Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Part X

[Confucius]

I'm just pointing out what worked in Wuhan. Masks accomplished nothing. But house arrest for 1 month worked wonders. That one month would be much better for everyone than where we're at now 10 months later.

Half measures don't seem to be working. Look at what's happened in big cities in Canada and US that use half measures. The lie/excuse for that is "everybody's breaking the rules". But that's bullshit.

I literally can't belive that the general public bought into the argument that "Covid affects everybody everywhere. OTHER than inside of lobbying mega-influential corporations of course. You're fine there." It's insane.

We're going to look back on this in years and see the Walmarts crammed shoulder to shoulder, and then the video of that Quebec family being aggressively arrested for hanging out together. We're going to be baffled that people bought into it. Remember, every member of the Red Guard was certain they'd be on the right side of history.

If I even had one drink today, I'd think I had a double account. Couldn't agree more man. Lockdown everyone for a month, don't pick and choose and lockdown some for 9 months. The double standard is alive and well.

It would have been a legendary video had they captured a coffee shop across the street lined out the door and down the street. And yes it happens that is no exaggeration there is a Krispie creme near me and the lineups are ridiculously long.

 

[Pookie]

Should I belive "pookie on the internet" or Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Aerosol expert Dr. Lisa Brosseau?

Tought one, that is...

It's astounding that people like me are considered "anti-science" for listening to what the experts actually say, as opposed to the dumbed-down media-spun version of science. The cidrap talks about this at great length. The media cites sources they don't understand and give a false conclusion of the study's findings.

Dr Brousseau is an Industrial Hygienist who published a non peer reviewed paper. Using the Flu of 1918 as the basis, she concluded that masks did not help in controlling the spread of the pandemic. For reference she cited a paper by William Kellogg, who did conclude that masks were ineffective... largely because they were only worn outside.

But @Throw More Waffles , why don't we end this little discussion with words from Dr Osterholm, Director of CIDRAP, whom you famously like to quote.

"Updated, July 22nd, 2020

Science, when done well, can be messy, imperfect, and slower than we wish. And it's ever-evolving. Unfortunately, in the time of a pandemic, we wish this weren't the case, as we all want and need immediate answer...

At the outset, I want to make several points crystal clear:

• I support the wearing of cloth face coverings (masks) by the general public.
• Stop citing CIDRAP and me as grounds to not wear masks, whether mandated or not.
• Don't, however, use the wearing of cloth face coverings as an excuse to decrease other crucial, likely more effective, protective steps, like physical distancing

Also, don't use poorly conducted studies to support a contention that wearing cloth face coverings will drive the pandemic into the ground. But even if they reduce infection risk somewhat, wearing them can be important...

Again, I want to make it very clear that I support the use of cloth face coverings by the general public. I wear one myself on the limited occasions I'm out in public. In areas where face coverings are mandated, I expect the public to follow the mandate and wear them.

... We need to be clear that cloth face coverings are one tool we have to fight the pandemic, but they alone will not end it. And we need to underscore the key role that physical distancing plays—even when you wear a face covering..."
​

From the cdc themselves. “A surgical mask does NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection".
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/UnderstandingDifference3-508.pdf



Now I assume I'll be "anti-science" for listening to the cdc and cidrap...

You are not anti-science... but you are kind of anti-active listener.

That's what we have been writing about. That Masks protect OTHERS from you. That your odds of getting COVID while wearing a mask can be as high as 80%.

Of course the CDC published that piece about not protecting the wearer... that's exactly what we have been saying.

Take a breather. We are all on the same side here.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Dr Brousseau is an Industrial Hygienist who published a non peer reviewed paper. Using the Flu of 1918 as the basis, she concluded that masks did not help in controlling the spread of the pandemic. For reference she cited a paper by William Kellogg, who did conclude that masks were ineffective... largely because they were only worn outside.

But @Throw More Waffles , why don't we end this little discussion with words from Dr Osterholm, Director of CIDRAP, whom you famously like to quote.

"Updated, July 22nd, 2020

Science, when done well, can be messy, imperfect, and slower than we wish. And it's ever-evolving. Unfortunately, in the time of a pandemic, we wish this weren't the case, as we all want and need immediate answer...

At the outset, I want to make several points crystal clear:

• I support the wearing of cloth face coverings (masks) by the general public.
• Stop citing CIDRAP and me as grounds to not wear masks, whether mandated or not.
• Don't, however, use the wearing of cloth face coverings as an excuse to decrease other crucial, likely more effective, protective steps, like physical distancing

Also, don't use poorly conducted studies to support a contention that wearing cloth face coverings will drive the pandemic into the ground. But even if they reduce infection risk somewhat, wearing them can be important...

Again, I want to make it very clear that I support the use of cloth face coverings by the general public. I wear one myself on the limited occasions I'm out in public. In areas where face coverings are mandated, I expect the public to follow the mandate and wear them.

... We need to be clear that cloth face coverings are one tool we have to fight the pandemic, but they alone will not end it. And we need to underscore the key role that physical distancing plays—even when you wear a face covering..."
​

You are not anti-science... but you are kind of anti-active listener.

That's what we have been writing about. That Masks protect OTHERS from you. That your odds of getting COVID while wearing a mask can be as high as 80%.

Of course the CDC published that piece about not protecting the wearer... that's exactly what we have been saying. I find this part from above intesting.

Take a breather. We are all on the same side here.

I'm well aware of Osterholm writing all of that after receiving death threats for being "anti-mask". Even what I linked from him from June said the precise same thing. I find this part from above interesting.

Also, don't use poorly conducted studies to support a contention that wearing cloth face coverings will drive the pandemic into the ground. But even if they reduce infection risk somewhat, wearing them can be important...

That's precisely what I believe. Masks "may" help a little. That's what I've been arguing from the get go. But when you say things like "If only everyone wore masks, my kids would still be working". No. That's disinformation. Due to aerosols (regardless of mask wearing from both infected and non-infected people), cloth masks barely work (if at all), but n-95 masks are very effective.

I saw on the Vancouver subreddit recently where someone said "I'm immune compromised but want to go back to the gym. Do people wear masks there?" There were dozens of replies, and EVERYONE said that masks are strictly enforced so he'd be safe there. Are you not concerned about this exaggerated viewpoint of masks? You don't think all of this disinformation/exaggerations about mask effectiveness is dangerous?

And dr. Brosseau has a LONG career of studying aeorosls and has more than 100 peer reviewed publications. To dismiss her outright shows just how much you're only interested in the science that tells you what you want to hear.

 

[Nineteen67]

do you know if the people going to the bars work with the vulnerable or live with people that work with the vulnerable?

The vulnerable need to stay in, if they choose. I know lots of 65 + that haven’t worried about this for one second. They’re healthy and they’ve been out living their lives since May.

 

[Pookie]

The vulnerable need to stay in, if they choose. I know lots of 65 + that haven’t worried about this for one second. They’re healthy and they’ve been out living their lives since May.

I'm well aware of Osterholm writing all of that after receiving death threats for being "anti-mask". Even what I linked from him from June said the precise same thing. I find this part from above interesting.



That's precisely what I believe. Masks "may" help a little. That's what I've been arguing from the get go. But when you say things like "If only everyone wore masks, my kids would still be working". No. That's disinformation. Due to aerosols (regardless of mask wearing from both infected and non-infected people), cloth masks barely work (if at all), but n-95 masks are very effective.

I saw on the Vancouver subreddit recently where someone said "I'm immune compromised but want to go back to the gym. Do people wear masks there?" There were dozens of replies, and EVERYONE said that masks are strictly enforced so he'd be safe there. Are you not concerned about this exaggerated viewpoint of masks? You don't think all of this disinformation/exaggerations about mask effectiveness is dangerous?

And dr. Brosseau has a LONG career of studying aeorosls and has more than 100 peer reviewed publications. To dismiss her outright shows just how much you're only interested in the science that tells you what you want to hear.

Dude, tapping out here.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that isn't listening. You may find arguing with a mirror to be more to your liking.

All the best.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Dude, tapping out here.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that isn't listening. You may find arguing with a mirror to be more to your liking.

All the best.

I'd accuse you of the same.

But whatever. Fair enough, as this is starting to go in circles. Canada game just started as well.

 

[Nineteen67]

Dude, tapping out here.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that isn't listening. You may find arguing with a mirror to be more to your liking.

All the best.

Stay safe.
Put some sunglasses and a mask on open your curtains and peak out the window every now and then.

Meanwhile, I’ll be watching my kid pay baseball, eating in restaurants, and living my life

 

[Pookie]

Stay safe.
Put some sunglasses and a mask on open your curtains and peak out the window every now and then.

Meanwhile, I’ll be watching my kid pay baseball, eating in restaurants, and living my life

Fun. Spent the summer golfing, cycling and started skiing when the hills closed. Live near a ski resort, hike with the dogs, spend money on take out... play guitar.

Best of luck recovering from Covid.

 

[Nineteen67]

Fun. Spent the summer golfing, cycling and started skiing when the hills closed. Live near a ski resort, hike with the dogs, spend money on take out... play guitar.

Best of luck recovering from Covid.

Already recovered....had a slight fever back when it was going through the household. If youre healthy, it’s not bad.

 

[Pookie]

Already recovered....had a slight fever back when it was going through the household. If youre healthy, it’s not bad.

Well, let's hope you didn't pass it along to anyone that was in contact with vulnerable folks.

 

[Clark4Ever]

Right, I asked you to stop using the word lockdown... not shutdown.

Either word creates a false choice supposedly between protection and a complete lockdown of society.

We are not doing either well.

Protection:
The truth is, we have created health guidelines BUT we have clearly not enforced them. ANYONE traveling for recreational purposes, going over household limits, not wearing masks, not distancing... should get maximum fines and all proceeds used to subsidize economic relief efforts.

Lockdown:
On the other side of the coin, to say we are locked down is absurd. Today, I went to Loblaws, the Beer Store, Staples and Starbucks. While I shovel my own driveway, my neighbours have contracted with small businesses to clear theirs. Those folks were working this morning. As was city owned snow removal contractors. Our blue boxes are out as the city's contracted waste management company will pick up our stuff. Boxes full after Christmas spending on retail and Chinese Food take away that we ordered on New Years. We drove by delivery trucks and I plan to order a book from Chapters this afternoon.

It's best to acknowledge where we are without creating the illusion of extremes.

In a nutshell, my main point is this...there are some of us that have been able to live our lives throughout the pandemic without enduring hardships or a significant change in lifestyle. I am very fortunate to be able to work from home and like you, I have been able to access everything I need with the current restrictions in place. I have a wife and 2 young kids so I am content to stay at home and make the best of it.

My concern is for the many others out there in different situations both economically and socially. The mom and pop shops that will never recover, their employees that are out of work, the teenagers and single adults that would be much better off having places to go and socialize in a controlled, safe environment. There are exceptions of course such as bars and nightclubs which would be detrimental to open at this point, but overall, I think it would make more sense to go back to the level of restrictions that we had over the summer. I know the case numbers have skyrocketed since then, but again, that's not because of small businesses, restaurants, or shopping malls being open to the public.

Give people a bit of a social outlet and they will be less likely to break the rules in their own homes, where there are no mandatory safety protocols in place.

 

[stealth1]

In a nutshell, my main point is this...there are some of us that have been able to live our lives throughout the pandemic without enduring hardships or a significant change in lifestyle. I am very fortunate to be able to work from home and like you, I have been able to access everything I need with the current restrictions in place. I have a wife and 2 young kids so I am content to stay at home and make the best of it.

My concern is for the many others out there in different situations both economically and socially. The mom and pop shops that will never recover, their employees that are out of work, the teenagers and single adults that would be much better off having places to go and socialize in a controlled, safe environment. There are exceptions of course such as bars and nightclubs which would be detrimental to open at this point, but overall, I think it would make more sense to go back to the level of restrictions that we had over the summer. I know the case numbers have skyrocketed since then, but again, that's not because of small businesses, restaurants, or shopping malls being open to the public.

Give people a bit of a social outlet and they will be less likely to break the rules in their own homes, where there are no mandatory safety protocols in place.

I agree we should have the same restrictions and that's its not the fault of small businesses. In theory what you are describing should work but you know the general public doesn't know logic. Look at how many can't understand the difference in a business being open, people wearing masks and social distancing as best as possible and having gatherings.

 

[Pookie]

In a nutshell, my main point is this...there are some of us that have been able to live our lives throughout the pandemic without enduring hardships or a significant change in lifestyle. I am very fortunate to be able to work from home and like you, I have been able to access everything I need with the current restrictions in place. I have a wife and 2 young kids so I am content to stay at home and make the best of it.

My concern is for the many others out there in different situations both economically and socially. The mom and pop shops that will never recover, their employees that are out of work, the teenagers and single adults that would be much better off having places to go and socialize in a controlled, safe environment. There are exceptions of course such as bars and nightclubs which would be detrimental to open at this point, but overall, I think it would make more sense to go back to the level of restrictions that we had over the summer. I know the case numbers have skyrocketed since then, but again, that's not because of small businesses, restaurants, or shopping malls being open to the public.

Give people a bit of a social outlet and they will be less likely to break the rules in their own homes, where there are no mandatory safety protocols in place.

I hear you.

I really have an issue with the ski hills being closed in Ontario. 1 because the safety protocols were quite good and they employ many. 2 because it is a great outlet for exercise and stress reduction. And 3 selfishly as my kids are both ski instructors.

That said, they are closed. So, we have to find something else.

I think what is frustrating is seeing leaders tell us to do one thing and then many of them disregard them and do what they want. I also don't see the point in restricting businesses based on type... they should be restricted based on ability to adhere to the protocols.

Much like food safety in a restaurant... if you can run a clean kitchen, serve away. If you can't, you close.

And to be quite honest, I don't see the point in having restrictions if the government doesn't plan on enforcing them.

We aren't locked down. And we aren't enforcing measures they say we need. So why not allow openings based on adherence to protocols.

If we must be closed and restrict ourselves to our immediate households... then do it. Fine those that don't.

We are walking this middle ground where they expect virus control through the good will of the majority and I don't think that will last long particularly with the examples set by leadership.

 

[stealth1]

I hear you.

I really have an issue with the ski hills being closed in Ontario. 1 because the safety protocols were quite good and they employ many. 2 because it is a great outlet for exercise and stress reduction. And 3 selfishly as my kids are both ski instructors.

That said, they are closed. So, we have to find something else.

I think what is frustrating is seeing leaders tell us to do one thing and then many of them disregard them and do what they want. I also don't see the point in restricting businesses based on type... they should be restricted based on ability to adhere to the protocols.

Much like food safety in a restaurant... if you can run a clean kitchen, serve away. If you can't, you close.

And to be quite honest, I don't see the point in having restrictions if the government doesn't plan on enforcing them.

We aren't locked down. And we aren't enforcing measures they say we need. So why not allow openings based on adherence to protocols.

If we must be closed and restrict ourselves to our immediate households... then do it. Fine those that don't.

We are walking this middle ground where they expect virus control through the good will of the majority and I don't think that will last long particularly with the examples set by leadership.

Exactly. It's why I keep saying it's going to get much worse before it gets better. Between how the leaders are acting and all the people believing in the great reset conspiracy we have little chance to get through this.

 

[hfman]

Exactly. It's why I keep saying it's going to get much worse before it gets better. Between how the leaders are acting and all the people believing in the great reset conspiracy we have little chance to get through this.

go back under your blankets


we'll call you when it's over

 

[hfman]

ALL HAIL 2020

 

[nsleaf]

Can face masks protect against the coronavirus?

 

[4thline]

Give people a bit of a social outlet and they will be less likely to break the rules in their own homes, where there are no mandatory safety protocols in place.

Personally I agree, that's what should work in a perfect world. But we have poster in this thread highlighting why it doesn't in reality- the "if they can go out for coffee I can have friends over" crowd

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

I'm well aware of Osterholm writing all of that after receiving death threats for being "anti-mask". Even what I linked from him from June said the precise same thing. I find this part from above interesting.



That's precisely what I believe. Masks "may" help a little. That's what I've been arguing from the get go. But when you say things like "If only everyone wore masks, my kids would still be working". No. That's disinformation. Due to aerosols (regardless of mask wearing from both infected and non-infected people), cloth masks barely work (if at all), but n-95 masks are very effective.

I saw on the Vancouver subreddit recently where someone said "I'm immune compromised but want to go back to the gym. Do people wear masks there?" There were dozens of replies, and EVERYONE said that masks are strictly enforced so he'd be safe there. Are you not concerned about this exaggerated viewpoint of masks? You don't think all of this disinformation/exaggerations about mask effectiveness is dangerous?

And dr. Brosseau has a LONG career of studying aeorosls and has more than 100 peer reviewed publications. To dismiss her outright shows just how much you're only interested in the science that tells you what you want to hear.

That's exactly the reason given back in the Spring by Dr. Tam why masks weren't a good idea: that they would create a false sense of security. I guess someone changed their mind about that.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Sure they do. This has been in place since Sept 30th.

"Quebec gives police legal tools to enter homes quickly to stop gatherings during COVID-19"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/public-health-restrictions-quebec-covid-19-1.5745046

And in fact, there were also multiple warnings issues publicly before Christmas:

Eg:

While Quebec continues to shatter its COVID-19 daily case records, police around the province are warning the public that they will be out in full force making sure people are abiding by the social distancing measures.

“There will be additional staff that will be deployed in the field in order to respond to calls,” said David Pelletier, a spokesperson for the Quebec City Police Service (SPVQ).

Authorities say officers who will see violations will have a “low tolerance” for people’s holiday gatherings, Pelletier added.

Two weeks ago, Premier François Legault and the president of the Association of Quebec Police Directors Robert Pigeon announced that the time for police officers to issue warnings was over.

Police in Quebec plan to be out in full force during holidays to enforce COVID-19 health rules

It seems absurd but if there was more enforcement early on, maybe we wouldn't be here.

I mean, why would you want your police going into the house and risking their own safety? We should just taser the rule breakers on the way out the door.......from a safe distance. Then collect their presents and give them out at shelters.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Some good news maybe? I've checked this every day since March. Starting to see a clear leveling off of new cases and maybe even a down trend (ignore the last day - obviously no data for yesterday). Hopefully there isn't a huge bump now from the holidays.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Exactly. It's why I keep saying it's going to get much worse before it gets better. Between how the leaders are acting and all the people believing in the great reset conspiracy we have little chance to get through this.

FYI, a moderator warned us the other day not to discuss what you call a conspiracy theory.

 

[Sensmileletsgo]

View attachment 381710

It feels like our hospital system is designed to run at 100% capacity in the winter when dealing with the flu season, so if some other virus comes along it completely f***s it up. Going to be interesting to see what we do with the baby boomers getting older and at a higher risk. More taxes for more hospital space and nurses?

 

[Pookie]

I'm well aware of Osterholm writing all of that after receiving death threats for being "anti-mask". Even what I linked from him from June said the precise same thing. I find this part from above interesting.

That's precisely what I believe. Masks "may" help a little. That's what I've been arguing from the get go. But when you say things like "If only everyone wore masks, my kids would still be working". No. That's disinformation. Due to aerosols (regardless of mask wearing from both infected and non-infected people), cloth masks barely work (if at all), but n-95 masks are very effective.

I saw on the Vancouver subreddit recently where someone said "I'm immune compromised but want to go back to the gym. Do people wear masks there?" There were dozens of replies, and EVERYONE said that masks are strictly enforced so he'd be safe there. Are you not concerned about this exaggerated viewpoint of masks? You don't think all of this disinformation/exaggerations about mask effectiveness is dangerous?

And dr. Brosseau has a LONG career of studying aeorosls and has more than 100 peer reviewed publications. To dismiss her outright shows just how much you're only interested in the science that tells you what you want to hear.

That's exactly the reason given back in the Spring by Dr. Tam why masks weren't a good idea: that they would create a false sense of security. I guess someone changed their mind about that.

Dr Tam "changed her mind"... with new data showing that virus transmission is lower when an infected person wears a mask.

It wasn’t only Tam that updated their view as science progressed.

Here is Dr Osterhom of CIDRAP (a frequently cited source of info on this board) on the transmission of COVID before any symptoms:

Osterholm dismissed it. “I seriously doubt that the Chinese public officials have any data supporting this statement,” he said, “I know of no evidence in 17 years of working with coronaviruses — SARS and MERS — where anyone has been found to be infectious during their incubation period.”

We now have overwhelming evidence of transmission during the incubation period.

I guess data can change views. Well, some views.