Houston
Sponsored by

Tine Coronavirus thread

2,475,737 Views | 20959 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Ciboag96
Ducks4brkfast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTm2004 said:

A month and a half stuck in a house with 3 kids 7 and younger. I'm ready to go back to the office and get a couple of hours without hearing screaming because the other is drinking their water wrong. As each day passes, we're learning this thing isn't as bad as originally predicted, but our "leaders" want to continue to slow play it to appease the vocal minority.


Just go mow your yard 8 times a week like I do.
RK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmellba99 said:

RK said:

the gov't feels the need to overreach on a consistent basis because people are too dumb, in general, to act rationally and responsibly. i don't see either of those things changing anytime soon.
Overreach and mandates from a government that is dumber than the genpop doesn't help or solve problems, it only compounds them and makes it easier to erode what little freedoms we have left.

But carry their water like a good soldier, I guess. Or something.



I wasn't saying I agree with it, just pointing out why. Are you ever not looking for a nit picky fight?
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

aTm2004 said:

Does it matter? I think it does, but not related to COVID. Just like what is classified as a "disability" today and how many people have them. At some point, is it just a part of being human?
If that is the case then, it is no different than saying that 90+% of the fatalities had freckles.
Well, there's a difference between someone who is Autistic or a paraplegic vs. someone with ADHD, so I think it's a legit question.

CDC: 26% of adults in the United States have some type of disability
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ducks4brkfast said:

aTm2004 said:

A month and a half stuck in a house with 3 kids 7 and younger. I'm ready to go back to the office and get a couple of hours without hearing screaming because the other is drinking their water wrong. As each day passes, we're learning this thing isn't as bad as originally predicted, but our "leaders" want to continue to slow play it to appease the vocal minority.


Just go mow your yard 8 times a week like I do.
7nine
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RK said:

schmellba99 said:

RK said:

the gov't feels the need to overreach on a consistent basis because people are too dumb, in general, to act rationally and responsibly. i don't see either of those things changing anytime soon.
Overreach and mandates from a government that is dumber than the genpop doesn't help or solve problems, it only compounds them and makes it easier to erode what little freedoms we have left.

But carry their water like a good soldier, I guess. Or something.



I wasn't saying I agree with it, just pointing out why. Are you ever not looking for a nit picky fight?
Melba's rants are of such severity that even if he is 100% wrong, you definitely do not want to find yourself on the other side of them. Why do you think no one questions him when he says craft beer is crap.
7nine
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The opposite of skeptical is not optimistic. It's credulous or naive.

I'm very optimistic.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think the Tine board COVIDAIDS thread is the place to bring up a debate on who should be able to collect disability.
7nine
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Guess who grabs their toy mower and is right behind me. Normally, I enjoy it, but now, I'm just a grumpy man who wants to be left alone.

Already power washed the driveway and dirty parts of the brick, sprayed around the entire house for bugs, mowed, installed a new TV in the gym for the wife, got the garage organized, and gone through the house touching up the walls with paint. Running out of things to do.
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

Ducks4brkfast said:

aTm2004 said:

A month and a half stuck in a house with 3 kids 7 and younger. I'm ready to go back to the office and get a couple of hours without hearing screaming because the other is drinking their water wrong. As each day passes, we're learning this thing isn't as bad as originally predicted, but our "leaders" want to continue to slow play it to appease the vocal minority.


Just go mow your yard 8 times a week like I do.

They're not practicing proper social distancing!!! [/Karen]
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's not, but if majority of Americans have something, at what point is it just being human? That was my original question related to COVID.
dragmagpuff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTm2004 said:

Does it matter? I think it does, but not related to COVID. Just like what is classified as a "disability" today and how many people have them. At some point, is it just a part of being human?
I'm just confused by your thought process.

You enthusiastically show how that 95% of COVID-19 hospitalizations are from high-risk people with other issues and use this as evidence that we should open up.

And then downplay the fact that being up to 40% of the US population has a chronic disease (and is thus possibly high-risk) is part of the human condition.

Is your point that you think that the actual fraction of the US population that is at high-risk of COVID-19 hospitalization is much closer to 0% than 40% (like just the 300 lb fatties)? If this is the case, does your definition of high-risk agree with how the NY Hospital reached their 95%?

cajunaggie08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTm2004 said:

Texaggie7nine said:

Ducks4brkfast said:

aTm2004 said:

A month and a half stuck in a house with 3 kids 7 and younger. I'm ready to go back to the office and get a couple of hours without hearing screaming because the other is drinking their water wrong. As each day passes, we're learning this thing isn't as bad as originally predicted, but our "leaders" want to continue to slow play it to appease the vocal minority.


Just go mow your yard 8 times a week like I do.

They're not practicing proper social distancing!!! [/Karen]
better?

dragmagpuff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Based on everything we know and don't know about this virus, I find it interesting that anyone would claim that "I'm not sick". Isn't the whole issue that made COVID impossible to contain compared to SARS asymptomatic spread? i.e. infected people that don't know they are "sick" and contagious?

Especially since there are detailed discussions about what percentage of people have the virus and don't know it on the same thread page where people want the number to be very high.
CDUB98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If one of you numbskulls is that desperate to get out of the house, come mow my yard. I haven't had the chance to do it in over a month.

My yard is starting to give the white trash at the end of the street a run for their money.
Milwaukees Best Light
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J.D. c/o 05 said:

CDUB98 said:

tamuags08 said:

Quote:

A month and a half stuck in a house with 3 kids 7 and younger. I'm ready to go back to the office and get a couple of hours without hearing screaming because the other is drinking their water wrong
Are you me? The biggest argument from yesterday was who got to use the princess plate, which resulted in tears from all of them.


I would have smashed the plate and told them all, "you'll get nothing and like it."


?itemid=15796993
CDUB98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reasons for my belief that I am not sick:

1) Zero symptoms

2) Even if I were asymptomatic, there's a 99.9% chance my wife would not be, and thus be sick as dig****e. She has not been.

I don't care to argue with any of you on this. So, don't bother. I was asked, and I answered.
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dragmagpuff said:

aTm2004 said:

Does it matter? I think it does, but not related to COVID. Just like what is classified as a "disability" today and how many people have them. At some point, is it just a part of being human?
I'm just confused by your thought process.

You enthusiastically show how that 95% of COVID-19 hospitalizations are from high-risk people with other issues and use this as evidence that we should open up.

And then downplay the fact that being up to 40% of the US population has a chronic disease (and is thus possibly high-risk) is part of the human condition.

Is your point that you think that the actual fraction of the US population that is at high-risk of COVID-19 hospitalization is much closer to 0% than 40% (like just the 300 lb fatties)? If this is the case, does your definition of high-risk agree with how the NY Hospital reached their 95%?


I'm not downplaying anything. I simply asked if such a large percentage of the population has a chronic disease, at what point is it not a chronic disease and just part of being human? 60%? 80%? If we saw 50% of the population with high blood pressure, does that mean they really have high blood pressure, does the other 50% have low blood pressure, or are both an acceptable level?

The article also says the median age was 63 and that 94% of the patients had multiple diseases, so my point is those who are at higher risk should take proper precautions while those who are at lower risk should be allowed to return to their normal lives. It also shows that the study validates what we've assumed all along, older individuals who are already sick are at higher risk.
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cajunaggie08 said:

aTm2004 said:

Texaggie7nine said:

Ducks4brkfast said:

aTm2004 said:

A month and a half stuck in a house with 3 kids 7 and younger. I'm ready to go back to the office and get a couple of hours without hearing screaming because the other is drinking their water wrong. As each day passes, we're learning this thing isn't as bad as originally predicted, but our "leaders" want to continue to slow play it to appease the vocal minority.


Just go mow your yard 8 times a week like I do.

They're not practicing proper social distancing!!! [/Karen]
better?


Better [/Happy Gilmore]
Ciboag96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This "good for the collective masses" has a Soviet uniform and pornstache ring to it. Hope it doesn't stick.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
blindey said:

ChampagneAg said:

Honest question to the forum, no tomatoes please.

Why not just wear a mask?
because the masks they suggested we not wear and save for the medical community are the only ones that would be beneficial. The balance of what passes for a "mask" is useless at best and effectively the head of a match in terms of catching a virus for the wearer at worst.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purposes of widespread mask adoption.


The purpose of a mask is to avoid transmission of the virus. Even a cloth mask greatly reduces the amount of aerosol virus that is expelled and spread by an infected wearer.

You don't wear a mask to protect yourself. You wear a mask as a courtesy to others.

"My mask is for you. Your mask is for me."

Now, you might say "I don't need to wear a mask. I'm not infected." Well, you don't know that. Not until it's too late as you may have been asymptomatically spreading virus for the better part of a week.


When a large enough portion of the population wears masks, public aerosol transmission of the virus is dampened enough to push R0 well below 1.

aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The same mask that experts first said wouldn't be effective?

Quote:

Of the many preventative measures you can take to protect yourself from the new coronavirus, wearing a face mask is one of the most visible. But for members of the general public, health experts don't think it'll help much.

"There's little harm in it," Eric Toner, a scientist at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Business Insider. "But it's not likely to be very effective in preventing it."

This is why many people are questioning things. Experts say one thing, then when the public opinion changes, they pivot to contradict themselves. The CDC originally said it wasn't effective, but is now recommending it. All we've really learned from all of this is our "experts" really don't have a clue.
Onceaggie2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keegan99 said:

blindey said:

ChampagneAg said:

Honest question to the forum, no tomatoes please.

Why not just wear a mask?
because the masks they suggested we not wear and save for the medical community are the only ones that would be beneficial. The balance of what passes for a "mask" is useless at best and effectively the head of a match in terms of catching a virus for the wearer at worst.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purposes of widespread mask adoption.


The purpose of a mask is to avoid transmission of the virus. Even a cloth mask greatly reduces the amount of aerosol virus that is expelled and spread by an infected wearer.

You don't wear a mask to protect yourself. You wear a mask as a courtesy to others.

"My mask is for you. Your mask is for me."

Now, you might say "I don't need to wear a mask. I'm not infected." Well, you don't know that. Not until it's too late as you may have been asymptomatically spreading virus for the better part of a week.


When a large enough portion of the population wears masks, public aerosol transmission of the virus is dampened enough to push R0 well below 1.




Masks in civilian use are not effective .
cajunaggie08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTm2004 said:

The same mask that experts first said wouldn't be effective?

Quote:

Of the many preventative measures you can take to protect yourself from the new coronavirus, wearing a face mask is one of the most visible. But for members of the general public, health experts don't think it'll help much.

"There's little harm in it," Eric Toner, a scientist at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Business Insider. "But it's not likely to be very effective in preventing it."

This is why many people are questioning things. Experts say one thing, then when the public opinion changes, they pivot to contradict themselves. The CDC originally said it wasn't effective, but is now recommending it. All we've really learned from all of this is our "experts" really don't have a clue.
In the same link you just shared

Quote:

In healthcare settings, however, the CDC has issued stronger directives: Any patients that present flu-like symptoms or have recently traveled to China's Hubei province should wear surgical masks. That lowers the risk that a potentially infected person could spread the coronavirus to others via saliva or phlegm.
Noted this is back from february when we didnt belive the virus was widespread throughout the country. So if we believe many more are carrying the virus without exhibiting symptoms, wouldnt it be wise to wear a mask to prevent it to spreading to the population that has not been exposed since we are encouraging people to go back out of their homes now?
dragmagpuff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTm2004 said:

The same mask that experts first said wouldn't be effective?

Quote:

Of the many preventative measures you can take to protect yourself from the new coronavirus, wearing a face mask is one of the most visible. But for members of the general public, health experts don't think it'll help much.

"There's little harm in it," Eric Toner, a scientist at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Business Insider. "But it's not likely to be very effective in preventing it."

This is why many people are questioning things. Experts say one thing, then when the public opinion changes, they pivot to contradict themselves. The CDC originally said it wasn't effective, but is now recommending it. All we've really learned from all of this is our "experts" really don't have a clue.
From the same article (which is 2 months ago):
Quote:

Anyone exhibiting symptoms should wear a mask, the CDC says.
The CDC at the time was clearly for wearing masks to prevent contagious individuals from spreading the virus others.

As we have learned more over the last two months, gotten non-China data, and think that asymptomatic spread is a significant driver in spreading the infection, they expanded their recommendation to have everyone wear a face covering.

Again, an untrained individual wearing an N-95 mask is likely to do more harm to themselves than good, for all the same reasons as before.

But if everyone keeps their own droplets to themselves by wearing a face covering, then they don't even get on surfaces to get picked up by hands.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That was and is correct. It's not particularly effective as protection for the wearer.

It is effective to prevent an infected wearer from transmitting the virus.
Daddy-O5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Keegan99 said:

That was and is correct. It's not particularly effective as protection for the wearer.

It is effective to prevent an infected wearer from transmitting the virus.
How effective? I just read through the CDC recommendations, while they do recommend their use, make no claims about the efficacy of masks outside surgical and N95 masks. There's still no scientific consensus about their (homemade masks) effectiveness.
HouAggie2007
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CDUB98 said:

Reasons for my belief that I am not sick:

1) Zero symptoms

2) Even if I were asymptomatic, there's a 99.9% chance my wife would not be, and thus be sick as dig****e. She has not been.

I don't care to argue with any of you on this. So, don't bother. I was asked, and I answered.


Seriously straight **** off
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2 months ago...which was my point. It's ineffective. Now, it's effective. It's constantly changing. Also, they said if someone was exhibiting symptoms, not contagious individuals.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.D. c/o 05 said:

Keegan99 said:

That was and is correct. It's not particularly effective as protection for the wearer.

It is effective to prevent an infected wearer from transmitting the virus.
How effective? I just read through the CDC recommendations, while they do recommend their use, make no claims about the efficacy of masks outside surgical and N95 masks. There's still no scientific consensus about their (homemade masks) effectiveness.
The only thing the existing data can tell us for sure is that cloth masks greatly reduce the amount of water droplets expelled from the wearer. It's only up to speculation the actual percentages of reduction in risk for those around them, but common sense tells us that having less water droplets coming out of the mouths of the infected and going out into the air is better than more.
7nine
Ducks4brkfast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
holy **** this mask discussion is making me want to jump out a window


aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Keegan99 said:

That was and is correct. It's not particularly effective as protection for the wearer.

It is effective to prevent an infected wearer from transmitting the virus.

"But it's not likely to be very effective in preventing it" doesn't specify whether it's to protect you or me. But twist the words to fit your already drawn conclusion.
ChampagneAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If masks may be effective, and there is no harm to wearing them, doesn't the risk-utility favor wearing a mask?

Not arguing one way or another, I just want to get people's general feelings for why they are choosing to wear or not wear one.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTm2004 said:

2 months ago...which was my point. It's ineffective. Now, it's effective. It's constantly changing. Also, they said if someone was exhibiting symptoms, not contagious individuals.
We also have to come to terms with the fact that the surgeon general and WHO straight out lied to us "for our own good". Masks were played off as non effective because they didn't want civilians hoarding them when the medical field would be needing so many.
7nine
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a matter of adjusting numbers marginally.

Huge effectiveness is not needed to push R0 below 1.

Even if widespread cloth mask usage only reduces transmission by 20%, that can move R0 from 1.1 to 0.88, which is the difference between continued growth and gradual extermination.
cone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wear a mask if you're gonna do it
First Page Last Page
Page 101 of 599
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.