OT: They let Noah Lyles race with COVID at the Olympics...

[ttowncoug]

which, I am not concerned about. But after the way it was handled in the past, the 180 degree turn by the Olympics, media, politicians, etc. is SO FRUSTRATING.

Noah Lyles finishes 3rd in Olympic upset at 200 meters, 2 days after COVID diagnosis

Noah Lyles lost the 200 meters, falling to Botswana’s Letsile Tebogo, and was carted off suffering with what The AP learned was a case of COVID.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I'm sure they made him wear a mask before and after the race.

 

[KEVINANDERSON]

which, I am not concerned about. But after the way it was handled in the past, the 180 degree turn by the Olympics, media, politicians, etc. is SO FRUSTRATING.

Noah Lyles finishes 3rd in Olympic upset at 200 meters, 2 days after COVID diagnosis

Noah Lyles lost the 200 meters, falling to Botswana’s Letsile Tebogo, and was carted off suffering with what The AP learned was a case of COVID.

www.seattletimes.com

The left doesn't need it for political gain anymore so they just let it go.

 

[Cougsocal]

The left doesn't need it for political gain anymore so they just let it go.

Not to support the world wide clown show that was the Covid response, with the exception of left leaning Sweden, both left and far right leaning countries (and states), including the darling of the American right, Putin, handled Covid basically the same way, poorly. Fauci was a Reagan era appointee, btw. The reality is apolitical public health did a crappy job, and only recently started to actually follow the science. That science shows that current variants of Covid aren't particularly virulent, but endemic. Adam Peaty of the UK also competed and won silver in the beast stroke, with full blown Covid. Sorry to burst you conspiracy bubble.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Not to support the world wide clown show that was the Covid response, with the exception of left leaning Sweden, both left and far right leaning countries (and states), including the darling of the American right, Putin, handled Covid basically the same way, poorly. Fauci was a Reagan era appointee, btw. The reality is apolitical public health did a crappy job, and only recently started to actually follow the science. That science shows that current variants of Covid aren't particularly virulent, but endemic. Adam Peaty of the UK also competed and won silver in the beast stroke, with full blown Covid. Sorry to burst you conspiracy bubble.

So what does that say about "follow the science" when its now a know fact that science can and will be leaned upon by big pharma and politicians in order to promote and enact policy?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

So what does that say about "follow the science" when its now a know fact that science can and will be leaned upon by big pharma and politicians in order to promote and enact policy?

Using the term "big pharma" is poisoning the well to deliberately discard the entire industry as financially corrupt to the exclusion of any positive outcomes.

What alternative to following the current science would you suggest? What would you rather policy-makers lean on when setting guidelines? Gut feelings? Hunches?

 

[Coug90]

Using the term "big pharma" is poisoning the well to deliberately discard the entire industry as financially corrupt to the exclusion of any positive outcomes.

What alternative to following the current science would you suggest? What would you rather policy-makers lean on when setting guidelines? Gut feelings? Hunches?

Said it before I’ll say it again. A lot of money from gleasons foundation goes to….gasp….research into pharma. A lot of people with a lot of different diseases have been able to extend their time with their families, minimize symptoms, or flat out be cured because of drug development.

Now, should drug companies be making 5000% profits? Fair question. This constant bitching about big pharma being evil is unproductive. Encourage your representatives to do something…not taking campaign contributions from these companies would be a solid start.

 

[Cougsocal]

So what does that say about "follow the science" when its now a know fact that science can and will be leaned upon by big pharma and politicians in order to promote and enact policy?

While the behavior of public health officials was disgraceful, frankly, from a science prospective on many fronts, it wasn't a plot. It was medical judgment, claiming "science" as a fig leaf. All existing data demonstrated that even n95 masks were worthless in reducing respiratory infections, but they crammed it down our throats claiming science based efficacy, nevertheless, for example. That said, big pharma produced vaccines that were safe and effective in preventing serious illness. They didn't fudge data which showed they were worthless against transmission, but public health officials just ignored it, initially. What I want to know is why only Sweden got it mostly right, but were excoriated universally for pointing out that science didn't really support the actions the rest of the world was taking, starting with lock downs? I suspect that admitting you don't have any good answers to a pandemic is seen as future public health "funding" nightmare. It is your job #1. So you wing it, pulling things out your arse. Sweden's public health is purposefully isolated from the government, for this very reason, promoting candor.

 

[95coug]

While the behavior of public health officials was disgraceful, frankly, from a science prospective on many fronts, it wasn't a plot. It was medical judgment, claiming "science" as a fig leaf. All existing data demonstrated that even n95 masks were worthless in reducing respiratory infections, but they crammed it down our throats claiming science based efficacy, nevertheless, for example. That said, big pharma produced vaccines that were safe and effective in preventing serious illness. They didn't fudge data which showed they were worthless against transmission, but public health officials just ignored it, initially. What I want to know is why only Sweden got it mostly right, but were excoriated universally for pointing out that science didn't really support the actions the rest of the world was taking, starting with lock downs? I suspect that admitting you don't have any good answers to a pandemic is seen as future public health "funding" nightmare. It is your job #1. So you wing it, pulling things out your arse. Sweden's public health is purposefully isolated from the government, for this very reason, promoting candor.

The problem was the lack of information at the beginning. Initial reports in the first Chinese patients were that it was bad, and it was fast. It spread quickly and had a high mortality rate. But….it was a very small sample size, and the Chinese were slow to give any numbers. So word got out how terrible it was, and the entire world overcorrected. Some of the early numbers were saying an 5-7% mortality. That pretty quickly got down to 1%, and then to 0.5%….and in reality was probably closer to 0.2% (which is still double what seasonal flu kills).
And really, the earlier strains were worse than the current ones. Like many viruses, as it mutated it became more virulent but less severe.
What we ended up with was an overreaction to a virus that was pretty comparable to a really bad flu. It killed the vulnerable at higher rates, and (just like the flu) for unknown reasons also killed people not normally considered vulnerable. Since it was new, there was no immunity to it, so if someone got sick…there really wasn’t much that could be done.
Masking was part of the overcorrection. In theory, it might help a little…if everyone wears an equally effective mask that fits properly, and they keep it on. But in reality, N95s are not meant to keep things in - they’re meant to protect the wearer from whatever’s outside. They may reduce the projection of their breath, cough, or sneeze, but they’re not going to stop it. Doing studies of mask effectiveness is problematic for the same reasons - the individual fit and wear conditions are so variable that it’s next to impossible to create a standard that represents a real-world environment.

 

[Observer11]

Said it before I’ll say it again. A lot of money from gleasons foundation goes to….gasp….research into pharma. A lot of people with a lot of different diseases have been able to extend their time with their families, minimize symptoms, or flat out be cured because of drug development.

Now, should drug companies be making 5000% profits? Fair question. This constant bitching about big pharma being evil is unproductive. Encourage your representatives to do something…not taking campaign contributions from these companies would be a solid start.

Gleason Foundation funds technology and services.

Pharma is a minuscule if not altogether non existent part of their budget.

 

[Cougsocal]

The problem was the lack of information at the beginning. Initial reports in the first Chinese patients were that it was bad, and it was fast. It spread quickly and had a high mortality rate. But….it was a very small sample size, and the Chinese were slow to give any numbers. So word got out how terrible it was, and the entire world overcorrected. Some of the early numbers were saying an 5-7% mortality. That pretty quickly got down to 1%, and then to 0.5%….and in reality was probably closer to 0.2% (which is still double what seasonal flu kills).
And really, the earlier strains were worse than the current ones. Like many viruses, as it mutated it became more virulent but less severe.
What we ended up with was an overreaction to a virus that was pretty comparable to a really bad flu. It killed the vulnerable at higher rates, and (just like the flu) for unknown reasons also killed people not normally considered vulnerable. Since it was new, there was no immunity to it, so if someone got sick…there really wasn’t much that could be done.
Masking was part of the overcorrection. In theory, it might help a little…if everyone wears an equally effective mask that fits properly, and they keep it on. But in reality, N95s are not meant to keep things in - they’re meant to protect the wearer from whatever’s outside. They may reduce the projection of their breath, cough, or sneeze, but they’re not going to stop it. Doing studies of mask effectiveness is problematic for the same reasons - the individual fit and wear conditions are so variable that it’s next to impossible to create a standard that represents a real-world environment.

I agree there was an overreaction big time. I don't fault that on the better safe than sorry principle. It is the doubling down after contrary data became available that did far more harm than good. Like not treating having had Covid the same as having receiving a vaccination, health passport status wise. What was that about? The 6 ft rule? Treating 10 year olds the same as a middle age obese diabetic risk wise, closing schools for the better part of 18 months. Sweden kept schools open, showing no real adverse effects, yet the rest kept schools closed. Covid based serious illness among the young were virtually non-existent from the get go, yet schools remained closed. It was a head scratcher!

As for masks, even studies of medical professional revealed that N95 mask usage was ineffective in reducing respiratory based infections like chicken pox. Yet they had the world mask up, instead of being honest about the data, they claimed falsely that science showed that they were effective. That was just not true. Confronted recently with the Cochrane study Fauci still claimed that masks were effective based on his "personal experience. " What an idiot thing to say for a follow the science proponent!

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

The problem was the lack of information at the beginning. Initial reports in the first Chinese patients were that it was bad, and it was fast. It spread quickly and had a high mortality rate. But….it was a very small sample size, and the Chinese were slow to give any numbers. So word got out how terrible it was, and the entire world overcorrected. Some of the early numbers were saying an 5-7% mortality. That pretty quickly got down to 1%, and then to 0.5%….and in reality was probably closer to 0.2% (which is still double what seasonal flu kills).
And really, the earlier strains were worse than the current ones. Like many viruses, as it mutated it became more virulent but less severe.
What we ended up with was an overreaction to a virus that was pretty comparable to a really bad flu. It killed the vulnerable at higher rates, and (just like the flu) for unknown reasons also killed people not normally considered vulnerable. Since it was new, there was no immunity to it, so if someone got sick…there really wasn’t much that could be done.
Masking was part of the overcorrection. In theory, it might help a little…if everyone wears an equally effective mask that fits properly, and they keep it on. But in reality, N95s are not meant to keep things in - they’re meant to protect the wearer from whatever’s outside. They may reduce the projection of their breath, cough, or sneeze, but they’re not going to stop it. Doing studies of mask effectiveness is problematic for the same reasons - the individual fit and wear conditions are so variable that it’s next to impossible to create a standard that represents a real-world environment.

How about the fact that virtually no one had N95 masks to begin with? We were all told that wearing a piece of cloth was effective and if you didn't do so you didn't care about your fellow humans and were a bad person.

 

[95coug]

I agree there was an overreaction big time. I don't fault that on the better safe than sorry principle. It is the doubling down after contrary data became available that did far more harm than good. Like not treating having had Covid the same as having receiving a vaccination, health passport status wise. What was that about? The 6 ft rule? Treating 10 year olds the same as a middle age obese diabetic risk wise, closing schools for the better part of 18 months. Sweden kept schools open, showing no real adverse effects, yet the rest kept schools closed. Covid based serious illness among the young were virtually non-existent from the get go, yet schools remained closed. It was a head scratcher!

As for masks, even studies of medical professional revealed that N95 mask usage was ineffective in reducing respiratory based infections like chicken pox. Yet they had the world mask up, instead of being honest about the data, they claimed falsely that science showed that they were effective. That was just not true. Confronted recently with the Cochrane study Fauci still claimed that masks were effective based on his "personal experience. " What an idiot thing to say for a follow the science proponent!

The one thing that isn’t really comparable there - chickenpox is much more contagious that covid, flu, or just about any other respiratory illness, and it’s also spread through direct contact with patients or contaminated surfaces. Its R0 is 9-10, versus 2-5 for most of the covid variants. Some early estimated had delta near 10 also, but as I recall that number was adjusted downward.

Remember… most of our parents sent us to play with our classmates who had chickenpox. And we got it just by being in the same room. When I had covid, I didn’t even give it to my wife.

 

[95coug]

How about the fact that virtually no one had N95 masks to begin with? We were all told that wearing a piece of cloth was effective and if you didn't do so you didn't care about your fellow humans and were a bad person.

And then when people got N95s, they got the ones with exhalation valves, so they may as well have gone without.

 

[CougPatrol]

Regardless of which side of the political aisle you're on, most of us now agree that the handling of the COVID mandates and messaging was atrocious. We have people coming into work, school, etc. with COVID and nobody bats an eye.

 

[CougInSpain]

Regardless of which side of the political aisle you're on, most of us now agree that the handling of the COVID mandates and messaging was atrocious. We have people coming into work, school, etc. with COVID and nobody bats an eye.

And the message board warriors on here trying to impose their "knowledge" about covid during that time was nothing short of putrid self-righteousness and flamboyantly condescending azzhole-ry,

 

[WillieThePimp]

I agree there was an overreaction big time. I don't fault that on the better safe than sorry principle. It is the doubling down after contrary data became available that did far more harm than good. Like not treating having had Covid the same as having receiving a vaccination, health passport status wise. What was that about? The 6 ft rule? Treating 10 year olds the same as a middle age obese diabetic risk wise, closing schools for the better part of 18 months. Sweden kept schools open, showing no real adverse effects, yet the rest kept schools closed. Covid based serious illness among the young were virtually non-existent from the get go, yet schools remained closed. It was a head scratcher!

As for masks, even studies of medical professional revealed that N95 mask usage was ineffective in reducing respiratory based infections like chicken pox. Yet they had the world mask up, instead of being honest about the data, they claimed falsely that science showed that they were effective. That was just not true. Confronted recently with the Cochrane study Fauci still claimed that masks were effective based on his "personal experience. " What an idiot thing to say for a follow the science proponent!

Tip of the hat to that 20/20 hindsight vision and distrust of science. Down is up and up is down, left is right and right is left. You just can’t trust anyone with a PhD or for that matter anyone who is better educated than you these days. They’ve all been brainwashed or are in on “it”. Thank god for the internet, the great equalizer, the Samuel Colt of the cognitively challenged.

I’m sure these guys are all on the take:

Masks Work. Distorting Science to Dispute the Evidence Doesn't

New mask studies relying on a medical paradigm do not erase decades of engineering and occupational science that show they work

www.scientificamerican.com

The Cochrane mask fiasco: How the evidence-based medicine paradigm can produce misleading results

Last week, the Cochrane Collaborative was forced to walk back the conclusions of a review by Tom Jefferson et al that had been spun in the media as proving that "masks don't work." Tom Jefferson himse

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Masks Revisited

A recent Cochrane review, limited in scope and problematic in methodology, does not show that masks do not work, despite common misreporting.

sciencebasedmedicine.org

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Tip of the hat to that 20/20 hindsight vision and distrust of science. Down is up and up is down, left is right and right is left. You just can’t trust anyone with a PhD or for that matter anyone who is better educated than you these days. They’ve all been brainwashed or are in on “it”. Thank god for the internet, the great equalizer, the Samuel Colt of the cognitively challenged.

I’m sure these guys are all on the take:

Masks Work. Distorting Science to Dispute the Evidence Doesn't

New mask studies relying on a medical paradigm do not erase decades of engineering and occupational science that show they work

www.scientificamerican.com

The Cochrane mask fiasco: How the evidence-based medicine paradigm can produce misleading results

Last week, the Cochrane Collaborative was forced to walk back the conclusions of a review by Tom Jefferson et al that had been spun in the media as proving that "masks don't work." Tom Jefferson himse

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Masks Revisited

A recent Cochrane review, limited in scope and problematic in methodology, does not show that masks do not work, despite common misreporting.

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Was also thinking of linking those last 2. But whaddyagonnado...folks are gonna misinterpret off the slightest nuance if it fits their idealogy. Taihtsat

 

[WillieThePimp]

Was also thinking of linking those last 2. But whaddyagonnado...folks are gonna misinterpret off the slightest nuance if it fits their idealogy. Taihtsat

Pissing in the wind.

I remember way back when that internet thing was being touted as a boon for knowledge. A strong case can be made today that it has resulted in society becoming collectively dumber. A lot dumber.

FWIW Cochran Reports have long been considered suspect by many medical professionals: they pool lots of data from many studies which increases the uncertainty and the unreliability of the results.

 

[CougPatrol]

It wasn't about whether or not masks work. The issue was the damage caused by shutting down the global economy and the colossal negative impact that ceasing in-person schooling had on kids, particularly those not it the top 50th percentile, far outweighed the risks of dying in healthy adults under the age of 70.

Of course the deaths of the elderly and those with preexisting health issues was tragic. Nobody with a soul would suggest otherwise. But we needed to govern for the masses. Money should have been allocated for those who needed to stay home, but children and adults under 70 had to press on. The herd must keep going.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Tip of the hat to that 20/20 hindsight vision and distrust of science. Down is up and up is down, left is right and right is left. You just can’t trust anyone with a PhD or for that matter anyone who is better educated than you these days. They’ve all been brainwashed or are in on “it”. Thank god for the internet, the great equalizer, the Samuel Colt of the cognitively challenged.

I’m sure these guys are all on the take:

Masks Work. Distorting Science to Dispute the Evidence Doesn't

New mask studies relying on a medical paradigm do not erase decades of engineering and occupational science that show they work

www.scientificamerican.com

The Cochrane mask fiasco: How the evidence-based medicine paradigm can produce misleading results

Last week, the Cochrane Collaborative was forced to walk back the conclusions of a review by Tom Jefferson et al that had been spun in the media as proving that "masks don't work." Tom Jefferson himse

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Masks Revisited

A recent Cochrane review, limited in scope and problematic in methodology, does not show that masks do not work, despite common misreporting.

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Go ahead and cite for me in any of your outcome driven scientific studies anywhere it says:

a) grand-mama's quilted mask is effective
b) N95 masks were widely available and used.

The second article turns into an ad hominem attack against one of the Cochrane authors, which automatically disqualifies it as credible.

Also interesting that the Cochrane report confirmed what we've known for years, yet wasn't widely promoted as masks were MUCH MUCH MUCH more important: hand washing works, as it always has.

A bunch of smoke screens and misdirection to get to the talking point of "masks work, they always worked."

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Pissing in the wind.

I remember way back when that internet thing was being touted as a boon for knowledge. A strong case can be made today that it has resulted in society becoming collectively dumber. A lot dumber.

FWIW Cochran Reports have long been considered suspect by many medical professionals: they pool lots of data from many studies which increases the uncertainty and the unreliability of the results.

OMG, you mean it increases N and increases the confidence level of the statistics and doesn't support results driven "research"?

How dare they!

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Go ahead and cite for me in any of your outcome driven scientific studies anywhere it says:

a) grand-mama's quilted mask is effective
b) N95 masks were widely available and used.

The second article turns into an ad hominem attack against one of the Cochrane authors, which automatically disqualifies it as credible.

Also interesting that the Cochrane report confirmed what we've known for years, yet wasn't widely promoted as masks were MUCH MUCH MUCH more important: hand washing works, as it always has.

A bunch of smoke screens and misdirection to get to the talking point of "masks work, they always worked."

Ad hominem? How so? The entire article deals directly with these doctors (Jefferson in particular) and their stated arguments, advocacy and policy recommendations some of which are documented and linked to going back years.

There are no personal attacks or name-calling.


As for masks and those "findings" getting all the headlines, understandable considering none of the outrage was being generated out of the "authorities" dictating clean hands vs the oppressive and population-controlling suggestion that folks put face coverings on. Besides, hand washing alone wasn't gonna get it done. Nor was masking alone or personal spacing. Taihtsat

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Ad hominem? How so? The entire article deals directly with these doctors (Jefferson in particular) and their stated arguments, advocacy and policy recommendations some of which are documented and linked to going back years.

There are no personal attacks or name-calling.


As for masks and those "findings" getting all the headlines, understandable considering none of the outrage was being generated out of the "authorities" dictating clean hands vs the oppressive and population-controlling suggestion that folks put face coverings on. Besides, hand washing alone wasn't gonna get it done. Nor was masking alone or personal spacing. Taihtsat

Tell me you don't know what ad hominem means without telling me you don't know what ad hominem means.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Tell me you don't know what ad hominem means without telling me you don't know what ad hominem means.

Definition of AD HOMINEM

appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

What's the problem? Show me where they violated this?

 

[Cougsocal]

Tip of the hat to that 20/20 hindsight vision and distrust of science. Down is up and up is down, left is right and right is left. You just can’t trust anyone with a PhD or for that matter anyone who is better educated than you these days. They’ve all been brainwashed or are in on “it”. Thank god for the internet, the great equalizer, the Samuel Colt of the cognitively challenged.

I’m sure these guys are all on the take:

Masks Work. Distorting Science to Dispute the Evidence Doesn't

New mask studies relying on a medical paradigm do not erase decades of engineering and occupational science that show they work

www.scientificamerican.com

The Cochrane mask fiasco: How the evidence-based medicine paradigm can produce misleading results

Last week, the Cochrane Collaborative was forced to walk back the conclusions of a review by Tom Jefferson et al that had been spun in the media as proving that "masks don't work." Tom Jefferson himse

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Masks Revisited

A recent Cochrane review, limited in scope and problematic in methodology, does not show that masks do not work, despite common misreporting.

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Did you notice that these letters are essentially critiques to the methodology of mask studies generally and Cochranes meta analysis approach, not evidence that masks work. They appear largely valid criticisms. That is the basis of good science -- peer review. But the problem is, no one has shown or pointed to a study that really shows that masks are effective is reducing respiratory virus infection rates. That was the claim that resulted in us masking up, world wide. "Proven effective." Where and by whom? "Follow the science".

What did those reactionary, "on the take" Trump voting, scientists from the UK, Canada and Australia find? 1, the mask studies weren't very good. 2, Shit in, might mean their meta analysis might result in, shit out. 3, with these limitations the meta analysis shows no clear evidence that masks, regardless of type, even when used by medical professionals, were effective. 4, Modest prophylaxis was demonstrated by hand washing (ignored universally after a few weeks).

I vote democrat, always have. I hate Trump, but bad science, is bad science. I'm not so tribal to ignore the reality that the claim of "science" was misappropriated repeatedly, an action history has show to be very dangerous, January 6th dangerous.

"Following the science" isn't a political catch phrase, it should have been done, but wasn't. Public health officials turned out to be just as bad as the anti-vaxxer crowd, following hunches while ignoring what science had to say.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Did you notice that these letters are essentially critiques to the methodology of mask studies generally and Cochranes meta analysis approach, not evidence that masks work. They appear largely valid criticisms. That is the basis of good science -- peer review. But the problem is, no one has shown or pointed to a study that really shows that masks are effective is reducing respiratory virus infection rates. That was the claim that resulted in us masking up, world wide. "Proven effective." Where and by whom? "Follow the science".

What did those reactionary, "on the take" Trump voting, scientists from the UK, Canada and Australia find? 1, the mask studies weren't very good. 2, Shit in, might mean their meta analysis might result in, shit out. 3, with these limitations the meta analysis shows no clear evidence that masks, regardless of type, even when used by medical professionals, were effective. 4, Modest prophylaxis was demonstrated by hand washing (ignored universally after a few weeks).

I vote democrat, always have. I hate Trump, but bad science, is bad science. I'm not so tribal to ignore the reality that the claim of "science" was misappropriated repeatedly, an action history has show to be very dangerous, January 6th dangerous.

"Following the science" isn't a political catch phrase, it should have been done, but wasn't. Public health officials turned out to be just as bad as the anti-vaxxer crowd, following hunches while ignoring what science had to say.

Public health officials turned out to be just as bad as the anti-vaxxer crowd, following hunches while ignoring what science had to say.

Not even close. The anti-vax crowd completely ignores relevant and current studies while using cherry-picked data, ad hominem attacks (that's for you, bleed) all the while moving the goal posts and implementing motivated reasoning among other dishonest and ideologically driven tactics.

Public health officials changed their recommendations as new information came to light. Case-in-point; masks are no longer part of a public health policy, not advocating social distancing, not even isolating and being restricted from competing in the olympics while still having covid. Anti-vaxxers are STILL anti-vaxxers making up BS and citing bogus, retracted and disputed studies. Taihtsat

 

[95coug]

Go ahead and cite for me in any of your outcome driven scientific studies anywhere it says:

a) grand-mama's quilted mask is effective
b) N95 masks were widely available and used.

The second article turns into an ad hominem attack against one of the Cochrane authors, which automatically disqualifies it as credible.

Also interesting that the Cochrane report confirmed what we've known for years, yet wasn't widely promoted as masks were MUCH MUCH MUCH more important: hand washing works, as it always has.

A bunch of smoke screens and misdirection to get to the talking point of "masks work, they always worked."

This touches on the other thing that I shook my head at even while it was happening:

REmember when they had people recommending that everyone step up cleaning of surfaces? We were supposed to hire extra help to walk around and sanitize doorknobs and elevator buttons. Conference rooms were supposed to be fully cleaned and sanitized between meetings.

It seemed pretty clear from the beginning that nobody was getting covid from a doorknob, yet the early guidance was toward cleaning surfaces...which led to all supplies of sanitizing wipes being sold out everywhere.

Even better....most of those sanitizing wipes were just barely even able to kill covid, and only with several minutes of contact time.

Really wish I had owned stock in Clorox (and Amazon, and of course...Zoom) in February of 2020.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

This touches on the other thing that I shook my head at even while it was happening:

REmember when they had people recommending that everyone step up cleaning of surfaces? We were supposed to hire extra help to walk around and sanitize doorknobs and elevator buttons. Conference rooms were supposed to be fully cleaned and sanitized between meetings.

It seemed pretty clear from the beginning that nobody was getting covid from a doorknob, yet the early guidance was toward cleaning surfaces...which led to all supplies of sanitizing wipes being sold out everywhere.

Even better....most of those sanitizing wipes were just barely even able to kill covid, and only with several minutes of contact time.

Really wish I had owned stock in Clorox (and Amazon, and of course...Zoom) in February of 2020.

Wipes are the biggest scam.

Right on the label - "60 seconds (or more) of contact time". When, ever, has a wipe left a surface wet for 60 seconds?

 

[95coug]

Wipes are the biggest scam.

Right on the label - "60 seconds (or more) of contact time". When, ever, has a wipe left a surface wet for 60 seconds?

Well...the wipes that most people used are a scam. Quaternary ammonium and similar compounds take such long contact times to kill all but the weakest organisms that they're basically useless. They make the surface shiny and they smell like disinfectant...that's all they do.

I was pretty proud of myself in 2020 because I went out and bought thousands of ethanol wipes just ahead of the rush on them...and before the guidance started saying ethanol was one of the best sanitizers. (Of course it is, duh...)

Now, four years later, I still have thousands of ethanol wipes because by the time things reopened the guidance had changed and we didn't need to wipe anything down anymore. I also have more than 100 gallons of hand sanitizer that's never going to be used.

In my whole career, there's only once that I've exceeded a project or annual budget by more than about 5%. In 2020, I exceeded it by almost 70%...all because I had to buy high demand sanitizing supplies on a short turnaround...and 90+% of the stuff I bought has never been used.

 

[Cougsocal]

Public health officials turned out to be just as bad as the anti-vaxxer crowd, following hunches while ignoring what science had to say.

Not even close. The anti-vax crowd completely ignores relevant and current studies while using cherry-picked data, ad hominem attacks (that's for you, bleed) all the while moving the goal posts and implementing motivated reasoning among other dishonest and ideologically driven tactics.

Public health officials changed their recommendations as new information came to light. Case-in-point; masks are no longer part of a public health policy, not advocating social distancing, not even isolating and being restricted from competing in the olympics while still having covid. Anti-vaxxers are STILL anti-vaxxers making up BS and citing bogus, retracted and disputed studies. Taihtsat

Masks are "proven effective" sounds a lot like don't vax me, shoot me up with hydroxychloroquine instead to me. Both show a loss of reality contact. We know that the antivax crowd are, sadly, misinformed conspiracy theorists who ignore science. Public health officials are well informed, and just chose misrepresented the science on a hunch that masks would do some good, among other hunch based policy decisions. That's just as bad to me.

As for the changes in policy, when no one is dying, hospitals are empty, and the effects of full blown Covid don't prevent athletes from winning medals, you'd be laugh off the stage to suggest locking down the Olympics. Changing policy for fear of backlash and ridicule, ain't good public health. Getting kids back in school to finish spring 2020, by recognizing they weren't at risk, that fat old diabetics were, that would have been good public health You don't think the anti vax crowd haven't changed and honed their arguments. Covid is a democratic hoax ain't a thing anymore. The covid vaxxes are dangerous ain't a thing, nor the micro chip implantation rouse. They don't have to make those stupid claims, they now have the fertile field of pandemic lies and mismanagement to work with to base their medical conspiracies on. World wide public health officials just teed it up for these folks, by not being candid and overplaying their hand!

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Well...the wipes that most people used are a scam. Quaternary ammonium and similar compounds take such long contact times to kill all but the weakest organisms that they're basically useless. They make the surface shiny and they smell like disinfectant...that's all they do.

I was pretty proud of myself in 2020 because I went out and bought thousands of ethanol wipes just ahead of the rush on them...and before the guidance started saying ethanol was one of the best sanitizers. (Of course it is, duh...)

Now, four years later, I still have thousands of ethanol wipes because by the time things reopened the guidance had changed and we didn't need to wipe anything down anymore. I also have more than 100 gallons of hand sanitizer that's never going to be used.

In my whole career, there's only once that I've exceeded a project or annual budget by more than about 5%. In 2020, I exceeded it by almost 70%...all because I had to buy high demand sanitizing supplies on a short turnaround...and 90+% of the stuff I bought has never been used.

Heh, you and other like you made my bank account very happy during the pandemic.

The run on any available sanitizer was absolutely bonkers. Wonder what all those soccer moms who can only eat organic would think if they knew the quat they were spreading all over their house (and is used at virtually every restaurant) is very much NOT organic.

 

[Coug90]

Masks are "proven effective" sounds a lot like don't vax me, shoot me up with hydroxychloroquine instead to me. Both show a loss of reality contact. We know that the antivax crowd are, sadly, misinformed conspiracy theorists who ignore science. Public health officials are well informed, and just chose misrepresented the science on a hunch that masks would do some good, among other hunch based policy decisions. That's just as bad to me.

As for the changes in policy, when no one is dying, hospitals are empty, and the effects of full blown Covid don't prevent athletes from winning medals, you'd be laugh off the stage to suggest locking down the Olympics. Changing policy for fear of backlash and ridicule, ain't good public health. Getting kids back in school to finish spring 2020, by recognizing they weren't at risk, that fat old diabetics were, that would have been good public health You don't think the anti vax crowd haven't changed and honed their arguments. Covid is a democratic hoax ain't a thing anymore. The covid vaxxes are dangerous ain't a thing, nor the micro chip implantation rouse. They don't have to make those stupid claims, they now have the fertile field of pandemic lies and mismanagement to work with to base their medical conspiracies on. World wide public health officials just teed it up for these folks, by not being candid and overplaying their hand!

The “Bring Back Rolo” knuckleheads breaks the tie. I want to watch shitty football to martyr a shitty football coach vs maskers… Advantage maskers.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Masks are "proven effective" sounds a lot like don't vax me, shoot me up with hydroxychloroquine instead to me. Both show a loss of reality contact. We know that the antivax crowd are, sadly, misinformed conspiracy theorists who ignore science. Public health officials are well informed, and just chose misrepresented the science on a hunch that masks would do some good, among other hunch based policy decisions. That's just as bad to me.

As for the changes in policy, when no one is dying, hospitals are empty, and the effects of full blown Covid don't prevent athletes from winning medals, you'd be laugh off the stage to suggest locking down the Olympics. Changing policy for fear of backlash and ridicule, ain't good public health. Getting kids back in school to finish spring 2020, by recognizing they weren't at risk, that fat old diabetics were, that would have been good public health You don't think the anti vax crowd haven't changed and honed their arguments. Covid is a democratic hoax ain't a thing anymore. The covid vaxxes are dangerous ain't a thing, nor the micro chip implantation rouse. They don't have to make those stupid claims, they now have the fertile field of pandemic lies and mismanagement to work with to base their medical conspiracies on. World wide public health officials just teed it up for these folks, by not being candid and overplaying their hand!

I agree with almost everything you say. It's true that now the ill-informed have a whole new state of targets to generate new BS from.

But soo much of these posts are complete 20/20 hindsight bias. This shit was happening in real-time and clearly the real world experience changed the way policy was implemented bringing us to where we are currently.

It's these not in good-faith actors that make absolute claims about "masks don't work" when they've never been comprehensively tested in a controlled setting...never could be and never will be - especially with a potentially fatal or medically serious virus.

So, again, I agree with your premise looking back now knowing what we know. But at the time (as you know) it certainly wasn't based off some grand plan to control the masses. Taihtsat

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I agree with almost everything you say. It's true that now the ill-informed have a whole new state of targets to generate new BS from.

But soo much of these posts are complete 20/20 hindsight bias. This shit was happening in real-time and clearly the real world experience changed the way policy was implemented bringing us to where we are currently.

It's these not in good-faith actors that make absolute claims about "masks don't work" when they've never been comprehensively tested in a controlled setting...never could be and never will be - especially with a potentially fatal or medically serious virus.

So, again, I agree with your premise looking back now knowing what we know. But at the time (as you know) it certainly wasn't based off some grand plan to control the masses. Taihtsat

Its not hindsight.

The virus is smaller than most masks can filter. Especially grandma's homemade mask. It was known then, its known now. Also known in a very short time was that it affected the old and vulnerable parts of the population; masking every living soul was not necessary. And lets not forget that the virus still spread like wildfire, seemingly inexplicably, in the middle of the mask mandate in both masked and unmasked states. That's not hindsight either; this data was known real time.

I will admit, though I have absolutely zero basis for this opinion, that there is probably some mitigation from most masks, even if simply to stop assholes who won't stay home when they are symptomatic from sneezing and coughing all over people. But how much and whether it was enough to warrant martial mask law is not supported by data, which is what the studies are saying.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Its not hindsight.

The virus is smaller than most masks can filter. Especially grandma's homemade mask. It was known then, its known now. Also known in a very short time was that it affected the old and vulnerable parts of the population; masking every living soul was not necessary. And lets not forget that the virus still spread like wildfire, seemingly inexplicably, in the middle of the mask mandate in both masked and unmasked states. That's not hindsight either; this data was known real time.

I will admit, though I have absolutely zero basis for this opinion, that there is probably some mitigation from most masks, even if simply to stop assholes who won't stay home when they are symptomatic from sneezing and coughing all over people. But how much and whether it was enough to warrant martial mask law is not supported by data, which is what the studies are saying.

And lets not forget that the virus still spread like wildfire, seemingly inexplicably, in the middle of the mask mandate in both masked and unmasked states. That's not hindsight either; this data was known real time.

You state "mask mandate" (by then a sizable portion of the population that was already non-compliant) as if it was 100% in effect. Even in those "masked states" a huge group of people refused to comply because of "oppression". I witnessed this in real time in late April in Washington state because I worked in a business that was allowed to remain open and was retail. I also witnessed this from a member of my immediate family who refused to be "controlled". Guess which way she votes?

The objection was ideological and not based off legitimate research or medical science.

Yes "most" masks weren't effective enough and even provided a false sense of security. But the medical grade ones were effective. I have a daughter who is a ER nurse in the Tacoma area who dealt with covid all the time. What they wore apparently was effective. Medical grade masks work (as demonstrated by medical staff all over the country in real world, real time scenarios).

But folks claim unequivocally that masks don't work because probably at least half the population either didn't wear them, didn't wear them properly, or didn't wear the right kind.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Its not hindsight.

The virus is smaller than most masks can filter. Especially grandma's homemade mask. It was known then, its known now. Also known in a very short time was that it affected the old and vulnerable parts of the population; masking every living soul was not necessary. And lets not forget that the virus still spread like wildfire, seemingly inexplicably, in the middle of the mask mandate in both masked and unmasked states. That's not hindsight either; this data was known real time.

I will admit, though I have absolutely zero basis for this opinion, that there is probably some mitigation from most masks, even if simply to stop assholes who won't stay home when they are symptomatic from sneezing and coughing all over people. But how much and whether it was enough to warrant martial mask law is not supported by data, which is what the studies are saying.

Plus I'll add to that...what "mask mandate"? Where were the entire populace required to wear a mask? It was only specific professions or classifications. The vast majority were encouraged but that is as far as that went.

And the studies were inconclusive. Tell me you didn't read the whole thing without telling me you didn't read the whole thing. 😉

Taihtsat

 

[Flatlandcoug]

And lets not forget that the virus still spread like wildfire, seemingly inexplicably, in the middle of the mask mandate in both masked and unmasked states. That's not hindsight either; this data was known real time.

You state "mask mandate" (by then a sizable portion of the population that was already non-compliant) as if it was 100% in effect. Even in those "masked states" a huge group of people refused to comply because of "oppression". I witnessed this in real time in late April in Washington state because I worked in a business that was allowed to remain open and was retail. I also witnessed this from a member of my immediate family who refused to be "controlled". Guess which way she votes?

The objection was ideological and not based off legitimate research or medical science.

Yes "most" masks weren't effective enough and even provided a false sense of security. But the medical grade ones were effective. I have a daughter who is a ER nurse in the Tacoma area who dealt with covid all the time. What they wore apparently was effective. Medical grade masks work (as demonstrated by medical staff all over the country in real world, real time scenarios).

But folks claim unequivocally that masks don't work because probably at least half the population either didn't wear them, didn't wear them properly, or didn't wear the right kind.

FWIW......COVID transmission and death rates were lower in "Blue States" than "Red States" and the data correlated directly with mask acceptance. You aren't wrong that masks weren't a silver bullet and didn't stop the virus in its tracks....but masks helped.

You could argue that red states tend to have citizens that are fatter and unhealthier than those in blue states.

Finally, even if masks didn't stop the virus from moving around, it provided a barrier that would reduce the distance that it traveled from the carrier and would also somewhat reduce the amount of already limited virus particles that could make it into a person's respiratory system. The combination of those two made mask mandates reasonable at the time. Also, for all of the bullsh!t about liberal, progressive mandates on masking.....why would Communist F#ckin' China have mask mandates to support the libs? How f#cking stupid do you have to be to believe that the Chinese were in on the scam?

 

[95coug]

Heh, you and other like you made my bank account very happy during the pandemic.

The run on any available sanitizer was absolutely bonkers. Wonder what all those soccer moms who can only eat organic would think if they knew the quat they were spreading all over their house (and is used at virtually every restaurant) is very much NOT organic.

I should clarify: all the stuff I bought was for work. It was one of those times where I was forced by my employer to do things that I knew didn’t make sense.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I should clarify: all the stuff I bought was for work. It was one of those times where I was forced by my employer to do things that I knew didn’t make sense.

I knew that and my statement still stands.