| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Vaccinate
|
Vaccinate
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. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
Vaccinate
On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. |
Vaccinate
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. I was at the "Nurse" today. I have never seen my doctor in 3 years. At any rate she had an interesting factoid. Medicare providers, including Advantage providers get gigged by the insurance company carrying your Gap or Advantage policy if they don't show you getting a flu shot. If they get gigged often enough for various "infractions" they are not renewed. That may be why your PCP pushes the shot. I dunno, she may be misstating this but I did ask her to say it again because it surprised me. Same with Shingles and Pneumonia shots. That may be why drug stores want to know who your PCP is, so they can punch the ticket for them. |
Vaccinate
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
Vaccinate
On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. |
Vaccinate
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. We get the flu shot every year. Is not totally effective, but flu can kill you. I get the shot, even though an uncle died from the flu shot. He was one of those who got Guillain Barre syndrome. |
Vaccinate
Justan wrote:
On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. More like 60-80%, but can be as low as 40%. |
Vaccinate
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. It is usually higher than that but still not half. I just think antibodies are good and maybe the flu I get will be milder. I haven't really had anything like that since I retired tho and that was 25 years ago. I have been social distancing since then. I just didn't know it had a name. |
Vaccinate
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. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. Hey, 15% is better than 0%! I've been taking them pretty religiously, and have never, to my knowledge, had the flu. Here's some interesting reading (note that there is no mention of a flu shot being dangerous): How effective is the flu vaccine in the elderly? In numerous studies since 2010, flu vaccines have helped protect adults 65 years of age and older against influenza A(H1N1) viruses and both lineages of influenza B viruses. Specifically, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of medically attended illness caused by H1N1 or B by more than 60% on average among people age65 and older (1). Flu vaccines also have reduced the risk of flu hospitalization among adults age 65 and older by 54% against A(H1N1) viruses and by 31% against influenza B viruses on average (2). However, protection against influenza A(H3N2) flu viruses has been less consistent. On average, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of doctor visits with A(H3N2) flu by 24% and reduced the risk of hospitalization with A(H3N2) flu by 33% in adults age 65 and older (1,2). During seasons when the H3N2 vaccine component has been like (well-matched to) the flu viruses circulating in the community, the benefit from flu vaccination has been higher. During these seasons, flu vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalizations with A(H3N2) flu by 43% on average (2). But when the vaccine component was less similar to viruses in the community, the protection has dropped to 14% (2). If older people have weaker immune responses to flu vaccination, should they still get vaccinated? Despite the fact that some older adults (65 years of age and older) have weaker immune responses to the influenza A (H3N2) component of flu vaccines, there are many reasons why people in that age group should be vaccinated each year. First, people aged 65 and older are at increased risk of serious illness, hospitalization and death from the flu. Second, while the effectiveness of flu vaccines can be lower among some older people (particularly against influenza A(H3N2) viruses), there are seasons when significant benefit can be observed (this is particularly true against influenza A(H1N1) and influenza B viruses). Third, flu vaccine may protect against more serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. For example, one studyexternal icon concluded that one death was prevented for every 4,000 people vaccinated against flu (1). Flu vaccination has been shown in several studies to reduce severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick. In frail elderly adults, hospitalizations can mark the beginning of a significant decline in overall health and mobility, potentially resulting in loss of the ability to live independently or to complete basic activities of daily living. While the protection elderly adults obtain from flu vaccination can vary significantly, a yearly flu vaccination is still the best protection currently available against flu. Fourth, it’s important to remember that people who are 65 and older are a diverse group and often are different from one another in terms of their overall health, level of activity and mobility, and behavior when it comes to seeking medical care. This group includes people who are healthy and active and have responsive immune systems, as well as those who have underlying medical conditions that may weaken their immune system and their bodies’ ability to respond to vaccination. Therefore, when evaluating the benefits of flu vaccination, it is important to look at a broader picture than what one study’s findings can present. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-wor...fectiveelderly -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
John wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. Hey, 15% is better than 0%! I've been taking them pretty religiously, and have never, to my knowledge, had the flu. Here's some interesting reading (note that there is no mention of a flu shot being dangerous): How effective is the flu vaccine in the elderly? In numerous studies since 2010, flu vaccines have helped protect adults 65 years of age and older against influenza A(H1N1) viruses and both lineages of influenza B viruses. Specifically, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of medically attended illness caused by H1N1 or B by more than 60% on average among people age65 and older (1). Flu vaccines also have reduced the risk of flu hospitalization among adults age 65 and older by 54% against A(H1N1) viruses and by 31% against influenza B viruses on average (2). However, protection against influenza A(H3N2) flu viruses has been less consistent. On average, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of doctor visits with A(H3N2) flu by 24% and reduced the risk of hospitalization with A(H3N2) flu by 33% in adults age 65 and older (1,2). During seasons when the H3N2 vaccine component has been like (well-matched to) the flu viruses circulating in the community, the benefit from flu vaccination has been higher. During these seasons, flu vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalizations with A(H3N2) flu by 43% on average (2). But when the vaccine component was less similar to viruses in the community, the protection has dropped to 14% (2). If older people have weaker immune responses to flu vaccination, should they still get vaccinated? Despite the fact that some older adults (65 years of age and older) have weaker immune responses to the influenza A (H3N2) component of flu vaccines, there are many reasons why people in that age group should be vaccinated each year. First, people aged 65 and older are at increased risk of serious illness, hospitalization and death from the flu. Second, while the effectiveness of flu vaccines can be lower among some older people (particularly against influenza A(H3N2) viruses), there are seasons when significant benefit can be observed (this is particularly true against influenza A(H1N1) and influenza B viruses). Third, flu vaccine may protect against more serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. For example, one studyexternal icon concluded that one death was prevented for every 4,000 people vaccinated against flu (1). Flu vaccination has been shown in several studies to reduce severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick. In frail elderly adults, hospitalizations can mark the beginning of a significant decline in overall health and mobility, potentially resulting in loss of the ability to live independently or to complete basic activities of daily living. While the protection elderly adults obtain from flu vaccination can vary significantly, a yearly flu vaccination is still the best protection currently available against flu. Fourth, itÂ’s important to remember that people who are 65 and older are a diverse group and often are different from one another in terms of their overall health, level of activity and mobility, and behavior when it comes to seeking medical care. This group includes people who are healthy and active and have responsive immune systems, as well as those who have underlying medical conditions that may weaken their immune system and their bodiesÂ’ ability to respond to vaccination. Therefore, when evaluating the benefits of flu vaccination, it is important to look at a broader picture than what one studyÂ’s findings can present. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-wor...fectiveelderly -- Freedom Isn't Free! https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/co...-syndrome.html |
Vaccinate
On 8/19/20 9:46 AM, Bill wrote:
Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. More like 60-80%, but can be as low as 40%. I dont like those odds either. I'll wait till they are done practicing and really get their heads in the game. |
Vaccinate
On 8/19/20 10:18 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. It is usually higher than that but still not half. I just think antibodies are good and maybe the flu I get will be milder. I haven't really had anything like that since I retired tho and that was 25 years ago. I have been social distancing since then. I just didn't know it had a name. Recluse? |
Vaccinate
On 8/19/20 11:09 AM, John wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. Hey, 15% is better than 0%! I've been taking them pretty religiously, and have never, to my knowledge, had the flu. Here's some interesting reading (note that there is no mention of a flu shot being dangerous): How effective is the flu vaccine in the elderly? In numerous studies since 2010, flu vaccines have helped protect adults 65 years of age and older against influenza A(H1N1) viruses and both lineages of influenza B viruses. Specifically, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of medically attended illness caused by H1N1 or B by more than 60% on average among people age65 and older (1). Flu vaccines also have reduced the risk of flu hospitalization among adults age 65 and older by 54% against A(H1N1) viruses and by 31% against influenza B viruses on average (2). However, protection against influenza A(H3N2) flu viruses has been less consistent. On average, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of doctor visits with A(H3N2) flu by 24% and reduced the risk of hospitalization with A(H3N2) flu by 33% in adults age 65 and older (1,2). During seasons when the H3N2 vaccine component has been like (well-matched to) the flu viruses circulating in the community, the benefit from flu vaccination has been higher. During these seasons, flu vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalizations with A(H3N2) flu by 43% on average (2). But when the vaccine component was less similar to viruses in the community, the protection has dropped to 14% (2). If older people have weaker immune responses to flu vaccination, should they still get vaccinated? Despite the fact that some older adults (65 years of age and older) have weaker immune responses to the influenza A (H3N2) component of flu vaccines, there are many reasons why people in that age group should be vaccinated each year. First, people aged 65 and older are at increased risk of serious illness, hospitalization and death from the flu. Second, while the effectiveness of flu vaccines can be lower among some older people (particularly against influenza A(H3N2) viruses), there are seasons when significant benefit can be observed (this is particularly true against influenza A(H1N1) and influenza B viruses). Third, flu vaccine may protect against more serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. For example, one studyexternal icon concluded that one death was prevented for every 4,000 people vaccinated against flu (1). Flu vaccination has been shown in several studies to reduce severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick. In frail elderly adults, hospitalizations can mark the beginning of a significant decline in overall health and mobility, potentially resulting in loss of the ability to live independently or to complete basic activities of daily living. While the protection elderly adults obtain from flu vaccination can vary significantly, a yearly flu vaccination is still the best protection currently available against flu. Fourth, it’s important to remember that people who are 65 and older are a diverse group and often are different from one another in terms of their overall health, level of activity and mobility, and behavior when it comes to seeking medical care. This group includes people who are healthy and active and have responsive immune systems, as well as those who have underlying medical conditions that may weaken their immune system and their bodies’ ability to respond to vaccination. Therefore, when evaluating the benefits of flu vaccination, it is important to look at a broader picture than what one study’s findings can present. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-wor...fectiveelderly -- Freedom Isn't Free! Good article. But I'm still left wondering if I'm better off not getting the shot. I dont even like getting blood drawn for routine labs. |
Vaccinate
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/19/20 9:46 AM, Bill wrote: Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. More like 60-80%, but can be as low as 40%. I dont like those odds either. I'll wait till they are done practicing and really get their heads in the game. They've been working on the flu vaccines for about 80 years. They're probably not going to get much better! -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 18:34:02 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: John wrote: On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. Hey, 15% is better than 0%! I've been taking them pretty religiously, and have never, to my knowledge, had the flu. Here's some interesting reading (note that there is no mention of a flu shot being dangerous): How effective is the flu vaccine in the elderly? In numerous studies since 2010, flu vaccines have helped protect adults 65 years of age and older against influenza A(H1N1) viruses and both lineages of influenza B viruses. Specifically, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of medically attended illness caused by H1N1 or B by more than 60% on average among people age65 and older (1). Flu vaccines also have reduced the risk of flu hospitalization among adults age 65 and older by 54% against A(H1N1) viruses and by 31% against influenza B viruses on average (2). However, protection against influenza A(H3N2) flu viruses has been less consistent. On average, flu vaccines have reduced the risk of doctor visits with A(H3N2) flu by 24% and reduced the risk of hospitalization with A(H3N2) flu by 33% in adults age 65 and older (1,2). During seasons when the H3N2 vaccine component has been like (well-matched to) the flu viruses circulating in the community, the benefit from flu vaccination has been higher. During these seasons, flu vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalizations with A(H3N2) flu by 43% on average (2). But when the vaccine component was less similar to viruses in the community, the protection has dropped to 14% (2). If older people have weaker immune responses to flu vaccination, should they still get vaccinated? Despite the fact that some older adults (65 years of age and older) have weaker immune responses to the influenza A (H3N2) component of flu vaccines, there are many reasons why people in that age group should be vaccinated each year. First, people aged 65 and older are at increased risk of serious illness, hospitalization and death from the flu. Second, while the effectiveness of flu vaccines can be lower among some older people (particularly against influenza A(H3N2) viruses), there are seasons when significant benefit can be observed (this is particularly true against influenza A(H1N1) and influenza B viruses). Third, flu vaccine may protect against more serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. For example, one studyexternal icon concluded that one death was prevented for every 4,000 people vaccinated against flu (1). Flu vaccination has been shown in several studies to reduce severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick. In frail elderly adults, hospitalizations can mark the beginning of a significant decline in overall health and mobility, potentially resulting in loss of the ability to live independently or to complete basic activities of daily living. While the protection elderly adults obtain from flu vaccination can vary significantly, a yearly flu vaccination is still the best protection currently available against flu. Fourth, it?s important to remember that people who are 65 and older are a diverse group and often are different from one another in terms of their overall health, level of activity and mobility, and behavior when it comes to seeking medical care. This group includes people who are healthy and active and have responsive immune systems, as well as those who have underlying medical conditions that may weaken their immune system and their bodies? ability to respond to vaccination. Therefore, when evaluating the benefits of flu vaccination, it is important to look at a broader picture than what one study?s findings can present. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-wor...fectiveelderly -- Freedom Isn't Free! https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/co...-syndrome.html From your site: "There have been several studies of the risk of GBS after flu vaccine and CDC monitors for GBS during each flu season. The data on an association between seasonal influenza vaccine and GBS have been variable from season-to-season. When there has been an increased risk, it has consistently been in the range of 1-2 additional GBS cases per million flu vaccine doses administered. (Note those odds!) Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with flu, and getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/19/20 9:46 AM, Bill wrote: Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. More like 60-80%, but can be as low as 40%. I dont like those odds either. I'll wait till they are done practicing and really get their heads in the game. The odds that the vaccine will hurt you are very, very slim. From Bill's article, about 1 or 2 per million vaccinations. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
John wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/19/20 9:46 AM, Bill wrote: Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. More like 60-80%, but can be as low as 40%. I dont like those odds either. I'll wait till they are done practicing and really get their heads in the game. The odds that the vaccine will hurt you are very, very slim. From Bill's article, about 1 or 2 per million vaccinations. -- Freedom Isn't Free! My uncle hit the lottery on the vaccine, I guess. |
Vaccinate
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". |
Vaccinate
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/19/20 9:46 AM, Bill wrote: Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. More like 60-80%, but can be as low as 40%. I dont like those odds either. I'll wait till they are done practicing and really get their heads in the game. That is impossible with a virus that mutates or is an entirely different virus from year to year. "Flu" is a catch all term for a range of viruses. |
Vaccinate
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:07:23 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:
On 8/19/20 10:18 AM, wrote: On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote: On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, 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. I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with. === I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy. I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I dont like those odds. It is usually higher than that but still not half. I just think antibodies are good and maybe the flu I get will be milder. I haven't really had anything like that since I retired tho and that was 25 years ago. I have been social distancing since then. I just didn't know it had a name. Recluse? Just never had a reason to be in a crowd like that. I have a pretty close circle of friends. Other than that. I did the same things I do now. I even go to the same stores. |
Vaccinate
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. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
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." |
Vaccinate
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. 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. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
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/ |
Vaccinate
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. |
Vaccinate
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! |
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! |
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. 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. |
Vaccinate
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. |
Vaccinate
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! |
Vaccinate
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 ;-) |
Vaccinate
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! |
Vaccinate
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. |
Vaccinate
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:14:38 -0400, John wrote:
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. Say that again in any possible way that makes sense. The only mask that does that is an N-95 with the check valve. (filters incoming, exhausts outgoing with little restriction) The rest are two way with no real preference on direction. If the germs soak through your cloth mask via moisture, you are creating aerosols every time you exhale. |
Vaccinate
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:38:46 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:14:38 -0400, John wrote: 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. Say that again in any possible way that makes sense. The only mask that does that is an N-95 with the check valve. (filters incoming, exhausts outgoing with little restriction) The rest are two way with no real preference on direction. If the germs soak through your cloth mask via moisture, you are creating aerosols every time you exhale. Again, one, the N-95, is designed to keep bad stuff out. The other, cloth mask, is designed to keep bad stuff in. Simple. I hope you're just being argumentative, and that you really understand the concept. Otherwise I'll consider you very, very dense. So don't wear your cloth mask when it's wet with your germs. Jees, Greg! Use just an iota of common sense. Done with you. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Vaccinate
On 8/23/20 5:39 PM, John wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:38:46 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:14:38 -0400, John wrote: 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. Say that again in any possible way that makes sense. The only mask that does that is an N-95 with the check valve. (filters incoming, exhausts outgoing with little restriction) The rest are two way with no real preference on direction. If the germs soak through your cloth mask via moisture, you are creating aerosols every time you exhale. Again, one, the N-95, is designed to keep bad stuff out. The other, cloth mask, is designed to keep bad stuff in. Simple. I hope you're just being argumentative, and that you really understand the concept. Otherwise I'll consider you very, very dense. So don't wear your cloth mask when it's wet with your germs. Jees, Greg! Use just an iota of common sense. Done with you. -- Freedom Isn't Free! Bout time! |
Vaccinate
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 19:39:29 -0400, John wrote:
So don't wear your cloth mask when it's wet with your germs. Jees, Greg! Use just an iota of common sense. I am not. I have a lexan face shield that doesn't retain moisture because "wet" will be a fact of life with a cloth mask in the sub tropics. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com