- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***
Posted on 8/13/20 at 8:05 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 8/13/20 at 8:05 pm to lsupride87
quote:
What you said makes zero sense. 40 deaths simply means children can get covid. That in no way shows they can transmit it.....
It’s a virus. It lives in spit and other bodily fluids. How the frick would the virus know it was kid spit? Any idiots who think kids might not be able to transmit COVID-19 are similar to people who think the earth is flat.
quote:
Also, from your very own link quote: A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do
You don’t see the difference in “much less often” and “never”? You are a functioning retard!
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 8:07 pm
1
Posted on 8/13/20 at 8:08 pm to Penrod
quote:Your own fricking study that you linked , that only followed Ill children, showed kids 0-9 transmit the disease HALF as much as adults
It’s a virus. It lives in spit and other bodily fluids. How the frick would the virus know it was kid spit? Any idiots who think kids might not be able to transmit COVID-19 are similar to people who think the earth is flat.
So, if it’s in their spit and bodily fluids all the same, what’s the deal Doc?m
quote:I would love to see where I said kids never transmit the virus oh holy one
You don’t see the difference in “much less often” and “never”? You are a functioning retard!
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 8:12 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Your own fricking study that you linked , that only followed Ill children, showed kids 0-9 transmit the disease HALF as much as adults
So, if it’s in their spit and bodily fluids all the same, what’s the deal Doc?
I don’t know. The question is whether kids transmit it, not whether they transmit it as much. The morons I’m arguing with are saying KIDS DO NOT TRANSMIT IT. Do you understand that kids transmitting it half as much PROVES them wrong?
As to your question, I’ll guess. Kids under 10 are short, so their expectorant travels an arc that contains less than half the area of that of a normal adult. Also they are not getting very sick, and they are likely not contagious as long. How’s that dummy?
Posted on 8/13/20 at 8:14 pm to Penrod
quote:It seems you are arguing with yourself
don’t know. The question is whether kids transmit it, not whether they transmit it as much. The morons I’m arguing with are saying KIDS DO NOT TRANSMIT IT. Do you understand that kids transmitting it half as much PROVES them wrong?
I have seen nobody respond to you saying kids NEVER transmit the study. Sasquatch simply posted a Greek study and you lost your fricking mind Karen
Posted on 8/13/20 at 9:02 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I have seen nobody respond to you saying kids NEVER transmit the study. Sasquatch simply posted a Greek study and you lost your fricking mind Karen
Not to mention that NY Times article he links is nearly a month old and purports conclusions that the study did not provide, if I recall, as far as index cases and where they got sick.
Same group of people have a newer study out over the same cohort that actually examined index cases, and did not find that the children brought it home to the adults.
Edit to add: The data for the study from July was collected during stay at home/lockdown times in SK. Meaning the kids were home and not in school.
Here is the second study.
They only found a total of 107 paediatric COVID-19 index cases in their cohort, then followed them at home.
There was only one instances of a child (16 years old) infecting someone else in the home (secondary case), which was a 14-year old sibling.
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 7:56 am
Posted on 8/14/20 at 6:10 am to Penrod
All of your fear mongering about schools opening can be cast aside, with ease, by looking at a country that never closed its elementary and middle schools.
-No more children died than anywhere else.
-Teachers and staff were at no greater risk of COVID infection than any other occupation.
-That's all there is to it.
-No more children died than anywhere else.
-Teachers and staff were at no greater risk of COVID infection than any other occupation.
-That's all there is to it.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 7:36 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Have you guys been keeping up with the lie Kansas officials tried to pull in regards to masks being effective?
Showed this chart in a presentation to compare counties with vs. without mandates:
The lines use two different y-axes. Red line goes with the left, starts at 25 finishes at 16. Blue line goes with the right, starts at >9 and ends at 9.(What do you want to bet that the places with mandates are the population centers, and those without are the rural areas?)
Being deceptive just with that.
However, folks have tried to reconstruct the graphs using the same axis for both, and then also expanded the time series to actually include with the mask mandates went into effect.
This is how that looks:
Masks work so well, we have to pull two deceptions to prove it!
Showed this chart in a presentation to compare counties with vs. without mandates:
The lines use two different y-axes. Red line goes with the left, starts at 25 finishes at 16. Blue line goes with the right, starts at >9 and ends at 9.(What do you want to bet that the places with mandates are the population centers, and those without are the rural areas?)
Being deceptive just with that.
However, folks have tried to reconstruct the graphs using the same axis for both, and then also expanded the time series to actually include with the mask mandates went into effect.
This is how that looks:
Masks work so well, we have to pull two deceptions to prove it!
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 8:03 am
Posted on 8/14/20 at 8:27 am to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
Have you guys been keeping up with the lie Kansas officials tried to pull in regards to masks being effective?
Showed this chart in a presentation to compare counties with vs. without mandates:
The lines use two different y-axes. Red line goes with the left, starts at 25 finishes at 16. Blue line goes with the right, starts at >9 and ends at 9.(What do you want to bet that the places with mandates are the population centers, and those without are the rural areas?)
Being deceptive just with that.
However, folks have tried to reconstruct the graphs using the same axis for both, and then also expanded the time series to actually include with the mask mandates went into effect.
This is how that looks:
Masks work so well, we have to pull two deceptions to prove it!
Guess I’ll post this here too:
I get what you’re saying and agree this could be extremely misleading to some folks. However, and with no knowledge of the situation other than this single post, I interpret the point of overlapping trend lines involving multiple axes as being to show just that - the trend. To me (a non-conspiracy theorist), the graph represents the success in masks’ impact on trend versus that of no masks.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 8:44 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
I get what you’re saying and agree this could be extremely misleading to some folks. However, and with no knowledge of the situation other than this single post, I interpret the point of overlapping trend lines involving multiple axes as being to show just that - the trend. To me (a non-conspiracy theorist), the graph represents the success in masks’ impact on trend versus that of no masks.
So the upward trend in the 9 days between the mandate and when their graph starts, which would be the days truly effected by mask use (4-7 days from exposure to symptoms) are unimportant and were excluded because honesty?
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 10:03 am
Posted on 8/14/20 at 8:53 am to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
So the upward trend in the 9 days between the mandate and when their graph starts, which would be the days truly effected mask use (4-7 days from exposure to symptoms) are unimportant and were excluded because honesty?
I don’t feel they’re necessarily relevant because of implicit misinterpretation. People see that and say “oh, masks made things worse for X days” when in fact those upward trends are in all likelihood a product of the state of the virus and spread in the locations which mask mandates were deemed necessary. The point of condensing the graph(s), purely my opinion, is to illustrate the effectiveness of masks in reducing trend versus that of no masks. It’s really irrefutable from my perspective.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 9:03 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
The point of condensing the graph(s), purely my opinion, is to illustrate the effectiveness of masks in reducing trend versus that of no masks. It’s really irrefutable from my perspective.
"In a virus that presents symptoms in an average of 5 days, after a 9 day spike following the mandate, we finally saw a trend in decreased daily cases 3 weeks later. Masks work, y'all!"
Pretty convenient to pick and choose timescales, eh?
Should we examine locations that have had mask mandates for months, then experienced "spikes" to deem the effectiveness of masks? Or should we only be concerned whenever cases finally start to drop again?
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 9:05 am
Posted on 8/14/20 at 9:07 am to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
"In a virus that presents symptoms in an average of 5 days, after a 9 day spike following the mandate, we finally saw a trend in decreased daily cases 3 weeks later. Masks work, y'all!"
Pretty convenient to pick and choose timescales, eh?
Should we examine locations that have had mask mandates for months, then experienced "spikes" to deem the effectiveness of masks? Or should we only be concerned whenever cases finally start to drop again?
Sigh. I think you’re trying to make things too rigid. It’s fine. Agree to disagree.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 9:10 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
Sigh. I think you’re trying to make things too rigid. It’s fine. Agree to disagree.
I'm looking for the "irrefutable proof" and empirical, real-world evidence.
It's what scientists do.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question in regards to when one should expect mask usage to show an effect in cases, and to tell me what you know. But I guess, based on your responses here, I can guess it takes 3 weeks, since this is "irrefutable proof" of their effectiveness.
Edit 2:
Also, it has to be rigid. This has turned people against each other. Politicians have made non-mask wearing a crime in some places. People have become unhinged (both ways) on the issue, shaming, yelling, and assaulting in public.
Rigid evidence is needed.
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 9:16 am
Posted on 8/14/20 at 10:31 am to Sasquatch Smash
Evidence not needed. Common sense tells me that covering noses and mouths helps prevent disease.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 10:46 am to Whiznot
quote:
Evidence not needed. Common sense tells me that covering noses and mouths helps prevent disease.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 11:14 am to Whiznot
quote:That is ridiculous.
Evidence not needed. Common sense tells me that covering noses and mouths helps prevent disease.
Ill fitting masks (all cloth masks) need to be adjusted regularly and if you don't wash your hands immediately after touching it, you are spreading whatever is on the mask with your hands.
Throwing used cloth masks into the backseat, then reusing that mask is potential for spread.
Leaning into people to hear them because the mask muffles your voice can lead to spread.
There are a lot of problems with masks. Namely that they are being used as a cop out by the government by putting the blame on you.
Comical because many countries stifled COVID (for now) without masks. Several countries have seen outbreaks even with strict mask policies. The proof that they work is simply not there.
ETA:
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 11:25 am
Posted on 8/14/20 at 11:55 am to Whiznot
quote:
Evidence not needed. Common sense tells me that covering noses and mouths helps prevent disease.
Ah...so...superstition and religious belief then, eh?
This is science. Something that can be, and has been tested. If it were such an obvious and surefire thing, the results wouldn't be contradictory when it comes to actual reduction in infections.
You would think, given how logical and common sensical it is, we'd see obvious real world effects of mask mandates from the various states and around the world.
Would it shock you to know that there is data that indicates that being unmasked in the surgery suite doesn't increase wound infections? That's involving bacteria which are, what?, 2 to 20 times larger than viruses.
Shouldn't we all require solid evidence for the crap being forced upon us?
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 11:56 am
Posted on 8/14/20 at 11:55 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Not to mention that Peru has been on one of the strictest, military enforced, lockdowns in the world.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 1:54 pm to Whiznot
quote:
Evidence not needed.
Which means evidence only needed for people who disagree with me.
Posted on 8/14/20 at 7:55 pm to Sasquatch Smash
My decades of using various fabric filters effectively in a variety of different applications is evidence in support of the contention that masks can protect both the wearer and others from infection. All of medical science agrees.
I favor a Gateway PeakFit N95.
I favor a Gateway PeakFit N95.
This post was edited on 8/14/20 at 8:00 pm
Page 1175 of 1190
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News