California no longer under lockdown - people freak out

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,404
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Not necessarily, given as above "worse" meaning statistically significantly worse.
I'm just saying that if something does indeed do nothing, wouldn't it be basically a flip of the coin to what group does better and thus there'd be just about as many studies showing the HCQ group did worse as the HCQ group doing better?

On the contrary, read through those papers and you find that people who took HCQ had a lot more adverse symptoms than those who didn't. They just generally weren't very serious ones. See also the linked Cochrane meta-analysis above.
HCQ doesn't produce serious adverse side effects, it just may cause a headache or diarrhea mainly. The vaccines produce more adverse effects than HCQ.


I am not convinced you understand what you are even arguing against.
I'm just saying if the studies all used the same methodology (similar initial levels and same daily dose) they would've produced similar results.

??? I have no idea what you think you are referring to.
The following from a few posts back:
I'm guessing this is where you got that 97.5% stat from and the second cited study (22) for that stat says you needed 3800 IUs from all sources in a day to maintain the baseline.
And this is what happened. Scientists and medical doctors looked at all the data they had for similar conditions, and applied them. That's why HCQ was theorised, and steroids, and people looked at vitamin D, etc. And so people looked at these hypotheticals, and some worked and some didn't. I just don't understand why you're claiming so fiercely that things that studies can't identify as working work.
There's also no good studies showing much of these things definitely don't work. There's like the one place in Spain doing Vitamin D studies and that's it. Also, your cited Cochrane link says HCQ "probably does not reduce..."

You argue "better safe than sorry" for masks, but then rage against social distancing outdoors. So kindly don't come at me over that.

Like I have said many times, you want to stuff vitamin D down your throat in a few thousand IUs a day, go for it. I just think we have got enough evidence to say it's very unlikely to be given you a benefit over a fraction of the dose.
Social distancing outdoors (outside of literally invading your personal space) doesn't do anything, there's plenty of statistics and science saying so. It's not a "better safe than sorry" approach when we know something. There's as much definitive / statistically significant data on masks as there are on HCQ. Why are you for masks but against HCQ when just looking at the numbers and nothing else? There's no studies showing masks yield statistically significant benefits.

You don't say.
I actually listen to what the doctors are saying, it's kinda why most of "my" predictions have been spot-on. I said last October (in the "when will the pandemic end" thread) no restrictions summer of next year (several states are currently getting rid of mask mandates now) and everyone was like "nah", I said that Texas opening up (in that thread) wasn't going to change much of anything and everyone else was like "everyone's gonna die", and where's those fear mongering reinfection stories, they gone. Those variant stories will soon be gone too. Please refer me to anyone else here who's had a better hit-miss ratio than me.
 
Last edited:

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,741
1,350
118
Nice. I went to a Korean BBQ place Saturday and it was awesome. I've been dining inside since restaurants opened in Indiana and that was late spring/early summer of last year.
Yeah it's crazy how much the little things are going to feel incredible again for a while. I hope people find joy and any darkness from being locked down fades quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,694
3,842
118
The HCQ group did have less hospitalizations, which can't be significant because of the size of the study.
It could have been significant, if HCQ worked. But it didn't, as demonstrated not just in this study, but many others.

The point is to stop it from going from mild to severe.
Which HCQ doesn't appear to achieve.

I'm just saying the study was setup to never show statistically significant results regardless of the drug tested. That could be the limit of their resources or whatever.
This is completely untrue.

I'm just saying that if something does indeed do nothing, wouldn't it be basically a flip of the coin to what group does better and thus there'd be just about as many studies showing the HCQ group did worse as the HCQ group doing better?
There are plenty of studies demonstrating non-significantly worse outcomes from HCQ treatment. In fact, the meta-analysis I linked last time shows on average mortality from covid-19 patients taking HCQ was higher than from those who did not, see below.

HCQ doesn't produce serious adverse side effects, it just may cause a headache or diarrhea mainly.
Wrong. It increases the risk of adverse cardiac events (chiefly arrhythmias) by an estimated 2-4 times. Cardiac arrhythmias are definitely serious.

I'm just saying if the studies all used the same methodology (similar initial levels and same daily dose) they would've produced similar results.
Not necessarily. Partly because the existing data doesn't clearly bear that out, and also because there's much more to methodology than that.

There's also no good studies showing much of these things definitely don't work. There's like the one place in Spain doing Vitamin D studies and that's it. Also, your cited Cochrane link says HCQ "probably does not reduce..."
Oh, let's be clear what that Cochrane link says. It says HCQ does not reduce deaths, and probably does not reduce the number requiring ventilation. However, a closer look at the data shows HCQ is more likely to be associated with worse outcomes for both death and requiring ventilation. The confidence interval for the latter is 0.91-1.37 (where under 1 means HCQ is beneficial and over 1 HCQ is harmful).

You can hang onto that "probably" all you like, but it's like hoping a few strands of grass are going to take your weight when you fall off a cliff.

Social distancing outdoors (outside of literally invading your personal space) doesn't do anything, there's plenty of statistics and science saying so.
This is literally not only wrong, it is also patently nonsensical from first principles.

It is a hopeless misreading of available data, particularly laughable given that the amount of evidence on outside transmission is far lower than it is for HCQ or masks.

There's as much definitive / statistically significant data on masks as there are on HCQ. Why are you for masks but against HCQ when just looking at the numbers and nothing else? There's no studies showing masks yield statistically significant benefits.
In a sense, yes there is a similar amount of evidence on HCQ and masks. Except that the balance of evidence lies heavily towards the benefit of masks, and heavily towards the uselessness of HCQ.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,404
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It could have been significant, if HCQ worked. But it didn't, as demonstrated not just in this study, but many others.

This is completely untrue.
A study isn't going to show if a drug is effective at reducing something by like 10-20% when you only have like 20 people in the study to look at. The only type of drug that could show significant results in such a study would be something that is literally a cure.

There are plenty of studies demonstrating non-significantly worse outcomes from HCQ treatment. In fact, the meta-analysis I linked last time shows on average mortality from covid-19 patients taking HCQ was higher than from those who did not, see below.
We know HCQ doesn't work for late-stage treatment. Talk about me beating a dead horse.

Wrong. It increases the risk of adverse cardiac events (chiefly arrhythmias) by an estimated 2-4 times. Cardiac arrhythmias are definitely serious.
Not outside of the ICU setting it doesn't. There's plenty of safety studies showing as such.

Not necessarily. Partly because the existing data doesn't clearly bear that out, and also because there's much more to methodology than that.
You won't get literally the same result with that methodology alone (because there's other factors and variables obviously) but you'd get much much closer pool of results than that 41 study meta analysis.

Oh, let's be clear what that Cochrane link says. It says HCQ does not reduce deaths, and probably does not reduce the number requiring ventilation. However, a closer look at the data shows HCQ is more likely to be associated with worse outcomes for both death and requiring ventilation. The confidence interval for the latter is 0.91-1.37 (where under 1 means HCQ is beneficial and over 1 HCQ is harmful).

You can hang onto that "probably" all you like, but it's like hoping a few strands of grass are going to take your weight when you fall off a cliff.
Again, it uses late-stage studies and we know HCQ doesn't work there and it can have serious adverse effects there as well. We've known this for awhile now.

This is literally not only wrong, it is also patently nonsensical from first principles.

It is a hopeless misreading of available data, particularly laughable given that the amount of evidence on outside transmission is far lower than it is for HCQ or masks.
I just googled "coronavirus outdoor transmission" and filter by within the month for newer articles and this was the 1st result. If you are concerned with getting infected outside, then you should like never drive your car because if driving your car is acceptable risk, then doing stuff outside is so much safer it's not even funny. If you're in the vulnerable group, just avoid large crowed areas basically but if you're not, then there's really no need to worry (which doesn't mean ZERO risk, it means the risk is so low that you shouldn't worry about it).

In a sense, yes there is a similar amount of evidence on HCQ and masks. Except that the balance of evidence lies heavily towards the benefit of masks, and heavily towards the uselessness of HCQ.
There could be slightly better data for masks (if one were to go over it all) but it's not by much. The medical community couldn't even prove surgical masks do anything over decades. Pretty much all the good data for masks helping is from laboratory studies that say "in theory" masks should work (like HCQ) but as far as real-world data showing significant data of them working, it's not much at all if really anything at this point.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,694
3,842
118
A study isn't going to show if a drug is effective at reducing something by like 10-20% when you only have like 20 people in the study to look at. The only type of drug that could show significant results in such a study would be something that is literally a cure.
I repeat, and I have do quite a disturbing amount of repeating, the primary measure of that paper is viral load. It has hundreds of participants, and shows HCQ had no effect on viral load. It is just a shame that you are too scientifically illterate to understand the relevance of that.

We know HCQ doesn't work for late-stage treatment. Talk about me beating a dead horse.
That Cochrane paper looks more widely at how HCQ is used than you are crediting. And even beyond that, there are at least 4 RCTs on early treatment: all show a failure of HCQ to have an effect. The evidence shows it doesn't work, period. Not for prophylaxis, not for early treatment, not for late treatment.

I just googled "coronavirus outdoor transmission" and filter by within the month for newer articles and this was the 1st result.
Yes, and that just adds to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that you are scientifically illiterate and incapable of drawing sensible conclusions from information given - never mind thinking that a BBC article qualifies as some sort of scientific proof.

There could be slightly better data for masks (if one were to go over it all) but it's not by much. The medical community couldn't even prove surgical masks do anything over decades.
This is to mischaracterise the research. The main problem is more that until covid-19 "the medical community" mostly weren't really looking at masks because there wasn't much need, not that they tried and failed - and even then it was broadly supportive. By now there's a huge welter of evidence suggesting the effectiveness of masks at reducing risk, from physics to epidemiology.

If you think there's still serious doubt, your understanding of the data hasn't advanced since June 2020. In fact, given your views on HCQ, I'm pretty sure you're stuck in June 2020.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,404
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I repeat, and I have do quite a disturbing amount of repeating, the primary measure of that paper is viral load. It has hundreds of participants, and shows HCQ had no effect on viral load. It is just a shame that you are too scientifically illterate to understand the relevance of that.
And I have to repeat as well... HCQ doesn't reduce viral load on it's own, it allows zinc to do that. Also, HCQ helps with cytokine storms. Reducing viral load isn't the only way something can help against a virus.

That Cochrane paper looks more widely at how HCQ is used than you are crediting. And even beyond that, there are at least 4 RCTs on early treatment: all show a failure of HCQ to have an effect. The evidence shows it doesn't work, period. Not for prophylaxis, not for early treatment, not for late treatment.
I was replying to the bit about worst outcomes that comes from giving during late-stage treatment. The worst outcomes don't come from early treatment. Again, if it doesn't do anything, why do like all the early treatment studies find the HCQ group have less hospitalizations (even if insignificant)?

Yes, and that just adds to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that you are scientifically illiterate and incapable of drawing sensible conclusions from information given - never mind thinking that a BBC article qualifies as some sort of scientific proof.
I was just trying to find something recent and I assume that article is referring to a study/studies, I just quickly skimmed it (it talks about both outdoor and surface transmissions). And I quickly skimmed it because there's plenty of studies saying outdoor transmission is drastically less likely and it has nothing to do with people being farther apart as you said a few posts back. You can sit people exactly the same distances apart eating outside as they would be eating inside and there will be far far far less transmissions outdoors and the same distances apart. Much the same as you don't get it from contact surfaces either. If someone is actually concerned about the extremely low risk of transmission in these scenarios, then they'd find pre-pandemic normalcy too dangerous.

This is to mischaracterise the research. The main problem is more that until covid-19 "the medical community" mostly weren't really looking at masks because there wasn't much need, not that they tried and failed - and even then it was broadly supportive. By now there's a huge welter of evidence suggesting the effectiveness of masks at reducing risk, from physics to epidemiology.

If you think there's still serious doubt, your understanding of the data hasn't advanced since June 2020. In fact, given your views on HCQ, I'm pretty sure you're stuck in June 2020.
There were quite a few studies over the years on surgical masks and no conclusive data has been found. There's lots of "in theory" logic the leads to masks working as they do block X amount of droplets and they should lower initial viral load, thus they should work but there's no real-world data showing that they do work. There's no data on lower viral loads (in humans) leading to less severe infections either. I am pro-mask but there's no data I can show anyone to prove that they do anything.

 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,422
1,847
118
Country
United States of America
Some more stupid policies but taking place in hospitals:
Oh, are the policies as dumb as opening back up before we're fully vaccinated and so giving the virus a lot more chances to mutate into something vaccine resistant?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,694
3,842
118
And I have to repeat as well... HCQ doesn't reduce viral load on it's own, it allows zinc to do that.
This seems exceptionally unlikely, given whole papers are written speculating on the mechanism of action of HCQ for covid-19 which don't even mention zinc. Although of course, it's a moot point, as HCQ doesn't appear to be any benefit under any circumstance.


Also, HCQ helps with cytokine storms.
This is a more credible theory, except it is not born out by the evidence. You have yourself accepted HCQ is useless if given late. Cytokine storm is what causes the acute respiratory distress, where there is a massive inflammatory reaction in the lungs, leading to impaired gas exchange and potentially asphyxiation. Arguing HCQ helps with cytokine storm is therefore completely contradictory to the claim HCQ is no use if given late.

Reducing viral load isn't the only way something can help against a virus.
I would argue that it's pretty much all about helping against a virus, because if a treatment is reducing viral load it's clearly not reducing the ability of viruses to infect cells and proliferate. When you say HCQ is useful in conjunction with zinc, you're talking about a mechanism of action that should reduce viral load because it prevents viral replication after it's entered the cell. If it doesn't reduce viral load, that can't be the mechanism.

You can of course treat the disease without changing viral load (treating symptoms).

I was replying to the bit about worst outcomes that comes from giving during late-stage treatment. The worst outcomes don't come from early treatment. Again, if it doesn't do anything, why do like all the early treatment studies find the HCQ group have less hospitalizations (even if insignificant)?
If it's not significant, it doesn't count. That's the way it works.

I was just trying to find something recent and I assume that article is referring to a study/studies, I just quickly skimmed it (it talks about both outdoor and surface transmissions). And I quickly skimmed it because there's plenty of studies saying outdoor transmission is drastically less likely and it has nothing to do with people being farther apart as you said a few posts back. You can sit people exactly the same distances apart eating outside as they would be eating inside and there will be far far far less transmissions outdoors and the same distances apart. Much the same as you don't get it from contact surfaces either. If someone is actually concerned about the extremely low risk of transmission in these scenarios, then they'd find pre-pandemic normalcy too dangerous.
Whether indoors or outdoors, the further away someone is, the less chance of transmission. This should not be complicated. You breath, talk, cough etc. and little particles of moisture spew out. The closer someone is, the more likely they are to take those particles in. The advantage of outdoors is that the wind is more likely to blow those particles away. The more still the air is, the greater the risk. And so on. There have been estimate of covid cases from outdoors transmission at 5-10%. This is hardly in the same minimal risk bracket of being hit by a bus when crossing the road. And it all counts.

Google "Cheltenham festival" and take a look at the crowds. That is a problem, and it is truly absurd to think there's no risk because it is outdoors. The same principle could as easily apply on a much smaller scale to a walled pub garden. Sit half a dozen people round a park bench for long enough. When a government puts out safety guidelines, the obvious precautionary principle applies: stress risk still exists and mitigate complacency.

There were quite a few studies over the years on surgical masks and no conclusive data has been found. There's lots of "in theory" logic the leads to masks working as they do block X amount of droplets and they should lower initial viral load, thus they should work but there's no real-world data showing that they do work. There's no data on lower viral loads (in humans) leading to less severe infections either. I am pro-mask but there's no data I can show anyone to prove that they do anything.

So, to summarise the claims of that article from 2009, there was a shortage of definitive, high quality evidence, although the evidence available was supportive that masks could reduce infection risk. Even back in 2009, we had stuff like https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/55374/face-mask-prevent-getting-only-wear/. And like I said, we've got a lot more data since then.

There are a load of studies demonstrating the usefulness of masks. It is simply bizarre to think there's "no data".
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
4,391
1,808
118
What’s really stupid about the whole COVID thing, are the legal secrecy and disclosure parameters required by the ADA regarding whomever tests positive. It’s like really, people in a workplace for example are going to find out anyways, and it’s illegal/immoral to withhold this info for contact tracing, either by the person testing positive or their employer on their behalf. I get it’s not something some people want *everyone* to know about, but why there’s a stigma about it in the first place is ridiculous. It would only make getting it worse I’d think.

Not to mention, whenever all the states give the all clear, back to “normal”, we can bet we’ll all be going back to getting fucking sick again with every other virus (and bacteria) anyways, because people will fall back into all the old disgusting, unsanitary habits.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
4,391
1,808
118
I'm just saying that if something does indeed do nothing, wouldn't it be basically a flip of the coin to what group does better and thus there'd be just about as many studies showing the HCQ group did worse as the HCQ group doing better?


HCQ doesn't produce serious adverse side effects, it just may cause a headache or diarrhea mainly. The vaccines produce more adverse effects than HCQ.



I'm just saying if the studies all used the same methodology (similar initial levels and same daily dose) they would've produced similar results.


The following from a few posts back:



There's also no good studies showing much of these things definitely don't work. There's like the one place in Spain doing Vitamin D studies and that's it. Also, your cited Cochrane link says HCQ "probably does not reduce..."


Social distancing outdoors (outside of literally invading your personal space) doesn't do anything, there's plenty of statistics and science saying so. It's not a "better safe than sorry" approach when we know something. There's as much definitive / statistically significant data on masks as there are on HCQ. Why are you for masks but against HCQ when just looking at the numbers and nothing else? There's no studies showing masks yield statistically significant benefits.


I actually listen to what the doctors are saying, it's kinda why most of "my" predictions have been spot-on. I said last October (in the "when will the pandemic end" thread) no restrictions summer of next year (several states are currently getting rid of mask mandates now) and everyone was like "nah", I said that Texas opening up (in that thread) wasn't going to change much of anything and everyone else was like "everyone's gonna die", and where's those fear mongering reinfection stories, they gone. Those variant stories will soon be gone too. Please refer me to anyone else here who's had a better hit-miss ratio than me.

It only takes one simple bunch to know the primary reason why big pharma pushed all that HCQ nonsense aside and ramped up R&D and subsequent rollout of these vaccines:


Hell, even corporate media isn’t hiding it. Also finding it kinda funny how it was such a “gamble” when it’d would’ve just been a write off anyways, with government-granted immunity from litigation over the potentially far greater adverse side effects regardless.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
4,391
1,808
118
And I have to repeat as well... HCQ doesn't reduce viral load on it's own, it allows zinc to do that. Also, HCQ helps with cytokine storms. Reducing viral load isn't the only way something can help against a virus.


I was replying to the bit about worst outcomes that comes from giving during late-stage treatment. The worst outcomes don't come from early treatment. Again, if it doesn't do anything, why do like all the early treatment studies find the HCQ group have less hospitalizations (even if insignificant)?


I was just trying to find something recent and I assume that article is referring to a study/studies, I just quickly skimmed it (it talks about both outdoor and surface transmissions). And I quickly skimmed it because there's plenty of studies saying outdoor transmission is drastically less likely and it has nothing to do with people being farther apart as you said a few posts back. You can sit people exactly the same distances apart eating outside as they would be eating inside and there will be far far far less transmissions outdoors and the same distances apart. Much the same as you don't get it from contact surfaces either. If someone is actually concerned about the extremely low risk of transmission in these scenarios, then they'd find pre-pandemic normalcy too dangerous.


There were quite a few studies over the years on surgical masks and no conclusive data has been found. There's lots of "in theory" logic the leads to masks working as they do block X amount of droplets and they should lower initial viral load, thus they should work but there's no real-world data showing that they do work. There's no data on lower viral loads (in humans) leading to less severe infections either. I am pro-mask but there's no data I can show anyone to prove that they do anything.


For whatever reason, basically the whole office population at my work has never seemed healthier over this past year, if going by no coughing, sneezing, disgusting snot noses, etc. (we’ve been back since the beginning of May due to essential manufacturing ties). The only real difference has been masks, and some extra sanitizing habits but barely anyone is even doing that.


I look at it this way: sure wearing masks suck and they have their own drawbacks to well being in terms of breathing more recycled CO2, but we’ve always recommended people cover their mouths when they sneeze for the same principle reasoning involving the goal of simply reducing the amount of potential virus droplets people could be spreading from their breath holes. If it isn’t masks reducing the amount of transmission, when people are barely social distancing anywhere they can get away with not doing so, then I’m not sure what else is.
 
Last edited:

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
4,391
1,808
118

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,609
717
118
Country
United States
There is some evidence, however, that prolonged use of N-95 masks in patients with preexisting lung disease could cause some build-up of carbon dioxide levels in the body.

The sentence from the blog is significantly more specific than your complaint. You stated that it was an issue with masks in general. The article uses the qualifiers N-95 masks, in patients with preexisting lung disease, and could cause.

The end result is a vastly different meaning.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
4,391
1,808
118
The sentence from the blog is significantly more specific than your complaint. You stated that it was an issue with masks in general. The article uses the qualifiers N-95 masks, in patients with preexisting lung disease, and could cause.

The end result is a vastly different meaning.

Sure, but no matter how you slice it, breathing through a mask isn’t the same as breathing fresh air freely. I notice it even after a few minutes. If there wasn’t a difference then what would be the point of masks. They’re only saying it’s not an issue and nothing to fret over because they want people to wear masks, and admitting there’s an issue would only cause a public shitstorm. Hell, it already has.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,404
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
This seems exceptionally unlikely, given whole papers are written speculating on the mechanism of action of HCQ for covid-19 which don't even mention zinc. Although of course, it's a moot point, as HCQ doesn't appear to be any benefit under any circumstance.


If it works against SARS-COV-1, it most probably works for SARS-COV-2.

This is a more credible theory, except it is not born out by the evidence. You have yourself accepted HCQ is useless if given late. Cytokine storm is what causes the acute respiratory distress, where there is a massive inflammatory reaction in the lungs, leading to impaired gas exchange and potentially asphyxiation. Arguing HCQ helps with cytokine storm is therefore completely contradictory to the claim HCQ is no use if given late.
Giving HCQ AFTER the cytokine storm caused ARDS is proof it doesn't help with said cytokine storm? How does that make any sense?


Moreover, both CQ and HCQ have been proven to have immunomodulatory activities by interfering with Toll-like receptor signaling pathways, reducing cytokine production, and inhibiting MHC class II expression, antigen presentation, and immune activation through the reduction of CD154 expression in T cells.

I would argue that it's pretty much all about helping against a virus, because if a treatment is reducing viral load it's clearly not reducing the ability of viruses to infect cells and proliferate. When you say HCQ is useful in conjunction with zinc, you're talking about a mechanism of action that should reduce viral load because it prevents viral replication after it's entered the cell. If it doesn't reduce viral load, that can't be the mechanism.

You can of course treat the disease without changing viral load (treating symptoms).

If it's not significant, it doesn't count. That's the way it works.
Meta-analysis of non-significant results can equal significant results.

Whether indoors or outdoors, the further away someone is, the less chance of transmission. This should not be complicated. You breath, talk, cough etc. and little particles of moisture spew out. The closer someone is, the more likely they are to take those particles in. The advantage of outdoors is that the wind is more likely to blow those particles away. The more still the air is, the greater the risk. And so on. There have been estimate of covid cases from outdoors transmission at 5-10%. This is hardly in the same minimal risk bracket of being hit by a bus when crossing the road. And it all counts.

Google "Cheltenham festival" and take a look at the crowds. That is a problem, and it is truly absurd to think there's no risk because it is outdoors. The same principle could as easily apply on a much smaller scale to a walled pub garden. Sit half a dozen people round a park bench for long enough. When a government puts out safety guidelines, the obvious precautionary principle applies: stress risk still exists and mitigate complacency.
The studies that trace by 7,000+ transmissions only find a small handful from outdoors does not come close to equaling even 1% let alone 5-10%. I recall you not liking estimations when IFRs came into play. Like I said, you just don't invade people's personal spaces and your pretty much gonna be fine outside.

So, to summarise the claims of that article from 2009, there was a shortage of definitive, high quality evidence, although the evidence available was supportive that masks could reduce infection risk. Even back in 2009, we had stuff like https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/55374/face-mask-prevent-getting-only-wear/. And like I said, we've got a lot more data since then.

There are a load of studies demonstrating the usefulness of masks. It is simply bizarre to think there's "no data".
Meta-analysis of flu/mask studies found no significant reduction in flu via wearing masks.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,404
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It only takes one simple bunch to know the primary reason why big pharma pushed all that HCQ nonsense aside and ramped up R&D and subsequent rollout of these vaccines:


Hell, even corporate media isn’t hiding it. Also finding it kinda funny how it was such a “gamble” when it’d would’ve just been a write off anyways, with government-granted immunity from litigation over the potentially far greater adverse side effects regardless.
Yeah, I'm pretty aware of that. It's why HCQ was made "political". It's why there's no vitamin d studies (except from one place out of Spain where they use HCQ as standard treatment), it's why there's no big RCTs on ivermectin either. It's why Merck is testing a new drug for on the virus instead of ivermectin because one will make them tons of money and the other is a generic and costs a few cents for a tablet. Everyone is gonna be riding the coronavirus train as long as possible like a 3rd booster vaccine for the SUPER SCARY variants and probably a yearly vaccine like the flu when none of this is needed; there's studies showing refinfection is pretty damn rare after 6 months which could have been predicted by the fact that SARS-COV-1 immunity lasts 17 years and counting. Now there's a DOUBLE variant, you better keep staying away from everyone!!!

Remember that March spike that was supposed to happen because of the scary variants that didn't happen? Remember those reinfection stories trying to scare people that have disappeared basically? Remember when the CDC director went "off script" and proclaimed "impending doom" and others said a new spike was coming because the infection numbers went slightly up at the end of March? And now the numbers are basically plateauing and going slightly down. Common sense explanations just can't be valid because it's too simple and not scary enough like people going out and doing more things as the weather got somewhat nice and lots of people already got vaccinated. And why would there be a huge spike and impending doom when at least 200 million (and that's a conservative number) already got infected/vaccinated going to lead to a large spike? It didn't make any logical sense. We're easily at numbers that are going to lower transmission numbers, you don't have to have herb immunity to do that.


For whatever reason, basically the whole office population at my work has never seemed healthier over this past year, if going by no coughing, sneezing, disgusting snot noses, etc. (we’ve been back since the beginning of May due to essential manufacturing ties). The only real difference has been masks, and some extra sanitizing habits but barely anyone is even doing that.


I look at it this way: sure wearing masks suck and they have their own drawbacks to well being in terms of breathing more recycled CO2, but we’ve always recommended people cover their mouths when they sneeze for the same principle reasoning involving the goal of simply reducing the amount of potential virus droplets people could be spreading from their breath holes. If it isn’t masks reducing the amount of transmission, when people are barely social distancing anywhere they can get away with not doing so, then I’m not sure what else is.
Flu does spread a lot via kids so the schools not being open may be why the flu basically disappeared. It could also be viral interference between the flu and covid where if you get one, you basically can't get the other. I am pro-mask for the purpose of most likely at least lowering initial viral load that should lead to less severe infections; less hospitalizations and deaths. Japan is the one place where they didn't basically extinguish the virus like say Australia that has great numbers and the 2 things they did was that they wore masks from day 1 and they have good vitamin d levels from their diets. I still can't believe people weren't advised to take vitamin d, it's basically criminal that wasn't communicated.

I have no idea about the CO2 and masks but I do know that I've noticed that I'll breath a lot more through my mouth with a mask on vs when not on. I do see masks as basically doing no harm and probably helping at least some so there's really no reason not to. When you're in a pandemic with so many people dying so fast, you can't wait for definitive info on everything, there's gotta be some "winging it" going on because you just don't have the time.


California is now aiming to fully reopen by June 15th.

Good, there's no reason to be staying closed with over 100 million that have been vaccinated and 100 million that have already gotten infected.
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,404
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Oh, are the policies as dumb as opening back up before we're fully vaccinated and so giving the virus a lot more chances to mutate into something vaccine resistant?
You do realize all viruses have ample time to mutate, it's not a big deal, it never has been. We have around 2/3s of the population that either got it or got vaccinated, the spread isn't ever going to spike again like it did previously.