you're ignoring observational evidence that areas with mask mandates and universal masking have lower replication rates than areas without.

There has been NO observational evidence. They cannot ethically do any testing and you guys know this.
 

WHERE do you get your information I am taking about deaths per million of population. those four states are New York, New Hersey, Mass and Connecticut.
 
Not at all. You can look at the spikes in comparison to each states' mitigation efforts for a preliminary analysis.

It is crazy to post a chart that has nothing to do with the OP. It's insulting to do that.
 

When you start showing evidence of all your claims, I'll take you seriously. Till then I stand by my opinion that you are a particularly delusional adolescent.
 

We don't know a lot of things and will never know everything. In a nursing home, for instance, you have a very high percentage of people who are at high risk. The thing is that the virus can sweep thorough a nursing home and kill 90% of the people there but the other 10% are not? Why? they got the same dose of virus. You could do a test of those people and not find the virus in them. Why? Science can't tell us. The same thing is true with the populace at large. The virus can be in a Trump rally and only infect 30 people. The others were exposed to it and did NOT get it. You could test them and find no evidence of COVID in them. Why? Do you know? Do doctors know? They do not. The only person I heard of who died at that rally was Herman Cain and it is not even known if hhe got it there. So, we had thousands of maskless people and only ONE death and yet you say 90% are still at risk?

Lets see what happens at the Sturgis event in two weeks. When we hear crickets we will know thousands of maskless people didn't social distance or wear masks and you guys will go silent as if nothing is wrong with that. You would STILL say masks are effective and prevent deaths even though people from all over the country were there and didn't get sick. Speaking of which, I find the mask arguments make me sick. You all think you know everything and you're just regurgitating what you're told by those in"authority"
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…