Twitter is better

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, BobDole said:

There are so many factors that affects transmission that narrowing it down to one thing such as masks is leaving out other factors. As stated previously saying a double leg doesn't work, doesn't factor in that I had a horrible setup or took my shot from 100 feet away...or I'm old, fat, and slow.

I agree with the overall sentiment Bob, but why the mask craze?  Why the "stand 6 feet away"...not 5'11'' away, but 6 feet craze?  And have people forgot about the not for more than 15 minutes thingy that made no sense??

Point is, this all should have been personal choice from the beginning...period.

[BobDole]

2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I agree with the overall sentiment Bob, but why the mask craze?  Why the "stand 6 feet away"...not 5'11'' away, but 6 feet craze?  And have people forgot about the not for more than 15 minutes thingy that made no sense??

Point is, this all should have been personal choice from the beginning...period.

I don't disagree on the surface at all. However, there were so many unknowns and confusion that we were basically running around without much direction.

To answer your questions in the best possible manner.
I agree with the overall sentiment Bob, but why the mask craze?
Because it did help with limiting exposure when wearing a proper mask and wearing it properly.

Why the "stand 6 feet away"...not 5'11'' away, but 6 feet craze?
Another "absolute" that we clung onto. It was meant to be something that you would generally look to to help limit exposure. I believe some of the early studies indicated that the droplets could carry approximately 6 feet and thus clearing that area would limit your exposure.

And have people forgot about the not for more than 15 minutes thingy that made no sense??
Again, an absolute we clung to. I felt this was weird especially when it came to schools. This again was meant to help limit your exposure. For instance if I was sitting next to someone with COVID for 15 minutes vs. 2 hours, I would be more exposed to the virus if I was there for 2 hours. 

In all honesty the guidelines pushed were more to limit your exposure and not 100% prevent you from getting it. That is where we lost connection to these guidelines. Limiting the exposure was to hopefully keep people out of the hospitals that were at max capacity in some areas. Getting a smaller does of COVID gives your body a better chance of fighting it off without much help needed from a doctor or hospital.

[Bigbrog]

24 minutes ago, BobDole said:

I don't disagree on the surface at all. However, there were so many unknowns and confusion that we were basically running around without much direction.

To answer your questions in the best possible manner.
I agree with the overall sentiment Bob, but why the mask craze?
Because it did help with limiting exposure when wearing a proper mask and wearing it properly.

Why the "stand 6 feet away"...not 5'11'' away, but 6 feet craze?
Another "absolute" that we clung onto. It was meant to be something that you would generally look to to help limit exposure. I believe some of the early studies indicated that the droplets could carry approximately 6 feet and thus clearing that area would limit your exposure.

And have people forgot about the not for more than 15 minutes thingy that made no sense??
Again, an absolute we clung to. I felt this was weird especially when it came to schools. This again was meant to help limit your exposure. For instance if I was sitting next to someone with COVID for 15 minutes vs. 2 hours, I would be more exposed to the virus if I was there for 2 hours. 

In all honesty the guidelines pushed were more to limit your exposure and not 100% prevent you from getting it. That is where we lost connection to these guidelines. Limiting the exposure was to hopefully keep people out of the hospitals that were at max capacity in some areas. Getting a smaller does of COVID gives your body a better chance of fighting it off without much help needed from a doctor or hospital.

Understand what you are saying.  And understand that the sentiment was to limit exposure...but where I diverge from the sentiment is when it was applied holistically to everyone, instead of towards those the data and science indicated should limit their exposure.  There were things and processes in place for people in the high-risk category to truly limit their exposure without limiting other people who maybe didn't have to worry about their personal exposure.  And where that truly caused the most damage was shutting down small businesses, totally disrupting the supply chain (which we still feel the pain today), and the biggest one, canceling once in a lifetime opportunities for our kids and college students.  The data and science, from the very beginning, clearly demonstrated we didn't need to do that.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Bigbrog

[Ban Basketball]

5 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

masks and lockdowns didn't work. newsflash. 

The Mayo Clinic and every other reputable hospital disagrees. 

Still didn't disprove what they were saying.  I wonder why?

[BobDole]

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Understand what you are saying.  And understand that the sentiment was to limit exposure...but where I diverge from the sentiment is when it was applied holistically to everyone, instead of towards those the data and science indicated should limit their exposure.  

 

We tend to mix things we know now vs. what we knew then. At the time what we truly knew was limited and much like the guidelines changed at what seemed by the hour. The virus to this day still is very sporadic and attacks the old and weak more, but still will suck up a victim that we would deem healthy. More than anything the unpredictability of this virus is what drove the craze. 

  

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

 There were things and processes in place for people in the high-risk category to truly limit their exposure without limiting other people who maybe didn't have to worry about their personal exposure. 

 

Very true, not sure exactly if you are referring to mandatory masking and such or not. To be honest requiring masks in public during this time should not have been as big of a deal as it was. No one truly wants to wear a mask. At the same time if it helps a little bit then it shouldn't have been as big of a deal as it was.

  

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

And where that truly caused the most damage was shutting down small businesses, totally disrupting the supply chain (which we still feel the pain today), and the biggest one, canceling once in a lifetime opportunities for our kids and college students.  The data and science, from the very beginning, clearly demonstrated we didn't need to do that.

 

Not wrong there at all. I think this is where things were escalated to a new level. I can attest that the place I work was granted an exception and many places found the loophole to stay open. Some were not as lucky and many never reopened.

As far as the kids, again agree completely. I cannot fathom being a coach that had to tell his baseball team there was no season or the modified graduation ceremonies that were held if at all. I think our schools found it way easier to go remote than to to find a way to get kids back in the building. One of the reasons I feel that lead to this that doesn't get discussed is how litigious the American society has become. I think schools and the state were more concerned with being sued than anything. 

[Bigbrog]

6 minutes ago, BobDole said:

We tend to mix things we know now vs. what we knew then. At the time what we truly knew was limited and much like the guidelines changed at what seemed by the hour. The virus to this day still is very sporadic and attacks the old and weak more, but still will suck up a victim that we would deem healthy. More than anything the unpredictability of this virus is what drove the craze. 

  

Very true, not sure exactly if you are referring to mandatory masking and such or not. To be honest requiring masks in public during this time should not have been as big of a deal as it was. No one truly wants to wear a mask. At the same time if it helps a little bit then it shouldn't have been as big of a deal as it was.

  

Not wrong there at all. I think this is where things were escalated to a new level. I can attest that the place I work was granted an exception and many places found the loophole to stay open. Some were not as lucky and many never reopened.

As far as the kids, again agree completely. I cannot fathom being a coach that had to tell his baseball team there was no season or the modified graduation ceremonies that were held if at all. I think our schools found it way easier to go remote than to to find a way to get kids back in the building. One of the reasons I feel that lead to this that doesn't get discussed is how litigious the American society has become. I think schools and the state were more concerned with being sued than anything. 

Good conversation Bob!!  This is what I like...this type of back and forth!

 

[BobDole]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Good conversation Bob!!  This is what I like...this type of back and forth!

 

I don't think either side of this debate is as far from each other as many think. 

No one wanted to wear a mask

No one wanted things shut down

No one wanted to be cooped up with our family for however long it was!

Social media combined with people having too much free time was a potent mixture that caused people to spread misinformation, scary stories, and everything else in between.

[Offthemat]

Oh, had these guys been in charge.  From October 2020:

THE GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION 

“

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

 

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.”

[Bigbrog]

Getting to the Truth About the Effectiveness of Masks in Preventing COVID-19 | Annals of Internal Medicine (acpjournals.org)

 

Good article

[jross]

Remember when Twitter didn't allow discussion on THE GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION?  X is better.

[Offthemat]

Elon’s made a few questionable hires recently, though.  Have to wait and see. 

[ionel]

3 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Oh, had these guys been in charge.  From October 2020:

THE GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION 

“

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.”

Related to above and some previous posts discussion.  Some have suggested you got to be a doctor to discuss/understand these issue.  Well its worth pointing out that most doctors aren't trained in these issues, most are dealing more with black and white issue of what do I prescribe for conditions not probabilities and statistics.  There are some, we had a pediatrician who had been in research prior and knew we were in research gave us the research perspective of options for our kids' treatment etc.  

Now related to the whole covid thing.  Why did we not require everyone to wear an N95 masks from the start?  Because this was as much an economic (allocation of scarce resources among competing ends) issue as pure medical.  We didn't have enough N95 and didn't want a run on N95s.  There was a controlled research study in another country of mask use, can't remember country and think it was a standard like N95.  The study did find mask use statistically significant vs no but it made very little difference and this was a case where they were trained to wear them properly.

But back to above, Dr. Bhattacharya was a voice of reason and using research for such in the early period, plus he was basing his discussion etc from finding in his and other's current controlled research and statistics.  Like said this was an medical and economic problem.  Dr. B is trained in economics, statistics and medicine.  But there were others also.  Many that were concerned about the economic cost of lockdowns and the medical, suicide etc implications of lockdowns and mandates.   As said earlier, there were controlled studies as well as other research showing that masks weren't effective for masses even if worn properly, but could be useful for vulnerable if worn properly.  Can't tell you how many folks (prob ~1/3rd) showed up in a car to a business that required mask, there mask was pulled down on their chin meaning droplets were on outside of mask, entering store they pulled the mask up which then meant that when exhaling the droplets would be pushed off the outside of their mask.  In these cases its possible masks were worse.  And there were studies which showed certain types of masks were worse that no mask.  But again the N95 was an economic problem.  

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by ionel

[Paul158]

5 hours ago, BobDole said:

I don't disagree on the surface at all. However, there were so many unknowns and confusion that we were basically running around without much direction.

To answer your questions in the best possible manner.
I agree with the overall sentiment Bob, but why the mask craze?
Because it did help with limiting exposure when wearing a proper mask and wearing it properly.

Why the "stand 6 feet away"...not 5'11'' away, but 6 feet craze?
Another "absolute" that we clung onto. It was meant to be something that you would generally look to to help limit exposure. I believe some of the early studies indicated that the droplets could carry approximately 6 feet and thus clearing that area would limit your exposure.

And have people forgot about the not for more than 15 minutes thingy that made no sense??
Again, an absolute we clung to. I felt this was weird especially when it came to schools. This again was meant to help limit your exposure. For instance if I was sitting next to someone with COVID for 15 minutes vs. 2 hours, I would be more exposed to the virus if I was there for 2 hours. 

In all honesty the guidelines pushed were more to limit your exposure and not 100% prevent you from getting it. That is where we lost connection to these guidelines. Limiting the exposure was to hopefully keep people out of the hospitals that were at max capacity in some areas. Getting a smaller does of COVID gives your body a better chance of fighting it off without much help needed from a doctor or hospital.

In North Carolina the rule was you couldn't shake hands after you had wrestled  each other for 6minutes. That might be the dumbest rule ever.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Paul158

[Paul158]

4 hours ago, Ban Basketball said:

The Mayo Clinic and every other reputable hospital disagrees. 

Still didn't disprove what they were saying.  I wonder why?

Sometimes its just hard to admit you were so wrong. Especially when you are the smartest of the smartest.

[Bigbrog]

15 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

In North Carolina the rule was you couldn't shake hands after you had wrestled  each other for 6minutes. That might be the dumbest rule ever.

Here where I live, for one year the kids had to wear masks during practice and in matches...it was an absolute joke at practice...but I HAD to tell the kids they needed to wear them, but they were down around their chin 90% of the time.  And after the mask ban was lifted, the refs still couldn't allow the kids to shake hands or shake hands after the dual...made no sense!

[Plasmodium]

Pretty clear nobody around here understands liability o practical governance.  Obviously it makes it makes no sense to wear a mask in wrestling, but the alternative was cancellation.  Ask he ivy league.

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Pretty clear nobody around here understands liability o practical governance.  Obviously it makes it makes no sense to wear a mask in wrestling, but the alternative was cancellation.  Ask he ivy league.

Oh...pretty sure everyone on here does understand that...but that doesn't make a lot of the mandates right, or logical.  Nor does it mean people should sit back and not speak out against the illogicalness and stupidity of it.  

[Ban Basketball]

39 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Sometimes its just hard to admit you were so wrong. Especially when you are the smartest of the smartest.

Yes,  right,  the Mayo Clinic was wrong.  This is exactly why I research how fantasy becomes reality and reality fantasy among the 30 percenters. 

Having too much knowledge of the place for my own good,  they would have come out to correct their error, had they been wrong. 

Now, being that you know more than them,  your medical training comes from where?

Edited August 23, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[WrestlingRasta]

34 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

In North Carolina the rule was you couldn't shake hands after you had wrestled  each other for 6minutes. That might be the dumbest rule ever.

It does certainly seem dumb, and for all practical purposes it is, but I can explain. (I had to do some ‘bring sports back’ policy writing) 

In that situation we’re looking at what can we do, whatever we gotta do, to get the sport(s) back to playing. And one of the things we look at is eliminating any contact/interaction throughout the course of an event that is not necessary  to complete the competition. As stupid as handshakes, Jersey exchanges, etc seem after just competing against said person, it’s still a contact/interaction that is not necessary to complete it. So it’s eliminated. And you have to cut the line. If you get into, “well it’s not necessary, but……” then you have a convoluted mess of differing judgements on your hands. Black and white, it’s either necessary for the competition or it’s not.  And if it’s not it was eliminated. 

[Paul158]

45 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

Yes,  right,  the Mayo Clinic was wrong.  This is exactly why I research how fantasy becomes reality and reality fantasy among the 30 percenters. 

Having too much knowledge of the place for my own good,  they would have come out to correct their error, had they been wrong. 

Now, being that you know more than them,  your medical training comes from where?

You know where it comes from. This forum, CNN and MSNBC. For one thing the medical field is not all in agreement. For another thing there may be some liability issues here.

[Paul158]

25 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

It does certainly seem dumb, and for all practical purposes it is, but I can explain. (I had to do some ‘bring sports back’ policy writing) 

In that situation we’re looking at what can we do, whatever we gotta do, to get the sport(s) back to playing. And one of the things we look at is eliminating any contact/interaction throughout the course of an event that is not necessary  to complete the competition. As stupid as handshakes, Jersey exchanges, etc seem after just competing against said person, it’s still a contact/interaction that is not necessary to complete it. So it’s eliminated. And you have to cut the line. If you get into, “well it’s not necessary, but……” then you have a convoluted mess of differing judgements on your hands. Black and white, it’s either necessary for the competition or it’s not.  And if it’s not it was eliminated. 

You must have been overwhelmed at times with your job. I can't imagine.  I was a heating and air service technician during covid. I made approximately 5400 house calls during Covid. That was one very strange experience. 

[Paul158]

33 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

It does certainly seem dumb, and for all practical purposes it is, but I can explain. (I had to do some ‘bring sports back’ policy writing) 

In that situation we’re looking at what can we do, whatever we gotta do, to get the sport(s) back to playing. And one of the things we look at is eliminating any contact/interaction throughout the course of an event that is not necessary  to complete the competition. As stupid as handshakes, Jersey exchanges, etc seem after just competing against said person, it’s still a contact/interaction that is not necessary to complete it. So it’s eliminated. And you have to cut the line. If you get into, “well it’s not necessary, but……” then you have a convoluted mess of differing judgements on your hands. Black and white, it’s either necessary for the competition or it’s not.  And if it’s not it was eliminated. 

It wasn't necessary for  sure. It just seemed so odd in a full contact sport for 6 minutes or more that you can't touch after the match.

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Here where I live, for one year the kids had to wear masks during practice and in matches...it was an absolute joke at practice...but I HAD to tell the kids they needed to wear them, but they were down around their chin 90% of the time.  And after the mask ban was lifted, the refs still couldn't allow the kids to shake hands or shake hands after the dual...made no sense!

I guess they should have had wrestling matches with no touching involved.You had to smack talk your way to victory. The winner is the one with the best smack down.

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Here where I live, for one year the kids had to wear masks during practice and in matches...it was an absolute joke at practice...but I HAD to tell the kids they needed to wear them, but they were down around their chin 90% of the time.  And after the mask ban was lifted, the refs still couldn't allow the kids to shake hands or shake hands after the dual...made no sense!

Breathing is certainly a necessary aspect of competing. There were a few states that did that, I think it may be the stand all dumbest thing to come from Covid. 

[Plasmodium]

12 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I guess they should have had wrestling matches with no touching involved.You had to smack talk your way to victory. The winner is the one with the best smack down.

I saw Eminem win one of those in some track movie about running 8 miles.

.