Well....flu is creeping in a little here. more than 24 across the country. Stay tuned.PJYoung said:aTm2004 said:
Oh, the flu has been cured? Right.
I didn't have any other place to put this so here it is:
Last week was the biggest week for flu in the USA since this started.
24 cases.
Amazing.
And yes, doctors are still testing for strep and flu if you go in sick with those symptoms.
Is Abbott lifting the state wide mask mandate today?
66,547 Views |
703 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Captain Pablo
Interesting thought a medical buddy of mine brought up the other day - with flu cases down >99% across the country (world?) and so many getting the covid vaccines already, there's a real interesting opportunity to eliminate flu all together...like permanently.
No clue if it's possible but hot dang if it were....
No clue if it's possible but hot dang if it were....
PJYoung said:aTm2004 said:
Oh, the flu has been cured? Right.
I didn't have any other place to put this so here it is:
Last week was the biggest week for flu in the USA since this started.
24 cases.
Amazing.
And yes, doctors are still testing for strep and flu if you go in sick with those symptoms.
I can say with 100% certainty, if you test positive for strep, Texas Children's is still sending you for a COVID test.
aTm2004 said:PJYoung said:aTm2004 said:
Oh, the flu has been cured? Right.
I didn't have any other place to put this so here it is:
Last week was the biggest week for flu in the USA since this started.
24 cases.
Amazing.
And yes, doctors are still testing for strep and flu if you go in sick with those symptoms.
I can say with 100% certainty, if you test positive for strep, Texas Children's is still sending you for a COVID test.
Oh yeah for sure. I have first hand experience that they aren't NOT testing for flu (along with everything else, especially Covid).
At my annual (got to pay the toll to get the BP med I know I need) my NP said she'd seen "so much Covid" and not one single case of the flu, but "we test for both". She implied that the masking and shut down and distancing did it. But that wouldn't explain "so much Covid".
Is it not as simple as covid is a lot more contagious than flu, so the "mitigations" wiped out flu but weren't effective against a much more contagious virus?
cecil77 said:
At my annual (got to pay the toll to get the BP med I know I need) my NP said she'd seen "so much Covid" and not one single case of the flu, but "we test for both". She implied that the masking and shut down and distancing did it. But that wouldn't explain "so much Covid".
You don't believe that Covid-19 is just that much more contagious than the flu? *confused*
EDIT: ah I read Keegan's link. Amazing hypothesis.
No, I don't believe that.
If you think about it, it's almost that Covid it too benign - way too many infections that the infected person is barely aware of.
You want a virus that doesn't spread? That's a virus that kills you instantaneously upon infection.
If you think about it, it's almost that Covid it too benign - way too many infections that the infected person is barely aware of.
You want a virus that doesn't spread? That's a virus that kills you instantaneously upon infection.
cecil77 said:
No, I don't believe that.
If you think about it, it's almost that Covid it too benign - way too many infections that the infected person is barely aware of.
You want a virus that doesn't spread? That's a virus that kills you instantaneously upon infection.
Why do you think the flu disappeared? A hypothesis like Keegan posted?
Yes. Which I learned reading it just now as well. It's happened before.
One cogent part was yet another nail in the notion that masking the public has any effectiveness at all.
One cogent part was yet another nail in the notion that masking the public has any effectiveness at all.
Very interesting. Thanks.
One response that caught my eye and summarizes perfectly.
One response that caught my eye and summarizes perfectly.
Quote:
Viruses do what they do. The ad hoc patchwork of measures governments developed so as to appear to be proactive has zero correlation to outcomes. Hopefully your observations around those facts help put the lie to the pretend science currently in use.
32 to 196 is a rather large range
Two weeks or so later....
Good call Abbott
Good call Abbott
If masks are merely an emergency call to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, even the most staunch of mask supporters can see they don't work enough to do that. Not now and certainly not moving forward.
It's arguable whether or not they were that difference in the past, but opinionated at best. Moving forward, with the immunity we now have in the community, the data seems clear they aren't necessary to prevent the overwhelming of hospitals, so the government should have no emergency authority to be involved with it
It's arguable whether or not they were that difference in the past, but opinionated at best. Moving forward, with the immunity we now have in the community, the data seems clear they aren't necessary to prevent the overwhelming of hospitals, so the government should have no emergency authority to be involved with it
beerad12man said:
If masks are merely an emergency call to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, even the most staunch of mask supporters can see they don't work enough to do that. Not now and certainly not moving forward.
It's arguable whether or not they were that difference in the past, but opinionated at best. Moving forward, with the immunity we now have in the community, the data seems clear they aren't necessary to prevent the overwhelming of hospitals, so the government should have no emergency authority to be involved with it
That's an uncertain assumption since we also had a ton of shutdowns and partial shutdowns while masking
I would think the far more important thing to avoid in the future would be financial decimation by shutdowns, not some slight inconvenience of wearing a mask.
Obviously infections go up and down as masks and shutdowns are invoked, revoked.
I would like to see what happens with masks and common sense social distancing is enacted to avoid shutdowns.
jamey said:
Obviously infections go up and down as masks and shutdowns are invoked, revoked.
If this was obvious CA and FL wouldn't be near the same in deaths and Sweden wouldn't be better than a good part of Europe.
Nope. Don't need mask mandates now, and likely never did
And I'd like to see a world without ever seeing another mask again (to the general public). But we don't all get what we would like
And I'd like to see a world without ever seeing another mask again (to the general public). But we don't all get what we would like
jamey said:beerad12man said:
If masks are merely an emergency call to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, even the most staunch of mask supporters can see they don't work enough to do that. Not now and certainly not moving forward.
It's arguable whether or not they were that difference in the past, but opinionated at best. Moving forward, with the immunity we now have in the community, the data seems clear they aren't necessary to prevent the overwhelming of hospitals, so the government should have no emergency authority to be involved with it
That's an uncertain assumption since we also had a ton of shutdowns and partial shutdowns while masking
I would think the far more important thing to avoid in the future would be financial decimation by shutdowns, not some slight inconvenience of wearing a mask.
Obviously infections go up and down as masks and shutdowns are invoked, revoked.
I would like to see what happens with masks and common sense social distancing is enacted to avoid shutdowns.
The simple solution is to realize that "shutdowns" don't work. Masks, like lockdowns are measures taken to feel like action is being taken. Nothing more. Florida and Texas are good examples.
beerad12man said:
Nope. Don't need mask mandates now, and likely never did
And I'd like to see a world without ever seeing another mask again (to the general public). But we don't all get what we would like
I said common sense, not mandates. Give the public thr information as it comes available. Ask people to be an adult and act in the best interest of society
Ya know, be an adult about it
There's a global amount of data points showing mandates decrease spread and the spread increases when lifted, even if you guys think you've found a couple data points that seem to conflict among all the variables. It obviously works.
I'm saying use common sense instead of mandates
No, there's not.
People act like the mask mandate being lifted means that masks aren't still being worn which isn't the case (at least not in bigger cities).
But as is always the case people will cherrypick data to support the hypothesis they like best.
But as is always the case people will cherrypick data to support the hypothesis they like best.
fig96 said:
People act like the mask mandate being lifted means that masks aren't still being worn which isn't the case (at least not in bigger cities).
But as is always the case people will cherrypick data to support the hypothesis they like best.
Yeah, I've been all over DFW the last few weeks and other than inside a restaurant I'd say masks are worn at about 95%
Hell, I'm at a giant kids playground, outside right now and I'd say half the adults are wearing masks. I don't think it really matters outside like this but whatever.
October - December (2nd peak) - "People aren't taking this seriously and wearing masks."
Post Mask Mandate (decline) - "People are still following CDC and aren't Neanderthals."
Flip. Flop. Fauci.
Post Mask Mandate (decline) - "People are still following CDC and aren't Neanderthals."
Flip. Flop. Fauci.
Agthatbuilds said:
Two weeks or so later....
Good call Abbott
Haven't seen one noticable change in mask behavior. Anywhere. If it wasn't for this thread I likely would have zero idea anything changed.
But I guess this is a win for some. Masks were always about the economy. It got people out and spending money. Which they seem to still be doing.
The next milestone will be airlines removing the rules. Until then whatever.
Austin people havent changed.
Georgetown and round rock have.
Georgetown and round rock have.
I don't know how Lubbock was with masks before, but there certainly weren't very many people in masks when I was there last week. Seems like their case counts are pretty low right now.
Indoor dining at 100% capacity would potentially have far worse consequences. Are restaurants choosing to limit capacity?
Influenza has unique properties among viruses that make it effectively impossible to eliminate entirely. And even if we could, the relative ease with which it can jump the species barrier would result in it re-emerging in short order.Fitch said:
Interesting thought a medical buddy of mine brought up the other day - with flu cases down >99% across the country (world?) and so many getting the covid vaccines already, there's a real interesting opportunity to eliminate flu all together...like permanently.
No clue if it's possible but hot dang if it were....
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ORAggieFan said:
Indoor dining at 100% capacity would potentially have far worse consequences. Are restaurants choosing to limit capacity?
Ive been to numerous restaurants the last few weeks since getting 2nd dose.
A lot of restaurants have some common sense measures in place. Tables are spaced, several had some sort of guard or separator between tables that physically inhibited air flow between groups of patrons, they'd clean tables more thoroughly between customers...etc
Other restaurants have expanded their patio and there seeme to be more people choosing to eat out on the patio than before.
To me a common sense measure would be not to eat out if you're worried about the virus. Everywhere I've been recently has been full capacity including bar, no mask worn.