U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Wisconsin
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2020, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
3,707 posts, read 2,833,564 times
Reputation: 3513

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
But CoV is spread by aerosols. 70% of infected people in one study claim they "always" wore a mask.https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/co...fficacy-chart/ Would you bother with a birth control pill that was only 30% effective?

The annual death rate from
That's not what your article says. Your snopes link just says the numbers in that diagram that went around on social media can't be confirmed.

Covid is spread by droplet & aerosol transmission. Technically droplets are aerosol, but whatever. What matters is it's in the air, hangs around, & you can inhale it.

CDC continues to recommend wearing a mask along with washing your hands & practicing social distancing.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...coverings.html

Also wearing a mask the right way helps. Don't be like a lot of the NFL coaches you see on the sidelines and leave your nose uncovered, or leave it so loose you could drop a golf ball down your mask. Mask material matters too. A handkerchief (like I see a lot of people using) is better than nothing I guess but I wouldn't trust it. You all know these things already.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2020, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,581,279 times
Reputation: 3370
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post

Please note that there is absolutely no evidence that masks do much good.
Back in May you said: "Masks help; smart to wear them." (your words)

//www.city-data.com/forum/wisco...l#post58148404


There's plenty of legitimate support for wearing masks, though some kinds are more effective than others, and they should be worn properly:


https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...k/art-20485449

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/n...avirus-spread/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2020, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,581,279 times
Reputation: 3370
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post


BS. The rate of "long haulers" is even lower than the death rate from CoV. (My sympathies to those victims, but statistically, you don't even count.)
We still don't really know the full long-term impact of the virus on survivors. The number of survivors with obvious long-term problems may be low, but we don't really know all of the damage done to the bodies of these people--damage that could very well lead to obvious problems a year, two years, five years, ten years from now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2020, 09:43 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
4,729 posts, read 1,971,720 times
Reputation: 11273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax View Post
Back in May you said: "Masks help; smart to wear them." (your words)

]
I'm glad you're paying attention

Good scientists adjust their hypotheses as new data emerges.

Initially, when the only people getting the complicated lab confirmation tests for CoV were the ones deathly ill. That made it look like the morbidity was double digit numbers. The smart thing to do at the the time was to hide.

As time went by, new tests became available that were easier to perform. The denominator in the deaths per infection calculation went up geometrically as numerator only increased arithmetically. The death rate calculated and reported continues to fall, not because we have such great treatment, but because we now have data that allows the 'true death rate" to be approached by the sample data. (BTW- it's very difficult to evaluate treatments for a condition that has a spontaneous recovery rate of 97%+)

When you first hear shots fired, it's a good idea to duck and seek cover. But you don't stay hidden forever--As more data comes in and you realize it was only a few fire crackers, you can come out of hiding.

The citations you've listed only give circumstantial support to the effectiveness of masks.
There is no direct supporting studies. On the Health Forum here, I started a thread using a model calculation of theoretical effectiveness of masks. That conclusion is supported by the "study" I quoted here. I heard that number on a news broadcast but haven't been able to find the study on searching the web yet. Interesting that my model and that report agree so well.

Journalists, being basically lazy & uninformed, find it easy to report number of new infections and deaths, while the bureaucrats also like metrics that that the journalists will understand....but the important metric is actually the number of recovered cases in following the progress of an epidemic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathem...B%20edit%20%5D Scroll down to the animated graph of the SIR Model...Note that deaths will be some "true fraction" of the infected class, so they will be proportional to the red line in the figure.. As you "flatten the curve" by delaying infections, you're actually increasing the area under the red line-- ie- increasing accumulated deaths until you reach the equilibrium pt where all the curves cross.

It's not as simple as "The Experts" are leading us to believe. In fact, when there's such a large disparity between the outcomes of the older age demographic compared to the younger, it makes no sense for a One-Size-Fits-All plan.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2020, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,581,279 times
Reputation: 3370
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
I'm glad you're paying attention

Good scientists adjust their hypotheses as new data emerges.

Initially, when the only people getting the complicated lab confirmation tests for CoV were the ones deathly ill. That made it look like the morbidity was double digit numbers. The smart thing to do at the the time was to hide.

As time went by, new tests became available that were easier to perform. The denominator in the deaths per infection calculation went up geometrically as numerator only increased arithmetically. The death rate calculated and reported continues to fall, not because we have such great treatment, but because we now have data that allows the 'true death rate" to be approached by the sample data. (BTW- it's very difficult to evaluate treatments for a condition that has a spontaneous recovery rate of 97%+)

When you first hear shots fired, it's a good idea to duck and seek cover. But you don't stay hidden forever--As more data comes in and you realize it was only a few fire crackers, you can come out of hiding.

The citations you've listed only give circumstantial support to the effectiveness of masks.
There is no direct supporting studies.
The situation is definitely fluid, and I understand that precise and incontrovertible studies one way or the other still need to be done, but the general scientific consensus continues to be that wearing a face covering is better than not wearing one. If this consensus only relies on circumstantial support, so be it. That's the best we have for now.

Quote:
On the Health Forum here, I started a thread using a model calculation of theoretical effectiveness of masks. That conclusion is supported by the "study" I quoted here. I heard that number on a news broadcast but haven't been able to find the study on searching the web yet. Interesting that my model and that report agree so well.
It's well and good to have threads on City-Data about this, but if your study really has weight, you'll submit it to a journal for peer review and feedback. You're not going to get the proper level of dialogue and feedback here on C-D to mount, defend, and improve a serious study of this kind. Ideally, you need people from the CDC, UCSF, and other credible institutions to weigh in on your work if it is to be taken seriously. Otherwise, the thread will only really be seen as a homespun offering--one of many--and its gravity will suffer due to nearby queries such as "What Should I Cook Tonight?" and "How Southern Is Missouri?"


Quote:
It's not as simple as "The Experts" are leading us to believe. In fact, when there's such a large disparity between the outcomes of the older age demographic compared to the younger, it makes no sense for a One-Size-Fits-All plan.
It depends, probably. Younger people seem to do fine with the virus, overall, and older people generally fare worse. There is interaction between those populations, though, and seemingly healthy young folks can transmit the virus to (knowingly and unknowingly) vulnerable older people. Not all older people can isolate themselves from the rest of the world: some have to work, buy groceries, take their cat to the vet, and otherwise interact with the world; others have younger attendants and caregivers.

"The Experts" are not a tightly-knit group of co-conspirators. The studies in support of masks, circumstantial or not, come from a diverse and global array of scientists and medical professionals who otherwise have disagreements among themselves regarding other issues.

They COULD be wrong--that's how science and the scientific method work sometimes--but it seems irresponsible not to err on the side of caution and prevailing judgments in this matter. It's just a face covering, not body armor or a permanent tattoo or a lobotomy. Wearing a mask is not fool-proof--it is not a magic, fail-safe maneuver by any means--but it CAN keep an infected spit gobbet from launching into the mouth or eyes or whatevers of a potentially vulnerable person. It's really very basic.

Last edited by Empidonax; 10-14-2020 at 11:58 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2020, 12:19 PM
 
2,583 posts, read 863,409 times
Reputation: 7449
I don't think there's much doubt that wearing a mask is safer than not wearing a mask - the question is "how much safer". Obviously, disposable hospital masks are less effective than N-95's, which are less effective than full suits fed with outside filtered air. I believe it was covered on Tucker Carlson last night, they are finding recent studies have shown that most of the recently infected were wearing masks "often" or "almost always".

The undeniable way to improve your chances of not contracting the virus, is to simply minimize your exposure to other people, something that's worked for me for nine months now. But if you play enough hands of poker, eventually you get dealt a full house. The only "truly safe" way to avoid getting dealt a full house is to not play, period. Which is a luxury that most people, and certainly not society, can live with long term, as we will all starve to death if we never leave the house. At the time "Flatten the curve" was the mantra, I believe it was a forgone conclusion that eventually, unless you stay in a bunker, you're going to get exposed, and possibly infected, and maybe even be hospitalized or die, and that the only thing that could "completely" flatten the curve, is herd immunity or effective treatments/vaccine. I'm still waiting.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2020, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Western North Carolina
5,405 posts, read 8,512,587 times
Reputation: 11891
[quote=everwinter;59389826].



Really? Then how come a new 530 bed field hospital is opening up in 2 days due to hospitals in the state (Green Bay area, Fox Cities, Northern, Eastern areas) being overwhelmed? We must just have built a giant field hospital & brought in medical workers to staff it just for a political show right? Evers opened the field hospital at the urging of hospital officials in the state reporting that their ICUs are at capacity. They are transferring patients to other facilities and warning of critical staffing shortages.

So the media says? Or do you know this to be true?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2020, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
3,707 posts, read 2,833,564 times
Reputation: 3513
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueMom View Post
So the media says? Or do you know this to be true?
Know what to be true? That there's a 530 bed field hospital opening?

There's video of the inside from today when it opened. It's also right off the main interstate in Milwaukee so pretty visible to the entire city of Milwaukee.

Inside the State Park Field Hospital
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2020, 05:10 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
4,729 posts, read 1,971,720 times
Reputation: 11273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax View Post
The situation is definitely fluid, and I understand that precise and incontrovertible studies one way or the other still need to be done, but the general scientific consensus continues to be that wearing a face covering is better than not wearing one. If this consensus only relies on circumstantial support, so be it. That's the best we have for now.


.
Found the reference https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...mm6936a5-H.pdf

Study from 11 institutions, involving a few hundred cases & controls. Those with CoV + tests and with - tests both reported >70% using mask at all times in public....Cases had known contact with another infected person at a 2.5x greater rate than controls, and also had been more likely to visit a bar or restaurant. Other activities such as shopping or visiting the gym were equally likely in the two groups.....

....Among those who visited restaurants/bars, it was much more likely that the case pts visited one where mask usage was not strict...That gives minor support to the notion that masks may have some effect in preventing the spread of the virus by those infected....but the fact remains that masks only seem to be ~30% in preventing the wearer from getting infected.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2020, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,581,279 times
Reputation: 3370
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Found the reference https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...mm6936a5-H.pdf

Study from 11 institutions, involving a few hundred cases & controls. Those with CoV + tests and with - tests both reported >70% using mask at all times in public....Cases had known contact with another infected person at a 2.5x greater rate than controls, and also had been more likely to visit a bar or restaurant. Other activities such as shopping or visiting the gym were equally likely in the two groups.....

....Among those who visited restaurants/bars, it was much more likely that the case pts visited one where mask usage was not strict...That gives minor support to the notion that masks may have some effect in preventing the spread of the virus by those infected....but the fact remains that masks only seem to be ~30% in preventing the wearer from getting infected.

Thanks for posting the link. I've seen that ~30% figure elsewhere, I believe. And yeah, that's low.

But still, it isn't 0%.

Is the glass 30% full or 70% empty?

If making monthly payments of $1,000 and abstaining from my favorite activities only yielded a 30% satisfaction rate or a 30% chance of being in perfect health for the next decade, it probably wouldn't be worth it. Too much sacrifice for a huge "if."

But wearing a simple mask when I'm out in public for maybe a 30% effectiveness rate? I can do that.

A little bit may make a difference.

On a state, national, and global scale, a 30% effectiveness rate can have a significant aggregate impact. Of course, trying to herd cats and get everyone on board is another matter. For some people, 30% of anything may as well be 0%. For others, 30% is close to 50%, which isn't too bad.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Wisconsin
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top