ADVERTISEMENT

Virus hospitalizations hit two-month high in Iowa

And how did I figure you'd be an idiot once again?? But shocker, YOU are!!! This link along with the two other links is to DISPROVE your stupid talking point about RCT's not able to be conducted during covid/pandemic. The other two are being conducted and NOWHERE in the link does it say the study is NOT active. Ergo you're a dumbass

When it's completed and results are published, you can talk about it.

Presently, it appears to be defunct, as it's practically a year old w/o any results to report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD
I'll take that bet.
Appears the cdc proved me wrong. Even though they punted to the businesses.

im hoping they follow the cdc as much as i was thinking they would wait until the cdc gave a % vax rate.

but i said i would base it off the cdc recommendations. Message me and we will squre the bet up
 
Appears the cdc proved me wrong. Even though they punted to the businesses.

im hoping they follow the cdc as much as i was thinking they would wait until the cdc gave a % vax rate.

but i said i would base it off the cdc recommendations. Message me and we will squre the bet up

@dirtypool is a man of his word. I'll have to give him a chance to run it back sometime in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirtypool
This thread, as so many of ciggybot's threads do, didn't age well. Iowa's hospitalizations are down to 151. 7-day average of new cases down to 299. 7-day death average at two. And the CDC says we dont need masks anymore. The sky has truly fallen for the fear mongers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crafty Beaver
Scientific publications!!! I've posted this for Joe about 3 times, the REAL scientific publications that he likes to ignore and use his "mannequin" studies and his wonderful cherry picked time frame Kansas mask study as the definitive that masks work. I'm sure he's never read through ANY of these nor has he ever come up with rebuttal evidence of his own outside of what I said above which is horseshit science. Keep up the good work, Joe!!

The fact is there are NO RCT studies on mask that show a benefit recorded. EVER! What I’ve linked is not all of them. The systematic reviews I link later have done that work and come to the same conclusion. THIS IS SCIENCE! Why should we use RCT? This link will explain https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889858805703099

RCT on Masks

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”

HOLY SHIT AN RCT STUDY ON MASKS SHOWING IT’S HARMFUL! PRO-MASKERS IT CAN’T BE!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228345/

“The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory‐confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh‐risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients. “

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/

▸ There is growing advocacy for the use of masks in the community to prevent transmission of viral respiratory infections. This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might prevent viral respiratory infections.

▸ The use of masks by a group in the community setting appears to reduce influenzalike illness in those wearing masks. The pooled analysis showed a significant risk reduction (number needed to treat [NNT] = 24). Using masks within a family 1 to 3 days after someone has developed symptoms of a viral respiratory infection does not appear to prevent transmission to family members, no matter if the masks are used by the sick individual, the healthy family members, or both.

https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-6817

Yes, the Danish study. You may think it’s flawed, but I WASN’T IN CHARGE OF THE STUDY. It’s still the only RCT study published to date on covid, regardless of what you think about it. And just because the authors bow to pressure to say they recommend masks, THEIR CONCLUSION DOESN’T SAY THAT!

“However, WHO acknowledges that we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2 (prevention)”

“In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance

How SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted—via respiratory droplets, aerosols, or (to a lesser extent) fomites—is not firmly established. Droplets are larger and rapidly fall to the ground, whereas aerosols are smaller (≤5 μm) and may evaporate and remain in the air for hours (39). Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 may take place through multiple routes. It has been argued that for the primary route of SARS-CoV-2 spread—that is, via droplets—face masks would be considered effective, whereas masks would not be effective against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask (37, 39). Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings. Lack of eye protection may also have been of importance, and use of face shields also covering the eyes (rather than face masks only) has been advocated to halt the conjunctival route of transmission (40, 41). We observed no statistically significant interaction between wearers and nonwearers of eyeglasses (Supplement Figure 2). Recent reports indicate that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via fomites is unusual (42), but masks may alter behavior and potentially affect fomite transmission.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ission_among_Australian_Hajj_Pilgrims_in_2011

“Based on developing syndromic ILI, less contacts became symptomatic in the ‘mask’ tents compared to the ‘control’ tents (31% versus 53%, p= 0.04). However, laboratory results did not show any difference between the two groups. This pilot study shows that a large trial to assess the effectiveness of facemasks use at Hajj is feasible

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029744#s3

“Masks alone did not provide a benefit, suggesting that single personal protective interventions do not protect against incidence of ILI or influenza. However, it is possible that either lack of power to detect small effects from mask use alone or that the amount of time masks were worn was not sufficient alone to provide a reduction in illness. Our timely findings regarding the efficacy of masks and hand hygiene highlight the significance of examining their impact on influenza infection within community settings.”

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00142

“We report the largest study to date of the efficacy of facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza virus transmission in households. Overall, the interventions did not lead to statistically significant reductions in household transmission, although we did observe statistically significant reductions where interventions were applied early after symptom onset in the index patient.”

This study did masks AND hand hygiene together. They were never separated in the control.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/

” We concluded that household use of masks is associated with low adherence and is ineffective in controlling seasonal ILI. If adherence were greater, mask use might reduce transmission during a severe influenza pandemic.” only 21% complied with mask use, compliance was low.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

“Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.”
Still reading through these @your_master5 . Interesting. Here are my issues (for lack of a better term).

- As a layman, how do I (general public) know who/what sources to trust? Personally? I've never heard of the 'BMJ Journals'. The information reads very compelling, looks "legit", BUT could just be some Russian owned URL for all I know. This is the upside/downside to sites like the CDC. The information there is supposed to be valid and reliable.

- If it turns out that cloth masks are a 100% placebo, then the current anti-mask folks (who haven't researched a single thing, but just scream and yell about personal freedom!!! get to simply say, "SEE! We toldja all dem masks wer fer nutt'n!" Do we really want to validate dip$hitery? Science must prevail or we'll never get past COVID.
 
Still reading through these @your_master5 . Interesting. Here are my issues (for lack of a better term).

- As a layman, how do I (general public) know who/what sources to trust? Personally? I've never heard of the 'BMJ Journals'. The information reads very compelling, looks "legit", BUT could just be some Russian owned URL for all I know. This is the upside/downside to sites like the CDC. The information there is supposed to be valid and reliable.

- If it turns out that cloth masks are a 100% placebo, then the current anti-mask folks (who haven't researched a single thing, but just scream and yell about personal freedom!!! get to simply say, "SEE! We toldja all dem masks wer fer nutt'n!" Do we really want to validate dip$hitery? Science must prevail or we'll never get past COVID.
There are a top 5 or 6 medical journals where scientist publish their findings:

NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Nature. Those are the trusted sites. The CDC and FDA are run by the government and have turned highly political.
 
Still reading through these @your_master5 . Interesting. Here are my issues (for lack of a better term).

- As a layman, how do I (general public) know who/what sources to trust? Personally? I've never heard of the 'BMJ Journals'. The information reads very compelling, looks "legit", BUT could just be some Russian owned URL for all I know. This is the upside/downside to sites like the CDC. The information there is supposed to be valid and reliable.

- If it turns out that cloth masks are a 100% placebo, then the current anti-mask folks (who haven't researched a single thing, but just scream and yell about personal freedom!!! get to simply say, "SEE! We toldja all dem masks wer fer nutt'n!" Do we really want to validate dip$hitery? Science must prevail or we'll never get past COVID.
“.....who haven't researched a single thing, but just scream and yell about personal freedom!!”

Of all the F.O.S. statements on hrot the last 18 months - and there have been LOTS of them - this one just might take the cake. Congrats!
 
- If it turns out that cloth masks are a 100% placebo, then the current anti-mask folks (who haven't researched a single thing, but just scream and yell about personal freedom!!! get to simply say, "SEE! We toldja all dem masks wer fer nutt'n!" Do we really want to validate dip$hitery? Science must prevail or we'll never get past COVID.

So, it turns out you just want masks to work for a very stupid reason, and don't care if they really do.
And, I think you have that statement backwards. It's the militant maskers that haven't done any research and want to ignore the science and data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
Hmmm, trust a newspaper whose goal it is to sell papers and advertising....

Or, the U of I Hospital itself and the Iowa Department of Public Health....

I guess I'll choose the official organizations who actually create and disseminate the data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
Iowa has always been slow on the death data. To my knowledge, the hospitalization numbers are fairly current.
 
Slow data is still real data.
No, it is not.

It is misleading "data"
. Just like Florida's deaths counts right now.

Compare Florida's deaths counts reported on 8/14 to what they just reported by 9/4, for that date (8/14).
bxk6xG0.png


Does this curve look at all like this curve?

34.6 vs 237.6
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk
Well, you would certainly know about misleading data. I'll give you that.
It seems to be your specialty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
This site also shows them increasing, perhaps leveling off, but definitely NOT decreasing


FWIW, it is this site which shows Florida's large/bulk data drops on the day they occur, such as the 56,000 new case backlog dumped yesterday.
 
Umm, the chart in the first link shows hospitalizations on the rise or at least stagnant. I don't see a decline but I can't zoom in to get more info.

They literally updated the webpage in the time since I made my initial post.
 
Well, no. The data is still the same whether it was from last week or this week, and doesn't matter much to any of us.
If it doesn't matter much (in your opinion) why did you rush here to tell us it was on the decline?

Btw, before they loaded the new data, it still showed a rise in hospitalizations. So I'm honestly not sure what you were looking at there.
 
If it doesn't matter much (in your opinion) why did you rush here to tell us it was on the decline?

Btw, before they loaded the new data, it still showed a rise in hospitalizations. So I'm honestly not sure what you were looking at there.

Overall hospitalizations and ICU patients were down. I shared it because the only news that is typically shared is when it goes up. That generates multiple page threads. But, when data is shared that cases decline, it is typically ignored.
 
If it doesn't matter much (in your opinion) why did you rush here to tell us it was on the decline?

Btw, before they loaded the new data, it still showed a rise in hospitalizations. So I'm honestly not sure what you were looking at there.

He simply denies anything that goes against Kimmie's narrative.
Continually puts in laughing 'likes' to dead children posts, which is odd. But those all count as "likes" for me, so what-evs.
 
Overall hospitalizations and ICU patients were down. I shared it because the only news that is typically shared is when it goes up. That generates multiple page threads. But, when data is shared that cases decline, it is typically ignored.
I hope cases and hospitilizations go down but you said it doesn't matter. Also, I literally looked at that page this morning and everything was trending up. So either you don't know how to read a graph, I don't know how to read a graph, or they are constantly changing that shit.

Im with you on sharing any good news and I appreciate the intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
COVID-19 hospitalizations in Iowa increased to 235 Thursday, up from 219 the day before and the highest that number has been in more than two months.


It was Feb. 20 when COVID-19 hospitalizations were at 238 in Iowa.


The number of patients in intensive care also increased from 54 to 56, and the number of patients on ventilators increased from 20 to 24.


NEW CASES

The state on Thursday also reported 497 new virus cases.


The new numbers bring the state’s total cases to 361,811 since March 2020, according to the Iowa Department of Public Health.


Iowa’s seven-day average for new cases was 448.


Of Thursday’s new cases, 110 were in individuals up to age 18, bringing the total number of minors who have been infected with the virus to 42,430.


Linn County added 29 cases in the 24-hour period ending at 11 a.m. Thursday. The new cases bring the county’s total to 20,414. Linn’s seven-day average for new cases is 25.


In Johnson County, 32 new cases were reported, for a total of 14,186 since March 2020. The county’s seven-day average is 31.


VACCINATIONS

As of Thursday afternoon, 894,041 Iowans were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 — up more than 18,600 from Wednesday’s total. That’s 28.34 percent of all Iowans and 35.62 percent of adult Iowans (over age 16).


The total number of people vaccinated in the state, which includes non-Iowans, is 930,565.


As of Thursday, 2,141,871 doses of the vaccine have been administered in Iowa, up almost 31,000 from Wednesday’s total. Of those doses, 2,016,510 have gone to Iowans.


In Linn County, 69,035 people are fully vaccinated, up 1,658 from Wednesday. That’s 38.26 percent of the adult population and 30.45 percent of the county’s total population.


The number of vaccine doses administered in the county as of Thursday afternoon was 161,930, up almost 3,000 from Wednesday’s total.


In Johnson County, 54,064 people are fully vaccinated. That’s 43.49 percent of the county’s adult population and 35.77 percent of the total population. To date, 126,852 vaccine doses have been administered, up almost 1,500 from Wednesday’s total.


DEATHS

The five deaths reported Thursday took place between March 14 and April 3 and bring the state’s death toll to 5,904.


Of those deaths, one was of an individual over the age of 81, three were of individuals aged 61 to 80 and one was of an individual aged 18 to 40.


Pottawattamie County reported two of the deaths, with Calhoun, Dubuque and Kossuth counties reporting one death each.


LONG-TERM CARE

Only one outbreak — three or more cases — was reported in Iowa long-term care facilities on Thursday, with 18 individuals ill.


Since the start of the pandemic, 2,305 people within the facilities have died of the virus. That’s 39 percent of Iowa’s death toll.

I just fapped to this copy pasta fear porn.
 
Overall hospitalizations and ICU patients were down. I shared it because the only news that is typically shared is when it goes up. That generates multiple page threads. But, when data is shared that cases decline, it is typically ignored.
You stepped on your dick.... again. Lol.
 
I hope cases and hospitilizations go down but you said it doesn't matter. Also, I literally looked at that page this morning and everything was trending up. So either you don't know how to read a graph, I don't know how to read a graph, or they are constantly changing that shit.

Im with you on sharing any good news and I appreciate the intent.
That's because the data we are looking at was last updated yesterday, 9/7. It has not been updated today. pine caught again spreading misinformation.
 
That's because the data we are looking at was last updated yesterday, 9/7. It has not been updated today. pine caught again spreading misinformation.
I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but man is it hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
That's because the data we are looking at was last updated yesterday, 9/7. It has not been updated today. pine caught again spreading misinformation.
It’s data through (as of) 9/7, updated today. I can confirm it was updated today (midday) as I checked it this morning and it’s different now. Also, it literally says on the page the dashboard is updated M/W/F with a full site update on Wednesday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT