Jump to content

juliann

Contributor
  • Content Count

    12,050
  • Joined

Community Reputation

12,342 Excellent

4 Followers

About juliann

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

4,608 profile views
  1. This is the biggest problem https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2020/11/26/youll-never-guess-which-countrys-media-has-covered-covid-19-most-negatively/?sh=7d7037fe7ee8 I use this again to demonstrate that skeptics are not without reason. I have a FB friend who uses the same government data to dispute the screaming negative coverage. In one instance where the media was claiming hospitals were full in his city he merely used the state data from the hospitals themselves which were not reporting being anywhere near what the media claimed at that time. This is what I think creates
  2. I wish that were the case. But isn't claiming that it would be worse, which cannot possibly be measured, circular reasoning in the extreme?
  3. Nope. It was an example of what everyone was hearing in nonstop media. Why didn't the CDC correct it? Are you now denying we weren't told that masks don't protect the wearer, we must do it for others? Did you skip the part about the CDC's statements being removed from their website and online publications before you demand nonstop documentation? CFR that they ever said (before April) that masks will protect you from this deadly virus but don't wear them. You can't. Because their original advice was they weren't needed. And they wouldn't provide protection (work) because masks would
  4. Oh for heaven's sake. They had to say those exact two words?? You are going to hang your hat on that? From Bsjkki's link: We were told for two months masks weren't needed so I disagree with the first sentence. The follow up about them being needed for health care always followed that, it was not the reason. Pogi, CFR that they ever said (before April) that masks will protect you from this deadly virus but don't wear them. You can't. Because their original advice was they weren't needed. And they wouldn't provide protection (work) because masks would (1) give people a
  5. April 1: https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-03/cdc-an-about-face-on-face-masks/ I love the last sentence, And sure enough.... From the CDC website at the time: We did need to wear one. But the real reason for saying we didn't was.... One has NOTHING to do with the other. We did need to wear a facemask. Unless you are seriously going to claim that the CDC did not know that facemasks were needed "(ie., "worked), you aren't going to prevail on this. Again, you are parsing words. Why? I don't know what in the world you think "we
  6. Why do you think the Boston Globe felt it necessary to correct what the public was hearing back in March? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/19/opinion/guidance-against-wearing-masks-coronavirus-is-wrong-you-should-cover-your-face/ How do you think you build trust by denying history? They did lie, they did it believing it was for the public good, not for gain. But lie they did. I believe the only way to rebuild trust is to first admit the mistake. There is no magic in the air to make skeptical people stop remembering what they were told mere months ago. Shaming them or telling th
  7. You are arguing over semantics. The point is, we were told to not wear masks. You only have to google to find that history so I don't understand why you are attempting to rewrite this. (This article also cites studies supporting the efficacy of mask wearing. ) https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent https://www.wired.com/story/how-masks-went-from-dont-wear-to-must-have/ You can play with "that got interpreted as...." as not being official, I suppose, but there was no statement from these very
  8. The initial advice coming from all major organizations was that masks "didn't work" and shouldn't be worn. I remember it well because I was arguing against it. Since that defied all common sense, they came up with justifications, one of which was having a false sense of security. Also that they made things worse because it would make you touch your face more. (That I thought was one of the craziest ones, assuming your mask wasn't sliding all over. It does the opposite, it makes you much more aware to not touch your face.) Later, they admitted that they only said that so there wouldn't be a ru
  9. That has more to do with economic activity than anything, it comes from the business school not doctors. It says almost nothing about mask effectiveness itself....only that it increases confidence in going to stores which doesn't exclude false confidence. They explained away data that shows dramatic rises in cases after mask mandates with a wave of the hand, then this unsupported convenient conclusion, I strongly suspect that the truth is somewhere between both extremes in the mask debates. I think common sense dictates that masks are only as good as what they are made of, coverage, an
  10. So original. Exmo hangouts thought this was a hilarious troll that they all should engage in. Rather telling And not in a happy way but each to their own. I’m grateful that I can Enjoy retirement, the best time of life, and do it around family. Love, love, love my grand babies.
  11. I got the first Shingrix shot. No illness but my entire arm was sore for two days, to the point I couldn’t sleep on that side. So do be sure to get it in the arm you use less.
  12. It is meaningful because we are now being told masks do protect us. I wear masks, but I’m very aware that we were out and out lied to initially, masks don’t work so don’t use them. That they wanted the limited masks for health care workers is irrelevant to the fact that they lied. Then we were told masks only protect others....before they said they do protect us. People have good reason to be skeptical.
  13. This controversial study came out https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.
  14. Never watched it. Call me a grinch but I am so tired of having all day tributes to people who did nothing but appear on TV or in movies. I'm sure he was a great guy but I'd much rather hear about people who actually contributed something meaningful to society.
×
×
  • Create New...