Just now, Mep said:Vaccines or herd immunity does that.
Small quibble. Vaccines are a method of achieving herd immunity.
Adepticon 2021 Canceled
2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:Small quibble. Vaccines are a method of achieving herd immunity.
Yes, the best of two available methods of achieving that.
5 minutes ago, Mep said:Yes, the best of two available methods of achieving that.
I'll agree it is one of the two methods, the other being organic exposure, to achieve it. Vaccines being the best method strikes me as a shakey position. Though the shakey part has to do with individual circumstances. Both methods are at least equitable in viability.
17 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:I'll agree it is one of the two methods, the other being organic exposure, to achieve it. Vaccines being the best method strikes me as a shakey position. Though the shakey part has to do with individual circumstances. Both methods are at least equitable in viability.
Disease and vaccine dependent for sure. Vaccines, despite any past problems, have been the modern medical miracle. In this situation, high risk groups really do need the vaccine, no mater how rushed it may seem. Vaccines are a very mature technology at this point and they are not as rushed at they may seem. Getting an actual disease is what should be considered shaky as organic exposure kills many orders of magnitude higher than adverse events from vaccines. Vaccines are so good people have forgotten how bad diseases can be, COVID19 not actually being one of the bad ones. I can see someone young and healthy passing on being vaccinated but anyone with the slightest risk and those in contact with people who are immunocompromised do need to get vaccinated.
8 hours ago, PaulRuddSays said:Can people please follow the advice of their high school teachers and *NOT* use Wikipedia as a source? I’ve run into this so many times in 2020, on many topics, and it’s almost exclusively because people are unwilling or unable to deal with the source material itself.
The Federalist is a mainstream publication. Telling people that it’s a fringe, loony conspiracy site indicates that you’re not familiar with it. They’re biased, yes, but openly so and don’t pretend to be otherwise. If you’ve ever used something like The Nation, Politico, Slate, Jacobin, etc. as a reference then you’re in the same boat. If you disagree these are the same in principle, then you’re not being very honest about publication biases.
Also, let’s please be honest with ourselves here. I wear a mask and can count the times I’ve socialized with people since March on one hand. I’m also a PhD scientist and appreciate that fast science is bad science, and lots of things we ‘know’ this year will turn out to be wrong. Others will be revealed as being deliberately untrue, such as the original CDC dictate not to wear or buy masks, which was intended to shore up the stockpiles we failed to maintain.
We should all endeavor to remember that lots of things we think we know aren’t nearly as settled as we imagined. For instance, the comment above where masks are understood to reduce droplets that spread the coronavirus - yes, probably, this makes intuitive sense. However, there’s a professional disagreement about what droplet size is actually problematic and causes transmission. There was also a recent experiment with the US Marines, which may be the intended reference, where testing before and during basic training found that constant universal masking with enforced compliance and mandatory distancing was unable to stop COVID transmission, which reached 2% positivity rates within 2 weeks. Can’t link on mobile, but was published in NEJM in November.
There are lots of facets of this year that won’t be understood well, or correctly, for years if ever. Please treat your fellow forum dwellers with respect. I’ll continue to wear my mask, but I have no expectation it does anything more than mitigate the situation. I’m unaware of any disease in history that was eradicated on the basis of voluntary actions, so all I can do is request that everyone stays as safe as they can until a vaccine is locally available, and then request you to take it.
I never said I wasnt familiar with the federalist. I referenced wikipedia to indicate that the Federalists extreme bias and penchant for fibbing are common knowledge. A few minutes on google would uncover their history as well. Other mainstream news sources like Fox have done the same, but the popularity of an outlet has no bearing on their credibility. a lie is a lie
We have to accept that all news these days is propaganda, either to serve a corporate interest, a political interest, or simply evangelizing their audience. Even people working at PBS have to tell their viewership what they want to hear if they expect "viewers like you" to continue to pay their pay checks. With that said, not every news story is a lie but its existence was paid for by someone. Figuring out who paid for the story can be hard to do, but when possible, does allow one to know why that story is present and if the information is accurate. Wikipedia falls to those same economic realities and who pays for the fact check and references is important to understanding the validity of any source, including Wikipedia.
1 hour ago, Mep said:...masks when used properly slow the spread, not stop the spread.
...yep. And this is the entire point if wearing masks. The proper use of masks - along with other sensible measures like social distancing and, in critical situation s quarantining and lockdowns - help to slow the spread of the virus, reduce transmissions and protect both the vulnerable and the health care systems.
They're not preventative measures, they're protective measures. You're reducing risk, not eliminating it.
Just because masks do not fully eliminate the risk of transmission does not mean you should not wear one. You are still at risk of automotive injury if you wear a seatbelt, but you wear one. You can still be seriously injured if you come off a motorbike while wearing a helmet, but you wear one. You can still contract an STD while wearing a condom, but you wear one.
Failing to wear a mask while out in public is irresponsible and selfish. It puts not only yourself but everyone you're in contact with at greater risk.
This ain't rocket science, folks.
22 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:This ain't rocket science, folks.
(Sadly I don't think we'll get above store champ level prize support in 2021, and that's only after the Vaccine starts rolling out, making it relatively safe for local areas. I can't see any of the international cons coming back next year. So that leaves... Pax unplugged maybe October/November? Allot of "if's" to answer before next year should it happen.)
Edited by FlyingAnchors6 hours ago, Hiemfire said:I'll agree it is one of the two methods, the other being organic exposure, to achieve it. Vaccines being the best method strikes me as a shakey position. Though the shakey part has to do with individual circumstances. Both methods are at least equitable in viability.
Ummm, because the other way involves exposing the general population. Even with a 1% death rate, you are talking about 3 million people dead.
3 hours ago, Sithborg said:Ummm, because the other way involves exposing the general population. Even with a 1% death rate, you are talking about 3 million people dead.
Also, the process of organic exposure and adaption by the human immune system will take a lot, lot longer than mass, co-ordinated vaccination.
There's no guarantee that the human body would successfully develop long term antibodies on it's own, either. Without vaccination, smallpox would still be a thing.
On 12/5/2020 at 10:43 AM, Darth Meanie said:I often think to myself, "Do these people put the condom on their scrotum, and say 'OK baby, they're locked in, good to go!'"
OK. That made my day. Thanks.
On 12/6/2020 at 7:04 AM, LTuser said:My big issue on the whole mask mandate bs, is several fold.
1) masks are not 'secure enough', to stop virus particles spreading through them. As the saying goes, if you can still smell someone's fart, a virus can still get in.
2) IF MASKS WERE so great, then why is it, the CDC's own study on over 3,000 folk who contracted it, showed over 84% OF THEM RELIGIOUSLY WORE masks? IF masks were so great, they'd have not gotten it.
3) IF masks were so good, then WHY HAVE so many hospital workers caught covid, when not only are they masked up, but are also wearing those face visors, gloves and the rest of their PPE???
People arguing like over 200K people haven’t died in their country.
if at worst masks don’t work? You are uncomfortable for a few months. If at best they work, you could save the life of a person with poor respiratory issues.
The narcissism shown by people during this pandemic sickens me to my very core.
My state in Australia has been Covid free for 5 weeks now, for months there were protests and calls for the Premier’s resignation for his harsh restrictions, but we are mostly out of it and life can get back to quasi normal.
59 minutes ago, Archangelspiv said:You are uncomfortable for a few months.
As if.
I have been more uncomfortable trying to find a public restroom in a moment of need.
QuoteThe narcissism shown by people during this pandemic sickens me to my very core.
This. Wearing a mask is such a trivial and inexpensive proposition that any level of refusal basically shows a callous disregard for others.
22 hours ago, Mep said:I keep hearing people say "wear a mask". I haven't heard anyone say "clean your mask". I have seen no guidance on how many times per 8 hour shift a worker should disinfect a mask or change into a clean one. I have seen no educational materials teaching people to not touch their mask. Having a germ ridden rag across one's face won't stop viral spread. PPE requires training and compliance with said training. Sterile technique is not trivial to perform. At this point the mask thing has become so political there is little hope to actually educate anyone on how to make them effective. Also known, masks when used properly slow the spread, not stop the spread. Simply wearing a mask won't make a virus go away. Vaccines or herd immunity does that. The myth that if everyone would just wear a mask this whole thing would go away is just that, a myth. It helps slow the spread when properly used.
Yea,i've lost track of the # of times, i just see someone using a mask they had hanging from their rear-view window, day in and day out..
On 12/5/2020 at 3:04 PM, LTuser said:My big issue on the whole mask mandate bs, is several fold.
3) IF masks were so good, then WHY HAVE so many hospital workers caught covid, when not only are they masked up, but are also wearing those face visors, gloves and the rest of their PPE???
Not saying none of the hospital workers caught covid at work, but a lot of it is traced to their life outside work.
On 12/6/2020 at 9:03 AM, PaulRuddSays said:We should all endeavor to remember that lots of things we think we know aren’t nearly as settled as we imagined. For instance, the comment above where masks are understood to reduce droplets that spread the coronavirus - yes, probably, this makes intuitive sense. However, there’s a professional disagreement about what droplet size is actually problematic and causes transmission. There was also a recent experiment with the US Marines, which may be the intended reference, where testing before and during basic training found that constant universal masking with enforced compliance and mandatory distancing was unable to stop COVID transmission, which reached 2% positivity rates within 2 weeks. Can’t link on mobile, but was published in NEJM in November.
I'm not a PhD, so I will use others to explain that NEJM article. Everything that I have read about that article is about fever testing and symptom screening not being effective for stopping covid spreading, not about the effectiveness of masks.
https://apnews.com/article/fever-symptom-screening-misses-virus-c31802fea6720906a9b9c2f913f9acb7
11 minutes ago, inkomo said:I'm not a PhD, so I will use others to explain that NEJM article. Everything that I have read about that article is about fever testing and symptom screening not being effective for stopping covid spreading, not about the effectiveness of masks.
https://apnews.com/article/fever-symptom-screening-misses-virus-c31802fea6720906a9b9c2f913f9acb7
I think this demonstrates the power of “and.” Screening didn’t catch the cases, AND universal masking may be unable to stop rapid spread anyway.
This isn’t ironclad, by the way, and there’s at least one valid criticism I can imagine. If someone wants to disagree with it, though, I’ll let them make the arguments themselves. I haven’t seen anyone argue that the study was flawed, though...
13 hours ago, inkomo said:I'm not a PhD, so I will use others to explain that NEJM article. Everything that I have read about that article is about fever testing and symptom screening not being effective for stopping covid spreading, not about the effectiveness of masks.
https://apnews.com/article/fever-symptom-screening-misses-virus-c31802fea6720906a9b9c2f913f9acb7
Well, as someone who does read medical articles critically:
At 1,800+ participants, the sample size is statistically valid.
However, that I can tell, there as no comparison group. The article only uses the term "recruit," and I am unable to tell whether "recruit" means "marine" or "an individual who participated in this study." It seems that ALL marines followed the same COVID protocols, so it's hard to say whether a 2% transmission rate might have been worse sans masks/social distancing/etc. However, on the USS Teddy Roosevelt, when no one was likely doing a **** thing about COVID:
Among the crew of 4,779, mostly young people, 1,271 became infected.
That's a MUCH worse transmission rate.
However, it does seem that transmission ran along platoon lines, so close contact certainly was a factor. Hence, social distancing and the importance of NOT BLENDING HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE HOLIDAYS. Stay in your platoons, folks, it will be safer. IMHO, the most significant conclusion of this study is this:
The case shows that “young, healthy persons can contribute to community spread of infection, often silently.”
Thus, ultimately, NOTHING is 100% in preventing folks from getting COVID. This study certainly proves that. What it seems to fail to prove is that PREVENTATIVE MEASURES are not statistically different than NO PRVENTATIVE MEASURES. It also only looks at transmission rates between able-bodied, young marines. What if this study were performed in a nursing home? In a cancer ward?
As with any GOOD scientific study, this one effectively answers a limited scope of questions: Routine symptom screening misses cases. With proactive measures in place, the transmission rate among healthy young individuals is 2%. Many of those infected are asymptomatic in this age group. I'm not sure you can use it to say "proactive COVID prevention measures are not worth the effort" without a control group allowed to interact sans all protective measures.
Lastly, since @PaulRuddSays brought it up while I was typing:
Quoteuniversal masking may be unable to stop rapid spread anyway
None of this is about ending the coronavirus. It's not an all-or-none proposition. It's about slowing it down enough that other systems (vaccine R&D, hospitals) can get their work done without a high body count coming first.
Edited by Darth Meanie27 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:Well, as someone who does read medical articles critically:
At 1800+ participants, the sample size is statistically valid.
However, that I can tell, there as no comparison group. The article only uses the term "recruit," and I am unable to tell whether "recruit" means "marine" or "an individual who participated in this study." It seems that ALL marines followed the same COVID protocols, so it's hard to say whether a 2% transmission rate might have been worse sans masks/social distancing/etc. However, on the USS Teddy Roosevelt, when no one was likely doing a **** thing about COVID:
Among the crew of 4,779, mostly young people, 1,271 became infected.
That's a MUCH worse transmission rate.
However, it seems that transmission ran along platoon lines, so close contact certainly was a factor. Hence, social distancing. IMHO, the most significant conclusion of this study is this:
The case shows that “young, healthy persons can contribute to community spread of infection, often silently,”
And, NOTHING is 100% in preventing folks from getting COVID. Stop looking at things one-by-one, because all will fail. HOWEVER, the combination of many of the things one can do to minimize disease transmission helps. Yes, people will get sick. Many will get better. BUT EFFORTS TO STOP COVID WILL KEEP THE BODY COUNT DOWN.
Unless this America's plan to ease the strain on Social Security. Then, by all means, carry on with the foolishness.
Since you are someone who does read medical articles critically, who's foolishness are you talking about? And what specifically? I'm a computer engineer, so this is out of my wheelhouse. Trying to get as much information as I can.
2 minutes ago, inkomo said:Since you are someone who does read medical articles critically, who's foolishness are you talking about? And what specifically? I'm a computer engineer, so this is out of my wheelhouse. Trying to get as much information as I can.
The general public's foolishness. That no one is willing to listen to an EVOLVING NARRATIVE about what is appropriate. In terms of masks, the idea that "well, at first we don't need masks, now we do, how can I trust anyone/fake news/I'll be the judge of that because I read one badly written article that cherry-picked a poorly performed, since-refuted study that supports what I wanted to think anyways."
I spent an entire semester in college being trained to critically evaluate scientific studies. There is a lot of BAD research that goes on, from sloppiness, to poor sample size, to non-repeatability, and to of course money driving the result.
I'm a medical professional. Outside of a vaccine, I don't definitively know what best practices are, but I'm gonna say that a germ-laden rag is better than no rag at all. And, if I'm not sure, I don't know how journalists can be. Erring on the side of proactive seems to be prudent, however. It is at the VERY least compassionate. Oh, and I will personally guarantee that none of my colleagues have ever died of hypoxia in a mask. 🙄
That's something i am shocked at.. IIRC in mid may/june neck of the woods we kept hearing about those 3 navy ships, which were having outbreaks.
BUT since then? I don't remember a single news article on the navy having issues. So are they not anymore? OR are the just not being reported on?
23 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:Well, as someone who does read medical articles critically:
At 1,800+ participants, the sample size is statistically valid.
However, that I can tell, there as no comparison group. The article only uses the term "recruit," and I am unable to tell whether "recruit" means "marine" or "an individual who participated in this study." It seems that ALL marines followed the same COVID protocols, so it's hard to say whether a 2% transmission rate might have been worse sans masks/social distancing/etc. However, on the USS Teddy Roosevelt, when no one was likely doing a **** thing about COVID:
Among the crew of 4,779, mostly young people, 1,271 became infected.
That's a MUCH worse transmission rate.
However, it does seem that transmission ran along platoon lines, so close contact certainly was a factor. Hence, social distancing and the importance of NOT BLENDING HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE HOLIDAYS. Stay in your platoons, folks, it will be safer. IMHO, the most significant conclusion of this study is this:
The case shows that “young, healthy persons can contribute to community spread of infection, often silently.”
Thus, ultimately, NOTHING is 100% in preventing folks from getting COVID. This study certainly proves that. What it seems to fail to prove is that PREVENTATIVE MEASURES are not statistically different than NO PRVENTATIVE MEASURES. It also only looks at transmission rates between able-bodied, young marines. What if this study were performed in a nursing home? In a cancer ward?
As with any GOOD scientific study, this one effectively answers a limited scope of questions: Routine symptom screening misses cases. With proactive measures in place, the transmission rate among healthy young individuals is 2%. Many of those infected are asymptomatic in this age group. I'm not sure you can use it to say "proactive COVID prevention measures are not worth the effort" without a control group allowed to interact sans all protective measures.
Lastly, since @PaulRuddSays brought it up while I was typing:
None of this is about ending the coronavirus. It's not an all-or-none proposition. It's about slowing it down enough that other systems (vaccine R&D, hospitals) can get their work done without a high body count coming first.
Yep, seems we’re on the same page. It’s not a conclusive study but it’s enough for me to conclude we’re in mitigation mode until vaccines are locally available.
Now, going back to conventions. IF WE do start seeing these vvaccines get out later this month, early next year, which con(s) do you see as being back on (potentially)? origins? Gencon? Comiccon?
5 hours ago, LTuser said:Now, going back to conventions. IF WE do start seeing these vvaccines get out later this month, early next year, which con(s) do you see as being back on (potentially)? origins? Gencon? Comiccon?
None. Distribution will take time.
2021 is probably a wash as well outside of local store events. Maybe we get something a bit bigger like Campaign against Cancer.
The real test will be how society adapts and moves on... what things change permanently, what things slowly come back, will we have mask mandates every flu season for illnesses etc.
2 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:The real test will be how society adapts and moves on... what things change permanently, what things slowly come back, will we have mask mandates every flu season for illnesses etc.
I'd settle for a permanent change in the psychology of coming into work sick "because I can't skip a day"/"they need me"/"I'll take one for the team."
If you are sick, stay the fudge home. I don't want to get your disease, even if it is the common cold.