On 7/8/24 4:19 PM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-07-08, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> On 7/7/24 8:49 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/24 12:24 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shots.
> Plushttps://www.politifact.com/article/2023/dec/07/donald-trump-was-asked-if-he-will-be-a-dictator-
> if/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2006.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>>>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>>>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>>>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>>>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>>>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided
>>>>>>>>>>> people tell
>>>>>>>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Golly, no cites provided at all, let alone ones from the CDC which
>>>>>> document their _alleged_ statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows
>>>>>>>> over time, so that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic
>>>>>>>> principles to rely on, which means that recommendations can & will
>>>>>>>> change once there is retrospective data to apply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles
>>>>>>>> of aerosol dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower
>>>>>>>> risk of contagion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates
>>>>>>> exponentially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, they do matter.  Basic reason is because the immune system has
>>>>>> a functional carrying limit of how many intruders it can fend off.
>>>>>> Below that threshold value, the immune system successfully fights
>>>>>> off the bug so that it doesn't grow.  FYI, this is quite basic stuff
>>>>>> in biology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always
>>>>>>>> result in a lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But
>>>>>>>> what isn't known until there's retrospective data to quantify is
>>>>>>>> how much risk reduction for each increment, but even this needs to
>>>>>>>> be then viewed from a cost:benefit standpoint: in conventional
>>>>>>>> settings the cost of merely standing ~1m further away from someone
>>>>>>>> is extremely low, so the incremental benefit need not be large to
>>>>>>>> be a favorable approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be
>>>>>>>> objectively minimally effective in filtering can & will have a
>>>>>>>> positive health benefit because it can have secondary effects that
>>>>>>>> can be conflated with positive correlation: its mere presence is a
>>>>>>>> visual prompt which statistically modified social norms for
>>>>>>>> increasing social distancing, which as per the above has a risk
>>>>>>>> reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as being a
>>>>>>>> "placebo effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did
>>>>>>>> positively contribute as well through behavior modification to
>>>>>>>> lower risks; putting a precise quantitative value on it requires a
>>>>>>>> large amount of retrospective data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mask have _always_ worked, even if you don't want to admit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Masks never worked, even with trained medical professionals in the
>>>>> operating
>>>>> room:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A 40 year old study on bacteria, not viruses, which neglected to
>>>> document if & how confounding variables were factored into the study:
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Viruses are smaller than bacteria. Find a study that refutes the one
>>> I cited.
>>
>>
>> Want the layperson "yes" from the Mayo Clinic that says they're effective?
>> Well then, here you go:
>>
>> <https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449>
>>
>> "Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes
>> coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
>>
>> Yes."
>>
>>
>> Or do you want the systematic meta-analysis research paper that comes to
>> basically the same conclusion?
>> Here you go:
>>
>> "Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we
>> conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators),
>> and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these
>> study populations."
>>
>>
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Studies for and against can be found everywhere. The problem is there are many variations of what
> was being called a "mask" and thus a lot of misinformation being spread.

Agreed.

>
> The average person was not using respirator level masks but at best N-95 level masks and even then
> most were wearing designer cloth or el-cheapo China made masks.

And fitment; these factors will add a lot of variance to the outcomes.

>
> Do this experiment. Hold a mask up to a mirror and spray an aresol can of whatever into the mask
> and see what ends up on the mirror.
> Those drops that do, are like boulders compared to the size of a virus.

Except that there's also been a lot of misinformation on the relevant
filtering size for the virus too: in this context, the virus is never
found in its tiny "raw" state (because when so, it dies within minutes),
but it is always encapsulated in fats & water which vastly increases its
size for purposes of filtration. Now how does its size compare to
whatever agent is in this 'test'?

Similarly, the likes of a KN95 mask functions by reducing concentration
levels to reduce transmission risk probabilities: it never was intended
nor was claimed to be a 100.0% effective filter.

>
> And then there was Fauci with his flip flopping which IMHO is the most dangerous.
> Masks work.
> Masks don't work.
> Maybe 2 masks work.
> etc.

Maybe Fauci said that, or maybe not: I'm still waiting for the cites on
"what he said" transcript on what dates, with full context, specifically
because this is multivariate complicated as has been discussed.

Plus even mere public discussion of the topic will modify behavior of
social distancing and have risk-reduction effects. This is why I said
its sort of like placebo's in a way, but still with a real benefit.

> Most people don't do the research but do see Fauci on TV every day and listen and follow his advice.
> My beef isn't with the science because much of this was cutting edge and we were all kind of
> learning as we went along. There was no choice.

Agreed.

My concern has been that there would have been a huge temptation to
downplay masks to the general public in order to strategically conserve
the very finite supplies of high grade masks for the highest-at-risk
medical personnel.

Such a statement could have been rationalized as tolerable because the
policy of public 'lockdowns' were the interim solution to mitigate their
base risk without high quality masks.

The reality here is that there's multiple approaches to reduce the
aggregate population risk which doesn't have to be identical for
everyone (nor should be - risk context), so one is going to have to find
equivalencies, where Risk Group 1 gets recommended to do A+B, Group 2
gets A+C, Group 3 gets B+C, Group 4 gets C+D, etc...particularly when
there's not adequate supply of A for all groups.
(TL;DR: multiple ways to skin the cat).

>
> My problem is with Fauci himself and the possible corruption involving hisd involvement with Wuhan
> labs.
> This needs to be looked into father.
>
>

I'm not concerned about that at all. The Wuhan "gain of function" bit is
a non-starter because the amino acids sequences aren't the same or
compatible: its like someone with a peanut allergy being terrified about
touching a grape, under a rationale of 'because both are plants'.

-hh