The Vaccine Moment, part one

[gwb-trading]

"Many others"....

View attachment 273283

Happy to discuss any of his points you believe are factually inaccurate.

As pointed out — his entire spew is factually inaccurate.

 

[Tsing Tao]

As pointed out — his entire spew is factually inaccurate.

You didn't point anything out. All you did was say "it is inaccurate". I say you are inaccurate. Like, always.

 

[gwb-trading]

"Many others"....

View attachment 273283

Happy to discuss any of his points you believe are factually inaccurate.

There is no reason to debate complete nonsense that comes from conspiracy nutcases on FB, Twitter, Youtube, and Blogs. It is time for you and others to get your information from reliable mainstream sources if you want to have a discussion. We are not going to debunk post after post saying "prove this wrong" as you put forward the latest conspiracy crap floating around the internet. Those days are long past.

 

[Tsing Tao]

There is no reason to debate complete nonsense that comes from conspiracy nutcases on FB, Twitter, Youtube, and Blogs. It is time for you and others to get your information from reliable mainstream sources if you want to have a discussion. We are not going to debunk post after post saying "prove this wrong" as you put forward the latest conspiracy crap floating around the internet. Those days are long past.

You can never disprove it. that's the problem. its not like you can point to a series of posts where you've solidly shown the data to be fake.

All you have is all you ever have: "Twitter says it is misleading!"

That's it. Nada. Zilch.

You're a sham.

 

[gwb-trading]

You can never disprove it. that's the problem. its not like you can point to a series of posts where you've solidly shown the data to be fake.

All you have is all you ever have: "Twitter says it is misleading!"

That's it. Nada. Zilch.

You're a sham.

Been disproved over and over and over again. The time of playing "disprove this" as you toss out the next piece of complete nonsense from disreputable sources is long over.

I have regularly posted studies and data on subjects such as masks -- demonstrating the reality.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Been disproved over and over and over again. The time of playing "disprove this" as you toss out the next piece of complete nonsense from disreputable sources is long over.

I have regularly posted studies and data on subjects such as masks -- demonstrating the reality.

You regularly post narrative based, flimsy information that shows one side - the side you want. You are perpetually unable to disprove even one example otherwise, but that doesn't stop you from leaping into the fray, frothing at the mouth to attempt to discredit the source of the information (without showing anything empirical).

That's your M.O.

 

[Cuddles]

There is no reason to debate complete nonsense that comes from conspiracy nutcases on FB, Twitter, Youtube, and Blogs. It is time for you and others to get your information from reliable mainstream sources if you want to have a discussion. We are not going to debunk post after post saying "prove this wrong" as you put forward the latest conspiracy crap floating around the internet. Those days are long past.

Here's my Alex Jones-tier source/allegation. Debate me!

 

[Tsing Tao]

 

[gwb-trading]

And once again masks (non N95) work to stop you from transmitting a virus. Masks are over 85% generally in stopping transmission -- which is why mask mandates requiring everyone to wear masks to stop transmission of Covid work. Masks stop a large majority of particles (most wrapped up in clusters such as mucus) you exhale from spreading in the air -- hence providing protection to others if you are infected. Basic (non N95) masks are only 15% effective or so at stopping you from being infected with Covid from incoming particles.

 

[Cuddles]

And once again masks (non N95) work to stop you from transmitting a virus. Masks are over 85% generally in stopping transmission -- which is why mask mandates requiring everyone to wear masks to stop transmission of Covid work. Masks stop a large majority of particles (most wrapped up in clusters such as mucus) you exhale from spreading in the air -- hence providing protection to others if you are infected. Basic (non N95) masks are only 15% effective or so at stopping you from being infected with Covid from incoming particles.

lolz, hotdog in hallway argument from 2 yrs ago?

covid is stupid small, much, much smaller than bacteria; I was looking at electron microscope photos of a corona virus & high thread count cotton. I worry that "face coverings" is just placebo. Basically you end up w/a "throwing a hot dog in a hallway" situation. I've got n95s, and a few of those medical blue ones.

Perhaps the best one can hope for is the air coming out of your lungs gets diverted to a small area around you so the virus doesn't get to travel as far (if using simple face coverings).

fwiw, one can look up the average diameter of a corona virus and the mesh gap of high thread count (by electron microscope). A double layer provides significant protection against intrusion, likely reducing viral load. Even if the intention is to prevent spread to others.

Pathogen-laced droplets travel through the air indoors when people talk, breathe or eat. It is now known that airborne transmission plays a huge role in the spread of Covid-19, compared with the earlier months of the pandemic where hand-washing was considered the leading recommendation to avoid transmission.

Those droplets from one’s warm exhalation mix with body heat and air currents in the area to rise and travel throughout the entire room, no matter how socially distanced a person is. People seem to be more exposed to that “background” air than they are by droplets from a distance, according to the study.

For example, if someone infected with Covid-19 is wearing a mask and singing loudly in an enclosed room, a person who is sitting at the other side of the room is not more protected than someone who is sitting just six feet away from the infected person. This is why time spent in the enclosed area is more important than how far you are from the infected person.

Masks work in general to prevent transmission by blocking larger droplets, therefore larger droplets aren’t making up the majority of Covid infections because most people are wearing masks. The majority of people who are transmitting Covid aren’t coughing and sneezing, they’re asymptomatic.

Masks also work to prevent indoor transmission by blocking direct plumes of air, best visualized by imagining someone exhaling smoke. Constant exposure to direct plumes of infectious air would result in a higher risk of transmission, though exposure to direct plumes of exhaled air doesn’t usually last long.

Even with masks on, as with smoking, those who are in the vicinity are heavily affected by the secondhand smoke that makes its way around the enclosed area and lingers. The same logic applies to infectious airborne droplets, according to the study. When indoors and masked, factors besides distance can be more important to consider to avoid transmission.

As for social distancing outdoors, Bazant says it makes almost no sense and that doing so with masks on is “kind of crazy.”

“If you look at the air flow outside, the infected air would be swept away and very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded instances of outdoor transmission.” he said. “Crowded spaces outdoor could be an issue, but if people are keeping a reasonable distance of like 3 feet outside, I feel pretty comfortable with that even without masks frankly.”

Bazant says this could possibly explain why there haven’t been spikes in transmission in states like Texas or Florida that have reopened businesses without capacity limits.

As for variant strains that are 60% more transmissible, increasing ventilation by 60%, reducing the amount of time spent inside or limiting the number of people indoors could offset that risk.

Bazant also said that a big question that is coming will be when masks can be removed, and that the study’s guidelines can help quantify the risks involved. He also noted that measuring carbon dioxide in a room can also help quantify how much infected air is present and hence risk of transmission.

“We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fearmongering but is actually based in analysis,” Bazant said. After three rounds of heavy peer review, he said it’s the most review he’s ever been through, and that now that it’s published he hopes it will influence policy.