On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

That's been pointed out to him several (maybe a dozen) times.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:53:12 -0400, John wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

That's been pointed out to him several (maybe a dozen) times.

It does beg the question of if the mask is doing anything at all tho.
I understand it makes you look socially aware but is it making
anything any better?

The issues in the hospital study are still valid, probably more so in
a less environmentally stable area like Lowes.

"Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection".

You are far more likely to be breathing heavy and sweating through
your cloth mask in an 80 degree Lowes loading plywood on your cart
than a nurse is starting an IV in a 70 degree hospital. If you are
loading concrete into your truck outside next to the construction
entrance there is no contest. It will be a wet rag in a few minutes.
Then you go to Publix and spray all that moisture on the fruit.

Maybe Lowes was a bad example ;-)

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:15:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:53:12 -0400, John wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

That's been pointed out to him several (maybe a dozen) times.

It does beg the question of if the mask is doing anything at all tho.
I understand it makes you look socially aware but is it making
anything any better?

The issues in the hospital study are still valid, probably more so in
a less environmentally stable area like Lowes.

"Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection".

You are far more likely to be breathing heavy and sweating through
your cloth mask in an 80 degree Lowes loading plywood on your cart
than a nurse is starting an IV in a 70 degree hospital. If you are
loading concrete into your truck outside next to the construction
entrance there is no contest. It will be a wet rag in a few minutes.
Then you go to Publix and spray all that moisture on the fruit.

Maybe Lowes was a bad example ;-)


I carry three masks on my turn signal. If I sweated through one, I'd simply get
another if needed. Then I'd throw 'em in the washer.

Keep making up situations. Yes, "Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and
poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection..." But not wearing
one provides an even greater risk, for the other person.

Wake up.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

Why shouldn't a test of medical equipment be valid in hospitals? If
this is actually medical equipment, that is the best test.
Are you saying masks are not medical equipment?
(actually most of the knockoff "surgical masks" say that right on the
box)
If it is just political theater, I guess efficacy is not important.

On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 5:53:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

Why shouldn't a test of medical equipment be valid in hospitals? If
this is actually medical equipment, that is the best test.
Are you saying masks are not medical equipment?
(actually most of the knockoff "surgical masks" say that right on the
box)
If it is just political theater, I guess efficacy is not important.

A test of medical equipment as used in a medical setting, like a hospital, is valid. The use case is different than the purpose of the general public wearing a mask in Publix or Lowes. You can't apply one to the other.

But you know that, you just want to argue. Carry on.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:03:53 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Again, you're comparing medical masks to cloth masks. They are intended for
different purposes.

I've told you that at least a dozen times, but I suppose I can do it again.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:52:28 -0400, John wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:03:53 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Again, you're comparing medical masks to cloth masks. They are intended for
different purposes.


Exactly, one is medical, the other political correctness.

Otherwise there would be standards and there aren't any.
Maybe that is my whole problem with this.
I worked in industries with standards for 55 years. The last 30, OSHA
was one of the standards organizations I dealt with, including PPE.
These do-rags, neck gaiters and hand sewn nanna masks have absolutely
zero standards nor do the commercial ones I see hanging next to cash
registers everywhere. Even the official looking "surgical masks" say
"not medical equipment" right on the box.
If you think you are stopping an infectious disease, shouldn't there
be some standard of the equipment you use or do you just want to look
like you are doing something even if it is "counter productive"
according to the Duke study.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...sciadv.abd3083

As for now, I do wear my face shield when I am in places that want me
to but I am not fooling myself that I am doing anything but placating
the brown shirt mask nazis.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:05:16 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:52:28 -0400, John wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:03:53 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Again, you're comparing medical masks to cloth masks. They are intended for
different purposes.


Exactly, one is medical, the other political correctness.

Otherwise there would be standards and there aren't any.
Maybe that is my whole problem with this.
I worked in industries with standards for 55 years. The last 30, OSHA
was one of the standards organizations I dealt with, including PPE.
These do-rags, neck gaiters and hand sewn nanna masks have absolutely
zero standards nor do the commercial ones I see hanging next to cash
registers everywhere. Even the official looking "surgical masks" say
"not medical equipment" right on the box.
If you think you are stopping an infectious disease, shouldn't there
be some standard of the equipment you use or do you just want to look
like you are doing something even if it is "counter productive"
according to the Duke study.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...sciadv.abd3083

As for now, I do wear my face shield when I am in places that want me
to but I am not fooling myself that I am doing anything but placating
the brown shirt mask nazis.

Bull****. One is designed to keep the bad stuff out, the other is designed to
keep the bad stuff in. Wake the **** up.

I'm beginning to think you're in expert in everything but common sense.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!