3 ms·

To get a proof about masks ust search the Google by the relevant keywords. Speaking of bars - just switch the news channel on, all the latest outbrakes are fro

To get a proof about masks ust search the Google by the relevant keywords. Speaking of bars - just switch the news channel on, all the latest outbrakes are from bars and nightclubs. And that would be considered science by the way, just not made by degreed scientists. Unless of course someone is a conspiracy theorist, and distrust the local news when they go to some bar in Michigan, to make a report about a closure.

chrisco255 6y ago
Check out Sweden's results: http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/sweden_uk20jun.html http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/sweden_uk20jun.html You really just download your opinions from the top 10 results on Google and whatever the anchor person tells you? Fascinating. As for scientists, they do not agree on this point at all. The virus is nanometers thick and can easily sail through the vast majority of facial coverings people are using. It also easily becomes useless when worn for long periods of time, or when adjusting the mask with your hand or when eating or drinking, etc. How much of the outbreaks are attributed to the massive gatherings and protests of people over the past few weeks? Why are bars blamed for this?
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Swden results? Are you serious? The last country you need to listen to is Sweden (and it is not because their approach, it is because they kept saying things, which turned out to be false: covid won't hit Sweden, there will be little number of victims etc.). If someone wants for whatever reason consult Scandinavian sources, it is better be Norway or Finland. When I google something, I of course check only trustworthy sources such as CDC, Lancet, NHS etc. And they happen to come first by the way. Of course it can pass through. It does not to protect you mostly, it protects the others from your droplets, and also dramatically lowers the speed and momentum of the air and viral particles, because of air friction in the layers of textile. As the result, the particles do not fly too far from your mouth. Yes you are right, if you misuse, they become less useful for you personally; therefore do not adjust them with dirty hands, and change every 2 hours, as I do. Still, even misused mask prevents the others from you exhaled air and droplets. One thing though I agree with that gatherings (be it BLM or Trumps rallies) were harmful and probably more than bars. But they are already the past. Right now we need to think about the present.
  - armagon 6y ago
    It seems to me that the mass gatherings are ongoing -- not just in the past, but in the present and in the future. I know I read an article as the protests went on that said, "if we don't see an uptick in cases a couple of weeks from now, we need to re-evaluate what we know about the virus" and, more recently, I see articles that say, "there haven't been upticks in the virus due to the mass protests." Which leads me to conclude: 1) there is something we don't understand about the virus, 2) there is something we don't understand about the protests or protesters, or 3) the articles are not congruent with the real situation. Explanations might include: the virus doesn't transmit well outdoors; the protesters were in a demographic that didn't get or didn't notice getting the disease; the protesters have not been tested for the disease; the disease was not present at the protests; the reporter didn't have the facts; or, the reporter did not report facts because of some countering (most likely political) belief. I'm still perplexed about this. Wouldn't mind flexing some data science muscles but I don't have the time and my skills aren't up to snuff. If anyone has some clarity, please share!
    - zaroth 6y ago
      I posted this link down-thread but wanted to be sure you saw it; https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83f8d/uncropped/8e1875-20200626-covid-cases-age.png https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83... IMO it’s unquestionable that mass protests contributed to the spread of COVID, it’s just apparently uncouth to say so. It may be true that during daylight hours outside, being outside on a sunny day the UV dampens the virus. But we know that the virus mostly doesn’t transmit on surfaces it transmits in suspended droplets. It also can be absorbed through the eyes not just nasal passages. Certainly evening mass protests with people in close proximity absolutely spreads COVID. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. All else being equal, having everyone wear a mask versus not probably reduces the R value at least somewhat, but this is assuming wearing masks doesn’t also lead to an increase in risky behavior. If people wearing a mask feel they are less likely to get or spread COVID and therefore alter their behavior, then that new behavior works to some extent to either partially nullify, or even completely nullify any benefit or conceivably makes matters worse. But frankly this mask discussion misses the forest for the trees. Somehow we went from “flatten the curve” to “minimize all cases” to “shutdown everything until it’s gone”. We cannot continue to shutdown everything, we’ve already paid about $10 trillion trying to do that for just a few months and now have 40 million unemployed. People who feel they are vulnerable should be provided the support and services they need to protect themselves and avoid exposure. Stricter policies should reinforce these protections for the most vulnerable populations, like nursing home visitation and screening employees in contact with the elderly. The IFR is so massively skewed to the elderly, we need to be 100% focused on protecting that population. For those under 70 the quarantine “cure” is worse than the disease.

chrisco255 6y ago

Check out Sweden's results: http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/sweden_uk20jun.html http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/sweden_uk20jun.html You really just download your opinions from the top 10 results on Google and whatever the anchor person tells you? Fascinating. As for scientists, they do not agree on this point at all. The virus is nanometers thick and can easily sail through the vast majority of facial coverings people are using. It also easily becomes useless when worn for long periods of time, or when adjusting the mask with your hand or when eating or drinking, etc. How much of the outbreaks are attributed to the massive gatherings and protests of people over the past few weeks? Why are bars blamed for this?

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
Swden results? Are you serious? The last country you need to listen to is Sweden (and it is not because their approach, it is because they kept saying things, which turned out to be false: covid won't hit Sweden, there will be little number of victims etc.). If someone wants for whatever reason consult Scandinavian sources, it is better be Norway or Finland. When I google something, I of course check only trustworthy sources such as CDC, Lancet, NHS etc. And they happen to come first by the way. Of course it can pass through. It does not to protect you mostly, it protects the others from your droplets, and also dramatically lowers the speed and momentum of the air and viral particles, because of air friction in the layers of textile. As the result, the particles do not fly too far from your mouth. Yes you are right, if you misuse, they become less useful for you personally; therefore do not adjust them with dirty hands, and change every 2 hours, as I do. Still, even misused mask prevents the others from you exhaled air and droplets. One thing though I agree with that gatherings (be it BLM or Trumps rallies) were harmful and probably more than bars. But they are already the past. Right now we need to think about the present.
- armagon 6y ago
  It seems to me that the mass gatherings are ongoing -- not just in the past, but in the present and in the future. I know I read an article as the protests went on that said, "if we don't see an uptick in cases a couple of weeks from now, we need to re-evaluate what we know about the virus" and, more recently, I see articles that say, "there haven't been upticks in the virus due to the mass protests." Which leads me to conclude: 1) there is something we don't understand about the virus, 2) there is something we don't understand about the protests or protesters, or 3) the articles are not congruent with the real situation. Explanations might include: the virus doesn't transmit well outdoors; the protesters were in a demographic that didn't get or didn't notice getting the disease; the protesters have not been tested for the disease; the disease was not present at the protests; the reporter didn't have the facts; or, the reporter did not report facts because of some countering (most likely political) belief. I'm still perplexed about this. Wouldn't mind flexing some data science muscles but I don't have the time and my skills aren't up to snuff. If anyone has some clarity, please share!
  - zaroth 6y ago
    I posted this link down-thread but wanted to be sure you saw it; https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83f8d/uncropped/8e1875-20200626-covid-cases-age.png https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83... IMO it’s unquestionable that mass protests contributed to the spread of COVID, it’s just apparently uncouth to say so. It may be true that during daylight hours outside, being outside on a sunny day the UV dampens the virus. But we know that the virus mostly doesn’t transmit on surfaces it transmits in suspended droplets. It also can be absorbed through the eyes not just nasal passages. Certainly evening mass protests with people in close proximity absolutely spreads COVID. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. All else being equal, having everyone wear a mask versus not probably reduces the R value at least somewhat, but this is assuming wearing masks doesn’t also lead to an increase in risky behavior. If people wearing a mask feel they are less likely to get or spread COVID and therefore alter their behavior, then that new behavior works to some extent to either partially nullify, or even completely nullify any benefit or conceivably makes matters worse. But frankly this mask discussion misses the forest for the trees. Somehow we went from “flatten the curve” to “minimize all cases” to “shutdown everything until it’s gone”. We cannot continue to shutdown everything, we’ve already paid about $10 trillion trying to do that for just a few months and now have 40 million unemployed. People who feel they are vulnerable should be provided the support and services they need to protect themselves and avoid exposure. Stricter policies should reinforce these protections for the most vulnerable populations, like nursing home visitation and screening employees in contact with the elderly. The IFR is so massively skewed to the elderly, we need to be 100% focused on protecting that population. For those under 70 the quarantine “cure” is worse than the disease.