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

[CaughtInThe]

Did you actually type that?

We don't argue against sane people.

 

[Paradoxical]

You don't even read posts before you respond, do you? :lol:

I read it.You don't appreciate humor. Typical of the left though. Dour, sour, angry, want everyone to share in their misery. If the whole country isn't equally sad and miserable, they don't like it.

 

[Visbek]

Keep listening to Fauci

lol... Well, Fauci knows more than you or me, so I will.

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

Normal speech is (afaik) 6-10 feet. Sneezes can send respiratory droplets up to 25 feet. (Serious scientists use more rigorous, but less fun, tests.) Yes, all of this (and more) is a result of actual studies.

Gathering that kind of data doesn't require exposing humans to virus particles. Good to know you demand unethical studies, though.

You don't know this at all. Where is your evidence? I say it's not true.

Do Your Genes Predispose You to COVID-19? - Scientific American

You're not a scientist; you're just a denier. I don't see any reason to take your biased word over actual research.

Seems an awful lot of people got killed wearing seat bets

Your reasoning is fallacious. It is downright absurd to suggest that "people still die while wearing seat belts, therefore no lives at all are saved by seat belts."

Back in the real world, studies do quantify the benefits of a variety of safety measures in autos:
https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/24/files/24ESV-000291.PDF

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.

lol

I have to say, I find it hilarious that you engage in not just fallacious reasoning, but blatant hypocrisy as well. To start with, here's a taste of the evidence in favor of masks:
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus | UC San Francisco
Masks for coronavirus now have more scientific evidence behind them - Vox
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422

You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your point of view. You're just speculating based on a clearly false interpretation of the facts.

People are wearing tshirt material.

You mean... cotton? :lamo

Not everyone is wearing optimal masks -- but with the possible exception of fleece gaiters, something is still better than nothing. Masks are also cheap and safe; and the more people who comply with mask requirements means that the few people who really do have a medical reason not to wear a mask will be safer.

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

Hello? Most of the deaths in the US were a result of infections that happened BEFORE any mask mandates were in effect.

For example, NY state didn't pass a mask mandate until April 15th. Cases started falling shortly thereafter (though, again, most of the case drops were because of social distancing rules). Cases went through the roof in Texas and Florida, and again only started falling after some areas adopted mask mandates. Georgia has infamously resisted a mask mandate, and its number of new cases per day is stalled at over 3000 per day for almost a month.

What evidence do you have of what you say.

lol

In other posts, I point out how numerous states have had multiple waves. Previous pandemics have also had multiple waves, most disastrously in the 1918 flu.

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.

Except.... it isn't.

If your theory was correct, then states or nations would all hit roughly the same number of cases per capita, then decline, and stay low. That is not happening, at all. Some stop at 20k, some at 10k, some at 2k.

South Korea, which relied heavily on masks, social distancing, contact tracing, and testing, peaked at 12 cases per day, per 1 million population. Italy, which has similar demographics, but waited for weeks of rising case numbers to clamp down, peaked at 93 cases per day, per million.

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

You obviously don't understand basic terminology.

"Observational studies" means that they look at events in the real world, and draw conclusions. E.g. when they compare rates of mask-wearing in Southeast Asia and the US, and compare virus rates, that's an observational study. It's not an experimental study.

I am not surprised, however, that you are completely oblivious to the moral problems which prevent us from running experimental studies by directly exposing living human beings to virus particles while wearing masks. That's why we have to rely on observational studies and other experimental methods to determine the effectiveness of masks.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Again: "Anyone who believes that if they made it this far and aren't dead or have gotten sick, that they're in the clear, is quite frankly IMO a moron."

Yup..

 

[Visbek]

WHERE do you get your information I am taking about deaths per million of population.

lol... No, you didn't say that. You said "When did the people in the four states with the most deaths start wearing masks and social distancing?"

those four states are New York, New Hersey, Mass and Connecticut.

lol

I discussed NY and NJ. CT and MA had the same timeline as NY and NJ.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I read it.You don't appreciate humor. Typical of the left though. Dour, sour, angry, want everyone to share in their misery. If the whole country isn't equally sad and miserable, they don't like it.

It's okay if you're mad because you very publicly owned yourself.

 

[Paradoxical]

It's okay if you're mad because you very publicly owned yourself.

Funny that Mr. "Scientist" can't come up with any "scientific'studies that have been done, aint it? Who was owned, Mr. "Scientist"?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Funny that Mr. "Scientist" can't come up with any "scientific'studies that have been done, aint it? Who was owned, Mr. "Scientist"?

I posted a link that included the abstract.

You. Owned. Yourself.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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

That would only be the case if you can't make the obvious connections. The trend lines are there, and if you're familiar with when prevention protocols were put into effect in the areas to which you're referring, you can connect some dots.

 

[Paradoxical]

lol... No, you didn't say that. You said "When did the people in the four states with the most deaths start wearing masks and social distancing?"



lol

I discussed NY and NJ. CT and MA had the same timeline as NY and NJ.

You should know that total deaths in a state mean nothing. All that counts is deaths per million but I assumed everyone knew I was referring to those states with the most deaths per million, and I could see that you wouldn't necessarily know that is what I was referring to.

 

[Paradoxical]

That would only be the case if you can't make the obvious connections. The trend lines are there, and if you're familiar with when prevention protocols were put into effect in the areas to which you're referring, you can connect some dots.

Look, I am not going to study your charts to try to decipher what your point is. If you can't state it in plain English without slapping up a chart, I am not interested.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Look, I am not going to study your charts to try to decipher what your point is. If you can't state it in plain English without slapping up a chart, I am not interested.

:lol:

*wheeze*

:lol:

 

[Drawdown]

For all intents and purposes, in the four states that HAD the highest deaths per million has grund nearly to a halt, with New York at just 17, New Jersey at just two. Conn at just 6 and Mass at just 18. In Sweden, there are nearly none. Remember to that deaths don't happen the day someone gets it and it can be weeks before someone succumbs. But these numbers are an indication that it is going away. The question is, "Why is that? The states that had the very highest death rates are now having the lowest." Some of you will yap that "IT's THE MASKs" when you have zero proof of that because other states that are now having relatively HIGH death rates compared to those four who have death rates of three and four times as many are ALSO wearing masks and have been for some time.

Something isn't adding up. Everywhere you go in California people are wearing masks. Restaurants are closed. Stores demand masks and social distancing and have been since the start. Yet we have 160 deaths and New Jersey has just TWO!? California had a death rate of only 274 per million and New Jersey had 1797!! but NJ now has only 2?

And knowing this all of you pooh pooh the notion that the virus has simply killed those who it would in those states? I am suggesting that this virus already infected MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people who never got tested because there was no need to. Why would they if they aren't sick? I further submit that a lot of people just don't get COVID even if they and others wear no masks. This is born out by the Trump rally and will be born out by the Sturgis event.

Time will tell and I am confident I will once again be proven to be right.

Or we are simply getting better at treating it and preventing deaths as our body of knowledge expands about what seems to work and for whom.

 

[Visbek]

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?

We don't know everything. But we know a lot more now than we did just 4 months ago.

There are a huge variety of factors that could explain different mortality rates from one facility to the next, or within one facility. This can include:

• Some facilities, or wings of one facility, with better distancing and/or cleaning regimens than another

• Differences in age and health of the residents (just because you're in a nursing home, that doesn't mean you're 85 and on death's door)

• Differences in the cognitive abilities of the residents play a role; a patient who can't communicate that he is not feeling well could have delays in care, which can result in a worse outcome

• Genetics may play a role

The list goes on.

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?

Good grief.

Just because people were in the same **ARENA** doesn't mean they had the exact same exposure. It's a huge room, and obviously someone who is sitting right next to an infected person is at much higher risk than someone who is 40 rows back.

To continue, we already know that:

• Large gatherings put the participants at high risk of getting infected
• Indoor gatherings put participants at high risk of getting infected
• Being too close to people puts participants at high risk of getting infected
• Groups of people singing, yelling, screaming, shouting and other vocalizations increases the risk of getting infected
• The longer people are in proximity to one another, the higher the risk of spreading the infection
• Wearing masks reduces (but does not eliminate) the chances of getting infected
• Proper ventilation indoors reduces (but does not eliminate) the chances of getting infected
• Outdoor gatherings reduce (but does not eliminate) the chances of getting infected

We don't need to do a computational fluid dynamic analysis of the arena, plus conduct a genetic profile and physical on every single attendee, to know that seating 40,000 unmasked screaming people right next to each other in an enclosed indoor space with poor ventilation puts the attendees at incredibly high risk.

We certainly don't need to know every single detail down to the 20th decimal place before taking action. If we adhered to your absurd standard, millions of Americans would already be dead before you approved of basic social distancing. The golden rule of a pandemic is "it's better to do too much than too little."

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?

Holy s***, THAT is your argument?!?

You ignorance proves nothing. We don't know who died as a result of that rally, because -- thanks in large part to Trump -- we don't have adequate contact tracing. What we do know is that Oklahoma had a surge in cases 3 weeks after the rally, and it is highly likely that the rally contributed to that surge.

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.

I'm pretty sure I've told you before that premature celebration is a really, really bad idea.

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"

That's because those "in authority" know what the f*** they are talking about.

Whereas the deniers don't know jack ****, get a ton of stuff wrong, cherry-pick the evidence, and speculate wildly. So yes, I will go with the experts over the deniers every time.

 

[Hamish Howl]

And knowing this all of you pooh pooh the notion that the virus has simply killed those who it would in those states?

Today I learned that Paradoxical doesn't understand math.

 

[Paradoxical]

Visbek;1072449433]lol... Well, Fauci knows more than you or me, so I will.

Yep, same "genius" who said Trump was wrong to stop travel from China and then said Trump was right. The same "genius' who said the state with the most deaths handled this well while Cuomo screwed up every day of the week. THAT "genius" the leftists love. Go figure, eh?

Normal speech is (afaik) 6-10 feet. Sneezes can send respiratory droplets up to 25 feet. (Serious scientists use more rigorous, but less fun, tests.) Yes, all of this (and more) is a result of actual studies.

There have been NO studies involving that.

Gathering that kind of data doesn't require exposing humans to virus particles. Good to know you demand unethical studies, though.

Then they are not scientific. You know this and are trying to claim they are.

Do Your Genes Predispose You to COVID-19? - Scientific American

You're not a scientist; you're just a denier. I don't see any reason to take your biased word over actual research.

This is from your link

Blood type A appears to be associated with a higher risk of contracting the virus, whereas type O offers the most protection for reasons that have yet to be determined. Here is what is most important from YOUR link A close relative of ACE2 in blood pressure control is angiotensin-converting enzyme 1 (ACE1). The ACE1 D gene, one of several genetic variants of the enzyme, is associated with low levels of expression of the ACE2 gene. As a result, cells contain fewer of the receptors that allow infection by SARS-CoV. The frequency of ACE1 D differs from one country to another, particularly in Europe, which raises the question of whether the geographical distribution of this variant correlates with COVID-19 prevalence. Might it reflect the epidemiology of the disease on a global scale? Marc De Buyzere and his colleagues at Ghent University in Belgium found that to be the case.

I don't want to bore the audience here with more cut and pasting but this article proves me correct. Not only are certain people UNAFFECTED by this virus but even other countries will have a lower or higher prevalence. I guess I should thank you for posting proof of what I am saying.

Your reasoning is fallacious. It is downright absurd to suggest that "people still die while wearing seat belts, therefore no lives at all are saved by seat belts."

Back in the real world, studies do quantify the benefits of a variety of safety measures in autos:
https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/24/files/24ESV-000291.PDF

I used seat belts as a way of illustration that people die wearing masks.

I have to say, I find it hilarious that you engage in not just fallacious reasoning, but blatant hypocrisy as well. To start with, here's a taste of the evidence in favor of masks:
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus | UC San Francisco
Masks for coronavirus now have more scientific evidence behind them - Vox
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422

 

[Paradoxical]

Continuation:
You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your point of view. You're just speculating based on a clearly false interpretation of the facts.[/QUOTE]

From the VOX article:
“None of it is bomb-proof evidence. It’s not a large randomized trial. Additionally, NONE of your links had ANY scientific facts. Try again. Try harder and better,

You mean... cotton? :lamo

Not everyone is wearing optimal masks -- but with the possible exception of fleece gaiters, something is still better than nothing. Masks are also cheap and safe; and the more people who comply with mask requirements means that the few people who really do have a medical reason not to wear a mask will be safer.

Again, CLAIMS are a dime a doen. I am looking for facts. Not someone saying "Jesus rose from the dead because Paul had a vsion."

Hello? Most of the deaths in the US were a result of infections that happened BEFORE any mask mandates were in effect.

For example, NY state didn't pass a mask mandate until April 15th. Cases started falling shortly thereafter (though, again, most of the case drops were because of social distancing rules). Cases went through the roof in Texas and Florida, and again only started falling after some areas adopted mask mandates. Georgia has infamously resisted a mask mandate, and its number of new cases per day is stalled at over 3000 per day for almost a month.

Yet people in New York and other places were dying well after people wore masks.

 

[Mr Person]

Look, I am not going to study your charts to try to decipher what your point is. If you can't state it in plain English without slapping up a chart, I am not interested.

"I win because I won't look at your evidence!"

- Said in sincerity

 

[Paradoxical]

lol

In other posts, I point out how numerous states have had multiple waves. Previous pandemics have also had multiple waves, most disastrously in the 1918 flu.

allegorical stuff. Not proof.

Except.... it isn't.

If your theory was correct, then states or nations would all hit roughly the same number of cases per capita, then decline, and stay low. That is not happening, at all. Some stop at 20k, some at 10k, some at 2k.

Not true. The virus doesn't operate based on a clock.

South Korea, which relied heavily on masks, social distancing, contact tracing, and testing, peaked at 12 cases per day, per 1 million population. Italy, which has similar demographics, but waited for weeks of rising case numbers to clamp down, peaked at 93 cases per day, per million.

It's called quarantine, which I am in favor of.

You obviously don't understand basic terminology.

"Observational studies" means that they look at events in the real world, and draw conclusions. E.g. when they compare rates of mask-wearing in Southeast Asia and the US, and compare virus rates, that's an observational study. It's not an experimental study.

They draw opinions, guesses, speculations, hypothesis.

I am not surprised, however, that you are completely oblivious to the moral problems which prevent us from running experimental studies by directly exposing living human beings to virus particles while wearing masks. That's why we have to rely on observational studies and other experimental methods to determine the effectiveness of masks.

Fine. Just don't CLAIM their is scientific proof when it just conjecture and opinion because NO human testing has ever been done.

 

[Hamish Howl]

"I win because I won't look at your evidence!"

- Said in sincerity

"Show me a study!"

*study is shown*

"TELL ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT CHARTS"

 

[Hamish Howl]

Fine. Just don't CLAIM their is scientific proof when it just conjecture and opinion because NO human testing has ever been done.

Hey, Paradoxical, what is human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)?

 

[Mr Person]

Yet people in New York and other places were dying well after people wore masks.

It is strange how no precaution is perfect and things like viruses move from person to person, isn't it?

:doh




You should probably change the subject to BLM now.

 

[Visbek]

For all intents and purposes, in the four states that HAD the highest deaths per million has grund nearly to a halt, with New York at just 17, New Jersey at just two. Conn at just 6 and Mass at just 18.

lol... Again, that is evidence that the virus didn't magically max out. Different states were at different levels of spread when they started social distancing, and getting the virus under control.

The question is, "Why is that? The states that had the very highest death rates are now having the lowest." Some of you will yap that "IT's THE MASKs" when you have zero proof of that because other states that are now having relatively HIGH death rates compared to those four who have death rates of three and four times as many are ALSO wearing masks and have been for some time.

And again, your understanding and timeline are a complete mess.

• NY, NJ, CT, MA had huge surges in cases and deaths BEFORE they enacted strict social distancing and mask mandates. (People started those on their own before the government mandates, btw.)

• NY, NJ, CT, MA got and kept the virus under control with those measures.

• States like TX, FL, AZ, GA enacted social distancing before the virus spread widely. When they relaxed their requirements, the number of cases and deaths surged.

• TX, FL, AZ started to enact some social distancing, and have seen virus rates fall (though it is far from clear how low they'll go)

• GA has not done much social distancing and the governor is adamantly against masks, resulting in GA stuck at 3500 new cases per day for almost a month straight

Something isn't adding up. Everywhere you go in California people are wearing masks.

Oh, really? So you've traveled across the entire state to survey mask usage? How fascinating. :lamo

Restaurants are closed. Stores demand masks and social distancing and have been since the start. Yet we have 160 deaths and New Jersey has just TWO!? California had a death rate of only 274 per million and New Jersey had 1797!! but NJ now has only 2?

:roll:

California clamped down early -- and then relaxed controls too early, and clamped down again too slowly. Californians also got complacent and less likely to comply with social distancing guidelines. Rates have also started to fall, though issues with data collection make it look like there was a big spike in the past week. Hospitalizations are down. Oh, and even though California's politicians are mostly Democratic, there are huge swaths of the state that are still conservative -- including, as mentioned, the Central Valley (which still has a lot of hot spots).

And knowing this all of you pooh pooh the notion that the virus has simply killed those who it would in those states?

Yes, because your claims are demonstrably wrong.

Time will tell and I am confident I will once again be proven to be right.

Well, you haven't been right before, so....

I mean, really. When did you predict that Texas, Florida and Arizona would see a surge in cases and deaths?

When did you predict that South Korea and New Zealand would keep the virus in check with social distancing, contact tracing and testing?

When did you predict that Colorado would have a second wave?

 

[Visbek]

I read it.You don't appreciate humor. Typical of the left though. Dour, sour, angry, want everyone to share in their misery. If the whole country isn't equally sad and miserable, they don't like it.

Y'know, I have it on good authority that "When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to slander."

:mrgreen:

 

[Visbek]

You should know that total deaths in a state mean nothing.

You should know that I'm not a mind-reader.

You should also know that I responded to your correction anyway.