Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, juliann said:

Are they just collateral damage to avoid doing that while negligent leaders enjoy their cheesecake?

This all started out by 1 poster claiming that masks don’t work.   Instead of educating this poster that they work with varying degrees of efficacy, you attack those who are simply trying to get him to see that masks can be effective.  
 

You can keep criticizing ineffective leaders or you can try taking the lead in your own small way.  I would be happy to have you on my side. I don’t understand why you and Bernard (who both claim to believe in masks) are coming after me for claiming that masks work to varying degrees, instead of Mr. Anderson, or whatever his name is.

Edited September 7, 2021 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not one safety measure in isolation from others, it is the cumulative effect that matters.

Of course. No one disputes that, but it is the most visible, the most disputed, the most misapplied, the most socially-shamable, the most enforceable, etc., etc.

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

What am I dodging?  You folks are battling the wrong side.  Quit battling those who are at least trying to make at least some improvements and start battling the notion that masks don’t work at all.  

 I would love for folks to wear the best masks (not N95’s though).  I have always advocated for that.  You are setting up a srawman.  Good, better, best.  I will only criticize those who do nothing, and I will try and educate everyone else.

We are talking past each other, Brother Pogi. Getting as many as possible to wear the best masks and wearing them correctly as directed by science should be Priority 1.  This is reasonable and doable. It’s whistling in the wind to do anything less, if we are serious about stopping a pandemic.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

This all started out by 1 poster claiming that masks don’t work.   Instead of educating this poster that they work with varying degrees of efficacy, you attack those who are simply trying to get him to see that masks can be effective.  
 

You can keep criticizing ineffective leaders or you can try taking the lead in your own small way.  I would be happy to have you on my side. I don’t understand why you and Bernard (who both claim to believe in masks) are coming after me for claiming that masks work to varying degrees, instead of Mr. Anderson, or whatever his name is.

Oh for heaven's sakes. Stop with the red herrings. The very point is that masks work (or don't) with varying degrees of efficacy. I have been crystal clear what the objection is....health leaders/governments are not educating about masks with limited efficacy while there are good masks available. They just let people use the lousy masks and then claim "masks" work without providing further clarity. So just STOP it. Be honest.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are talking past each other, Brother Pogi. Getting everyone to wear the best mask possible and wearing it correctly as directed by science should be Priority 1.  This is reasonable and doable. It’s whistling in the wind to do anything less, if we are serious about stopping a pandemic.

Bernard, I am just trying to get people like Robert J Anderson to accept that masks work at all...  I would appreciate your help.

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The point is that there are masks readily available that provide 90%+ protection and here we are debating about cloth masks and studies that determine the efficacy of various types of inferior protection. Mass produce the 90%+ to drive the cost down, stop production, promotion, and sale of less effective masks, and strongly urge their exclusive use wherever possible. I think this is reasonable and doable.

What is particulary galling is the money that has been poured out for all kinds of things surrounding this, creating huge fraud and waste. Money that could have been invested in education and efficient masks. 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Bernard, I am just trying to get people like Robert J Anderson to accept that masks work at all...  I would appreciate your help.

How is insisting that masks providing 26% protection are just as worthwhile as those providing 90% (because all that is important is to wear a mask, any mask) going to convince anyone of anything? That is why people stop trusting. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. No one disputes that, but it is the most visible, the most disputed, the most misapplied, the most socially-shamable, the most enforceable, etc., etc.

I am really not following the reasoning of your posts.

I doubt that anyone here would disagree the best possible response would be for the government to emphasize the need for more effective masks now that Delta is so prevalent and then help get the better masks out there to everyone willing to wear them.  Or that better education on the different effectiveness of masks would be wise.

So is there any issue here besides that?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

How is insisting that masks providing 26% protection are just as worthwhile as those providing 90% (because all that is important is to wear a mask, any mask) going to convince anyone of anything? That is why people stop trusting. 

Who is insisting this?

[juliann]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is anyone here arguing that education through media and some government sources  about mask effectiveness has not been confusing in the US?

And not sure what you mean by “saved”.  A mask being 26% effective does not mean for example 74% of the population get seriously ill or die.  Could you clarify how you are using “saved” here please?

What do you believe would have been the result in the US if mask education had been decent from the beginning?

"Saved" was in reference to Pogi's particular claim. 

If mask education had been honest from the beginning, I don't think we would have so many people turning up their noses everytime Fauci turns up, for one thing. 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sakes. Stop with the red herrings. The very point is that masks work (or don't) with varying degrees of efficacy. I have been crystal clear what the objection is....health leaders/governments are not educating about masks with limited efficacy while there are good masks available. They just let people use the lousy masks and then claim "masks" work without providing further clarity. So just STOP it. Be honest.

My question is, why don’t you ever object to the Robert J Anderson’s of the board who claim that “masks don’t work”.   Instead, you come after us for countering that “yes they do”.

You insist that we are causing more harm than good by saying “masks work”, but you don’t seem to appreciate the context and who we are talking to, or why we are generalizing at this point.

 No one here is claiming that they don’t work with varying degrees of efficacy.  Talk about a red herring!  We are simply trying to show data to a denier that they work...at all.  
 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Who is insisting this?

Anybody who says stuff like "wear a mask" rather than wear a tested mask with 90% filtering and wear it properly.....which I have yet to hear from an official source that isn't hidden away in some article rather than coming out in public announcements.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

My question is, why don’t you ever object to the Robert J Anderson’s of the board who claim that “masks don’t work”.   Instead, you come after us for countering that “yes they do”.

You insist that we are causing more harm than good by saying “masks work”, but you don’t seem to appreciate the context and who we are talking to, or why we are generalizing at this point.

 No one here is claiming that they don’t work with varying degrees of efficacy.  Talk about a red herring!  We are simply trying to show data to a denier that they work...at all.  
 

I don't read his stuff.  Hardcore ask deniers are numerous, you aren't going to convince them but if you can convince a few to throw out their risky cloth masks, you might do some good.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

How is insisting that masks providing 26% protection are just as worthwhile as those providing 90% (because all that is important is to wear a mask, any mask) going to convince anyone of anything? That is why people stop trusting. 

???

Strawman

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don’t seem to appreciate the context and who we are talking to, or why we are generalizing at this point.

 No one here is claiming that they don’t work with varying degrees of efficacy.

And if you fail to qualify every single statement about the general benefit of facemasks with exact effectiveness data and ideal use guidelines, then you are accused of not telling the whole story or intentionally hiding the truth from people. Gee, where have we heard those lines before? The parallels are uncanny ...

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sakes. Stop with the red herrings. The very point is that masks work (or don't) with varying degrees of efficacy. I have been crystal clear what the objection is....health leaders/governments are not educating about masks with limited efficacy while there are good masks available. They just let people use the lousy masks and then claim "masks" work without providing further clarity. So just STOP it. Be honest.

Thanks. You made the point in one paragraph that I have been trying to make in pages. Debating and studying the efficacy of cloth masks etc. is a waste of time. If we know best practices and fail to utilize them we are not taking this seriously and doing a huge disservice to people. It’s not difficult to agree on that. 

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am really not following the reasoning of your posts.

I doubt that anyone here would disagree the best possible response would be for the government to emphasize the need for more effective masks now that Delta is so prevalent and then help get the better masks out there to everyone willing to wear them.  Or that better education on the different effectiveness of masks would be wise.

So is there any issue here besides that?

It’s not difficult. I agree if it’s the best possible response as far as masks are concerned then we should do it. I think it should have been done from the start. But it’s not being done. It’s misleading to give lists of types of masks with ranking of their supposed efficacy, but know they are really not as effective as the should be. The lack of action towards this end and the constant confusion suggests to me that people in authority don’t really think it’s that important of an issue. I think that is lamentable. 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don't read his stuff.  Hardcore ask deniers are numerous, you aren't going to convince them but if you can convince a few to throw out their risky cloth masks, you might do some good.

Then imo it will be hard to understand why Pogi and others are responding as they are in this thread. 
 

You mentioned one of your posts needs to be taken in context with your other posts. The same needs to be done for others here. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

Anybody who says stuff like "wear a mask" rather than wear a tested mask with 90% filtering and wear it properly.....which I have yet to hear from an official source that isn't hidden away in some article rather than coming out in public announcements.

This is glaringly obvious. The inconsistent messages, the contradicting reports and mandates, endorsing less effective masks such as cloth, not providing clear guidelines forcing you to search them out in websites, all this and more feed incredulity and resistance. It’s irresponsible and easily fixable.  

[Bernard Gui]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Bernard, I am just trying to get people like Robert J Anderson to accept that masks work at all...  I would appreciate your help.

Brother Pogi, I’ve used up my tokens for tonight. Before turning in I would like to apologize for my part in making our conversation contentious. I think we are on mostly the same side but we differ on our particular approach and experience. Perhaps on the morrow we can concentrate on what we have in common.

[strappinglad]

" irresponsible and easily fixable." ...   no it is not going to be easily fixable. People are still believing that vaccines cause autism based on a well debunked single bad study by a shady researcher many years ago.  Just like the George Floyd fiasco that ignited a world wide response , all this poor messaging has fueled a worldwide hesitancy and contributed to many deaths. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

No one is answering my question. Would you put someone in a car with the assurance that there was a 26% chance they wouldn't get into a crash?

 I really don't understand the difference with masks other than the transmission crash isn't visible.

I'll answer.  No.

But I also wouldn't put someone in a car with the assurance that there was a 95% chance they wouldn't get into a crash.  Just thinking of myself that means I would be in a crash on average every 2-3 weeks.

The 26% mask stat doesn't really work with your question. The question that would apply is "if you could decrease the chances by 26% they would get in a wreck would you do it?"

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are talking past each other, Brother Pogi. Getting as many as possible to wear the best masks and wearing them correctly as directed by science should be Priority 1.  This is reasonable and doable. It’s whistling in the wind to do anything less, if we are serious about stopping a pandemic.

Not in my opinion, it's another layer.

We have coughing/sneezing in the fist or hand right? How well does that do? Or we have sneezing/coughing underneath our shirts or in the crook of our elbow, better than in the palm or fist I'm thinking. And then add another layer, a well fitted cloth mask. But yes, ultimately we would do better with the N95 one. But we need to take what we can get or use what we have and be supportive of it, IMO.

BTW, have you been teaching in the schools during the pandemic where masks are required? I have and I've witnessed children doing a wonderful job at wearing them. It seems that some adults are not supportive, and I wonder if their children follow suit, but last school year I got to see many different grades in elementary doing a fine job, until they grew older sadly. Either they're listening to their anti mask parents or peer group I don't know, but the younger group were such examples for all. They had masks that had super heroes, or unicorns, or many other fun patterns. Don't believe I've seen anything like that in an N95 mask.

It kinda feels like you and Juliann are looking at this as an all or nothing. But I know that's not right probably, you both just want it to work even better. 

Here are some studies on the non medical masks etc.:

https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/do-face-masks-work-here-are-49-scientific-studies-that-explain-why-they-do/

Edited September 7, 2021 by Tacenda

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

26% is scary infection possibility, a lousy batting average, an abysmal pass completion rate, a fireable free throw average, an awful algebra test score, and you-should-join-the-choir number of out of tune notes in a violin concerto performance. In my perfect world, everything below 89% would be outta here and mass production of 90%+ would be priority 1. Why do officials even suggest them?  If we’re serious about this, of course.😌

I'm ALL for better masks.  But if I have to choose between someone else wearing a 0% no mask and a 26% fabric mask I will choose the mask every time.

I can't force the government to require great masks.  I can't force my neighbor to wear them.

Just what do you want me to do? I just don't think you are going to get a whole lot of people changing their minds at this time either way.  So I personally wear a better mask and social distance in moderation.  

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm ALL for better masks.  But if I have to choose between someone else wearing a 0% no mask and a 26% fabric mask I will choose the mask every time.

I can't force the government to require great masks.  I can't force my neighbor to wear them.

Just what do you want me to do? I just don't think you are going to get a whole lot of people changing their minds at this time either way.  So I personally wear a better mask and social distance in moderation.  

We don’t have to settle for 0% or 20%. Why are we even talking about that choice? I’m for providing the best equipment and teaching the best procedures. I doubt there is anyone who follows even a few of the CDC guidelines. They are not taught at the public level. I’ll bet the vast majority of people don’t even know they exist. They are inconvenient. expensive, and time consuming, yet the CDC explicitly states that not following them  reduces mask efficacy and can actually increase the risk of infecting self or others. Have you heard this from the media? No, just constant scare stories. I don’t understand why this situation is allowed to continue. If you question it you are marginalized as an uncaring science-denying right-wing troglodyte toad-sucking hick conspiracy-theorist bigot.

Why should we settle for less than the best? Isn’t anyone curious why less effective masks are promoted with little of no mention by authorities that better ones offer more protection and teaching the correct way to use them is crucial? I am. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Bernard Gui