Covid-19

[Xville]

Huh???

What do you mean huh? Is he negative or is he positive? Who knows because testing is still widely inaccurate. It just goes to show whatever the numbers are of infections it is probably wildly inaccurate.

[Lloyd Braun]

Here is a long, but worthwhile article on masks (face coverings) - what they do, what they don't do. It is rooted in science but very nicely presented in layman's terms.

The "mask battle" to me is not worth fighting. Just wear the stupid thing. We have governments preventing people from earning a living, worshiping, gathering with friends/family, and in general enjoying life. We are looking at the prospects of a government mandated vaccine. These are very serious challenges to the freedoms our country was founded upon, and cannot be tolerated. This is where the battle needs to be fought. Masks are inconsequential in comparison.

A few things worth commenting on with this-

He is comparing this virus to the flu and goes so far as to assume they are exactly the same in transmission etc because of several similarities. I think most would agree their transmission is similar but to equate them as the same is a big jump. Because there are major differenceS in disease course between flu and covid, it should give us pause on perpetually comparing the two viruses even in transmission. He goes on to assume disease states with flu and covid are then the same:

“ The reason the second week of infection is considered the worry stage is NOT because of the virus; rather this is the time when a weakened immune system, either by exposure or by losing the balance battle cannot prevent the bacteria/fungi from taking off. Most people who die from influenza, coronavirus, even rhinovirus, do so primarily from pneumonia (bacterial infection) or some other systemic bacterial infection.”

This is false. Are there cases of bacterial pneumonia in the 2nd week of COVID, which eventually cause death? Yes. However, the second week “crash“ is likely part of the inflammatory reaction that triggers ARDS and not typically bacterial superinfection. Inflammatory markers increase during this period as bacterial cultures remain normal. The virus causes the lung tissue to swell and obstruct the air sacs in the lungs. Eventually respiratory arrest occurs in spite of ventilator use in the majority of critically ill patients.

Does this discount the rest of his article? No but gives me pause to believe him on topics I am not as well versed (is there an agenda?). It’s overthinking a very simple fact which is when we wear masks the transmission is decreased especially indoors. I personally do not wear a mask outdoors unless I am around others for an extended period of time or in close proximity. To think that wearing a mask creates more harboring of the virus is a head scratcher for me. If you are expelling viral particles they should be well contained with a mask, and suggesting that we should be expelling them in the air to die off naturally is way overthinking this.

[Lloyd Braun]

What do you mean huh? Is he negative or is he positive? Who knows because testing is still widely inaccurate. It just goes to show whatever the numbers are of infections it is probably wildly inaccurate.

What about false negatives? Those occur more than false positives. The problem I have with the false positives is that we are testing asymptomatic populations with relatively new tests. It’s not a good idea to test everyone this way, but that is the only way we can have sports now. The consequence of a false positive (which is almost always confirmed with repeat testing) is a couple days of quarantine until negative testing is confirmed. The consequence of a false negative is potentially someone spreading disease.

[X-man]

What do you mean huh? Is he negative or is he positive? Who knows because testing is still widely inaccurate. It just goes to show whatever the numbers are of infections it is probably wildly inaccurate.

The "huh" was for your entire bolded sentence. Trashing science because testing isn't perfect is so Trumpian.

[paulxu]

It just seems like with 4% of the world's population and about 25% of the deaths that something ought to change.
Problem is, I can't see what we can do before a vaccine, yet other countries seem to be doing a whole lot better.

When 5 of the vice-president's staff, including his chief of staff and "body man" get it, I would hope that he would model good behavior and resist being in contact with people for a short while anyway. We do need leaders to set good examples for the country.

[Xville]

The "huh" was for your entire bolded sentence. Trashing science because testing isn't perfect is so Trumpian.

Not trashing science, trashing the people who couldn't possibly question the authenticity of the numbers because in their mind it is scientific.

[bobbiemcgee]

The "huh" was for your entire bolded sentence. Trashing science because testing isn't perfect is so Trumpian.

This company claims 98% of their positives are correct. Now available @ costco.

https://www.azovahealth.com/costcotest

[MADXSTER]

Science questions science all the time. And they should.

[X-man]

Not trashing science, trashing the people who couldn't possibly question the authenticity of the numbers because in their mind it is scientific.

Then say what you mean. Your original post trashed science. And frankly, very few people believe that scientific hypotheses are always correct. But the anti-science people, like Trump, create a straw man argument that people shouldn't listen to science if it is imprecise and sometimes wrong. A great example is the IPCC reports on climate change. All scientific statements of causality and forecast in their reports contain caveats and/or margins of error. But those modifying statements and variances in forecast are never mentioned by the anti-climate change crowd.

[Xville]

Then say what you mean. Your original post trashed science. And frankly, very few people believe that scientific hypotheses are always correct. But the anti-science people, like Trump, create a straw man argument that people shouldn't listen to science if it is imprecise and sometimes wrong. A great example is the IPCC reports on climate change. All scientific statements of causality and forecast in their reports contain caveats and/or margins of error. But those modifying statements and variances in forecast are never mentioned by the anti-climate change crowd.

No it didn't, you just read it as such just like you believe trump is anti-science which is also not true....you just perceive him that way because the media takes what he says and twists it to fit their narrative.