Coronavirus Thread (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey vikingBerzerker,

re your post#2,567 "But testing is also expanding as well so its not as clear cut as the media would like to portray."

The CDC and individual state Departments of Health are currently using the hospitalization rate as the primary indicator of spread. This is due to the relative ratio of hospitalizations within a given demographic, which may vary between states, but gives a pretty good answer within each state as a whole. An increase in the rate of hospitalization indicates the minimum increase in rate of spread - regardless of the rate of testing. The increased rate of testing will indicate (historically) a different true ratio of cases to hospitalizations, as opposed to the minimum ratio. (I am not sure if I phrased this clearly?)
 
Okay, I give up. I'll leave one last quote from an expert:
There's been enough research done to be able to confidently say that masks wouldn't be able to stop the spread of infection, that they would only have a small effect on transmission," Cowling said. "We shouldn't be relying on masks to help us go back to normal."
 
Minnesota report, June 11
cases [29,316]**, recovered 24,870, hospitalized 3,522, deaths 1,249**, tested 381,841*/**
fatality rate [4.3]%
mortality rate 219.1 per million
test rate [68] per thousand*/**

numbers in [ ] edited to correct reporting errors
 
Last edited:
Hey Marcel,

I may be wrong here, but your last post leads me to believe that you and DerAdlerIstGelandet are arguing 2 slightly different things. As far as I know, no one has said that wearing a mask will stop the spread of COVID-19, only that it will reduce the rate at which it spreads under a given set of circumstances. The amount of reduction depends on the circumstances. From what I have read, wearing a mask will only reduce the rate of spread about 15% in typical circumstances. But, depending on the R factor, that reduction may be enough to significantly reduce the chance of overloading the healthcare system.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's right.

But what I really argue is that the slight benefit they possibly have doesn't counter the disadvantages. I see people throwing away their possibly infected masks like they are cigarette-butts. You find them everywhere on the street here. I see people pulling down the masks in order to use their cellphone, in the mean time touching the possibly infected outside of their inadequate masks, increasing the amount of particles on their hands and smearing that on surfaces for transmission to others (surfaces are the main way of spreading cold- and influenza viruses anyway, not aerosols). These people go out even with symptoms, not keeping distance because they have a mask that 'will protect anyway'. These are just examples of the disadvantages and I believe they are more contributing to the spreading than really countering it.

The other thing I am arguing against is the promotion of self made masks or using other non-effective masks. I saw the Belgian government promoting masks made out of old socks for crying out loud. 95% of the air and moisture you breath will go right through or around those masks.

My conclusion: possibly in a highly disciplined society masks would help, if you could get the adequate ones, but not in this one.
 
I wish I could argue against the lack of self discipline part of your argument, but I cannot - at least not relative to Minnesota. (sigh, reference my post#2,521)
 
Okay, I give up. I'll leave one last quote from an expert:

Last sentence in your quote.

We should not be relying on masks relying on masks to get back to normal

Agreed, no one said masks can do that. For the last time...

It is only one barrier, in a system of barriers, that together can help reduce the risk. not a single person says it is the end all be all. Anyone can pick and choose data and info to support their argument one way or the other though.
 
Yeah that's right.

But what I really argue is that the slight benefit they possibly have doesn't counter the disadvantages. I see people throwing away their possibly infected masks like they are cigarette-butts. You find them everywhere on the street here. I see people pulling down the masks in order to use their cellphone, in the mean time touching the possibly infected outside of their inadequate masks, increasing the amount of particles on their hands and smearing that on surfaces for transmission to others (surfaces are the main way of spreading cold- and influenza viruses anyway, not aerosols). These people go out even with symptoms, not keeping distance because they have a mask that 'will protect anyway'. These are just examples of the disadvantages and I believe they are more contributing to the spreading than really countering it.

The other thing I am arguing against is the promotion of self made masks or using other non-effective masks. I saw the Belgian government promoting masks made out of old socks for crying out loud. 95% of the air and moisture you breath will go right through or around those masks.

My conclusion: possibly in a highly disciplined society masks would help, if you could get the adequate ones, but not in this one.

I disagree with you. If only half of the people do things correctly by wearing masks, social distancing, coughing in their arm, and washing their hands, they have reduced possible transmission. Especially considering the people you talk about probably don't follow good hygiene with or without mask. I'm all about protecting my family, and my children, especially in a country with millions of neanderthals who have been brainwashed into thinking social distancing and common sense restrictions are BS because the virus is a political hoax.

Either way no point in this discussion anymore...
 
Last edited:
I disagree with you. If only half of the people do things correctly by wearing masks, social distancing, coughing in there arm, and washing their hands, they have reduced possible transmission. Especially considering the people you talk about probably don't follow good hygiene with or without mask. I'm all about protecting my family, and my children, especially in a country with millions of neanderthals who have been brainwashed into thinking social distancing and common sense restrictions are BS because the virus is a political hoax.

Either way no point in this discussion anymore...
The bold part I think that's the point of the discussion. I would obviously give them another order in importance, but for the rest I agree on that. For the rest, let's rest the case indeed.
 
I remember being given a mask in January when I visited the doctor's office. At this point in time society wasn't on a lockdown, but I had a respiratory illness of sorts (who knew I'd be ahead of my time?). I was given a mask, and at a later date was told that such a mask doesn't actually stop you from getting the virus, but stops others from getting infected by you.

That said, if everybody's wearing such a mask, and this wasn't an N95 mask -- it'd still do some good because if everybody's wearing a mask, and this virus doesn't survive long outside the body, you just have to wait out the clock: It can't survive without a host (us), so if you can deprive it of any new hosts long enough -- it's gone for good.

Even if more people wear such a mask, it still provides a benefit, and the more people you can get to do this (I already put a hashtag on FB #WearTheFuckingMask), the better things will be.

BTW: Since I haven't been out of my house since this all started, I have not worn any mask except one case, where I was getting ready to head out of the house, except that it wasn't necessary. That said, since I was putting the mask on -- I clearly would have worn it outside the house. The fact that I wear glasses might also provide an added level of protection (it doesn't serve any other good!)
 
Marcel, Adler, I agree with you both, and it gives me a headache (no cough though).

Re Florida: The Florida Department of Health in Bay County (DOH-Bay) received confirmation of four additional cases of COVID-19 including a 34-year-old male, a 31-year-old female, a 21-year-old female, and a 20-year-old female. Bay County's total diagnosed COVID-19 cases now stands at 139, including six non-resident cases. DOH-Bay is conducting the contact investigation and working to identify and notify individuals who need to self-monitor for symptoms for 14 days. Contact investigations are a critical way for staff epidemiologists to track and prevent the spread of disease. Bay County's overall COVID-19 positive testing rate is 3 percent. Of the 5,239 tests processed, 5,097 tests are negative. Four Bay County residents, or 3 percent of all positive Bay County cases, have died from COVID-19. A total of 15 Bay County residents, or 11 percent of all cases, have been hospitalized with COVID-19. Data is preliminary and subject to change based on public health investigations. During Phase 2, DOH-Bay will send news releases and text alerts Monday through Friday. Each Monday, we will catch up on any weekend data. The dashboard and reports will continue to be updated daily around 10 a.m. at FloridaHealthCOVID19.gov. Especially.

Re: Global Deaths Due to Various Causes and COVID-19 in 2020
Recalling that figures can't lie but liars can figure: If somebody dies with both malaria and WuHanKungFlu, how do they count the death? I can't trust these graphs/charts, as the meaning of the numbers is not given. "Died with malaria and had covid antibodies" or "Died of heart failure but had Malaria also" get reported how? "Why did you die, check all that apply" doesn't show up in these charts. This rant applies also to the John Hopkins University dashboard I've slam-tongued before.

Marcel: "[A] fork can hold a little water, but you won't use it to eat your soup. " Let's agree that I won't cook for you.

I'd go fishing again, but I need a bigger tank to put the fish in.
 
Cases in Tasmania
New cases in past 24 hours 0
Total cases 226
Active* *0
Recovered 213
Deaths 13

* 0 hospital inpatients (0 in ICU)

Laboratory tests
Laboratory tests completed in the past 24 hours 635
Total laboratory tests 39,981

Tasmania is generally divided into 3 regions - South, North, North-West.

The South is the biggest population region, having roughly 1/2 the state's population. The North is the next biggest, and the North-West the smallest of the three.

Cases by Region
South 45
North 29
North-West 149

(Must be some others!)

The second largest city in the North-West region, Burnie, has 64 cases.
The city I live in, Clarence, has twice the population of Burnie but only 5 cases.

Most cases in Tasmania can be traced directly or through community transmission to the Ruby Princess. Thanks Gladys.
 
Minnesota report, June 12
cases 29,795, recovered 25,028, hospitalized 3,557, deaths 1,274, tested 395,202
fatality rate 4.3%
mortality rate 223.5 per million
test rate 69.3 per thousand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back