Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by provoman

  1. On 10/15/2020 at 7:22 PM, bsjkki said:

    I question whether this should be used to promote "being crammed like sardines in a tin can with 301 to 368 others is safe if people are infected with covid19 and everyone wears a mask 100% of the time" (we know people wont wear a mask 100% of the time - snacks, drinks, mask below their nose, temporary removal for adjustment.)

    The study itself presents the shortcomings, so I think that was good of the researchers to acknowledge that it was calculated with 1 person infected and the air flow does not represent the airflow on a full flight.  

    And to my understanding the study ONLY was about the filtration capabilities of two specific air craft. Additionally, the study was not about filtering out covid19 particles; rather it was about filtering out what the researchers believe are the particles covid19 might attach to.

    • Upvote 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Calm said:


    Washing cloth masks properly (machine wash after each use, high temperatures) appears to up their ability to protect

    "The study at the time found that two-layered cotton cloth masks..." 

    Multi-layer cotton, to my understanding, is what the WHO recommends, and multi-layer cotton is the a standard in many of the studies I have looked.  I would say that majority of cloth mask worn are not multi-layer cotton. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. On 9/23/2020 at 8:07 PM, Calm said:

    The lack of confidence leading to only about 1/3 of Americans being willing to take the vaccine needed to be addressed. Reassuring no shortcuts in quality or safety to increase people taking it, especially those in high risk situations, would be taken makes medical and sociological sense. 

    I was banned from a sub reddit for expressing concern about any impending vaccine that was expected at the end of October/November.  The particular sub is very much a pro-mask sub, so I chuckled a few weeks later when a high profile pro-mask political candidate in the US also expressed concern about any impending vaccine. 

    On a different note, I found a website that discussed how long it took for various vaccines to available for public uses. IIRC the average for a vaccine development is about 10 years, so it is curious about that any sars-covid2 can be developed in months

  4. 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

    I would hope that is could be dismissed based on the lack of merit of the accusations. I'm not sure how I feel about the statutes not applying for such serious crimes.


    13 hours ago, cinepro said:

    While it's great that it was dismissed, I am disappointed that it wasn't dismissed based on the merit (or lack thereof) of the accusation.


    16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

    I'm glad that it was dismissed, but I would have liked to see it dismissed for lack of merit rather than on procedural grounds.  In any case, as regards the Mileses, all's well that ends well, I suppose.

    Was the case at a point where "merit" could be considered?  

  5. 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

    Just tried to find the Gospel Topic Essay on blacks and the PH. It's not there,  along with the polygamy essay. Am I doing it wrong or does anyone else have this problem?


    I believe the urls changed about 6 - 8 months ago. Don't have time at the moment but from what I recall on a different discussion board the essays are still available; just at a different location.

    • Like 1
  6. 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

    Where's the money in that? They could have done that near the Salt Lake Temple, but instead it's a mall. I don't mind really, but I really don't see it happening. Your suggestion sounds great though. 

    considering that inland is very likely to built 1 - 2 miles west of the Temple in Erda, personally I would want to use nature to block the view, pollution and noise.

  7. On 8/14/2020 at 12:43 PM, Rivers said:



    On 8/14/2020 at 1:13 PM, Robert J Anderson said:



    On 8/14/2020 at 1:33 PM, Kevin Christensen said:



    On 8/14/2020 at 2:09 PM, OGHoosier said:



    On 8/14/2020 at 2:45 PM, champatsch said:



    On 8/14/2020 at 2:59 PM, Robert F. Smith said:


    To each of you. I do not understand the more than one Isiah issue, what little I think I do understand is that the "voice" and "tense" of Isiah changes at certain points, therefore it must be two or three different people.  In that limited understanding, it seems that one needs to deny prophetic revelation to support the notion of 2 or 3 three different people. Why is Isiah as introduced of the first whatever number of chapters limited to only the voice and tense of those chapters?

  8. 22 hours ago, sheilauk said:


    In the US minors are  not legally capable of consent.

    Otherwise, it does not make sense that specific acts are mandated for registry but others are not. I agree with you and Calm



  9. 45 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

    So you disagree with the scientists and experts about the importance of going to back to school and opening up and the problems that are just beginning?

    Haven't read the article you linked, but based on what you did post, I did not see anything related to the importance of opening schools. AND if opening schools is about nutrition, as Nehor posted, US schools provided meals during the schools months when schools were closed.  So in viewed in proper context of the Country and the restrictions in place, I would disagree with someone using the harm in villages of the mountains of Afghanistan as a basis to push school in the US to open.

  10. 2 hours ago, pogi said:

    I am not sure what you read, but Isn't that almost exactly what I said:

    "Hi, I am calling to inform you that your child may have been exposed to someone infected with Covid while at school...watch for any signs of infection and get tested if any present themselves...Make sure they wear a mask and practice other preventive measures"...or something like that. 

    You are not understanding what I am saying.  There is no such thing as a "close contact low risk".  There are low risk contacts however.  They are not considered "close contacts".  

    Your suggestion is that all low risk contacts should be contacted and informed of potential exposure.  I am simply suggesting that it serves no pragmatic purpose to do so.

    I apologize for any miscommunication. 

    There is trepidation in hearing that being in the same room but not withing "close contact" is a low risk for infection. I think if more people accepted or understood that, there would be less push back about schools opening, I would not sit in the foyer during the monthly in person sacrament meeting. 

  11. 59 minutes ago, pogi said:

    I just think this is silly perception of what should be required.  Going to school in a pandemic naturally is a given presumed risk of exposure and infection, no need for a call every time a potential exposure happens.  Parents may be getting several calls a day when school opens.   What good will it serve to call about every single low-risk exposure? 

    Here is what happens in those low risk calls - 

    Contact Tracer: "Hi, I am calling to inform you that your child may have been exposed to someone infected with Covid while at school." 

    Parent: "Who were they exposed to?" 

    Contact tracer: "I can't tell you that because of HIPPA laws, but they are considered low-risk and don't need to quarantine or do anything different at this time." 

    Parent: "Why are you calling me if you can't tell me anything useful?"

    Contact tracer: "We are just calling to inform you of a potential exposure." 

    Parent: "We are in a pandemic with wide-spread transmission.  They are in school with kids passing them all over the place in narrow hallways and stacked like sardines in classrooms, I am aware that they have likely ongoing exposures". 

    Contact tracer: "Umm, ok, well watch for any signs of infection and get tested if any present themselves." 

    Parent: "No kidding (with a sarcastic tone)?  Anything else?

    Contact tracer: "Make sure they wear a mask and practice other preventive measures."

    Parent: "Serious (said again with a sarcastic tone)?" 

    Contact tracer: "Ok, well thank you, bye!"

    10 minutes to 1 week later...same call happens from a different Contact tracer...and on and on... 

    Total waste of time.  

    Why waste our time making those individual calls, (which practically speaking do absolutely nothing other than potentially create anxiety and don't necessarily reduce any risk of transmission), when we could simply make a general announcement that all students should assume ongoing low risk exposures while at school and monitor for symptoms daily, and that they will be notified of any high-risk exposures.

    If we have to call every low risk exposure, families will be getting calls on a weekly basis, and potentially multiple times a day, for different low risk exposures to different students/faculty.  It is a waste of time and resources, and families will quickly become annoyed at the number of calls.  Every student in the school will have a low risk exposure in a matter of weeks.  Those exposures will be ongoing throughout the year. 

    Unless you can provide some CDC, or other Federal Government documentation about "close contact low risk" and "close contact high risk", because it really just sounds like a state government employee made something up. 

    And if that is the dialogue, it sure appears to be specifically designed to not provide not ensure that a parent is informed. 

    The phone should be like this.

    "You are receiving this call because your student shares a classroom with an individual who tested positive for covid19. At this time there is no need to get tested. Watch for symptoms, contact your physician is symptoms develop"  or something like that."


  12. 29 minutes ago, pogi said:

    Right, I must have misunderstood you.  I thought you were saying they would not be made aware of contacts period.  I guess I am unclear as to what your objection is to this?  That is how all contact tracing is done County wide, not just in schools.  In the beginning stages, when numbers were low, we actually were contacting all contacts, even low-risk ones, but as numbers grew, that became impractical.   We had to focus our resources on the highest risk contacts, or there is no way we could keep up with the numbers.  That is the best we can do with the resources we have.   Imagine the number of potential low-risk contacts in a school setting, and the number of parent's that would need to be notified is astronomical.  Could you imagine the logistics of having to notify every student's parents about every potential low-risk contact they might have had at school?  It's just not realistic.

    It is that I have an objection, right now. Any objection, in my opinion, is based on a lack of understanding and a lack of informing oneself. People are rightly concerned about infection.

    It seems the common perception is 1 student in a confined classroom requires that everyone in that class room be notified of possible infection....I think the objection is that that is not the practice. And it would not be difficult for a government to notify everyone that was in a class room....this could be accomplished by a robo caller or even 2  - 3 people calling less than 30 people and saying what ever is said concerning "close contact".  The guidelines released by the Utah Department of Health are to ONLY contact those who were within 6 ft for more than 15 minutes...that is upsetting to parents, because the parents feel everyone in a classroom should be notified.

  13. 4 hours ago, pogi said:

    Are you sure sacrament preparation doesn't require masks?  I thought it did.  

    Yes, there can be some leakage through masks, that doesn't mean that they are not at all effective at reducing risk.  Just because precautionary measures are not 100% effective, doesn't mean they are not worth doing.  Condoms aren't 100% effective either, maybe people should not be concerned about wearing them. 

    It is my understanding that high-risk close contacts to infected teachers and students will be contacted by the school (who will be performing their own contact tracing).  They will not be allowed to know who they had contact with as that is a violation of HIPPA, but their families will be informed of the exposure and educated. 

    I think you are misunderstanding the guidelines.  Simply because someone does not meet the criteria of a high-risk close contact, it doesn't mean they are not at risk.  You mentioned previously that it doesn't matter if a person is wearing a mask or not if they are within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes, they are still considered a close contact.   That is true, they are considered a close contact, but "close contacts" are further defined as "high-risk" and "medium-risk".  A close contact who is consistently using recommended precautions (wearing a mask) is considered medium-risk.  Mask precautions do matter and make a difference.   

    The guidelines released by the First Presidency do not require masks for sacrament preparation. Individual wards have required it.

    According to the document released by the Utah Department of health for schools, schools will follow the within 6 ft for 15 minutes definition for close contact. And based on my reading of the document ONLY for close contact individuals will there "contact tracing".

  14. On 7/31/2020 at 8:52 AM, pogi said:

    I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate?  

    I educate people about this everyday so I am curious as to what you saw as off-putting in that definition, it might help me better educate my patients.  People seem to accept it just fine, but if there is some way I could teach it better, I would like to know.  I guess I don't quite understand what you are saying about masks and how that alters your perception of this definition. 


    Want to add....


    For being "off put". By way of example, the guidelines for sacrament preparation do not require masks. At first glance, I thought "What, why isn't it required". Then I started to think about it, and think about all the mask videos I watched. The mask videos I have watched, in a secondary manner, demonstrate what I will call "leakage". As I thought about the "leakage" I was not too concerned about the lack of a mask mandate. In my non-medical field opinion, at the proximity of the face to sacrament preparation while wearing a mask due to leakage, does not stop germs from getting on the emblems...so my initial reaction subsided.  Currently on reddit there is a discussion about Utah schools and the guidelines regarding covid infections and notification, many people are bothered that if a teacher is infected the students will not be notified, same applies when a student is infected; it is my current understanding - having relied that a post on reddit contained accurate information - that notification will only be made based on the "close contact" time and distance guidelines.   Maybe it is a matter of better educating the public on transmission, much like was done in the early stages of the AIDS crisis. I recall having a lesson discussing mode of HIV transmission and that a mosquito is not a mode.

  15. On 7/31/2020 at 8:52 AM, pogi said:

    I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate?  

    I educate people about this everyday so I am curious as to what you saw as off-putting in that definition, it might help me better educate my patients.  People seem to accept it just fine, but if there is some way I could teach it better, I would like to know.  I guess I don't quite understand what you are saying about masks and how that alters your perception of this definition. 


    I was put off because I believe there is a popular misperception about infection. So I work in an office, two people test positive  I stood at one of their desk for two minutes...I would not be considered close contact, and it is off putting that while I was within 6ft of that person, the current medical posistion is I should not be concerned. 

    So I think if more people understood about close contact there would not be so much animosity about casually passing someone in public not wearing a mask

    • Like 1
  16. On 7/31/2020 at 5:48 PM, esodije said:

    I’m usually no fan of huge jury awards in tort cases against government agencies, but there are times when the behavior is so grossly negligent, and the consequences so horrific, that justice demands a financial thrashing. Josh Powell was pure evil, and the judge and CPS looked the other way.

    What do you think the "gross negligence" was or even "negligence"? 


  17. Not sure if it has been discussed, but "close contact" has an interesting and somewhat alarming definition.

    I think if more people knew how  "close contact" was defined there would less animosity about masks. 


    "For COVID-19, a close contact is defined as any individual who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to positive specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated."

    I was a bit put off by the definition and I think others would be also; but as I thought about it, there is no mention of masks and I took that to mean "close contact" means with or without mask, the contact is treated the same AND the contact even if all parties are masksed potentially results in infection.

    • Like 1
  18. 2 hours ago, Duncan said:

    and? the Government takes its cues from the disease in this case, if you want to be to hooked up to a ventilator for 2 weeks at an overcrowded hospital then have it-the rest of us would prefer to enjoy our summer. In our case here the Government says 50 can congregate so we work with that, no fuss no muss 

    hundreds of people in one place, only 50 in another....does not pass the smell test of "cues from the disease. I apologize for the brevity, issues when posting

    • Like 1
  • Create New...