Wear a freaking mask already

I do the same, where it's required, very loosely. Some stores are fanatic about it, some not so much.

Wearing the Mask is the new religion for some, and there are religious zealots all about with fear in their eyes and enforcement on their mind.

I will soon be 73, and I have conversations with many my age and older. Many of us agree that in our life, we never thought the US would come to an end in this fashion--people freaked out about mask wearing for a virus with a very low IFR.

 

I never claimed covid is no big deal. You must be thinking of someone else.
As far as the preliminary results of a very small study with lots of speculation, unlike you I don't go off half cocked. Panic is your worst enemy. I'll wait for widespread comprehensive evidence before I make a decision on anything including covid.
You claim not to be an AGW alarmist but your post on this subject reek of alarmist mentality and you even used their favorite word "denier" so I remain suspicious. Another similarity is a doom and gloom scenario based in scanty evidence and predictions of future catastrophe if we don't act now.
Speaking of which, what would act now kook like. If covid is as scary as you claim we should say screw the economy, everybody shelter in place. Anyone on the streets will be shot on sight but no you just say wear a mask and social distance as I do.
Our only real difference is you believe a vaccine will save us any day now whereas I'm not basing my every hope on that and choose to deal with the reality of the present. The more at risk you are you should take more precautions. Those in the low risk category should wear mask in crowds for the benefit of the at risk group but should go about their lives and do their jobs. If there is no effective vaccine on the horizon there's no alternative but herd immunity. That's the reality that sends you over the edge.

 

Well, I'm a healthcare worker, if you didn't know. I worry a lot about public health, for this reason. My vocation is to save lives and ease pain and suffering. That's why I post about the dangers because I don't want people to get hurt. When I do that, it's not political. People got this issue so politicized that they assume anyone who is warning of the dangers of this virus must be anti-Trump and pro-Dem. I'm a centrist and actually my ideas tend a bit to the right side. I only speak of Covid-19 from the medical standpoint. I do get frustrated with some wrong moves by politicians, but I don't get frustrated with them because they are Dem or GOP. I get frustrated when they make wrong moves, regardless of who they are. I got pretty irritated with Andrew Cuomo for a number of mistakes. I got irritated with Trump too for some of his. But I don't hesitate in praising Trump for what he does well, showing that I don't suffer from the TDS people talk about here, and I'm still considering that I may vote for him in November although I still consider myself as one of the last undecided voters, precisely because I'm watching carefully what happens to COVID-19 and the response to it; this will guide my November vote more than anything else. But anyway, to consider that I'm a liberal because I used the word "denier" is preposterous. One word doesn't define me politically.

Yes, you said 5% of heart failure is no big deal, so don't give me now the "I never claimed covid is no big deal" because that's what I was referring to. Clearly, I said you're a denier if this study doesn't concern you. It was in that context. Also, I profoundly dislike your push for herd immunity because it is hugely imprudent and misguided.

You say the German study is preliminary and small and that is true, but the methodology employed (unselected cases from a test center) and the high proportion of problems including in healthy and youngish people and mild cases to the huge number of 78%, and the well-done method for matching controls, *is* concerning, which is why ALL specialists ARE concerned, including, because of the TYPE of lesions and markers which match the BAD cases of inflammatory myocarditis that end up in heart failure a few years down the road. Part of the reason why everybody who knows about the heart got concerned, is that this is a GOOD AND WELL DONE STUDY, although small. The freaking editor of the JAMA-Cardiology said he is concerned that we'll go from getting the acute phase of the pandemic under control, to a situation of widespread heart failure among the population. If this is not concerning (and you said, 5% no big deal, which is hugely misguided) then I don't know what else is. In my opinion, and by now I've read at least some 250 scientific papers on COVID-19 since it started (probably more; most days I read at least 3), this paper is the most concerning one I've ever read. Like I said, your nonchalant attitude about it is because you are clearly not equipped to understand the implications. Unlike you, I know what these markers mean, and I know the prognosis of severe inflammatory myocarditis.

Precisely because it's unconfirmed by larger studies, I think we should proceed with the regular precautions, just a bit tighter; I'd strongly recommend mask use NOT JUST FOR THE ELDERLY AND INFIRM but for virtually everybody because if we get to tardive heart failure in a large number of younger people, that's not good. Plus social distancing, eye protection too, lots of hand hygiene, no stupid behavior like Covid parties for herd immunity or maskless mass protests or maskless political gatherings or night clubs or bars or large indoor gatherings, because this particular paper has raised the spectrum of the virus being FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE than initially thought, since this heart issue in mild and moderate cases was unknown up to these brilliant German doctors deciding to check.

I'd say, all hopes of proceeding through herd immunity would have to be put to a definitive rest, and more money should be poured into the additional mechanisms for vaccines (the three front runners are 2 that are mRNA and 1 that is adenovirus non-replicating vector; there are other methods such as the replicating vector, the attenuated virus, the inactivated virus, the protein fragments, and a number of experimental ones, and these are mostly still in phase 1 in Western countries although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are further along with the other methods. I'd say, get the largest number of methods, combine strains in bivalent or trivalent vaccines, get massive investment on this for the makers to accelerate, and let's see if maybe combining two methods and different strains and boosters we achieve sufficient population immunity to put an end to this virus.

Now, you are right about one thing, the lock down everything, but only in the following situation: let's suppose a study is done win 2,000 asymptomatic people with positive COVID-19 test and say 25% of them present the same heart lesions.

Yes, in this case I'd say, 5-truck fire alarm! Stop the press. Drop everything else, stop worrying about the economy and lock down the whole country until the virus dies out, because 25% of the population with heart failure would break the spine of any country, quasi-permanently, and would take a generation or more to recover from.

Shooting on sight anyone on the streets, you may have said it sarcastically, but it was actually used by one country... the Philippines. No, of course I don't support it. But if large, widespread heart lesions are found to be the case including for asymptomatic patients in very high percentage, then I'd move from my position of no mandatory measures whatsoever (instead, only educational campaigns is what I've been favoring so far, under the premise that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar) to a much harsher approach, like in Italy where they didn't shoot people on sight... but established (legally and constitutionally, by a Congress bill voted and signed into law) a new class of felony called "aiding an epidemic" and put the Army on the streets to enforce it, and indicted 40,000 people, which put a screeching halt to non-compliance with the lockdown.

We need to better understand the dangers of this virus. All minimizers keep saying that it has a small Infection-fatality rate which is true. But if it has a humongous rate of dangerous sequelae, it changes the whole calculation. This is not known yet, but there are many very concerning signs, the worst of them all, this heart issue.

Even on unconfirmed odds, I'd say we have already enough information about possible long-term consequences to be very concerned and very prudent. If these concerns are not confirmed (say, in a few months these hearts heal and don't progress to heart failure, and the "long-haulers" get well) I'll be very happy, of course. As of now, I'd recommend the utmost prudence.

This is why I get very irritated when I hear someone say, like YOU DID SAY, that people would be "better off" by getting infected and moving on already so that we get herd immunity. No, they wouldn't. They'd be playing with fire. Let's work as best as we can on vaccines because this virus is sounding more and more like a much more dangerous threat than initially thought.

Do you understand now, where I'm coming from?

This said, I apologize if at one point of our dialogue I got a bit nasty out of frustration. Be safe. Cheers.

 

They make this stuff called soap. Combine with hot water and wash your mask after each use. The paper ones are disposable.

Meanwhile, if the outside of your mask gets cooties, aren't they stuck on the mask?

You seem to be looking for excuses to mot wear one. Am I right?

 

Most of us don't carry hot water and soap in our back pockets.

But yes, soap and hot water will kill the bacteria.

And no, you are not right.

I just am not sold as the mask as the cure all end all as many like to proclaim.

 

I've been getting a flu shot every year since 1998. In all those years, I've had the flu twice, and only because of new strains that the vaccine did not yet cover. Vaccines work.

 

That's why I carry an 8-oz bottle of Purell in my breast pocket.

What bacteria?

Who is saying that masks are the cure all end all? We're just saying that the right kind of mask, worn correctly, will decrease (not eliminate, but decrease) the odds of transmitting and/or catching the virus.

 

I was informed that a letter recently sent to state officials by the CDC (they're scientists!) said there is no evidence that masks work to stop coronavirus.

 

I've not heard a single person say that. Not any health care worker, infectious disease expert, nor anyone on this forum.

Please cite your source on that.

 

Who informed you? What was the study they were citing? I'm interested to know how they were able to overturn over 100 years of scientific data that says otherwise.

 

Of course there isn't such a statement. "someone informed me" with no links...

 

No one ever called it a "cure all end all." It's one very effective tool for slowing the spread, and could save lives.

 

All I hear is, "My best friend's brother's sister-in-law's step-cousin's doctor knows of a guy......"

 

[/QUOTE]
What you and others forget in your studies is those are conducted among people who present in the ER with serious symptoms. The overwhelming majority of positive cases are asymptomatic or think they have a cold.
.I hope you're right and a very effective vaccine is right around the corner but until that does or doesn't happen we have no choice but to keep on truckin. We can't hide from this virus forever and really the mortality rate is quite low and the fear mongering is rediculous. It reminds me of the AGW hysteria and how we are all gonna die from that, well if covid doesn't kill us first. LOL[/QUOTE]
Talk of low mortality and fear monger omg shot your OP right in the ass

 

I already answered your question.

 

Except it wasn't a lie. It was one of the few examples of Fauci telling the truth. There is zero evidence demonstrating the efficacy of masks outside clinical settings. Fauci knows this, as does every informed individual. What Fauci is saying now about masks is the lie. And he knows it.

 

How much is "some" protection?

 

Some protection is always better than no protection

 

Way too long to read much less respond to. This is debate and discussion not an audition for a novel

 

OK, that is really disappointing. Out of respect for YOU, I took the time of explaining my position in detail, ending with "do you understand now, where I'm coming from?" and then I even said "I apologize if at one point of our dialogue I got a bit nasty out of frustration." Instead of appreciating my effort in the name of civility, you chose the annoying answer "TLDR" which is incredibly disrespectful. If that's the case, then I have nothing else to talk to you about, and no desire to engage with you in the future, in no way, shape, or form. I wish you a nice, long, and safe life. Over and out forever.

 

I haven’t ever had a flu shot and haven’t had the flu in fifty years

 

I think I heard it on Tucker. They had the letter though. 100 years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Covid wasn't around 100 years ago??

 

Masks help contain moisture droplets coming from your mouth. This is pretty simple science. People were wearing masks in 1918, because, it helps contain the virus.

It does not, nor has anyone ever claimed, offer 100% protection.

 

Consider the sources, though. People who go out of their way to NOT understand, will never read valuable information. It's very dangerous, for some, to allow in information that conflicts with the internal narrative. Growth begins at the edge of a comfort zone. Most are terrified of leaving that comfort zone to absorb new information.

 

I read your post until you started disrespecting me so don’t give me that ****. Beyond that whether you meant it to be or not your post was Gish gallop which is impossible to respond to so why bother reading it.