Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccinate
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! |