Virus hospitalizations hit two-month high in Iowa
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Meanwhile, masks and distancing obliterated influenza this past year
www.hsph.harvard.edu
A sharp drop in flu cases during COVID-19 pandemic
Precautions taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, including wearing masks and distancing, are likely the major reason for a steep decline of flu cases in the U.S., according to experts. The Centers…
Right. No one immunosuppressed comes to the ED. All the cancer and HIV patients just go to urgent care when complications arise. Or to their regular oncologist/hematologist/ID specialist since problems always predictably arise only from 9a-5p.
You truly are an idiot.
Last edited:
Coorelation is not necessarily causation (I've already parroted that mantra), but you cant even show coorelation that masks do work.
I dont know what your definition of "ignore" is. You talk out of both sides of your mouth so frequenlty and you dont hold the same logic throughout your statements, so I want to be very clear; do you think mask mandates extend to private residences?
Fixing a cut on someone immunocompromised isn't performing the work their oncologist, or PCP does.
Good Lord.
In your understanding; do mask mandates extend to private residences?
Simple question; just reply 'yes' or 'no'
One link was concerning flu numbers, and if ive learned anything the past year; covid ≠ flu, so that one I did ignore (i.e. did not read).
The other one, assuming you're referring to the Jama Network: Who were the peers that reviewed it? And is that considered a study? I see reference to it being an article, but not a study. Regardless, the "proof" in that article is doing the same thing you rejected as proof masks dont work. That is, "self-reported" mask wearing, "estimates", and no mention of potential other variables among the observed population. Its literally a compilation of what you've spent the last 3 pages trying to discredit. By your own standards, you would have to disqualify it if you are being intellectually consistent.
Last edited:
When you are at home with the same people you normally live with, no. Masks are not required.
When someone NOT in your core group (party, housekeeper, etc) is there, then masks SHOULD be required.
Now, this isn't terribly pertinent at this point, because infection rates in communities are dropping; but when positivity rates and infections are high, then anyone you do NOT usually associate with should have been masking up along with you, if they were in your house.
This is literally how plumbers, HVAC guys, realtors, etc have all been working during 2020.
And it's precisely why mask mandates didn't work in many areas: people ignored them and threw superspreader parties.
"And it's precisely why mask mandates didn't work in many areas: people ignored them and threw superspreader parties."
You don't know that. You're just making it up to justify why the mask mandates weren't effective.
You don't know that. You're just making it up to justify why the mask mandates weren't effective.
Then you should be calling out your buddy, posting a diarrhea of links that say the same thing.
Yeah. I do know that.
It's been reported by multiple news and other sources. I've linked several.
You quite literally watched one occur in the WH Rose Garden.
Here's Forbes, on rich folks throwing parties. Superspreader events.
Who do you suppose works at those parties as servers and bartenders? Rich friends? Or poor minorities....??
Celebrities And Rich Neighborhoods Won’t Stop Hosting Massive Mansion Parties
Police are busting massive mansion parties, thought to be "super-spreader" events, on a near-daily basis.www.forbes.com
Actually, event planners can't find bartenders because nearly all of them are declining work and living off the rona unemployment.
Sigh, lets try this again. 1 word answer. In your understanding; do mask mandates extend to private residences?
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
www.cdc.gov
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
We talked to UCSF epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.
I already explained to you, that it depends on the circumstances.
You want a one-size-fits-all answer, which simply does not exist.
Theyre not my buddies, nor did I read those links. Stop playing "whatabout-ism"
Nope, you didn't listen and went on a random diatribe.
Its a very easy question. No tricks, not a "gotcha".
In your understanding, do mask mandates extend into private residences? Yes or no?
So im guessing you dont know who the peers who reviewed that article are either? No comment on the compilation of "cherry picked" situations that werent conducted in a controlled environment? (i.e. the very same type of data you were railing against?)Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
We talked to UCSF epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.www.ucsf.edu
It is literally a "gotcha". That's what the whole "binary all-or-none" line of questioning is about.
#FalseDilemmaFallacy
Why wont you clearly and concisely answer this very simple question?
Clearly I read it if I know all it is, is an article summarizing a handful of "cherry picked" situations and not peered reveiwed nor a true study since it didnt isolate the variables (and if thats incorrect, please feel free to show me otherwise). Why can't you aknowledge its the same logic you agrued against using for several pages (remember the ice cream vs crime debacle of an analogy?) - just 180 degrees opposite position?
Since you refuse to answer, ill answer for you: The answer is 'no, of course mandates do not apply to private residences'. Now, since that has been established, and you have also aknowledged the bulk (I would love to put a number to 'bulk' if you happen to have it) of transmissions come in a private setting, coupled with our agreement that the only thing that works is the vaccine, we have come full circle and seem to agree that the mandates were not needed, not useful and more harmful than not. I dont understand why that was so difficult.
Joe you have a gross underestimation of the work we do.
These patients come in septic. They come in neutropenic. They come in with electrolyte abnormalities from chemo. They come in for nausea vomiting related to chemo. They come in for acute neurologic dysfunction related to spinal/brain masses. They come in for intractable pain. They come in for encephalomenigitis from opportunistic organisms. They come in for GI, oral and bladder issues from chemo and radiation.
Am I ordering chemo? No. Do I manage these patients after hours? Hell yes. And not for 'a cut'. I work in an urban ED with multiple heme/onc offices within walking distance. Get over yourself.
Last edited:
And your job is to stabilize them, and send them on their way.
Wrong. I’m not gonna have this discussion with you. You have no idea what I do and I have no reason to justify it to you.
I’ll let you get back to ‘owning’ the internet now.
Last edited:
Could've guessed when your own logic was turned back on you, you couldn't come up with a decent rebuttal. We'll consider this debate over. Mask mandates: ineffective.
LOL
That one stung, didn't it?
I understand the important role ER docs play in healthcare, but lets not be over-stating our contributions to "cancer care" here.
If you don't understand the logical fallacy, I cannot help you on this.
I've now linked 4 independent sources on masks and their effectiveness. Learning about the topic is where the ball is in your court.
Once again you're an idiot. If you would read what I wrote instead of making your own narrative, this study IMPORES the medical community to think about covid as an airborne virus and NOT a virus through droplets, which is the WHOLE basis of using a mask and covered by your stupid ass mannequin studies. As the study suggests, if it's airborne, masks are useless.I'll choose:
It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
We appeal to the medical community and to the relevant national and international bodies to recognize the potential for airborne spread of coronavirus disease 2academic.oup.com
All this is informing you, is that masks won't be effective when viral buildup in poorly ventilated rooms overcomes their ability to effectively filter anything. N95s would work in that case.
This is literally why occupancy limits AND masks were the recommendation.
This article says NOTHING about mask effectiveness in other, normal use.
EDIT: THEY EVEN STATE THIS IN YOUR LINK
This problem is especially acute in indoor or enclosed environments, particularly those that are crowded and have inadequate ventilation [17] relative to the number of occupants and extended exposure periods (as graphically depicted in Figure 1).
"We are concerned that the lack of recognition of the risk of airborne transmission of COVID-19 and the lack of clear recommendations on the control measures against the airborne virus will have significant consequences: people may think that they are fully protected by adhering to the current recommendations, but in fact, additional airborne interventions are needed for further reduction of infection risk." AKA MASKS SPED!
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
Locally Produced Cloth Face Mask and COVID-19 Like Illness Prevention - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
Locally Produced Cloth Face Mask and COVID-19 Like Illness Prevention - Full Text View.clinicaltrials.gov
This study was initiated and apparently never completed. Likely, because they cannot get enough compliance and tracking of covariables (i.e. actual behavior) to identify any signal, whatsoever.
This is a study that didn't need >9 months to finish.
There is no data to report here. Ergo, your link is worthless.
And this post is a debunking of itself because you didn't do shit to debunk ANYTHING. You just once again tried to move the goalpost and change the conversation because you don't have the ability to stay on the topic at hand. The links that were posted prove you and the pro-mask mafia are a bunch of uninformed idiots holding onto hope a face diaper will protect you from an airborne virus. Good news is, the more the public sees things like the Rangers stadium full, Super Bowl, UFC full events and people not dying because they aren't wearing masks, the more buffoons such as yourself will be seen as the real anti-science people.
No it didn’t. I’ve simply grown weary of your shtick and while I’m inclined by my nature to stand up for the work we do in EM I don’t know why I should to you. You’re nobody.
And this is precisely why masks won't work in crowded indoor environments w/o adequate ventilation.
But when used in close outdoor, and well ventilated indoor, they cut one of the two main modes of transmission by a lot. Droplets.
No one has argued they are 100% effective. And the reasons for your growth charts are people not using them properly, and in appropriate environments. My links indicate that, if you'd read them.
