October 26, 20205 yr 27 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said: So it begins. Again. Yup, only takes one to start it all back up
October 26, 20205 yr 13 hours ago, DEagle7 said: What in the actual F? That's not satire? Using Santa to spread propaganda and unapproved vaccines to children? What?!
October 26, 20205 yr https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/10/the-real-lessons-from-swedens-approach-to-covid-19?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/landofthemaskfreethereallessonsfromswedensapproachtocovid19leaders&fbclid=IwAR1IZFng5jhMqDkmiTvhaseoeB8s0emOpRWSCruRb5calFBwh5wCxAUtE8Y A pretty good high level description of the real drivers behind Sweden's approach. Note: Hit to stop loading this page and you can read the article without signing up.
October 26, 20205 yr 9 hours ago, RPeeteRules said: Is there a score from during the Obama/Biden years to show that the US was prepared while the other 194 weren’t? If so, that’d be more disappointing than what this article and score actually says. According to the score, the US was the most prepared overall, coming in first in 5 of the 6 categories. From the score (and 2020 real life), it seems no one was prepared for a pandemic. I suggest you watch the documentary "Totally Under Control" if you truly believe no country was prepared to deal with a potential pandemic like this, or that our lackluster response was mostly a matter of circumstance rather than uniquely our own failings.
October 26, 20205 yr 8 hours ago, NOTW said: What in the actual F? That's not satire? Using Santa to spread propaganda and unapproved vaccines to children? What?! Not that I want to defend such lunacy, but I think the presumption was that an EUA would be in place for the at risk populations at least, so that spreading this message would begin priming the pump for whenever the broader approval would be granted. Though it's quite amusing the administration thinks kids are gonna be the ones to convince mom and dad to get a vaccine when it's not even clear how long it would even be before kids would be available to be vaccinated themselves per guidelines (most trials have a min age of 18, one dropped theirs to 16, and another was seeking to enroll patients as young as 12 but I'm not sure if they were successful.) In other words, kids are likely to be the very last in line when it comes to prioritizing who gets it and who doesn't.
October 26, 20205 yr 56 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/10/the-real-lessons-from-swedens-approach-to-covid-19?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/landofthemaskfreethereallessonsfromswedensapproachtocovid19leaders&fbclid=IwAR1IZFng5jhMqDkmiTvhaseoeB8s0emOpRWSCruRb5calFBwh5wCxAUtE8Y A pretty good high level description of the real drivers behind Sweden's approach. Note: Hit to stop loading this page and you can read the article without signing up. Uhhh... Quote Government experts argue that the evidence that masks help is weak, and that their other measures work fine. In this, Sweden is out of step with other countries. If the disease charges back there, that is likely to change. After all, its policy is based on evidence and pragmatism, not blind principle.
October 26, 20205 yr 52 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Uhhh... Welp, it is what it is. The big issues were back in March/April when it got into our nursing homes. Otherwise, the measures have been quite successful. Note: Careful comparing. Every place is unique.
October 26, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said: Not that I want to defend such lunacy, but I think the presumption was that an EUA would be in place for the at risk populations at least, so that spreading this message would begin priming the pump for whenever the broader approval would be granted. Though it's quite amusing the administration thinks kids are gonna be the ones to convince mom and dad to get a vaccine when it's not even clear how long it would even be before kids would be available to be vaccinated themselves per guidelines (most trials have a min age of 18, one dropped theirs to 16, and another was seeking to enroll patients as young as 12 but I'm not sure if they were successful.) In other words, kids are likely to be the very last in line when it comes to prioritizing who gets it and who doesn't. Yeah I just imagine little Timmy leaving Santa's lap saying "Santa says we should get vaccines." Mom: "Ok honey that's great, let's go get you some ice cream."
October 26, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, DrPhilly said: Welp, it is what it is. The big issues were back in March/April when it got into our nursing homes. Otherwise, the measures have been quite successful. Note: Careful comparing. Every place is unique. Not sure if that was intentional, but I saw a stat somewhere that showed Sweden as having the highest deaths per capita of all of Europe. A sluggish approach to mask policies is almost certainly contributing to that.
October 26, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Not sure if that was intentional, but I saw a stat somewhere that showed Sweden as having the highest deaths per capita of all of Europe. A sluggish approach to mask policies is almost certainly contributing to that. That's not true. Highest in Scandanavia but not in Europe. It is just very very hard to compare different places. You need to go thru a rather large list of parameters to try to make sense of it.
October 26, 20205 yr 3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: That's not true. Highest in Scandanavia but not in Europe. It is just very very hard to compare different places. You need to go thru a rather large list of parameters to try to make sense of it. I'll have to find the source, it was a while back that I saw it. Might have changed since then.
October 26, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: I'll have to find the source, it was a while back that I saw it. Might have changed since then. No, Sweden has never been close to Spain or Belgium and the UK passed Sweden months ago as did Italy. I think Sweden is #15 or so worldwide and maybe 7 or 8 in Europe. All of those other places have forced lockdowns, masks, etc. BUT as I said before (and as I've said in here going all the way back to March) it is near impossible to make direct comparions of countries without a ton of clarification, explanation, etc.
October 26, 20205 yr 18 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said: He has ongoing respiratory issues and had to be hospitalized twice. Scary stuff, hopefully he recovers enough to play next year IT ONLY AFFECTS FAT LIBTARDS!!!
October 26, 20205 yr 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No, Sweden has never been close to Spain or Belgium and the UK passed Sweden months ago as did Italy. I think Sweden is #15 or so worldwide and maybe 7 or 8 in Europe. All of those other places have forced lockdowns, masks, etc. BUT as I said before (and as I've said in here going all the way back to March) it is near impossible to make direct comparions of countries without a ton of clarification, explanation, etc. Found it. It was highest deaths per capita since May and June. And by a significant margin it looks like... But, the United States’ death rate, meanwhile, stayed high at 37 since May and 27 since June. The only other country that comes close to rivaling the US in its meager progress is Sweden, which saw death rates of 57, 23.5, and 10 in the three windows. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/grim-new-analyses-show-us-covid-death-rates-remain-shamefully-high/
October 26, 20205 yr 8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Found it. It was highest deaths per capita since May and June. And by a significant margin it looks like... But, the United States’ death rate, meanwhile, stayed high at 37 since May and 27 since June. The only other country that comes close to rivaling the US in its meager progress is Sweden, which saw death rates of 57, 23.5, and 10 in the three windows. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/grim-new-analyses-show-us-covid-death-rates-remain-shamefully-high/ Well if you want to play that game how about we check it from say July 15th. Sweden will be near the very very bottom. Our numbers dropped like a rock end of June and have just stayed down there. Damn those stats.
October 26, 20205 yr 10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Well if you want to play that game how about we check it from say July 15th. Sweden will be near the very very bottom. Our numbers dropped like a rock end of June and have just stayed down there. Damn those stats. If you have a source that tracks it since July 15th, I'd be genuinely curious in seeing what the numbers look like. In any case, the thought that there's no evidence masks help reduce spread is beyond laughable. You should vote to remove any Swedish government officials who feel that way.
October 26, 20205 yr 18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: If you have a source that tracks it since July 15th, I'd be genuinely curious in seeing what the numbers look like. In any case, the thought that there's no evidence masks help reduce spread is beyond laughable. You should vote to remove any Swedish government officials who feel that way. No one said there wasn’t any evidence. Try reading it without the lens on.
October 26, 20205 yr 6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No one said there wasn’t any evidence. Try reading it without the lens on. Oh sorry, that the evidence was "weak" and that any policy requiring them would be based on "blind principle." Hmmm, yep, still laughable.
October 26, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Oh sorry, that the evidence was "weak" and that any policy requiring them would be based on "blind principle." Hmmm, yep, still laughable. The laughable part is that you aren't even able to consider a nuanced view on the topic. I'm not even sure I want to waste my time trying to explain the actual position of the Swedish Dr. Fauci on this topic. You've already rejected it without even hearing it. Let's just put the discussion on hold until after Trump concedes or is taken into custody.
October 26, 20205 yr 3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: The laughable part is that you aren't even able to consider a nuanced view on the topic. I'm not even sure I want to waste my time trying to explain the actual position of the Swedish Dr. Fauci on this topic. You've already rejected it without even hearing it. Let's just put the discussion on hold until after Trump concedes or is taken into custody. Ok I'll play along. Tell me doctor, where's the nuance in the position that there is weak evidence that masks work and requiring them would be based on "blind principle"? Show me a peer reviewed study published in a credible journal that refutes the existing science on how masks help reduce transmission of respiratory pathogens like coronavirus. This ought to be good...
October 26, 20205 yr 7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Ok I'll play along. Tell me doctor, where's the nuance in the position that there is weak evidence that masks work and requiring them would be based on "blind principle"? Show me a peer reviewed study published in a credible journal that refutes the existing science on how masks help reduce transmission of respiratory pathogens like coronavirus. This ought to be good... As I said you're not interested in a nuanced discussion on the topic.
October 26, 20205 yr 3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: As I said you're not interested in a nuanced discussion on the topic. So you're just gonna keep repeating the same nonsense or are you actually gonna try to back up your position with some actual science? If you want, I'll start and then you can retort. Your choice...
October 26, 20205 yr Ok doc, I'll start off... Since I've had this discussion many times in the early going, I'll use one of the first studies to compare filtering efficiency among different mask types: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20069567v1.full.pdf Key take-aways: Surgical/dental masks aren’t as good as n95 masks, but they are still quite good overall (60-75% efficiency vs 95%). Cloth masks have a wide variance depending on the type (some as low as 35% compared to some being even better than surgical masks.) When it comes to protecting yourself from getting infected, wearing cloth masks is clearly better than wearing nothing. Proper fit is critical to maximizing efficiency Also note, the filtering efficiency metric is based on how many particles with an average size of 0.3 microns are found on the surface under the mask. For this coronavirus, most experts agree the size of expelled droplets from an infected person is not likely to be smaller than 5 microns, so this metric is very conservative in this regard. So that's the science behind the mechanistic aspects. But from a public policy standpoint, we can use these: Quote A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points. Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent Quote But the statisticians behind it have since changed their methods, and their new numbers, published Friday, bolster what scientists have long been saying: That doing away with social distancing measures could entail vast numbers of deaths, and that widespread mask-wearing in public could save tens of thousands of lives. "We think the key point here is that there’s a huge winter surge coming,” Christopher Murray, a lead author on the paper and the director of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, said in a press briefing. At this point, the wave isn’t fully preventable, but "expanding mask use is one of the easy wins for the United States.” https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/23/universal-mask-use-could-save-130000-lives-by-the-end-of-february-new-modeling-study-says/ And from purely a personal risk standpoint, there's not much to debate about. Other than some slight discomfort, there's really no downside to wearing a mask, and the upside is you protect yourself from a widespread and potentially deadly disease. Ok, so hopefully I've left enough room for the nuance you're about to provide, @DrPhilly. By all means, please proceed...
Create an account or sign in to comment