Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Testing particles propelled by an exhaust system is kind of like testing on people who are coughing. It means something, but it isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking about non-coughing people. Gentle nose-breathing is not like a car's exhaust.
2. This is interesting. None of the passengers who were wearing masks were infected - certainly not why we're told to wear masks. More information would be helpful, though. Was Person A coughing? How long was the trip? And, Are the recommendations of the WHO and other organizations based on other data, or are they trying to kill people? It does show that viruses can be transmitted more when in an enclosed space, and it tells how the air-conditioning actually promotes this. This all makes sense.
3. a. The hairstylists. What a way to get famous! I'm glad the clients didn't get sick. However, what does it show? The title of the article indicates that the clients' masks protected them. But if the stylists were wearing masks, then weren't those the masks providing the protection?
b. More questions raised from this article: Why is it that on the Diamond Princess, where no masks were worn, only about 20% of the people were infected, but on the Shackleton, where everyone was masked, 55% became infected? The third example, the Oregon fish-processing plant - 33% became infected, but very few became sick. Again, why were a higher percentage infected than were infected on the maskless cruise? I assume that only 6 of the 124 "positives" became sick because they were probably young and healthy. Not many 80-year-olds working there. (Also, I'm pretty sure they all survived, as I see near-daily reports from Oregon and almost all the deaths are elderly people with underlying conditions, living in LTC.)
c. It says evidence indicates that if your exposure is less, you are less likely to get a bad case, or even have symptoms. This makes sense. Passing four feet from someone in the grocery store is much less risk than sitting with them on a bus for hours with the windows closed.
d. There are places where cases are way up, but deaths remain flat. The article suggests this is because of masks. However, it depends on who has the cases. In the Oregon example, there were lots of cases, but the people were young, and they survived. Most didn't even get sick. In my county, there was recently an outbreak in a nursing home. Lots of cases, and . . . quite a few got sick. Six died. (Of the 21 deaths in my county, at least 15 were from nursing homes - and all of the deaths since mid-May were from that one nursing home.)
Not many 80-year-olds working there. (Also, I'm pretty sure they all survived, as I see near-daily reports from Oregon and almost all the deaths are elderly people with underlying conditions, living in LTC.)....
In my county, there was recently an outbreak in a nursing home. Lots of cases, and . . . quite a few got sick. Six died. (Of the 21 deaths in my county, at least 15 were from nursing homes - and all of the deaths since mid-May were from that one nursing home.)
So, we should just sacrifice the elderly, co-morbid, and minorities, so the rest of us can "party on"?
We are on track to have 300,000 deaths by the end of the year. Looks like that, according to you, is just the "price" (the sacrifice of the older and weaker) that we must pay for our heedless freedom.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,724 posts, read 58,067,115 times
Reputation: 46190
Unfortunately it is not only the deaths, but a tremendous WASTE of very expensive USA HC and facilities and stopping important research and procedures to deal with a corona virus.
Then there is the economy, and industries (Airline, entertainment, Fine Arts, and travel)
And the educational system (including colleges)
Jobs?
What jobs?
Foreign investment into USA - no thanks.
Kind of a pretty big deal, with significant lasting effects, health and otherwise. And it will affect us all.
Simple to flatten the curve and eventually keep at lower / treatable levels until there is a vaccine (maybe). Medical research has not been successful yet with curbing this type Covid.
So, we should just sacrifice the elderly, co-morbid, and minorities, so the rest of us can "party on"?
We are on track to have 300,000 deaths by the end of the year. Looks like that, according to you, is just the "price" (the sacrifice of the older and weaker) that we must pay for our heedless freedom.
Not even close. Neither should we sacrifice the education and emotional/mental health of the young.
"Party on." Ha. No way, not me. Where are you even getting that? Is it because I said most of the covid deaths in my county were in the nursing homes?
I was responding to the article about the Oregon cluster in Lincoln County, giving an update on that situation, since the article made it sound much worse than it was. I mentioned the elderly because this thread is about whether health officials are misleading the public.
When health officials (and probably even more, the media) lead people to believe that everyone is at great risk from covid-19, then yes - they are misleading the public. Everyone is at some risk, but most people are at a very, very small risk. For everyone except the elderly, there is more risk from car accidents. Young people are also more likely to die from suicide, homicide, drug overdoses, or other accidents than they are to die of covid-19. Yet many people are living in fear because public health officials, politicians, and much of the media are giving partial truths. For example, some people really believe their kids are going to die if schools open. (Do you know how many children have died in Sweden, a country that kept schools open? Zero.)
Since you brought it up, . . . Do we sacrifice the elderly? No. But most of the elderly who are counted as covid-19 deaths were going to die very soon. Most people don't enter nursing homes until they're in their last year or less. The median stay before death is only five months. https://www.geripal.org/2010/08/leng...es-at-end.html So while I'm not going to intentionally cause them to die sooner, I recognize that they are going to live very long. Is it cruel and heartless to say that people die? That's kind of what we all can expect. And I do not think we should sacrifice the futures of young people to extend the life of the elderly by a few months. (Also, if these nursing home patients test positive, even if they are asymptomatic, but then they die of anything, they will be counted as a covid death. So again, misleading the public.)
And No, I am not young, though I am not quite in the "high risk" age, and still far from the "real risk" age. I have never in my life had any desire to "party on."
How many young people should suffer to extend my life? Exactly zero.
Your last statement is ridiculous. It's the standard attack people make when they run out of logical arguments: "You just want people to die." Of course not.
Not even close. Neither should we sacrifice the education and emotional/mental health of the young.
"Party on." Ha. No way, not me. Where are you even getting that? Is it because I said most of the covid deaths in my county were in the nursing homes?
I stand by what I posted. You're encouraging people to not take the virus seriously and telling them that the health experts are lying to them. This and similar messages from right-wing media and the Prez are why so many are refusing to wear masks and socially distance and, thus, heedlessly continue to spread the disease.
160,000 dead is not a lie. 300,000 dead projected by the end of the year is right in line with prior projections that proved accurate.
It seems the conversation has, as usual, wandered off from my question 'Has health officials mislead the public'?
If anyone is interested in the weekly body count in Clallam county you can go to the link I provided in my original post as it will automatically update to the current weekly data available for Clallam county.
I stand by what I posted. You're encouraging people to not take the virus seriously and telling them that the health experts are lying to them. This and similar messages from right-wing media and the Prez are why so many are refusing to wear masks and socially distance and, thus, heedlessly continue to spread the disease.
160,000 dead is not a lie. 300,000 dead projected by the end of the year is right in line with prior projections that proved accurate.
Post like the above is about a mile off and is rather a straw man argument and is kind of irrelevant to the question I posed. (see post #1)
The OP is asking about Clallam county Washington and has nothing to do with the national death count or total national positive cases. If you want to start a thread on that subject...be my guess.
Post like the above is about a mile off and is rather a straw man argument and is kind of irrelevant to the question I posed. (see post #1)
The OP is asking about Clallam county Washington and has nothing to do with the national death count or total national positive cases. If you want to start a thread on that subject...be my guess.
Show me where in the post I originally quoted there is any mention of "Clallam County". There isn't. Minus the weasel words, it is all about that it is older people who are dying, while younger people aren't (a contention that is a gross over-simplification) and who, therefore, shouldn't have to worry (or change their behavior). In other words, sacrifice the old and co-morbid, so that the young and healthy can, as I put it, "party on".
Your thread title asks, "Are health officals misleading the public?" No Clallam County mentioned there. In your original post, you said, "I ask this question because of the reports by our local Health care official in Clallam county and I am sure in other Washington counties as well." And, indeed, there is nothing in the implication made (that health officials might be misleading the public), that limits it even to the state of Washington.
4. If your mask is stopping your wind, how are you even breathing?
Well - I can't tell when you're serious and when you're not - but - I never said it was stopping your wind. I said it was limiting how far it can go.
You seem genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of things, which is admirable, but you're trying to solve a puzzle that (so far) no one has solved. There is much science to support many things, but, there is no truly "open minded" scenario in which wearing a mask has more negatives than positives. It PROBABLY reduces the spread, it logically reduces the spread, it anecdotally reduces the spread - and the "peer reviewed" evidence is not far behind. I would very - very - surprised if someone proved that masks are 100% ineffective. So just playing the odds - seems like it can't hurt, for now. It's a lot of discussion over a fairly minor issue.
4. If your mask is stopping your wind, how are you even breathing?
Well - I can't tell when you're serious and when you're not - but - I never said it was stopping your wind. I said it was limiting how far it can go.
You seem genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of things, which is admirable, but you're trying to solve a puzzle that (so far) no one has solved. There is much science to support many things, but, there is no truly "open minded" scenario in which wearing a mask has more negatives than positives. It PROBABLY reduces the spread, it logically reduces the spread, it anecdotally reduces the spread - and the "peer reviewed" evidence is not far behind. I would very - very - surprised if someone proved that masks are 100% ineffective. So just playing the odds - seems like it can't hurt, for now. It's a lot of discussion over a fairly minor issue.
Well - I suppose I was responding to the word "obstacle."
Here's an anecdote: a country don't hear much about, Peru - one of the current hotspots:
-mask mandate April 2, when fewer than 15 people were dying each day, though police/military had already been enforcing mask use for a couple weeks
-very strict lockdown March 15, when daily deaths were in single digits
-deaths peaked around June 22 at about 248/day
-deaths currently about 209/day and are climbing again
-cases reached their first peak June 1; currently they may or may not have reached their second peak, which is higher than the first
(source: wikipedia, "Covid-19 Pandemic in Peru")
I just happened to be reading about this one because they recently passed Sweden on the deaths/million list, and now have also passed Italy and Spain. If anecdotal evidence is going to be evidence, then we have to consider the possibility that masks make things worse.
Maybe masks work, though there is no evidence and the anecdotal evidence for them is contradicted by stronger anecdotal evidence that they don't work. But it's okay with me if people want to wear them. But the public health officials are not "telling it like it is," and that's why people are frightened and why they are turning on each other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
