I’m looking forward to

[95coug]

Remember that Trump's comments to Woodward about the virus being airborne were on February 7. Now, unless you think the Donald was conducting the studies or compiling the data and evidence that lead to that comment, and that Fauci was completely excluded from whatever evidence, briefing, etc. where Trump learned that, and that information about how the virus was spread was deliberately withheld from Fauci, that a pretty inconvenient fact.

The 60 Minutes interview was from March 8 I believe. Fauci was lying.

Anything Trump says about what he knew/knows, or when he know it has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

The same can be said of the media, including (or especially) outlets like CNN, which has been riding the Woodward interview. CNN is saying Trump knew it was airborne, but that's not what he said. Trump said "it moves through the air." That's true of a lot of things - colds, flu, chickenpox, measles...in fact, just about any disease you can think of can be transmitted through the air. By common definition, that makes them airborne. But in epidemiology and infectious disease circles, the fact that a disease can be transmitted through the air does not make it airborne. The "airborne disease" designation is reserved for those diseases that are spread in small droplets, suspended in the air for long periods and over long distances. I have no doubt that Fauci was applying the infectious disease definition of airborne, while Trump was using the dictionary definition. Even now, there's mixed information on whether COVID is truly airborne...the official position seems to be mostly no - but that it can be under some circumstances.

So, there are multiple things at work. Fauci said it's not airborne based on information at the time - most of the studies out of China and early US/European ones showed it wasn't airborne based on the public health definition. Trump said it's spread through the air based on a lay/literal definition. Left-leaning, anti-Trump media has taken that and run with it, exaggerating what was said and what it means...and ignoring the disconnect between the lay definition and the public health one.

By May/June, some studies suggested potential airborne spread. Most of those have now been refined to show that droplet transmission in close proximity (2 meters, somewhat arbitrarily) to an infected person is the primary mode of spread, but that in poorly ventilated areas, or when large volumes of droplets are created (such as during intubation or some other medical procedures) then droplet transmission is possible outside of the 2 meter distance and/or separated by time.

So, still not a lie. Statement based on a specialized definition and on information available at the time. A lie would be a statement in spite of information available - something like...oh, I don't know - 'my inauguration was the biggest ever'. Or 'mail-in ballots have rampant fraud.'

 

[dgibbons]

Why did he "lie" about the mask? Yes -he didn't tell the truth about the mask. And moving numbers is not a lie.

Can you not read? It was known that the virus was airborne by February 7. A month later Fauci is telling people there was no need to wear masks. There was a PPE shortage and there was fear hospitals would run out. To be fair the Surgeon General, and I think CDC director if memory serves were in on it too.

Saying the level of vaccination needed to reach herd immunity was 70 percent. Then seeing polling data and bumping the number up to 90 percent is a lie. It's not based on science or data. The measles data has been around for years.

 

[dgibbons]

Anything Trump says about what he knew/knows, or when he know it has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

The same can be said of the media, including (or especially) outlets like CNN, which has been riding the Woodward interview. CNN is saying Trump knew it was airborne, but that's not what he said. Trump said "it moves through the air." That's true of a lot of things - colds, flu, chickenpox, measles...in fact, just about any disease you can think of can be transmitted through the air. By common definition, that makes them airborne. But in epidemiology and infectious disease circles, the fact that a disease can be transmitted through the air does not make it airborne. The "airborne disease" designation is reserved for those diseases that are spread in small droplets, suspended in the air for long periods and over long distances. I have no doubt that Fauci was applying the infectious disease definition of airborne, while Trump was using the dictionary definition. Even now, there's mixed information on whether COVID is truly airborne...the official position seems to be mostly no - but that it can be under some circumstances.

So, there are multiple things at work. Fauci said it's not airborne based on information at the time - most of the studies out of China and early US/European ones showed it wasn't airborne based on the public health definition. Trump said it's spread through the air based on a lay/literal definition. Left-leaning, anti-Trump media has taken that and run with it, exaggerating what was said and what it means...and ignoring the disconnect between the lay definition and the public health one.

By May/June, some studies suggested potential airborne spread. Most of those have now been refined to show that droplet transmission in close proximity (2 meters, somewhat arbitrarily) to an infected person is the primary mode of spread, but that in poorly ventilated areas, or when large volumes of droplets are created (such as during intubation or some other medical procedures) then droplet transmission is possible outside of the 2 meter distance and/or separated by time.

So, still not a lie. Statement based on a specialized definition and on information available at the time. A lie would be a statement in spite of information available - something like...oh, I don't know - 'my inauguration was the biggest ever'. Or 'mail-in ballots have rampant fraud.'

If they were waiting for studies, why did the mask recommendation happen on April 3? Fauci changed his mind pretty quick. BTW, that's the tell. Facui doesn't do anything quick.

I get that the dude looks like a friendly, wise old doctor, nice bedside manner, and everything. But he has no problem lying. That's not a left or right issue. Despite what adherents to identity politics may tell you.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

You first. That’s proper argumentation. Again, you’ve been teasing it for days. Cat got your tongue?

Your refusal to acknowledge that Fauci has repeatedly lied is very curious when it is clear that he has. So you rely on false equivalence. That’s not proper argumentation.

I post under my real name. So you can look up whether I’m running for federal office or not. Again, you may have missed it but Biden won the election. Why would I want to cozy up to the lame duck instead of the president elect?

d(newsmax)gibbons

"I post under my real name..." Now who doesn't get sarcasm...

Canada

Human rights in Canada - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.

Pay particular attention to the FREEDOMS and EQUALITY tabs. This also about Canada:

Human Rights in Canada | Canadian Human Rights Commission

www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca

.

Australia:

Human rights in Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.
Particularly the tab CILVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

And this summary:

Universal voting rights and rights to freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination are protected in Australia. The Australian colonies were among the first political entities in the world to grant male (1850s) and female suffrage (1890s). Contemporary Australia is a liberal democracy and heir to a large post-World War II multicultural program of immigration in which forms of racial discrimination have been prohibited.

Even Japan:

Human rights in Japan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.
The tab CIVIL LIBERTIES

Then there is this for fun, the Democracy Index complcompliled by the Economist Intelligence Unit in the UK where Canada is #7, Australia #9, Japan #24 and the uSA #25. (China ranks 153rd) The countries are ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 in five different categories that a reasonable person would agree reflect "openness"

The Economist Democracy Index - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Then there is this from Freedom House, an American organization founded in 1941 to promote freedom and democracy around the world and fight fascism. This is a convenient list of 210 countries scored on a scale of 100. Here Australia gets a 97, Canada a 98, Japan a 96, and we get an 86. For reference, China scored a 10

Countries and Territories

Freedom House rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report. Individual freedoms—ranging from the right to vote to freedom of expression and equality before the law—can be affected by state or...

freedomhouse.org

Now please go on to claim how this doesn't demonstrate anything towards our little argument. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

You seem to have it all figured out. Lock down forevah!

Been observing dgibbons take you to school and back on the law and Fauci.

Funny! Question...have you ever been to school? I mean a real one...

 

[dgibbons]

Funny! Question...have you ever been to school? I mean a real one...

I guess you don't consider Washington State University a real school. Sad.

 

[Observer11]

I guess you don't consider Washington State University a real school. Sad.

Class is still in session with instructor dgibbons

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I guess you don't consider Washington State University a real school. Sad.

Your turn to answer my questions!

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Class is still in session with instructor dgibbons

Idolatry. Yeah...makes sense. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[Coug90]

Class is still in session with instructor dgibbons

Who gets the handcuffs and who gets the whip?

 

[Observer11]

Idolatry. Yeah...makes sense. That's all I have to say about that.

What branch on the crazy tree are you going down now?

 

[dgibbons]

Who gets the handcuffs and who gets the whip?

Krusty has the ball gag.

 

[longtimecoug]

You've been teasing your erstwhile analysis for days. Post it.

You can refer back to my previous post for my answer. The short answer is that do you really want Fauci to have a hand in reopening policy? Besides the fact that his advice is limited to public health (not economics, law or anything else), he's clearly willing to lie.

are you seriously calling out Fauci for lying? Trump has been lying about this since day one

 

[dgibbons]

d(newsmax)gibbons

"I post under my real name..." Now who doesn't get sarcasm...

Canada

Human rights in Canada - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.

Pay particular attention to the FREEDOMS and EQUALITY tabs. This also about Canada:

Human Rights in Canada | Canadian Human Rights Commission

www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca

.

Australia:

Human rights in Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.
Particularly the tab CILVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

And this summary:

Universal voting rights and rights to freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination are protected in Australia. The Australian colonies were among the first political entities in the world to grant male (1850s) and female suffrage (1890s). Contemporary Australia is a liberal democracy and heir to a large post-World War II multicultural program of immigration in which forms of racial discrimination have been prohibited.

Even Japan:

Human rights in Japan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.
The tab CIVIL LIBERTIES

Then there is this for fun, the Democracy Index complcompliled by the Economist Intelligence Unit in the UK where Canada is #7, Australia #9, Japan #24 and the uSA #25. (China ranks 153rd) The countries are ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 in five different categories that a reasonable person would agree reflect "openness"

The Economist Democracy Index - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Then there is this from Freedom House, an American organization founded in 1941 to promote freedom and democracy around the world and fight fascism. This is a convenient list of 210 countries scored on a scale of 100. Here Australia gets a 97, Canada a 98, Japan a 96, and we get an 86. For reference, China scored a 10

Countries and Territories

Freedom House rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report. Individual freedoms—ranging from the right to vote to freedom of expression and equality before the law—can be affected by state or...

freedomhouse.org

Now please go on to claim how this doesn't demonstrate anything towards our little argument. That's all I have to say about that.

"In particular, focus on the government's ability to impose lockdowns, prohibit travel, impose contact tracing and forcibly quarantine people that are sick. If your research leads you to other issues, make sure to mention them as well."

That was from me back on page 2. I guess you decided to focus on other issues, rather than what was germane to the conversation.

I'm certainly glad to hear about suffrage. Did you know that North Korea has voting rights. It's true. There is one candidate on the ballot. Voting is mandatory and turn out is 100 percent. One hundred percent! That means no one is disenfranchised.

 

[dgibbons]

are you seriously calling out Fauci for lying? Trump has been lying about this since day one

Does that excuse the leading public health official, lauded by the media, for lying?

More to the point, do you believe that Fauci lied about masks and quarantine levels?

 

[Observer11]

Krusty has the ball gag.

We could only be so fortunate.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

"In particular, focus on the government's ability to impose lockdowns, prohibit travel, impose contact tracing and forcibly quarantine people that are sick. If your research leads you to other issues, make sure to mention them as well."

That was from me back on page 2. I guess you decided to focus on other issues, rather than what was germane to the conversation.

I'm certainly glad to hear about suffrage. Did you know that North Korea has voting rights. It's true. There is one candidate on the ballot. Voting is mandatory and turn out is 100 percent. One hundred percent! That means no one is disenfranchised.

d(newsmax)gibbons

Before we go down that road, let's clarify. Are you asking me to provide evidence that the federal government has the authority to do what you state in that paragraph from back on page 2? And if yes, and I can, would that mean that we can classify these "western democratic" countries and the US generally as either "closed" or "open" societies?

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Remember the first 3 months of this pandemic when this was supposedly a contact virus, and it was all about cleaning surfaces? When you couldn’t find paper towels, Clorox wipes, disinfectants, and hand sanitizer? That’s when most “experts” were saying masks were unnecessary for regular people. It was sometime after that 3 month mark that it started becoming clear that this was incorrect...and recommendations changed. At this point, we’re almost 180 degrees from that - cleaning surfaces is next to meaningless, and masks and distancing are our best tools.

I think early on, there must have been assumptions that this virus moved more like colds and flu, and masking wasn’t really necessary. As we learned more, it became apparent that it’s much more infectious, which changed those assumptions.

The fact that he was wrong does not mean he lied.

This is patently false.

Hard surface sanitation, especially in public places, is as important as ever. So is hand washing.

 

[dgibbons]

d(newsmax)gibbons

Before we go down that road, let's clarify. Are you asking me to provide evidence that the federal government has the authority to do what you state in that paragraph from back on page 2? And if yes, and I can, would that mean that we can classify these "western democratic" countries and the US generally as either "closed" or "open" societies?

You were going to cover that topic in your comparison of your hand picked "open societies" where the virus is not raging. Seemed pretty clear to me. And of course, let's note that the virus is raging in Europe and other "western democratic" countries. New strain coming out of the UK in case you hadn't heard.

 

[dgibbons]

This is patently false.

Hard surface sanitation, especially in public places, is as important as ever. So is hand washing.

And I keep wondering what this other "airborne" transmission of the virus supposedly was? The only other "through the air" way of spreading it would be what? Farts? Queefs?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

You were going to cover that topic in your comparison of your hand picked "open societies" where the virus is not raging. Seemed pretty clear to me. And of course, let's note that the virus is raging in Europe and other "western democratic" countries. New strain coming out of the UK in case you hadn't heard.

So...It that a "yes"? Let me make it more clear: if I provide evidence that the federal government has the authority to impose travel restrictions on US citizens, impose lockdowns, enforce quarantines, investigate transmission of communicable diseases, restrict travel between state's, impose fines for violating public health emergency declarations then you will agree that we can be rightly compared to Australia and Canada for how to effectively (or not in our case) control a highly contagious respiratory disease?

A simple yes or no will do. (And if not, why not) Your move mr. newsmax

 

[95coug]

This is patently false.

Hard surface sanitation, especially in public places, is as important as ever. So is hand washing.

Important as ever, sure. But not more important than ever. No need to have people roving around with bottles of sanitizer, wiping doorknobs after every use. No need to issue boxes of Clorox wipes for every employee to keep on their desk (especially since most of them don’t work against covid anyway).

 

[mikalalas]

are you seriously calling out Fauci for lying? Trump has been lying about this since day one

I'm calling them all out. Trump, Fauci, Inslee, etc.

They have all lied, and screwed up on, over covid.

And I dont trust Biden to do any better.

The Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and Cruz, Mitt Romney, etc, are only a couple, few, some, out of the couple, few, some, that I would trust to be more honest, and to be more civil, and to do a better job on, over Covid.

Too bad none of them are not going to have the chance.

 

[dgibbons]

So...It that a "yes"? Let me make it more clear: if I provide evidence that the federal government has the authority to impose travel restrictions on US citizens, impose lockdowns, enforce quarantines, investigate transmission of communicable diseases, restrict travel between state's, impose fines for violating public health emergency declarations then you will agree that we can be rightly compared to Australia and Canada for how to effectively (or not in our case) control a highly contagious respiratory disease?

A simple yes or no will do. (And if not, why not) Your move mr. newsmax

Let's see what you post. That was the reason you were going to do your little comparison to begin with. Asking me to agree to a self-fulfilling prophecy is not proper argumentation.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Important as ever, sure. But not more important than ever. No need to have people roving around with bottles of sanitizer, wiping doorknobs after every use. No need to issue boxes of Clorox wipes for every employee to keep on their desk (especially since most of them don’t work against covid anyway).

Again, you're wrong.

I work directly with this stuff, but feel free to take it up with the EPA and their kill claims for certain sanitizers.

I find this stance oddly cavalier from someone who falls on the side of "if we can save just one life, theres no measure too far."

 

[Wasichus]

And I keep wondering what this other "airborne" transmission of the virus supposedly was? The only other "through the air" way of spreading it would be what? Farts? Queefs?

I hesitate to get involved with this thread in any way, shape, or form. But, since I am a fool and idiot....I will add my perspective ONLY regarding this "airborne Transmission" aspect.

Initially, the airborne transmission was thought to be due to droplets produced by sneeze, cough, even loud shouting/singing, etc. Droplets are relatively large particles. They don't typically travel long distances. There's some debate still about whether a six foot radius is enough of a distance to avoid the droplet contamination. But that's a whole 'nother debate. And the six foot distance is what was settled on.

The mask question was initially about limiting the spread of droplets from contaminated individuals. I.e. - if those individuals were wearing a mask, they were much less likely to spread the virus when talking, singing, shouting, coughing, sneezing, etc. The question of whether or not a mask of sufficient quality (N95/KN95, other hospital grade respirators, etc) would protect the wearer was also a matter for debate.

That's a difficult question. Much depends on the fit of the mask, it's filtration capability, how long it's worn (they have limits and unfortunately, in early days they were being re-used over and over, or used for periods way past their effective limits because of scarcity), and other factors, like moisture contamination.

Currently, the feeling is, in continuing education I have taken and in articles, that yes, a properly fitted and sufficiently "rated" mask does provide SOME protection, but obviously not blanket protection.

Getting back to the airborne transmission and droplets, etc.

The droplets were thought to be responsible for surface contamination. There were reports of viability of virus on various surfaces for different amounts of time. What some of those initial reports were not mentioning was that, while the virus might remain live for an extended period of time, it's capacity for infection degraded fairly rapidly.

There are now numerous well respected studies and recommendations that are back to amplifying that the main, MAJOR source of infection is indeed airborne and that the surface contact route is actually negligible.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN RELAXING OF STANDARDS FOR HYGIENE, HAND WASHING, SURFACE DISINFECTION/DECONTAMINATION, ETC. It does mean that the vast majority of cases are from airborne transmission.

FINALLY, getting to dgib's question about "other airborne transmission".......

Remember, initially it was felt that droplet transmission was the mode? Droplets are fairly large, pretty well filtered by intact, well fitting masks that were not worn past the intended lifespan of the mask.

What is now known is that AEROSOL spread is also a significant mode of transmission. Originally it was thought that aerosolization of viral load was fairly rare, only in certain health care settings. But researchers have found this is not entirely the case. And they feel it is responsible for a significant number of cases. The problem with virus loads in aerosol is that the aerosol lingers in the air MUCH LONGER than droplets, it can travel MUCH FARTHER than droplets, and the particles are MUCH SMALLER than droplets.

So, that's likely the "other airborne transmission" that's talked about - droplet transmission and aerosol transmission. Both are airborne modes of transmission, but are different in many ways.

Note that this is not supposed to be a scholarly dissertation. Merely sharing some of what I have learned through current Continuing Education classes, professional journals/publications, DOH bulletins and my Washington State professional association newsletters/publications.

 

[mikalalas]

d(newsmax)gibbons

Before we go down that road, let's clarify. Are you asking me to provide evidence that the federal government has the authority to do what you state in that paragraph from back on page 2? And if yes, and I can, would that mean that we can classify these "western democratic" countries and the US generally as either "closed" or "open" societies?

USA Govt does have the right to impose lockdowns, quarantines, martial law, etc, on its own citizens, people, in the USA.

BUT, BUT.

1. There has to, should be a absolute need.

Take the movie OUTBREAK. There was a Ebola like virus outbreak in the USA, that threatened the USA, world. The threat was everyone in the USA, World, dying to the disease.

So the President and Congress, CDC, etc, MILITIARILY Locked Down, Quarantined, Imprisoned violators of quarantined, and shot them if necessary.

Now that was just a movie. But if that had happened, or if something like that did happen, it would be justified, and would be legal.

But contrast the movie, that happening with 17 million cases, and. 300k Dead, a 1.65% mortality rate with the FLU's 4 million cases, 50k dead, 1.35% mortality rate.

So should FLU then also be locked down for being bad?

Covid is bad. Its not nothing. But its not bad enough to justify seemingly draconian lockdowns, quarantines, etc.

2. Any Martial law, Lockdowns, quarantines, etc, cant be unilaterally declared, imposed by just a, the USA President, a States Governor, a County Commisioner, a Mayor, etc.

For those things to legally happen, be declared, enforced, they have to be RATIFIED, PASSED by CONGRESS, Senate, House, State Legislatures, City Councils, etc, by more then just a simple 51 to 49 majority. There must be either a big enough Majority, 2/3, etc.

FDR had to get Congresses permission.

And as you cited the earliest days of this country in the 1780's, 1790's, 1800's, the Presidents during those times, got permission from the congress.

And during those times, especially for FDR, there was LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION, to go with the LEGAL PERMISSION from congress, etc.

3. Inslee just unilaterally declared lockdown, rules, laws. They werent ratified by the WA State Legislature, Senate, House. The WA State Congress didnt pass those measures. Inslee didnt get PERMISSION.

And STILL hasnt.

And he has SELECTIVELY ENFORCED, letting rioters, protestors, etc, off tbe hook, while enforcing it on the rest of us.

And the same is true for the governor of CA.

He hasnt gotten permission either. He just does whatever he wants.

Also the Governor of Nevada, and the Mayor of Las Vegas.

They havent gotten permission and do whatever they want.

And they are being DISCRIMINATIVE.

They let thousands of gamblers gather shoulder to shoulder at the casino, but yet wont also let more then 50 gather at church, even tho tbey are using covid prevention protocols.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has pointed this out.

4. If the need was great enough. And didnt wrongly practice a 1 size fits all, and locked down seattle, while not locking down Lincoln County, And if Inslee were to get permission from WA State Congress, and if the COST wasnt so high. And if Inslee were to not hang onto control, etc, then I might probably support a lockdown, quarantine, IF that were the case.

But thats not the case.

Thats why what he Inslee is doing at minimum is not needed, and might probably be illegall, unconstitutional.

Also I fully supported the lockdown in New York, because it was needed.

I dont know if the Gov of New York got permission from the Congress, but if he did, then that would be more reason to support it.

Lockdowns, Quarantines, Martial Law, anything that takes away the freedoms, Liberties of the USA citizens, people, should be avoided, and ONLY DONE A A EXTREME ULTIMATE LAST RESORT, and had better be JUSTIFIED, and shoukd not be done unilaterally, and should be permissioned by the CONGRESS.

That's why that during the last 200+ years of our country, those extreme measures have only happened a extremely small number of times.

Like I said the Founding Fathers are rolling in the graves over this.

And Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch rightly agrees.

 

[mikalalas]

Again, you're wrong.

I work directly with this stuff, but feel free to take it up with the EPA and their kill claims for certain sanitizers.

I find this stance oddly cavalier from someone who falls on the side of "if we can save just one life, theres no measure too far."

I agree Bleed. There is a reason why the Church that I goto doesnt let anyone use drinking fountains, and cleans, sterilizes every touchable surface, before church, after church, and before, and after the wednesday youth activity meeting(less then 7 to 10 to 13, and only done once a month.)

That may seem extreme, but absolutly the Covid Virus can be spread by the Covid Virus being left on a common touchable surface like a sink/Faucet, doorknob, and then touched by another person who then now has the virus on their hands, and then touches their nose, eyes, face, mouth, and then go on to then get sick with the Virus.

That is why Hospital's, Clinics, Nursing Homes, and even some but not all businesses sterilize.

Its why there is hand sanitizer.

Its why people are told to use a paper towel to cover their hand, when, if they touch a sink/Faucet handle, doorknob, etc, and then to immediatly throw the paper towel away without touching the outside dirtied surface of the towel so as to not expose oneself.

I know this because I am a NAC(Nursing Assistant Certified)

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I hesitate to get involved with this thread in any way, shape, or form. But, since I am a fool and idiot....I will add my perspective ONLY regarding this "airborne Transmission" aspect.

Initially, the airborne transmission was thought to be due to droplets produced by sneeze, cough, even loud shouting/singing, etc. Droplets are relatively large particles. They don't typically travel long distances. There's some debate still about whether a six foot radius is enough of a distance to avoid the droplet contamination. But that's a whole 'nother debate. And the six foot distance is what was settled on.

The mask question was initially about limiting the spread of droplets from contaminated individuals. I.e. - if those individuals were wearing a mask, they were much less likely to spread the virus when talking, singing, shouting, coughing, sneezing, etc. The question of whether or not a mask of sufficient quality (N95/KN95, other hospital grade respirators, etc) would protect the wearer was also a matter for debate.

That's a difficult question. Much depends on the fit of the mask, it's filtration capability, how long it's worn (they have limits and unfortunately, in early days they were being re-used over and over, or used for periods way past their effective limits because of scarcity), and other factors, like moisture contamination.

Currently, the feeling is, in continuing education I have taken and in articles, that yes, a properly fitted and sufficiently "rated" mask does provide SOME protection, but obviously not blanket protection.

Getting back to the airborne transmission and droplets, etc.

The droplets were thought to be responsible for surface contamination. There were reports of viability of virus on various surfaces for different amounts of time. What some of those initial reports were not mentioning was that, while the virus might remain live for an extended period of time, it's capacity for infection degraded fairly rapidly.

There are now numerous well respected studies and recommendations that are back to amplifying that the main, MAJOR source of infection is indeed airborne and that the surface contact route is actually negligible.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN RELAXING OF STANDARDS FOR HYGIENE, HAND WASHING, SURFACE DISINFECTION/DECONTAMINATION, ETC. It does mean that the vast majority of cases are from airborne transmission.

FINALLY, getting to dgib's question about "other airborne transmission".......

Remember, initially it was felt that droplet transmission was the mode? Droplets are fairly large, pretty well filtered by intact, well fitting masks that were not worn past the intended lifespan of the mask.

What is now known is that AEROSOL spread is also a significant mode of transmission. Originally it was thought that aerosolization of viral load was fairly rare, only in certain health care settings. But researchers have found this is not entirely the case. And they feel it is responsible for a significant number of cases. The problem with virus loads in aerosol is that the aerosol lingers in the air MUCH LONGER than droplets, it can travel MUCH FARTHER than droplets, and the particles are MUCH SMALLER than droplets.

So, that's likely the "other airborne transmission" that's talked about - droplet transmission and aerosol transmission. Both are airborne modes of transmission, but are different in many ways.

Note that this is not supposed to be a scholarly dissertation. Merely sharing some of what I have learned through current Continuing Education classes, professional journals/publications, DOH bulletins and my Washington State professional association newsletters/publications.

TL;DR:
The entire thing has been a shitshow from the start with a continuously moving target.


My commentary:
The only real solution is a complete in-home lockdown w/ isolation, similar to what Japan and Korean have done, but no one in the country has the integrity or balls to say so - mostly because its not feasible due to the lack of infrastructure to do so. So we get panacea's in the form of "mask up! stay safe!" bullshit, which anyone with a functioning brain can see provides minimal if any protection against the latest spreader (aerosol). But it allows people to virtue signal, so we've got that going for us...

That being said - look at the fcking numbers. Even Japan and Korea are spiking right now. The insufferable finger wagging going on in blue states right now is unwarranted and baseless.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

d(newsmax)gibbons

Section 311 of the Public Health Service Act: General Grant of Authority for Cooperation 42 U. S. C. § 243 This provision of the Public Health Service Act states that the Secretary of HHS shall assist states and local authorities in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases and to help state and local authorities enforce quarantine regulations. This section also authorizes the Secretary to accept state and local authorities’ assistance with enforcement of federal quarantine regulations. Further, this section authorizes the Secretary to develop a public health emergency management plan and, at the request of a state or local authority, extend temporary assistance regarding public health emergencies.

Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act: Regulations to Control Communicable Diseases 42 U. S. C. § 264 This section of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the Secretary of HHS to make and enforce regulations “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases” into the states and possessions of the United States from foreign countries or possessions or from one state into another. This section also authorizes the apprehension, detention, examination, and conditional release of individuals with certain communicable diseases that are specified in an executive order of the President (see Executive Order 13296 (April 4, 2003), as amended by Executive Order 13375 (April 1, 2005) and Executive Order 1367 4 [ July 31, 2014]). The process prescribed for isolating or quarantining such individuals is provided for in 42 C . F. R. Parts 70 and 71 (see below).

S ection 362 of the Public Health Service Act: Suspension of Entries and Imports from Designated Places to Prevent Spread of Communicable Diseases 42 U. S. C. § 265 This section of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the Secretary of HHS , if he or she determines that a communicable disease exists in a foreign country and that introduction of persons from this foreign country poses a serious danger of introducing the disease into the United States, to suspend in the interests of public health the “introduction of persons” from those foreign countries or places for the time necessary to avert the danger, in accordance with approved regulations. This provision may also be applied to the introduction of property (see below).

Interstate Quarantine 42 C.F.R. Part 70 These federal regulations allow the CDC Director to take measures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases from one state or possession into another, including in the event that the Director determines that the measures taken by the health authorities of a state (including political subdivisions) or possession are insufficient to prevent such communicable disease spread. These regulations also authorize the detention, isolation, quarantine, or conditional release of persons for purposes of preventing the interstate spread of communicable diseases listed in an executive order of the President. See Executive Order 13296, as amended by Executive Order 13375 and Executive Order 13674.

Penalties for Violation of Quarantine Law 42 U.S.C. § 271 This statutory provision states that violation of federal quarantine regulations is a crime punishable by a fine of not more $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Implementing regulations are found at 42 C.F.R. Part 71.2. These penalties are strengthened under the sentencing classification provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559 and 3571, which provide for more strict penalties for criminal violations that would otherwise be classified as Class A misdemeanors. Under these strengthened penalties, individuals may be punished by a fine of up to $100,000 per violation not resulting in the death of an individual, or up to $250,000 per violation resulting in the death of an individual [18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571(b)]. Organizations may be fined up to $200, 000 per violation not resulting in the death of an individual and $500,000 per violation resulting in the death of an individual [18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571(c)].

Under 42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71, CDC is authorized to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying these communicable diseases.

Under section 319:

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/support/secauthority/Pages/default.aspx

Under this section the HHS secretary can enforce "isolation and quarantine".

U.S.C. Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Particularly this section:
(d) Apprehension and examination of persons reasonably believed to be infected
(1) Regulations prescribed under this section may provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. Such regulations may provide that if upon examination any such individual is found to be infected, he may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes, in addition to the several States, only the District of Columbia.

The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

That's all that needs to be said about that. Other countries who would be deemed "open societes" comparable to the uSA have put their tools to use. We have not nearly enough to control a highly contagious respiratory disease.

I'll assume you will now begin to move those goalposts again! Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Mik...

Why do you keep making this mistake?
"But contrast the movie, that happening with 17 million cases, and. 300k Dead, a 1.65% mortality rate with the FLU's 4 million cases, 50k dead, 1.35% mortality rate."
The mortality rate for typical flu season in 1/10 that number you keep citing. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[mikalalas]

d(newsmax)gibbons

Section 311 of the Public Health Service Act: General Grant of Authority for Cooperation 42 U. S. C. § 243 This provision of the Public Health Service Act states that the Secretary of HHS shall assist states and local authorities in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases and to help state and local authorities enforce quarantine regulations. This section also authorizes the Secretary to accept state and local authorities’ assistance with enforcement of federal quarantine regulations. Further, this section authorizes the Secretary to develop a public health emergency management plan and, at the request of a state or local authority, extend temporary assistance regarding public health emergencies.

Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act: Regulations to Control Communicable Diseases 42 U. S. C. § 264 This section of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the Secretary of HHS to make and enforce regulations “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases” into the states and possessions of the United States from foreign countries or possessions or from one state into another. This section also authorizes the apprehension, detention, examination, and conditional release of individuals with certain communicable diseases that are specified in an executive order of the President (see Executive Order 13296 (April 4, 2003), as amended by Executive Order 13375 (April 1, 2005) and Executive Order 1367 4 [ July 31, 2014]). The process prescribed for isolating or quarantining such individuals is provided for in 42 C . F. R. Parts 70 and 71 (see below).

S ection 362 of the Public Health Service Act: Suspension of Entries and Imports from Designated Places to Prevent Spread of Communicable Diseases 42 U. S. C. § 265 This section of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the Secretary of HHS , if he or she determines that a communicable disease exists in a foreign country and that introduction of persons from this foreign country poses a serious danger of introducing the disease into the United States, to suspend in the interests of public health the “introduction of persons” from those foreign countries or places for the time necessary to avert the danger, in accordance with approved regulations. This provision may also be applied to the introduction of property (see below).

Interstate Quarantine 42 C.F.R. Part 70 These federal regulations allow the CDC Director to take measures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases from one state or possession into another, including in the event that the Director determines that the measures taken by the health authorities of a state (including political subdivisions) or possession are insufficient to prevent such communicable disease spread. These regulations also authorize the detention, isolation, quarantine, or conditional release of persons for purposes of preventing the interstate spread of communicable diseases listed in an executive order of the President. See Executive Order 13296, as amended by Executive Order 13375 and Executive Order 13674.

Penalties for Violation of Quarantine Law 42 U.S.C. § 271 This statutory provision states that violation of federal quarantine regulations is a crime punishable by a fine of not more $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Implementing regulations are found at 42 C.F.R. Part 71.2. These penalties are strengthened under the sentencing classification provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559 and 3571, which provide for more strict penalties for criminal violations that would otherwise be classified as Class A misdemeanors. Under these strengthened penalties, individuals may be punished by a fine of up to $100,000 per violation not resulting in the death of an individual, or up to $250,000 per violation resulting in the death of an individual [18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571(b)]. Organizations may be fined up to $200, 000 per violation not resulting in the death of an individual and $500,000 per violation resulting in the death of an individual [18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571(c)].

Under 42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71, CDC is authorized to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying these communicable diseases.

Under section 319:

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/support/secauthority/Pages/default.aspx

Under this section the HHS secretary can enforce "isolation and quarantine".

U.S.C. Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Particularly this section:
(d) Apprehension and examination of persons reasonably believed to be infected
(1) Regulations prescribed under this section may provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. Such regulations may provide that if upon examination any such individual is found to be infected, he may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes, in addition to the several States, only the District of Columbia.

The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

That's all that needs to be said about that. Other countries who would be deemed "open societes" comparable to the uSA have put their tools to use. We have not nearly enough to control a highly contagious respiratory disease.

I'll assume you will now begin to move those goalposts again! Taihtsat

The USA Constitution, and the FOUNDING DOCUMENTS(AKA Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc), says:

1. The USA Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the USA, and SUPERCEDES either ALL other USA Laws, an or at least any, all UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS in the USA.

2. The USA Constitution, founding documents say that Freedom, Liberty, Rights, etc, are sacrosanct, and cant be legally violated, except thru DUE PROCESS of CONSTITUTIONAL law.

Examples: A murderer going thru the due process of the justice system, and being inprisoned, having their rights, freedoms, liberties taken away from them.

3. The constitution, founding documents says that peoples rights end where others begin. Meaning that you dont have the right to murder someone because that intereferes with their right to be alive, etc.

4. Because of that, Martial Law, Quarantines, etc, the taking away of freedoms, rights can be done in order to preserve the rights, fredom, liberty, health, the greater good of the public, if there is a legit need, and if done by proper constitutional due process.

5. That process is not 1 person unilaterally doing martial law, etc.

6. That due process is the USA President, State Governor, etc, declaring a executive order, and then getting permission by having the order RATIFIED by Congress, State Legislature.

7. The other way is Congress, State Legislature, passing a executive order like law, and then the President, Governor signs it into law.

8. For Example: FDR declared a emergency, asking for emergency powers that curtailed liberties, freedoms during WW2 wartime.

He didnt just declare, do it. He got permission, ratification from CONGRESS.

If he had not gotten permission, ratification from congress, and had just declared a emergency, and started taming away freedoms, that would have been unconstitutional.

But since he got permission from congress, and went thru constitutional due process, then what he did was constitutional.

9. Likewise NOBODY in the country can unilaterally take away rights, freedoms, exercise emergency powers that take away freedom, without ratification, permission from congress, state legislature.

10. Anything that says otherwise, whether law, executive order, the things you posted, is wrong, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and is SUPERCEDED by the SUPREME LAW of the Land, The USA CONSTITUTION which SAYS DIFFERENTLY.

 

[95coug]

Again, you're wrong.

I work directly with this stuff, but feel free to take it up with the EPA and their kill claims for certain sanitizers.

I find this stance oddly cavalier from someone who falls on the side of "if we can save just one life, theres no measure too far."

First, I’ve never said that. It’s a nice theory, but in practice...you can’t save everyone. And it makes little sense to focus on the less effective measures before implementing the more effective ones. Resources are limited, and need to be concentrated where they do the most good.

Second, I’m directly in this too. The quaternary ammonium compounds that are used in most Clorox wipes - and similar sanitizing wipes - require 5-10 minutes contact time for effective use against covid. It’s not really feasible to get that kind of contact out of those wipes, and even if it was, nobody would do it. I’ve been actively advising against use of these wipes since about April. We were using a hydrogen peroxide based compound with a 2-minute contact requirement early in the pandemic, largely because it’s what we could get in quantity. It’s hard on some surfaces though, and over the last couple months it’s become clear that even 2 minutes is more than most people allow. We’re shifting to ethanol-based - contact requirement less than a minute, and recommending that it be left to evaporate rather than wiping at all.
Still wiping down public surfaces and high-touch areas, but we’ve come down from the idea of trying to have every door wiped down at least ever 15 minutes. It was never practical, and reality now is that it’s not necessary. More emphasis is needed on hand washing and hand sanitizing (which most people also don’t do effectively), and on air flow.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The USA Constitution, and the FOUNDING DOCUMENTS(AKA Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc), says:

1. The USA Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the USA, and SUPERCEDES either ALL other USA Laws, an or at least any, all UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS in the USA.

2. The USA Constitution, founding documents say that Freedom, Liberty, Rights, etc, are sacrosanct, and cant be legally violated, except thru DUE PROCESS of CONSTITUTIONAL law.

Examples: A murderer going thru the due process of the justice system, and being inprisoned, having their rights, freedoms, liberties taken away from them.

3. The constitution, founding documents says that peoples rights end where others begin. Meaning that you dont have the right to murder someone because that intereferes with their right to be alive, etc.

4. Because of that, Martial Law, Quarantines, etc, the taking away of freedoms, rights can be done in order to preserve the rights, fredom, liberty, health, the greater good of the public, if there is a legit need, and if done by proper constitutional due process.

5. That process is not 1 person unilaterally doing martial law, etc.

6. That due process is the USA President, State Governor, etc, declaring a executive order, and then getting permission by having the order RATIFIED by Congress, State Legislature.

7. The other way is Congress, State Legislature, passing a executive order like law, and then the President, Governor signs it into law.

8. For Example: FDR declared a emergency, asking for emergency powers that curtailed liberties, freedoms during WW2 wartime.

He didnt just declare, do it. He got permission, ratification from CONGRESS.

If he had not gotten permission, ratification from congress, and had just declared a emergency, and started taming away freedoms, that would have been unconstitutional.

But since he got permission from congress, and went thru constitutional due process, then what he did was constitutional.

9. Likewise NOBODY in the country can unilaterally take away rights, freedoms, exercise emergency powers that take away freedom, without ratification, permission from congress, state legislature.

10. Anything that says otherwise, whether law, executive order, the things you posted, is wrong, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and is SUPERCEDED by the SUPREME LAW of the Land, The USA CONSTITUTION which SAYS DIFFERENTLY.

Your problem is with Congress. These laws and statutes were passed and modified by Congress. And through multiple case laws they have passed constitutional tests thus far. Obviously a challenge in the future on some particular part is open to judicial review. At the moment, these things aren't "wrong".

And why do you keep misrepresenting data on covid vs flu?

 

[Coug90]

I hesitate to get involved with this thread in any way, shape, or form. But, since I am a fool and idiot....I will add my perspective ONLY regarding this "airborne Transmission" aspect.

Initially, the airborne transmission was thought to be due to droplets produced by sneeze, cough, even loud shouting/singing, etc. Droplets are relatively large particles. They don't typically travel long distances. There's some debate still about whether a six foot radius is enough of a distance to avoid the droplet contamination. But that's a whole 'nother debate. And the six foot distance is what was settled on.

The mask question was initially about limiting the spread of droplets from contaminated individuals. I.e. - if those individuals were wearing a mask, they were much less likely to spread the virus when talking, singing, shouting, coughing, sneezing, etc. The question of whether or not a mask of sufficient quality (N95/KN95, other hospital grade respirators, etc) would protect the wearer was also a matter for debate.

That's a difficult question. Much depends on the fit of the mask, it's filtration capability, how long it's worn (they have limits and unfortunately, in early days they were being re-used over and over, or used for periods way past their effective limits because of scarcity), and other factors, like moisture contamination.

Currently, the feeling is, in continuing education I have taken and in articles, that yes, a properly fitted and sufficiently "rated" mask does provide SOME protection, but obviously not blanket protection.

Getting back to the airborne transmission and droplets, etc.

The droplets were thought to be responsible for surface contamination. There were reports of viability of virus on various surfaces for different amounts of time. What some of those initial reports were not mentioning was that, while the virus might remain live for an extended period of time, it's capacity for infection degraded fairly rapidly.

There are now numerous well respected studies and recommendations that are back to amplifying that the main, MAJOR source of infection is indeed airborne and that the surface contact route is actually negligible.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN RELAXING OF STANDARDS FOR HYGIENE, HAND WASHING, SURFACE DISINFECTION/DECONTAMINATION, ETC. It does mean that the vast majority of cases are from airborne transmission.

FINALLY, getting to dgib's question about "other airborne transmission".......

Remember, initially it was felt that droplet transmission was the mode? Droplets are fairly large, pretty well filtered by intact, well fitting masks that were not worn past the intended lifespan of the mask.

What is now known is that AEROSOL spread is also a significant mode of transmission. Originally it was thought that aerosolization of viral load was fairly rare, only in certain health care settings. But researchers have found this is not entirely the case. And they feel it is responsible for a significant number of cases. The problem with virus loads in aerosol is that the aerosol lingers in the air MUCH LONGER than droplets, it can travel MUCH FARTHER than droplets, and the particles are MUCH SMALLER than droplets.

So, that's likely the "other airborne transmission" that's talked about - droplet transmission and aerosol transmission. Both are airborne modes of transmission, but are different in many ways.

Note that this is not supposed to be a scholarly dissertation. Merely sharing some of what I have learned through current Continuing Education classes, professional journals/publications, DOH bulletins and my Washington State professional association newsletters/publications.

Good stuff. Of all of the scientific explanations on masks vs no masks, two visuals hit home for me that are simplistic and funny but make sense. Two people pissing themselves. both without pants, one without pants, and both with pants. The moral of the story two people wearing masks properly are unlikely to transmit through air (especially considering viral load factor)
Other one was from twitter- gal betting her boyfriend he couldn’t blow out a candle with a mask on...and he couldn’t even make it flicker.
Masks work and always did. This stuff about Fauci is ludicrous, and is pure regurgitation of Faux news. He didn’t yell fire in a crowded theatre and he’s the devil...got it.

 

[425cougfan]

Just have to say that COVID-19 aside, reading the (very good) discussions here of droplets, aerosols, etc., and seeing some of those images showing the spray emanating from peoples' mouths ... anyone going to look at things the same way ever again? Imagine one of those infrared images showing what it looks like when 70,000 people are screaming in the Clink.

I already never was a fan of, e.g., the waiter leaning over and speaking loudly right over my plate/glass.

Not serious here. There just is a bunch of stuff out there that we are exposed to all the time.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Just have to say that COVID-19 aside, reading the (very good) discussions here of droplets, aerosols, etc., and seeing some of those images showing the spray emanating from peoples' mouths ... anyone going to look at things the same way ever again? Imagine one of those infrared images showing what it looks like when 70,000 people are screaming in the Clink.

I already never was a fan of, e.g., the waiter leaning over and speaking loudly right over my plate/glass.

Not serious here. There just is a bunch of stuff out there that we are exposed to all the time.

Totally agree. I'm a bit of a germaphobe regarding people. Not so much with dogs and cats tho. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[mikalalas]

Your problem is with Congress. These laws and statutes were passed and modified by Congress. And through multiple case laws they have passed constitutional tests thus far. Obviously a challenge in the future on some particular part is open to judicial review. At the moment, these things aren't "wrong".

And why do you keep misrepresenting data on covid vs flu?

Bottom Line, no one in the USA is KING EFFING GEORGE TYPE DICTATOR, ETC, and that includes USA President, State Governor, Director, Secretary, etc.

And that's according to the USA Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, founding documents, etc, which is the SUPREME LAW OF LAND THAT SUPERCEDES, ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, that would unconstitutionally make anyone into a King George Dictator.

The problem with a dictator, is that a dictator can, could violate freedom, liberty, declare martial law, quarantine, basically do whatever they want, or see fit in order to supposedly do so for the so called public good, etc.

No one in the USA is allowed to be a dictator.

There is a constitutional DUE BI LATERAL, MULTI LATERAL DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, Process, that determines if Martial Law etc.

Only 1 person is NOT supposed to decide if there is martial law, according to the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, a President must get permission from congress. A Governor must get permission from state Legislature. If a President, Governor declares martial law, they have to get RATIFICATION from congress, Legislature.

That is why a president can't DECLARE WAR UNILATERALLY, without congressional approval.

That is why FDR went to congress for Emergency Powers during WW2.

That is why Reagan got into trouble for the Iran Contra Scandal, and George Bush's mini battle, war against General Noriega, in Panama.

The problem was they acted UNILATERALLY, and did NOT GET CONGRESSIONALLY approval for their emergency executive order actions in Iran, Iraq, Panama.

Directors, secretaries, must get approval from congress, judges, courts, govt, etc, before they can declare, take, assume, use emergency powers to supersede the freedom, liberty of people.

That means according to that, that the director, secretary of the CDC, Health Department, can't legally declare, take, assume,use emergency powers to quarantine,limit, take away liberty, freedom, etc, UNLESS they first get PERMISSION, from the President, Congress, Courts, Judges, Constitutional Bi Lateral, Multi Lateral, govt, etc. They can't do anything UNILATERALLY on their own that would interfere with liberty, freedom.

And this is according to the CONSTITUTION

ITS NOT WHAT I SAY.

ITS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.

Any any law that says otherwise is wrong, unconstitutional, and superseded by the Constitution the Supreme Law of Land.

Also note that the laws you cite to support your argumenargument, and naysay my argument have all come out as unconstitutional laws over the last 17 years, and that for about 150 years to 225 years, no such unconstitutional laws allowing a KING GEORGE existed.

Also note most of your cited laws came out the last 17 years, but also are EXECUTIVE ORDERS, NOT CONGRESSIONALLY PASSED LAWS. Those particular Executive orders are unconstitutional, go against the constitution.

Not saying all executive orders are bad. Some are good. But the ones you cited are unconstitutional for allowing KING GEORGES, allowing UNILATERALLY declared emergency powers to do martial law, etc, without congress, etc.

What's Next? Presidents Unilaterally declaring War, starting up THE DRAFT via Executive order FIAT, without congressional permission, doing so constitutionally? What's next? All Hail King George, ER KING INSLEE, etc.

 

[dgibbons]

I hesitate to get involved with this thread in any way, shape, or form. But, since I am a fool and idiot....I will add my perspective ONLY regarding this "airborne Transmission" aspect.

Initially, the airborne transmission was thought to be due to droplets produced by sneeze, cough, even loud shouting/singing, etc. Droplets are relatively large particles. They don't typically travel long distances. There's some debate still about whether a six foot radius is enough of a distance to avoid the droplet contamination. But that's a whole 'nother debate. And the six foot distance is what was settled on.

The mask question was initially about limiting the spread of droplets from contaminated individuals. I.e. - if those individuals were wearing a mask, they were much less likely to spread the virus when talking, singing, shouting, coughing, sneezing, etc. The question of whether or not a mask of sufficient quality (N95/KN95, other hospital grade respirators, etc) would protect the wearer was also a matter for debate.

That's a difficult question. Much depends on the fit of the mask, it's filtration capability, how long it's worn (they have limits and unfortunately, in early days they were being re-used over and over, or used for periods way past their effective limits because of scarcity), and other factors, like moisture contamination.

Currently, the feeling is, in continuing education I have taken and in articles, that yes, a properly fitted and sufficiently "rated" mask does provide SOME protection, but obviously not blanket protection.

Getting back to the airborne transmission and droplets, etc.

The droplets were thought to be responsible for surface contamination. There were reports of viability of virus on various surfaces for different amounts of time. What some of those initial reports were not mentioning was that, while the virus might remain live for an extended period of time, it's capacity for infection degraded fairly rapidly.

There are now numerous well respected studies and recommendations that are back to amplifying that the main, MAJOR source of infection is indeed airborne and that the surface contact route is actually negligible.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN RELAXING OF STANDARDS FOR HYGIENE, HAND WASHING, SURFACE DISINFECTION/DECONTAMINATION, ETC. It does mean that the vast majority of cases are from airborne transmission.

FINALLY, getting to dgib's question about "other airborne transmission".......

Remember, initially it was felt that droplet transmission was the mode? Droplets are fairly large, pretty well filtered by intact, well fitting masks that were not worn past the intended lifespan of the mask.

What is now known is that AEROSOL spread is also a significant mode of transmission. Originally it was thought that aerosolization of viral load was fairly rare, only in certain health care settings. But researchers have found this is not entirely the case. And they feel it is responsible for a significant number of cases. The problem with virus loads in aerosol is that the aerosol lingers in the air MUCH LONGER than droplets, it can travel MUCH FARTHER than droplets, and the particles are MUCH SMALLER than droplets.

So, that's likely the "other airborne transmission" that's talked about - droplet transmission and aerosol transmission. Both are airborne modes of transmission, but are different in many ways.

Note that this is not supposed to be a scholarly dissertation. Merely sharing some of what I have learned through current Continuing Education classes, professional journals/publications, DOH bulletins and my Washington State professional association newsletters/publications.

In other words, wearing masks would have slowed the spread back in March when Fauci was lying.

For those that doubled or tripled up on your undergarments to stop the spread, you should not feel embarrassed. Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[dgibbons]

Just have to say that COVID-19 aside, reading the (very good) discussions here of droplets, aerosols, etc., and seeing some of those images showing the spray emanating from peoples' mouths ... anyone going to look at things the same way ever again? Imagine one of those infrared images showing what it looks like when 70,000 people are screaming in the Clink.

I already never was a fan of, e.g., the waiter leaning over and speaking loudly right over my plate/glass.

Not serious here. There just is a bunch of stuff out there that we are exposed to all the time.

Remember seeing someone walk down the street vaping, with the big cloud of vapor lingering in the air? I visualize that now all the time.