Covid layoff affecting the lifestyle

[AndrewandAnn 360]

12 hours ago, njbm said:

I don’t understand the hatred by people for the covid vax. I am sure these people are vaccinated for polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc.  

 

Well, I guess I do understand. 

Well, one thing I've learned over the years about honest, beneficial communication is this:

 

If one is genuinely interested in understanding other peoples' opinions concerning any subject, one wants to carefully consider how one frames the discussion. If one begins with the conclusion that someone who disagrees with them must be stupid and uninformed, it's pretty hard to find any common ground. 

 

What I do not understand is the need some people have to demonize someone for having a different opinion. Look at what is happening with Aaron Rodgers, someone who is neither stupid nor a danger to society. He simply has an opinion about the vaccine that is different than my own. And, according to what I've read concerning his statements about his position, he is quite well informed about the vaccine--probably more so than most people who have taken it.

 

While Ann and I have both gladly received the COVID-19 vaccine (and getting the booster on Friday), and we likewise support and encourage people to get vaccinated, we do understand that people have some reasonable grounds to be wary of it--particularly for children and young adults.

 

Lastly, I think we all should keep in mind that nobody has yet to "corner the market" on what is True or Untrue concerning all things related to COVID-19, and that especially includes politicians and politically and/or personally motivated government agency bureaucrats. The brief history of their responses to this pandemic is filled with more inaccuracies, half-truths, falsehoods, contradictions, and inconsistencies than we can keep track of. 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by AndrewandAnn

[AndrewandAnn 360]

16 hours ago, ToeDippers said:

Lunacy is posting over and over again with the same points. 
I wear seat belts, I don’t smoke in theaters and restaurants, I stand for the National Anthem, take my hat off, don’t drink on the beach, stay within the speed limit, don’t drink and drive, all these infringements on my rights are for the benefit of all. My father said that people were annoyed when they were made to wear seatbelts, I was annoyed when I was told I couldn’t drive and text or talk on my cell. 
I get flu shots every year because the goal posts change location every year, so what if I need a booster as science learns how this virus mutates or the find out if the potency wanes over time. 
Ok you can go back to your rants that are convincing nobody. Just preach to your choir and be happy. 

As the old saying goes: A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.

 

Personally, I appreciate reading the opinions of others and the process of debate and cross examination, so long as it is grounded in both logical thought and avoids personal attacks.

 

Concerning the other point you are trying to make, you are jumbling together things that are not related to the subject at hand. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Wearing a seat belt; not driving while intoxicated; not driving while distracted. These are things you do to keep enjoying that privilege.

 

I think most free-thinking Americans understand everyone has the legal right to determine what medical treatments they will follow, or not follow; what medicines they will take or not take; what things they will inject into their body or not. The crux of the issue is whether they should lose their livelihoods for their decisions.

 

These vaccine mandates, for instance, make no room for someone who has natural immunity. This is contrary to objective medical science. Should someone lose their livelihood due to an arbitrary rule that is contradictory to objective medical science? I certainly do not think so. I'm quite certain accommodations for these folks could be worked out.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

18 hours ago, MrMrsswinger said:

My point about the booster shot recommendation was, as someone said since my post, was that the goal posts are moving. This will never end. San Francisco is requiring 5 year olds to have vaccine cards to eat at restaurants!?!? You've got to be kidding me. This is the insanity that I just can't grasp. A higher percentage of children die from the flu every year than Covid. Why isn't there a mandatory flu vaccination for children?

 

And as for 'what's wrong with the recommending the immunocompromised get boosters'....nothing, if that's where it ended. How many NBA players are immunocompromised?  NBA to players, coaches, refs: Booster shots are recommended | NBA.com   There are no goal posts any longer.

 

So if you live in California, do you need a booster every six months to remain "fully vaccinated" so you can continue enjoying the freedom to eat at a restaurant?  

 

A buddy of mine told me Austin TX canceled their President's Day parade for the second year in a row due to Covid. This year it was canceled because the organizers stated there was no way to check everyone's vax card who attends the outdoor parade! 

 

Lunacy.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Certain political and business (so-called) leaders have taken steps that long ago reached the absurd. They are not following science. They are following the political mob and trying to show just how virtuous they are with these insane rules. And, in the process, show how unvirtuous the opposition is.

 

Thanks to the genius of our forefathers in establishing a federation of states, we get to chose where we live, and that decision has a great impact on how we live.

 

It boggles my mind, for instance, that people still think it is sensible to mask school age children and young adults when masks have universally been proven to be both ineffective and unnecessary. Millions of Americans have tuned into sporting events and watched tens of thousands of people, all standing shoulder to shoulder for hours on end, without a mask in sight. If going mask-less actually increased the incidence of COVID-19, these would be "super spreader" events. They aren't. All the "doomsday" predictions from the CDC and Dr. Fauci never materialized.

 

Do you think that fact has caused them to change their recommendations? Lol... zero chance. And that fact tells us this is being driven more by politics than science.

 

 

[NerdsAreFun 229]

I just look at countries specifically in Asia with a strong mask culture and see how they have had much, much better results despite having higher population density to see the value of masks.  As well as to the opinion of the toxicologist in the family.

Edited November 9, 2021 by NerdsAreFun

[njbm 2,901]

38 minutes ago, NerdsAreFun said:

I just look at countries specifically in Asia with a strong mask culture and see how they have had much, much better results despite having higher population density to see the value of masks.  As well as to the opinion of the toxicologist in the family.

Come on, you are using math and science for guidance? Just ask Joe Rogan what to do. 

[AndrewandAnn 360]

2 hours ago, NerdsAreFun said:

I just look at countries specifically in Asia with a strong mask culture and see how they have had much, much better results despite having higher population density to see the value of masks.  As well as to the opinion of the toxicologist in the family.

With respect to the toxicologist in the family, as scientists, we should be on alert to the danger of engaging in the fallacy of attempting to link two things together without any proof of cause and effect. It's an easy trap to fall into, and I have been guilty of it myself on far too many occasions. So, I'm not singling you out.

 

This question of, Why certain Asian countries handled the pandemic better than the West? has been studied in detail. Scientists conclude there are many reasons. For starters, many Asian countries have far more experience with handling pandemics. Prior pandemics--including SARS, H1N1, and MERS--lead them to create the healthcare infrastructure to do what the United States could not.

 

What scientists often credit as the biggest reason is due to the practice of contact tracing, something the United States didn't even attempt on a meaningful basis. In South Korea, for example, when a patient is discovered to have COVID-19, government healthcare workers quarantine the patient and then proceed to track down everyone who had contact with the patient over the prior two-week period of time. Those people are then tested and quarantined as necessary.

 

To ignore all the above and suggest "wearing masks" was the game changer simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. 

 

In fact, back in the US, the evidence points in the opposite direction: States that imposed the most stringent social distancing and mask wearing mandates suffered as bad, or worse, than the states that did not. If wearing masks and practicing other social distancing standards actually worked, perhaps you can offer a scientific explanation for this obvious contradiction? I'm fascinated to know how a scientific minded person can explain it away?

 

I don't mean that facetiously. I am genuinely interested to read the rationale. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by AndrewandAnn

[lovefest04 701]

21 hours ago, ToeDippers said:

I get flu shots every year because the goal posts change location every year, so what if I need a booster as science learns how this virus mutates or the find out if the potency wanes over time. 

The flu vaccine is developed each year based on a 'prediction' of the strain that scientists think will be circulating. They get this wrong most of the time and in fact the flu vaccine is only about 40% effective. There are new studies that show you're actually much better off skipping a year rather than getting a flu vaccine every year.

 

I don't nor have I ever had a flu vaccine. No need. Feel free, but you can't force me.

 

The COVID vaccines have a host of other problems. The spike protein is bad for the human body. If we get one then two and then boosters each year (actually every 6 months as the effectiveness wanes in as little as 6 months) we are adding a poison on top of poison. That won't end well. So, I support everyone right to get the vaccine as often as they like, but I deserve the right to choose not to vaccinate as well. mRNA is a gene therapy, not a vaccine and I like my genes the way 1000's of years of natural evolution have influenced them.

 

And I will not be bullied into getting the shot so I can protect others. It's simply BS. You get your shot, your protected from me. End of story.

[NerdsAreFun 229]

25 minutes ago, AndrewandAnn said:

With respect to the toxicologist in the family, as scientists, we should be on alert to the danger of engaging in the fallacy of attempting to link two things together without any proof of cause and effect. It's an easy trap to fall into, and I have been guilty of it myself on far too many occasions. So, I'm not singling you out.

 

This question of, Why certain Asian countries handled the pandemic better than the West? has been studied in detail. Scientists conclude there are many reasons. For starters, many Asian countries have far more experience with handling pandemics. Prior pandemics--including SARS, H1N1, and MERS--lead them to create the healthcare infrastructure to do what the United States could not.

 

What scientists often credit as the biggest reason is due to the practice of contact tracing, something the United States didn't even attempt on a meaningful basis. In South Korea, for example, when a patient is discovered to have COVID-19, government healthcare workers quarantine the patient and then proceed to track down everyone who had contact with the patient over the prior two-week period of time. Those people are then tested and quarantined as necessary.

 

To ignore all the above and suggest "wearing masks" was the game changer simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. 

 

In fact, back in the US, the evidence points in the opposite direction: States that imposed the most stringent social distancing and mask wearing mandates suffered as bad, or worse, than the states that did not. If wearing masks and practicing other social distancing standards actually worked, perhaps you can offer a scientific explanation for this obvious contradiction? I'm fascinated to know how a scientific minded person can explain it away?

 

I don't mean that facetiously. I am genuinely interested to read the rationale. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, many reasons.  Masks are one of them.  Even if they only reduce transmission 10%, that is huge at scale.

Living in WA state when it broke out and was one of the first states to detect it.  With a dense population on the western part of the state with tons of international travel and shipping with China.  Should have been a hot spot right?  Yet it and Oregon in a similar situation rank near the bottom of deaths and cases per million of population.  They had strict masking  and wide compliance.

North Dakota with wide open spaces, much reduced travel, and little to no masking and other measures taken is the worst at cases per million.  Mississippi worst at deaths per million.

[enhancer 1,586]

MRNA does not combine with your DNA and change your genetic code.  Just thought that I would mention that to the do your research people.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

26 minutes ago, lovefest04 said:

And I will not be bullied into getting the shot so I can protect others. It's simply BS. You get your shot, your protected from me. End of story.

On this point, I must wholeheartedly agree.

 

People have been brainwashed into thinking they are "saving humanity!" by getting vaccinated. The truth is far different.

 

Originally, it was thought the vaccine was going to make one largely immune from ever getting COVID-19 or spreading  COVID-19. And, at first, it appeared this was correct.

 

Then, as most virologists expected, the virus mutated and the Delta variant emerged. We started to see so-called "breakthrough" cases. We learned "fully vaccinated" people were getting COVID-19. And they were spreading COVID-19.

 

While these "breakthrough" cases seemed to be extremely rare at first, today we know they are actually far more common than originally thought and growing more common every day. According to NBC's local Boston television news station, there have been 40,000 (!) documented breakthrough cases of COVID-19 in the city as of early October. And in Los Angeles, one in five--that's 20%--of all COVID-19 cases are in patients who have been fully vaccinated. 

 

So, here's what we know about the vaccine TODAY: The vaccine does not prevent you from getting COVID-19. The vaccine does not prevent you from spreading COVID-19. The vaccine will simply mitigate the symptoms of the disease in you. 

 

In fact, one of the most notable medical minds on this subject, Dr. Amesh Adalja, a Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, predicts everyone---E V E R Y  O N E--is going to get COVID-19 sooner or later, regardless of their vaccine status. Un-vaxed, partially vaxed, fully vaxed, fully vaxed plus booster vaxed? Doesn't matter. Eventually, you'll get it and you'll spread it to someone else. Read more here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10018683/Experts-believe-number-Covid-breakthrough-cases-INCREASE-coming-months.html

[AndrewandAnn 360]

1 hour ago, NerdsAreFun said:

Yes, many reasons.  Masks are one of them.  Even if they only reduce transmission 10%, that is huge at scale.

Living in WA state when it broke out and was one of the first states to detect it.  With a dense population on the western part of the state with tons of international travel and shipping with China.  Should have been a hot spot right?  Yet it and Oregon in a similar situation rank near the bottom of deaths and cases per million of population.  They had strict masking  and wide compliance.

North Dakota with wide open spaces, much reduced travel, and little to no masking and other measures taken is the worst at cases per million.  Mississippi worst at deaths per million.

Florida: No mask mandates. Little social distancing. Infection rate of roughly 2%

 

California: Continuous mask mandates. Continuous social distancing. Infection rate of roughly 2%

 

New York: Continuous mask mandates. Continuous social distancing. Infection rate roughly 2%

 

Shall I go on?

 

Washington state's results are an anomaly. If we saw the same/similar results in California and New York as we did in Washington, you'd have some ground to stand on. But, we don't.

 

There are more than 50 million people living in California and New York. If masks mandates worked, we'd see a meaningful difference between them and, say, Florida and Texas, two states with a similar combined population. But we don't. We see similar rates of infection between all four states, in spite of having vastly different approaches to mask mandates and social distancing.

 

Objectively speaking, there is no large scale statistical evidence to be made for the effectiveness of mask mandates or social distancing requirements. These measures simply have not produced results that demonstrate widespread, repeatable efficacy.

 

L

Edited November 9, 2021 by AndrewandAnn

[NerdsAreFun 229]

4 minutes ago, AndrewandAnn said:

Florida: No mask mandates. Little social distancing. Infection rate of roughly 2%

 

California: Continuous mask mandates. Continuous social distancing. Infection rate of roughly 2%

 

New York: Continuous mask mandates. Continuous social distancing. Infection rate roughly 2%

 

Shall I go on?

 

Washington state's results are an anomaly. If we saw the same/similar results in California and New York as we did in Washington, you'd have some ground to stand on. But, we don't.

 

There are more than 50 million people living in California and New York. If masks mandates worked, we'd see a meaningful difference between them and, say, Florida and Texas, two states with a similar combined population. But we don't. We see similar rates of infection between all four states, in spite of having vastly different approaches to mask mandates and social distancing.

 

Objectively speaking, there is no large scale statistical evidence to be made for the effectiveness of mask mandates or social distancing requirements. These measures simply have not produced results that demonstrate widespread, repeatable efficacy.

 

Don't confuse mandates with compliance with said mandates.  WA/OR had high compliance.  I won't disagree with you that mandates have not worked here with our in built rebel streak.  But that doesn't mean masks don't work at all.

Edited November 9, 2021 by NerdsAreFun

[AndrewandAnn 360]

1 minute ago, NerdsAreFun said:

 

Don't confuse mandates with compliance with said mandates.  WA/OR had high compliance.  I won't disagree with you that mandates have not worked here with our in built rebel streak.  But that doesn't mean masks don't work at all.

Lol? Are you suggesting New York City didn't follow mask mandates or social distancing requirements? About nine million New Yorkers would have a pretty serious disagreement with you. New York City was a virtual police state contrasted against Miami or Tampa.

 

If masks and social distancing was meaningfully effective, these two states would have greatly different results. They don't.

[NerdsAreFun 229]

18 minutes ago, AndrewandAnn said:

Lol? Are you suggesting New York City didn't follow mask mandates or social distancing requirements? About nine million New Yorkers would have a pretty serious disagreement with you. New York City was a virtual police state contrasted against Miami or Tampa.

 

If masks and social distancing was meaningfully effective, these two states would have greatly different results. They don't.

Don't they?

 

NYC had 134,142 cases/1M  https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=%2Fm%2F02_286&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Miami had 248,030/1M   https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=%2Fm%2F0jhy9&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

 

NYC population density is 27,000/sq mile

Miami has 13,000/sq mile

 

Miami had roughly twice the infections per million despite being less than half as dense.  And with more outdoor activities and sun shine at that.

 

There were noted spikes in NY following the return of spring breakers from FL.

Edited November 9, 2021 by NerdsAreFun

[AndrewandAnn 360]

16 hours ago, NerdsAreFun said:

Don't they?

 

NYC had 134,142 cases/1M  https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=%2Fm%2F02_286&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Miami had 248,030/1M   https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=%2Fm%2F0jhy9&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

 

NYC population density is 27,000/sq mile

Miami has 13,000/sq mile

 

Miami had roughly twice the infections per million despite being less than half as dense.  And with more outdoor activities and sun shine at that.

 

There were noted spikes in NY following the return of spring breakers from FL.

No, they don't. And cherry picking a couple of stats that were measurements of moments in time does not tell the story.

 

Looking at the pandemic in its entirety, here are what the stats tell us:

 

New York and Florida have similar population sizes, roughly 19.5 million and 21.5 million respectively. If New York's aggressive mask mandates and social distancing policies were effective, we would expect the number of deaths to be far lower in New York than in Florida, right? Let's check the math:

 

In TOTAL, thus far New York has recorded 56,500 deaths attributed to COVID-19.

 

In TOTAL, thus far Florida has recorded 60,418 deaths attributed to COVID-19.

 

Uh-oh. It seems, in spite of these two states having wildly different approaches to how they managed the pandemic, their respective rate of deaths per capita for the entirety of the pandemic are nearly identical. Actually, if we want to be entirely precise, Florida, given its larger population, has experienced a lower rate of deaths per capita than New York.

 

What does that tell us? It tells us New York's masks, social distancing, long-term shut downs, and other heavy handed tactics, were simply ineffective.

 

Of course, there is far more to the story: New York's extreme measures came with severe economic, lifestyle, health, and other consequences. New York is in terrible shape and is experiencing what has been described as an economic catastrophe. Tens of thousands of businesses, big and small, have been driven into bankruptcy. The NYC real estate market has collapsed. And New York, like California, is experiencing a net population loss of both people and businesses.

 

Now, contrast New York against Florida. Economically, Florida is in remarkably good shape. Thanks the governor's far different approach, the economic impact of COVID-19 was largely mitigated. The avoidance of large scale, lengthy shut downs allowed Florida's economy to rebound quickly, thereby erasing much of the pandemic's initial impact. Florida's real estate market is experiencing one of it's biggest booms in history. And, most tellingly, Florida continues to experience net population growth. In fact, Florida one of the two fastest growing states in the union.

 

Science is the pursuit of objective truth. It demands the facts lead us to logical conclusions. No logical person can look at the data and conclude mask mandates, social distancing, long-term shut downs, and other such measures, produced any kind of appreciable differences in outcomes when measured on a large scale over the entirety of the pandemic. 

 

And when we measure the impacts these policies made on people's financial lives, one can logically conclude they only served to exacerbate the negative effects of the pandemic. New York and California are Exhibits A and B.

 

If you're interested:

 

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/new-york

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/florida

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/NY,FL/PST045219

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/25/realestate/nyc-real-estate-market.html

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by AndrewandAnn

[NerdsAreFun 229]

I contrasted Miami and NYC...as you requested.  You're not being consistent.  You cling to a NY and FL comparison but dismiss WA/OR as anomalies.  Why is NY not the anomaly?

 

Also you mention CA but their death rate was significantly better.

FL's death rate is 2,813/1M.  CA's is 1,847/1M

FL's case rate is #8 at 172,738/1M.  CA's is #41 at 122,951/1M

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

NY's(137,837) case numbers per million are significantly better than FL(172,738) too.  But the death rate is slightly higher(2,949 vs 2,813).  Spread was reduced but deaths were not.  Wonder how much of that is attributed to sticking infected people in nursing homes and other actions.  There's certainly more than just the one variable of mask mandates at play.  Though having a lower case rate/1M despite having a higher population density actually makes NY an argument in favor of masks as well.

 

You also dismiss the results out of Asia because they have applied lessons learned about prior pandemics...one of those lessons was masks.

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

 

Whether there was a mandate or not is largely irrelevant to the discussion on effectiveness of masks.  What matters is how much compliance there was.  In no state did we achieve the 90%+ found in Asian countries.  Especially not within the first 60 days when they are most effective.

Mask adherence and rate of COVID-19 across the United States

 

The US response was among the worst in the world.  We never had a real lockdown period.  With not enough voluntary compliance on masking/social distancing and no enforcement mechanism for mandates we took half-hearted measures and got predictable results.  We did not learn our lessons of prior pandemics, including masking in 1918.

Mask Resistance During a Pandemic Isn’t New – in 1918 Many Americans Were ‘Slackers’

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by NerdsAreFun

[NerdsAreFun 229]

How many NY snowbirds regularly travel between NY and FL?  Significant enough that each state had a quarantine of each other.  But no real enforcement.

[lovefest04 701]

1 hour ago, NerdsAreFun said:

You also dismiss the results out of Asia because they have applied lessons learned about prior pandemics...one of those lessons was masks.

From you study.   "Overall, direct evidence of the efficacy of mask use is supportive, but inconclusive. Since there are no RCTs, only one observational trial, and unclear evidence from other respiratory illnesses, we will need to look at a wider body of evidence."

 

This is the big issue. We are not creating policy based on data and good scientific evidence, but rather hypotheses, projections and wishful thinking.

 

If we are going to inject children with an unproven chemical that we now know, although many of us knew this months ago, will not stop the spread of the virus, will not infer long lasting immunity, does not protect a person from getting sick and has a potential for greater harm we better have specific, repeatable, solid evidence of its safety and effectiveness. Opps.

 

There is this issue about vaccines reducing the spread. There is no evidence nor do the vaccine makers claim that vaccination will reduce the spread. They claimed that the 'vaccine' would reduce server illness and death. That's it. But America somehow believes that vaccines reduce spread. To the point of calling unvaccinated neighbors killers.

 

This was part of the messaging but not part of the science of the rollout. This was clearly manipulation designed to divide people into two camps and pit them against each other to increase vaccination rates while suppressing any discussion of treatment that wasn't a 'vaccine'. I wonder how many healthy people under the age of 50 would have gotten the vaccine had they known that it would not prevent illness or spread.

 

If the messaging had simple said: If you get COVID those that are vaccinates may experience reduced symptoms. The limited studies available have also shown that those who are vaccinated may reduce the possibility of death. People age 65 plus with comorbidities are at the most risk of server illness and death. We know that the total death rate is 1-2% and is highly skewed to those age 65 plus. As of November 10 2021, of the 756,962 total deaths 707,430 deaths are attributed to those ages 50 plus. Which means that based on the number of cases in those 49 years old and younger ( approximately 25,630,000 or 67% of all cases) the chances of death are .15% or to put it another way, there is a 99.9984% survival rate for people under the age of 50 years old not accounting for medial history or possible comorbidity.  We do not expect case counts to be directly affected by vaccination, although there are folks that hypothesize there may be a benefit.  We know this is a highly communicable virus, but even large case counts don't don't translate into high death rates for healthy individuals under the age of 50.

 

Now go get your shots, prepare to get boosters for the rest of your life and don't forget your children. after all why shouldn't they be injected with an experimental drug that to this day we don't know all the ingredients.

 

What i hope everyone realizes whether they are pro vaccine or not is that social media, highly concentrated print and conventional media when combined with a dismissive attitude to those that don't agree can have a massive impact on policy and behavior.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-underestimate-covid-risks-while-democrats-exaggerate-them/ar-BB1eJuQd

 

And there is literally massive amounts of mis-information being published, some of it is caught and corrected, lots not.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/york-times-retracts-massive-exaggeration-163906675.html

 

Best to all, stay healthy and as I've said before don't force your opinions or medical treatments on others and we'll all get along just fine.

 

S

[AndrewandAnn 360]

21 hours ago, NerdsAreFun said:

I contrasted Miami and NYC...as you requested.  You're not being consistent.  You cling to a NY and FL comparison but dismiss WA/OR as anomalies.  Why is NY not the anomaly?

 

Also you mention CA but their death rate was significantly better.

FL's death rate is 2,813/1M.  CA's is 1,847/1M

FL's case rate is #8 at 172,738/1M.  CA's is #41 at 122,951/1M

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

NY's(137,837) case numbers per million are significantly better than FL(172,738) too.  But the death rate is slightly higher(2,949 vs 2,813).  Spread was reduced but deaths were not.  Wonder how much of that is attributed to sticking infected people in nursing homes and other actions.  There's certainly more than just the one variable of mask mandates at play.  Though having a lower case rate/1M despite having a higher population density actually makes NY an argument in favor of masks as well.

 

You also dismiss the results out of Asia because they have applied lessons learned about prior pandemics...one of those lessons was masks.

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

 

Whether there was a mandate or not is largely irrelevant to the discussion on effectiveness of masks.  What matters is how much compliance there was.  In no state did we achieve the 90%+ found in Asian countries.  Especially not within the first 60 days when they are most effective.

Mask adherence and rate of COVID-19 across the United States

 

The US response was among the worst in the world.  We never had a real lockdown period.  With not enough voluntary compliance on masking/social distancing and no enforcement mechanism for mandates we took half-hearted measures and got predictable results.  We did not learn our lessons of prior pandemics, including masking in 1918.

Mask Resistance During a Pandemic Isn’t New – in 1918 Many Americans Were ‘Slackers’

 

Let's begin by stating the obvious:

 

If mask mandates and social distancing requirements actually worked, we would see this conclusively repeated in the large scale data. We don't. The large scale data points in the opposite direction. Examining the results (thus far) of all 50 states, we see the rates of infection are fairly consistent, regardless of whether, or not, a state imposed mask mandates and social distancing requirements:

 

Split the states into two groups of twenty-five. Separate the groups by listing the states with the most onerous COVID-19 restrictions on one side, and the states with the most lax restrictions on the other side. Then compare and contrast the data points of states of similar sizes. Know what you'll find? They all look pretty much the same.

 

How can this be? If mask mandates and social distancing requirements were effective, we would expect half the states to have extremely low rates of infections and deaths per capita, and the other half to have extremely high rates of infections and deaths per capita. But, we don't see that. What we see is the opposite. And the larger the sample size, the more similar it all looks.

 

We can see this playing out in the four largest states: California, Texas, Florida, and New York; states that, in total, account for nearly 100 million people, roughly one third of the entire population of the US. All have experienced infection rates per capita, and rates of death per capita, that fall well within the expected standard deviation.

 

Why not focus only on Washington and Oregon? Because they are only two states and have a total population of only 11 million people. The US is a country of 50 states and 300 million people. As statistical samples, Washington and Oregon are, quite obviously, not representative of the whole. They are, statistically speaking, outliers. Anyone with a basic understanding of statistical analysis understands never to draw broad conclusions on small samples that do not repeat themselves.

 

If what happened in Washington and Oregon was repeated in the other states that imposed similar mask mandates and social distancing requirements, then we could start to draw some linkage. But, we don't see that. We see exactly the opposite. The data tells us that, in total, states that issued the most extreme measures had about the same overall results as those states that imposed more moderate restrictions or hardly any.

 

That brings us to today: Are you surprised to learn the states with the highest seven-day moving averages of daily new infections are some of the very states with the most strict masking and social distancing mandates? These states are, in descending order, Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, and New York. Florida, in contrast, and in spite of being the third most populous state, isn't even in the top ten.

 

The evidence is clear to anyone with an objective mind: Mask mandates, social distancing/isolation requirements, shut downs, etc. have not altered the results of the pandemic in any large scale way. Worse, these measures have resulted in widespread human suffering and trillions (twelve zeros) of dollars in direct and indirect economic damages.

[lovefest04 701]

I want to express my deepest thanks to everyone that has engaged in this conversation. It is not very exciting, certainly not about penis size, gang bangs etc. But it has been very useful for me to hear others opinions and data points.

 

Thank you all for participating. I know it's difficult.

 

S

[NerdsAreFun 229]

8 hours ago, AndrewandAnn said:

The evidence is clear to anyone with an objective mind: Mask mandates, social distancing/isolation requirements, shut downs, etc. have not altered the results of the pandemic in any large scale way. Worse, these measures have resulted in widespread human suffering and trillions (twelve zeros) of dollars in direct and indirect economic damages.

Agreed mandates are meaningless.  What matters is compliance with said mandates.  What's special about WA/OR?  They're popular states for introverts to live in who don't care to see other people's faces anyway and are just fine being homebodies for months on end when the fall/winter/spring rains hit.  If we could have just had everyone actually lock down for 2 weeks 2 years ago we wouldn't be talking about this at all.

 

There have been studies on mask effectiveness.  They do reduce transmission.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

The question now is largely just how do we get to the 90%+ masking rate of Asian countries, contract tracing, quarantining, etc for the next pandemic.  Or will we continue not to learn?

[AndrewandAnn 360]

3 minutes ago, NerdsAreFun said:

Agreed mandates are meaningless.  What matters is compliance with said mandates.  What's special about WA/OR?  They're popular states for introverts to live in who don't care to see other people's faces anyway and are just fine being homebodies for months on end when the fall/winter/spring rains hit.  If we could have just had everyone actually lock down for 2 weeks 2 years ago we wouldn't be talking about this at all.

 

There have been studies on mask effectiveness.  They do reduce transmission.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

The question now is largely just how do we get to the 90%+ masking rate of Asian countries, contract tracing, quarantining, etc for the next pandemic.  Or will we continue not to learn?

LOL!

 

I hear you 🙂

 

Not everybody in the Sunshine State is particularly sunshiny, let me assure you 😉

 

Regarding the effectiveness of masks versus COVID-19, I am afraid the data is not conclusive. This was a topic discussed ad nauseam in a prior thread. You can search it.

 

Concerning future pandemics, I am afraid the US will not learn. Why? There is no political advantage to learn. The pandemic is just another wedge issue to be exploited and manipulated to the advantage of one party over the other. Nobody is particularly interested in doing any kind of fact-based assessments or After Action Reports to honestly, dispassionately, and objectively, review what worked, what didn't, and what we should do differently in the future.

 

I'm not being pessimistic. I'm being realistic. Look at our 20 years in Afghanistan. The path we followed was as if Vietnam had never happened.