Undeniable proof masks don't do jack

originally posted by: Daalder
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

All your statistics mean jack if people don't wear any effective N95 mouthnose mask.
Type2r and self fabricated mask don't filter out anything and even the N95 masks nead to be worn properly.
When you don't you increase the risk of catching the 'rona instead of reducing it to near 0.

Ah, but if that's what we have to do, then why aren't those what are mandated? They aren't, you know. They even allow neck gaiters and those are openly admitted by the CDC to be 0% useless, but they count as a mask for the purposes of a mandate.

Again, more proof that this was never about the disease and prevention and always about control and taking authoritarian measures to prevent it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes. The maskmandate or rules are very weird because the only effective masks aren't the ones our governments 'advice'.

Being one of the reasons I bought a load of N95's.

I want my PPE to be actual personal Protection Equipment... Why else would I buy any?
Not to keep anybody else happy or safe.
It's called Personal for a reason and it doesn't say Social Protection Equipment.



Don't ever trust your governments advice on 1. Protecting yourself (your local safety officer at a chemical plant knows better) and 2. Medical stuff (your doctor knows better)



And another thing: as a first aid responder I have learned to make sure I'm (as) safe (as I can be) before taking care of someone else.
A rule to remember when venturing out in a risky situation.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

With a death rate of 0.03%, how could the world NOT fear such a killer virus? We're all dead now, we might as well wait for AGW to come for us next.

Where are you getting this information from? You are vastly incorrect. The death rate covid-19 is between 2-3%, which is 20 to 30 times more deadly than the flu.

Edit:

Also, I'm a numbers guy, and I've been following this virus since mid December, when the first cases in Wuhan were reported. So before you go quoting some obscure source that makes baseless claims, here's some sources I JUST googled for you:

www.webmd.com...

www.worldometers.info...

www.cdc.gov...





What you are referring to , as being 0.03%, is the MORTALITY rate of the ENTIRE population from covid-19. That number is irrelevant, because the virus hasn't run its course. The only time the type of "death rate" you are referring to is relevant, is when measuring the casualties of a population due a specific virus during the virus' run.

We are in the MIDDLE of the pandemic, so the numbers that are relevant are the death rate OF covid-infected patients. How many people who CATCH covid-19 die from the virus. That is globally about 2-3%.

a reply to: supermarket2012

That would be 10,500,000 dead people in the US alone. Where are they?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: supermarket2012

That would be 10,500,000 dead people in the US alone. Where are they?

See my above edit for clarification.

See this link for more information on calculating mortality rate:
www.worldometers.info...


What relevance does it have to calculate the amount of people killed from covid-19 out of a population, when the virus IS STILL RAVAGING THE POPULATION?

That number has no importance/value.

Otherwise, we could say the death rate of coronavirus is less than 0.000001%, based on Day 1 of the virus coming to the US, because only 1 person had died out of 331,000,000. What relevance does that have to anyone? It is misleading.

The number that matters is how many people DIE out of those INFECTED.

The numbers of deaths out of entire population only becomes relevant once the the virus is OVER/no longer active. At least, that's how it works in epidemiology.


You can't calculate how many people the covid-19 virus kills out of an entire population until that virus has completely cycled through the population, or the virus ends.

For instance, in the US, we have a specific flu season. So you CAN calculate the "death rate by total population" after the flu season ends. For other viruses, like Ebola, you would calculate the "death rate by population" after the ebola outbreak is OVER.

So, "Death rate by population" is not something we should be using when referring to covid-19, since we are in the middle of a pandemic. Any number would be highly misleading, and would only be based on that current day the number was taken.

Using the "death rate by infected population" is far more accurate of a view of the devastation of the virus.

Nope, it's proof that the reopening of bars, pubs and restaurants leads to increase in spread.

Because you can't eat/drink and wear a mask.

All those rises come at times when those countries had their highest restaurant, bar and pub use since prior to initial lockdowns.

Hence, it's actually proof of the efficacy of masks.

Next!

a reply to: supermarket2012

All right then, your 2 to 3% is just to much speculation.

A good way to tell coronavirus is not that bad right now, is that the news media talks about coronavirus most of the day and night.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
I know your argument from other threads. Like I said in a previous post. Mask mandates and people wearing them correctly isn't the same thing and you can't know the impact because you have no idea what the numbers may have been without them.

You can compare anything you want but it doesn't mean your conclusions are correct.

I don't care if people want to wear masks or not so I'm not forcing anything on anyone. That has become a tired straw man in these types of discussions.

a reply to: MadMaXXX

Masks can only help prevent the spread of a virus,

Yes the evidence is clear when we look at the rising cases across the country.

Everyone has worn the god damn mask but me. So logically masks are like
turning up your radio so you don't hear your engine knocking. The radio
does nothing to remedy the problem. But at least you can't hear the problem.

So all it's good for is for you to STFU!

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
The Governor of New Jersey and his entire family agree with both YOU, and California governor Newsom.

What? No masks?: twitter.com...

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Hamlin

If ATS wants to get serious about have quality content again threads like this need to be removed and the OP taught how to write sensible threads again.

Lmao... what is it with you guys and censorship.

Hunny its not censorship, its holding a higher level of accepted quality.

You wouldn't let me perform heart surgery on you but I wouldn't call that censorship would I?

All I'm asking is for you to learn how to read, comprehend and write. That way we wouldn't end up with a garbage OP like yours.

Don't take it personal, I'm just saying ATS deserves better than what you are offering here, hopefully you can learn to make better threads soon.

Have a great day.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: supermarket2012

All right then, your 2 to 3% is just to much speculation.

2-3% is the best number we have, based on all of the math and numbers we can crunch regarding this virus. The virus has been around long enough to get a fairly good idea of the fatality rate of those infected. According to all of the data we have available, which is a LOT since this virus has spread to every country, and has infected over 50 million people over the course of a year......2 to 3% death rate per infected population is a pretty stable percentage.

originally posted by: supermarket2012

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: supermarket2012

All right then, your 2 to 3% is just to much speculation.

2-3% is the best number we have, based on all of the math and numbers we can crunch regarding this virus. The virus has been around long enough to get a fairly good idea of the fatality rate of those infected. According to all of the data we have available, which is a LOT since this virus has spread to every country, and has infected over 50 million people over the course of a year......2 to 3% death rate per infected population is a pretty stable percentage.

You just blasted me about how we don't know this stuff because the epidemic is ongoing. If that's true, then we can't use your computer model numbers either.

Look ... the best case scenario when all this madness started in the US was that around 2 million would die based on the computer model projections of a man considered an "expert" in the UK. Now, I am not downplaying the deaths we have to date, but 250,000 is magnitudes of order less than 2 million, and the 2 million was just the first wave, mind you. We were supposed to see that many dead before the end of the summer.

What they don't tell you is that the man who made that projection? He had blown two other, similar calls in the UK prior to everyone running with his numbers again.

Computer modeling is only as good as the data you feed into it. And, as you ably point out to deconstruct anything anyone does to try to tell you otherwise, our data is incomplete because this is an ongoing situation. So anything a computer model projects to you will be likewise incomplete and flawed.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That dataset in your OP is absolute nonsense in what it thinks it represents. Masks are compulsory only in certain environments for most of the countries you have listed (therefore wouldn't help if for example you were walking outdoors without a mask, or in a pub/restaurant seated where in the UK at least you didn't have to wear one) and it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest they make a substantive point that masks (PPE) make no difference to the spread of aerosol based viruses. It's a ridiculously childish assertion.

Ahhh, I've just looked up your presenter. Bit of an idiot isn't he? And you would take potentially life threatening advice from him?

a reply to: uncommitted

If the virus spreads in close contact in a confined space, why would you wear one outdoors where you are not in close contact and not in a confined space, especially where we know the virus breaks down in sunlight.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: uncommitted

If the virus spreads in close contact in a confined space, why would you wear one outdoors where you are not in close contact and not in a confined space, especially where we know the virus breaks down in sunlight.

That in itself is a good question, but as there is nothing to say you would not be in close contact purely because you are outdoors it kind of invalidates itself. In the UK and other countries there have been mass outdoor gatherings, mainly illegal where masks were not worn by the majority. Social distancing was not observed and not all were even in daylight so it kind of doesn't fit to the scenario as you put it.

Masks are the PERFECT compliance recognition tool.
Barring dusty conditions, wearing a face mask is exclusively for the meek, fearful and thoughtlessly compliant.

originally posted by: ToddB
Masks are the PERFECT compliance recognition tool.
Barring dusty conditions, wearing a face mask is exclusively for the meek, fearful and thoughtlessly compliant.

Not wearing one because it makes you feel it makes you something different to what you have described above makes you an idiot. Nothing more, just a stupid person who wants attention in a very pathetic manner.

all the poster's pushing the death rate saying its not near what they said it would be are not facing the facts .
FACT one JAN 1 2020 USA zero cases This has going form 1 case to 12.6 MILLION in 100 months and at 150 k NEW cases a day WILL be over 15 million before end of year .

FROM 1 TO 15 MILLION in 12 MONTHS from 1 Death to 264 k in 11 months .
this increases will only get Larger .
IF no vax comes out you will see the 2 million DEAD by the end of 2021 and by the times its over 30 - to 60 million world wide 2 years from now .

You dont infect 7.5 billion people fast . add the FACT This is a MILD version .

Now mask no mask one thing for sure at 11 months in and 12 million cases 264 k dead we are just getting started .