Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 128
  1. #76
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,310
    Republicans love to go with the their bodies are still warm and you’re using them for politics crutch to distract from whatever idiotic right wing policy/ideal led to people dying.

  2. #77
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,158
    Hypocrisy and arrogance is politically universal. Let’s be real. Neither side is completely honorable or righteous.

    I personally don’t wish death on anybody, but I do believe a known Republican name passing away from covid-19 could serve as a positive wake-up call for this administration to finally take certain actions, including a national mask mandate and national and uniform mass production and available distribution of quick turnaround tests, so people don’t have to wait 7-10 days before they know if they’re infected or not.

    I imagine if Gohmert or Don Jr. were to die, this administration would finally be persuaded to do some more proactive and more medically rational things like I mentioned above to combat the high rate of spread.

    And I don’t believe people in general celebrate the death count just to bash Trump. Perhaps that’s just an added bonus that it negatively reflects on him. But I think people emphasize the death count because this administration has largely ignored the death count in recent weeks in favor of emphasizing the number of tests being taken and the how the majority of the country appears to be fine. The death count doesn’t fit the “narrative” that things are better or under control. So emphasizing the death count by the other side is a call to action and a cry for change, not a celebration of carcasses.
    Well there you go. Not expecting anything to change from Trump.

  3. #78
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Republicans love to go with the their bodies are still warm and you’re using them for politics crutch to distract from whatever idiotic right wing policy/ideal led to people dying.
    And then right after parkland Chris and tsa were desperately trying to connect dots and link the killer to antifa

  4. #79
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    I almost mentioned Cain, but I agree that his death won’t force change.

    I believe Gohmert or Don Jr. possibly could, not for sure, but would have a better chance than Cain.

  5. #80
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    And then right after parkland Chris and tsa were desperately trying to connect dots and link the killer to antifa
    To be fair, we haven't proved that Stephen Paddock WASN'T an ISIS gun control advocate.

  6. #81
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,754
    No, idiot. Anecdotes about mask wearing are being used as scientific evidence to support mask usage but anecdotes where people wearing masks still transmitted or received the virus are ignored. It's basic ing scientific method, Gina. The sloppy conclusions based on sloppy data are sloppy.
    If the usage of masks to prevent contagion was just "anecdotal", why the do scientists and doctors have been doing it for ages?

  7. #82
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Hypocrisy and arrogance is politically universal. Let’s be real. Neither side is completely honorable or righteous.
    Neither is.

    But are they equally bad/good?


    Be careful about a "yes" answer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
    This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

  8. #83
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,158
    I almost mentioned Cain, but I agree that his death won’t force change.

    I believe Gohmert or Don Jr. possibly could, not for sure, but would have a better chance than Cain.
    No one knows who Gohmert is, no one would give a if he died.

  9. #84
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    No one knows who Gohmert is, no one would give a if he died.
    At this point, either Donald himself or Ivanka would have to die for anyone in the death cult to even consider changing.

  10. #85
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,754
    And you have zero idea how effective it is so you're sticking to the "not 100%" side because it gives the false impression that it's in the neighborhood.
    And you also have zero idea. So, if professionals are telling us that masks help prevention, why not do it?

    Worst case scenario, it doesn't help. What do you lose by wearing them anyways, just to make sure? Absolutely nothing. So, what's the big ing deal about wearing a mask when you get out of your house?

    Seriously sons, I'm trying to get the logic behind not wearing a mask and I can't find it anywhere. It's all dumb political bull .

  11. #86
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    People know who Gohmert is now because of yesterday’s news.

    He’d be more high profile than Cain because he’s an active Congressman who has been outspoken against masks.

    Rand Paul or Matt Gaetz might make more waves because they’re younger and seemingly in better health. But Gohmert would scare the out of Congressional Republicans. ID imagine some would start changing their tune.

  12. #87
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Well this is a country where millions of conservatives voted for Trump knowing he’d be a ty president who them over just because Trump can trigger da libs!
    They still feel that way. They hate liberals with a passion, and want only to see them hurt or upset. That is pretty much their only consistent sentiment across all issues.

    I get to see into that world because I have a very stubborn trump supporter former HS classmate who refuses the unfriend me on facebook I am just as stubborn in return. I get to see all the memes, and posts.

    Protestors get injured... they laugh, and call all of them POS who shouldn't have been rioting.

    I point out they weren't rioting, even with direct video or photographic evidence, they say "if they were there they were rioting", and move on.

    I point out "this is the government doing this" and they ignore that. It is "their" government at the moment. The second it isn't... I have no doubt that suddenly they will start caring about the use of force on people.

    This is why I have stopped having any empathy for them. They are so far down the rabbit hole of insanity and cult-like behavior, that nothing is going to penetrate that echo chamber.

  13. #88
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,310
    And you also have zero idea. So, if professionals are telling us that masks help prevention, why not do it?

    Worst case scenario, it doesn't help. What do you lose by wearing them anyways, just to make sure? Absolutely nothing. So, what's the big ing deal about wearing a mask when you get out of your house?

    Seriously sons, I'm trying to get the logic behind not wearing a mask and I can't find it anywhere. It's all dumb political bull .
    Not wearing facemasks triggers the libs though.

  14. #89
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,754
    Not wearing facemasks triggers the libs though.
    I'm expecting a dumb reply about "personal liberties" or something like that.

  15. #90
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    And you have zero idea how effective [masks are] .

    Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Summary
    Background
    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.
    Methods
    We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.
    Findings
    Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.
    Interpretation
    The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quan ative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
    Funding
    World Health Organization.
    • View related content for this article

    Introduction
    As of May 28, 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 5·85 million individuals worldwide and caused more than 359 000 deaths.1 Emergency lockdowns have been initiated in countries across the globe, and the effect on health, wellbeing, business, and other aspects of daily life are felt throughout societies and by individuals. With no effective pharmacological interventions or vaccine available in the imminent future, reducing the rate of infection (ie, flattening the curve) is a priority, and prevention of infection is the best approach to achieve this aim.
    SARS-CoV-2 spreads person-to-person through close contact and causes COVID-19. It has not been solved if SARS-CoV-2 might spread through aerosols from respiratory droplets; so far, air sampling has found virus RNA in some studies2, 3, 4 but not in others.5, 6, 7, 8 However, finding RNA virus is not necessarily indicative of replication-competent and infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible. The distance from a patient that the virus is infective, and the optimum person-to-person physical distance, is uncertain. For the currently foreseeable future (ie, until a safe and effective vaccine or treatment becomes available), COVID-19 prevention will continue to rely on non-pharmaceutical interventions, including pandemic mitigation in community settings.9 Thus, quan ative assessment of physical distancing is relevant to inform safe interaction and care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 in both health-care and non-health-care settings. The definition of close contact or potentially exposed helps to risk stratify, contact trace, and develop guidance do ents, but these definitions differ around the globe.
    Research in context
    Evidence before this study
    We searched 21 databases and resources from inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for studies of any design evaluating physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent transmission of the viruses that cause COVID-19 and related diseases (eg, severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] and Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS]) between infected individuals and people close to them (eg, household members, caregivers, and health-care workers). Previous related meta-analyses have focused on randomised trials and reported imprecise data for common respiratory viruses such as seasonal influenza, rather than the pandemic and epidemic betacoronaviruses causative of COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]), SARS (SARS-CoV), or MERS (MERS-CoV). Other meta-analyses have focused on interventions in the health-care setting and have not included non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Our search did not retrieve any systematic review of information on physical distancing, face masks, or eye protection to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV.
    Added value of this study
    We did a systematic review of 172 observational studies in health-care and non-health-care settings across 16 countries and six continents; 44 comparative studies were included in a meta-analysis, including 25 697 patients with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS. Our findings are, to the best of our knowledge, the first to rapidly synthesise all direct information on COVID-19 and, therefore, provide the best available evidence to inform optimum use of three common and simple interventions to help reduce the rate of infection and inform non-pharmaceutical interventions, including pandemic mitigation in non-health-care settings. Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields). Added benefits are likely with even larger physical distances (eg, 2 m or more based on modelling) and might be present with N95 or similar respirators versus medical masks or similar. Across 24 studies in health-care and non-health-care settings of contextual factors to consider when formulating recommendations, most stakeholders found these personal protection strategies acceptable, feasible, and reassuring but noted harms and contextual challenges, including frequent discomfort and facial skin breakdown, high resource use linked with the potential to decrease equity, increased difficulty communicating clearly, and perceived reduced empathy of care providers by those they were caring for.
    Implications of all the available evidence
    In view of inconsistent guidelines by various organisations based on limited information, our findings provide some clarification and have implications for multiple stakeholders. The risk for infection is highly dependent on distance to the individual infected and the type of face mask and eye protection worn. From a policy and public health perspective, current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing seem to be strongly associated with a large protective effect, and distances of 2 m could be more effective. These data could also facilitate harmonisation of the definition of exposed (eg, within 2 m), which has implications for contact tracing. The quan ative estimates provided here should inform disease-modelling studies, which are important for planning pandemic response efforts. Policy makers around the world should strive to promptly and adequately address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection. For health-care workers and administrators, our findings suggest that N95 respirators might be more strongly associated with protection from viral transmission than surgical masks. Both N95 and surgical masks have a stronger association with protection compared with single-layer masks. Eye protection might also add substantial protection. For the general public, evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 m is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings, with either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton ones, although much of this evidence was on mask use within households and among contacts of cases. Eye protection is typically underconsidered and can be effective in community settings. However, no intervention, even when properly used, was associated with complete protection from infection. Other basic measures (eg, hand hygiene) are still needed in addition to physical distancing and use of face masks and eye protection.
    To contain widespread infection and to reduce morbidity and mortality among health-care workers and others in contact with potentially infected people, jurisdictions have issued conflicting advice about physical or social distancing. Use of face masks with or without eye protection to achieve additional protection is debated in the mainstream media and by public health authorities, in particular the use of face masks for the general population;10 moreover, optimum use of face masks in health-care settings, which have been used for decades for infection prevention, is facing challenges amid personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages.11
    Any recommendations about social or physical distancing, and the use of face masks, should be based on the best available evidence. Evidence has been reviewed for other respiratory viral infections, mainly seasonal influenza,12, 13 but no comprehensive review is available of information on SARS-CoV-2 or related betacoronaviruses that have caused epidemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We, therefore, systematically reviewed the effect of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV.
    Methods
    Search strategy and selection criteria
    To inform WHO guidance do ents, on March 25, 2020, we did a rapid systematic review.14 We created a large international collaborative and we used Cochrane methods15 and the GRADE approach.16 We prospectively submitted the systematic review protocol for registration on PROSPERO (CRD42020177047; appendix pp 23–29). We have followed PRISMA17 and MOOSE18 reporting guidelines (appendix pp 30–33).
    From database inception to May 3, 2020, we searched for studies of any design and in any setting that included patients with WHO-defined confirmed or probable COVID-19, SARS, or MERS, and people in close contact with them, comparing distances between people and COVID-19 infected patients of 1 m or larger with smaller distances, with or without a face mask on the patient, or with or without a face mask, eye protection, or both on the exposed individual. The aim of our systematic review was for quan ative assessment to ascertain the physical distance associated with reduced risk of acquiring infection when caring for an individual infected with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV. Our definition of face masks included surgical masks and N95 respirators, among others; eye protection included visors, faceshields, and goggles, among others.
    We searched (up to March 26, 2020) MEDLINE (using the Ovid platform), PubMed, Embase, CINAHL (using the Ovid platform), the Cochrane Library, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge, COVID-19 Research Database (WHO), Epistemonikos (for relevant systematic reviews addressing MERS and SARS, and its COVID-19 Living Overview of the Evidence platform), EPPI Centre living systematic map of the evidence, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, relevant do ents on the websites of governmental and other relevant organisations, reference lists of included papers, and relevant systematic reviews.19, 20 We handsearched (up to May 3, 2020) preprint servers (bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Social Science Research Network First Look) and coronavirus resource centres of The Lancet, JAMA, and N Engl J Med (appendix pp 3–5). We did not limit our search by language. We initially could not obtain three full texts for evaluation, but we obtained them through interlibrary loan or contacting a study author. We did not restrict our search to any quan ative cutoff for distance.
    Data collection
    We screened les and abstracts, reviewed full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias by two authors and independently, using standardised prepiloted forms (Covidence; Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia), and we cross-checked screening results using artificial intelligence (Evidence Prime, Hamilton, ON, Canada). We resolved disagreements by consensus. We extracted data for study identifier, study design, setting, population characteristics, intervention and comparator characteristics, quan ative outcomes, source of funding and reported conflicts of interests, ethics approval, study limitations, and other important comments.
    Outcomes
    Outcomes of interest were risk of transmission (ie, WHO-defined confirmed or probable COVID-19, SARS, or MERS) to people in health-care or non-health-care settings by those infected; hospitalisation; intensive care unit admission; death; time to recovery; adverse effects of interventions; and contextual factors such as acceptability, feasibility, effect on equity, and resource considerations related to the interventions of interest. However, data were only available to analyse intervention effects for transmission and contextual factors. Consistent with WHO, studies generally defined confirmed cases with laboratory confirmation (with or without symptoms) and probable cases with clinical evidence of the respective infection (ie, suspected to be infected) but for whom confirmatory testing either had not yet been done for any reason or was inconclusive.
    Data analysis
    Our search did not identify any randomised trials of COVID-19, SARS, or MERS. We did a meta-analysis of associations by pooling risk ratios (RRs) or adjusted odds ratios (aORs) depending on availability of these data from observational studies, using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. We adjusted for variables including age, sex, and severity of source case; these variables were not the same across studies. Because between-study heterogeneity can be misleadingly large when quantified by I2 during meta-analysis of observational studies,21, 22 we used GRADE guidance to assess between-study heterogeneity.21 Throughout, we present RRs as unadjusted estimates and aORs as adjusted estimates.
    We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to rate risk of bias for comparative non-randomised studies corresponding to every study's design (cohort or case-control).23, 24 We planned to use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 for randomised trials,25 but our search did not identify any eligible randomised trials. We synthesised data in both narrative and tabular formats. We graded the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the GRADEpro app to rate evidence and present it in GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables26, 27 using standardised terms.28, 29
    We analysed data for subgroup effects by virus type, intervention (different distances or face mask types), and setting (health care vs non-health care). Among the studies assessing physical distancing measures to prevent viral transmission, the intervention varied (eg, direct physical contact [0 m], 1 m, or 2 m). We, therefore, analysed the effect of distance on the size of the associations by random-effects univariate meta-regressions, using restricted maximum likelihood, and we present mean effects and 95% CIs. We calculated tests for interaction using a minimum of 10 000 Monte Carlo random permutations to avoid spurious findings.30 We formally assessed the credibility of potential effect-modifiers using GRADE guidance.21 We did two sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings. First, we used Bayesian meta-analyses to reinterpret the included studies considering priors derived from the effect point estimate and variance from a meta-analysis of ten randomised trials evaluating face mask use versus no face mask use to prevent influenza-like illness in health-care workers.31 Second, we used Bayesian meta-analyses to reinterpret the efficacy of N95 respirators versus medical masks on preventing influenza-like illness after seasonal viral (mostly influenza) infection.13 For these sensitivity analyses, we used hybrid Metropolis-Hastings and Gibbs sampling, a 10 000 sample burn-in, 40 000 Markov chain Monte Carlo samples, and we tested non-informative and sceptical priors (eg, four time variance)32, 33 to inform mean estimates of effect, 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), and posterior distributions. We used non-informative hyperpriors to estimate statistical heterogeneity. Model convergence was confirmed in all cases with good mixing in visual inspection of trace plots, autocorrelation plots, histograms, and kernel density estimates in all scenarios. Parameters were blocked, leading to acceptance of approximately 50% and efficiency greater than 1% in all cases (typically about 40%). We did analyses using Stata version 14.3.

    [truncated at 33% of study text due to message board character limit
    ...

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...#secces le10


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Looks like a lot of "zero idea"



    DMC fail.

    Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-30-2020 at 10:29 AM. Reason: splitting hairs.

  16. #91
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    [waits on goal post move and/or strawman]


    popcorn.gif

  17. #92
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    They still feel that way. They hate liberals with a passion, and want only to see them hurt or upset. That is pretty much their only consistent sentiment across all issues.

    I get to see into that world because I have a very stubborn trump supporter former HS classmate who refuses the unfriend me on facebook I am just as stubborn in return. I get to see all the memes, and posts.

    Protestors get injured... they laugh, and call all of them POS who shouldn't have been rioting.

    I point out they weren't rioting, even with direct video or photographic evidence, they say "if they were there they were rioting", and move on.

    I point out "this is the government doing this" and they ignore that. It is "their" government at the moment. The second it isn't... I have no doubt that suddenly they will start caring about the use of force on people.

    This is why I have stopped having any empathy for them. They are so far down the rabbit hole of insanity and cult-like behavior, that nothing is going to penetrate that echo chamber.

  18. #93
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    “If there’s even a 1% chance of a terrorist attack we should prepare for it as if it’s an absolute certainty” - Republican hero Cheney.

    That logic apparently goes out the window when it comes to face masks and climate change.
    And guns tbh

  19. #94
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    And you also have zero idea. So, if professionals are telling us that masks help prevention, why not do it?

    Worst case scenario, it doesn't help. What do you lose by wearing them anyways, just to make sure? Absolutely nothing. So, what's the big ing deal about wearing a mask when you get out of your house?

    Seriously sons, I'm trying to get the logic behind not wearing a mask and I can't find it anywhere. It's all dumb political bull .
    Unless you're Gohmert who thinks that wearing his mask might have actually given him the covid

  20. #95
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    And you also have zero idea. So, if professionals are telling us that masks help prevention, why not do it?

    Worst case scenario, it doesn't help. What do you lose by wearing them anyways, just to make sure? Absolutely nothing. So, what's the big ing deal about wearing a mask when you get out of your house?

    Seriously sons, I'm trying to get the logic behind not wearing a mask and I can't find it anywhere. It's all dumb political bull .
    Unless you're Gohmert who thinks that wearing his mask might have actually given him the covid

  21. #96
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    "U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Tyler, said he will take hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, one day after testing positive for the virus at the White House.

    "My doctor and I are all in," he told Sean Hannity Wednesday evening on Fox News, adding that he will start the regimen in the "next day or two."

    https://www.statesman.com/news/20200...treat-covid-19

  22. #97
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Lol he's asymptomatic so he can say in ten days "hey this hydroxychloroquine worked great "

  23. #98
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    There's also this:

    "There are an awful lot of people that think it's the great thing to do all the time, but I can't help but think if I hadn't been wearing a mask so much in the last 10 days or so, I really wonder if I would've gotten it," Gohmert said in an interview with KETK. "I know moving the mask around, getting it just right, I'm bound to have put some virus on the mask that I sucked in. That's most likely what happened"...


    This is a lawmaker.

    Smh F and un F

  24. #99
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Summary
    Background
    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.
    Methods
    We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.
    Findings
    Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.
    Interpretation
    The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quan ative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
    Funding
    World Health Organization.
    • View related content for this article

    Introduction
    As of May 28, 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 5·85 million individuals worldwide and caused more than 359 000 deaths.1 Emergency lockdowns have been initiated in countries across the globe, and the effect on health, wellbeing, business, and other aspects of daily life are felt throughout societies and by individuals. With no effective pharmacological interventions or vaccine available in the imminent future, reducing the rate of infection (ie, flattening the curve) is a priority, and prevention of infection is the best approach to achieve this aim.
    SARS-CoV-2 spreads person-to-person through close contact and causes COVID-19. It has not been solved if SARS-CoV-2 might spread through aerosols from respiratory droplets; so far, air sampling has found virus RNA in some studies2, 3, 4 but not in others.5, 6, 7, 8 However, finding RNA virus is not necessarily indicative of replication-competent and infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible. The distance from a patient that the virus is infective, and the optimum person-to-person physical distance, is uncertain. For the currently foreseeable future (ie, until a safe and effective vaccine or treatment becomes available), COVID-19 prevention will continue to rely on non-pharmaceutical interventions, including pandemic mitigation in community settings.9 Thus, quan ative assessment of physical distancing is relevant to inform safe interaction and care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 in both health-care and non-health-care settings. The definition of close contact or potentially exposed helps to risk stratify, contact trace, and develop guidance do ents, but these definitions differ around the globe.
    Research in context
    Evidence before this study
    We searched 21 databases and resources from inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for studies of any design evaluating physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent transmission of the viruses that cause COVID-19 and related diseases (eg, severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] and Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS]) between infected individuals and people close to them (eg, household members, caregivers, and health-care workers). Previous related meta-analyses have focused on randomised trials and reported imprecise data for common respiratory viruses such as seasonal influenza, rather than the pandemic and epidemic betacoronaviruses causative of COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]), SARS (SARS-CoV), or MERS (MERS-CoV). Other meta-analyses have focused on interventions in the health-care setting and have not included non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Our search did not retrieve any systematic review of information on physical distancing, face masks, or eye protection to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV.
    Added value of this study
    We did a systematic review of 172 observational studies in health-care and non-health-care settings across 16 countries and six continents; 44 comparative studies were included in a meta-analysis, including 25 697 patients with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS. Our findings are, to the best of our knowledge, the first to rapidly synthesise all direct information on COVID-19 and, therefore, provide the best available evidence to inform optimum use of three common and simple interventions to help reduce the rate of infection and inform non-pharmaceutical interventions, including pandemic mitigation in non-health-care settings. Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields). Added benefits are likely with even larger physical distances (eg, 2 m or more based on modelling) and might be present with N95 or similar respirators versus medical masks or similar. Across 24 studies in health-care and non-health-care settings of contextual factors to consider when formulating recommendations, most stakeholders found these personal protection strategies acceptable, feasible, and reassuring but noted harms and contextual challenges, including frequent discomfort and facial skin breakdown, high resource use linked with the potential to decrease equity, increased difficulty communicating clearly, and perceived reduced empathy of care providers by those they were caring for.
    Implications of all the available evidence
    In view of inconsistent guidelines by various organisations based on limited information, our findings provide some clarification and have implications for multiple stakeholders. The risk for infection is highly dependent on distance to the individual infected and the type of face mask and eye protection worn. From a policy and public health perspective, current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing seem to be strongly associated with a large protective effect, and distances of 2 m could be more effective. These data could also facilitate harmonisation of the definition of exposed (eg, within 2 m), which has implications for contact tracing. The quan ative estimates provided here should inform disease-modelling studies, which are important for planning pandemic response efforts. Policy makers around the world should strive to promptly and adequately address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection. For health-care workers and administrators, our findings suggest that N95 respirators might be more strongly associated with protection from viral transmission than surgical masks. Both N95 and surgical masks have a stronger association with protection compared with single-layer masks. Eye protection might also add substantial protection. For the general public, evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 m is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings, with either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton ones, although much of this evidence was on mask use within households and among contacts of cases. Eye protection is typically underconsidered and can be effective in community settings. However, no intervention, even when properly used, was associated with complete protection from infection. Other basic measures (eg, hand hygiene) are still needed in addition to physical distancing and use of face masks and eye protection.
    To contain widespread infection and to reduce morbidity and mortality among health-care workers and others in contact with potentially infected people, jurisdictions have issued conflicting advice about physical or social distancing. Use of face masks with or without eye protection to achieve additional protection is debated in the mainstream media and by public health authorities, in particular the use of face masks for the general population;10 moreover, optimum use of face masks in health-care settings, which have been used for decades for infection prevention, is facing challenges amid personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages.11
    Any recommendations about social or physical distancing, and the use of face masks, should be based on the best available evidence. Evidence has been reviewed for other respiratory viral infections, mainly seasonal influenza,12, 13 but no comprehensive review is available of information on SARS-CoV-2 or related betacoronaviruses that have caused epidemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We, therefore, systematically reviewed the effect of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV.
    Methods
    Search strategy and selection criteria
    To inform WHO guidance do ents, on March 25, 2020, we did a rapid systematic review.14 We created a large international collaborative and we used Cochrane methods15 and the GRADE approach.16 We prospectively submitted the systematic review protocol for registration on PROSPERO (CRD42020177047; appendix pp 23–29). We have followed PRISMA17 and MOOSE18 reporting guidelines (appendix pp 30–33).
    From database inception to May 3, 2020, we searched for studies of any design and in any setting that included patients with WHO-defined confirmed or probable COVID-19, SARS, or MERS, and people in close contact with them, comparing distances between people and COVID-19 infected patients of 1 m or larger with smaller distances, with or without a face mask on the patient, or with or without a face mask, eye protection, or both on the exposed individual. The aim of our systematic review was for quan ative assessment to ascertain the physical distance associated with reduced risk of acquiring infection when caring for an individual infected with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV. Our definition of face masks included surgical masks and N95 respirators, among others; eye protection included visors, faceshields, and goggles, among others.
    We searched (up to March 26, 2020) MEDLINE (using the Ovid platform), PubMed, Embase, CINAHL (using the Ovid platform), the Cochrane Library, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge, COVID-19 Research Database (WHO), Epistemonikos (for relevant systematic reviews addressing MERS and SARS, and its COVID-19 Living Overview of the Evidence platform), EPPI Centre living systematic map of the evidence, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, relevant do ents on the websites of governmental and other relevant organisations, reference lists of included papers, and relevant systematic reviews.19, 20 We handsearched (up to May 3, 2020) preprint servers (bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Social Science Research Network First Look) and coronavirus resource centres of The Lancet, JAMA, and N Engl J Med (appendix pp 3–5). We did not limit our search by language. We initially could not obtain three full texts for evaluation, but we obtained them through interlibrary loan or contacting a study author. We did not restrict our search to any quan ative cutoff for distance.
    Data collection
    We screened les and abstracts, reviewed full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias by two authors and independently, using standardised prepiloted forms (Covidence; Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia), and we cross-checked screening results using artificial intelligence (Evidence Prime, Hamilton, ON, Canada). We resolved disagreements by consensus. We extracted data for study identifier, study design, setting, population characteristics, intervention and comparator characteristics, quan ative outcomes, source of funding and reported conflicts of interests, ethics approval, study limitations, and other important comments.
    Outcomes
    Outcomes of interest were risk of transmission (ie, WHO-defined confirmed or probable COVID-19, SARS, or MERS) to people in health-care or non-health-care settings by those infected; hospitalisation; intensive care unit admission; death; time to recovery; adverse effects of interventions; and contextual factors such as acceptability, feasibility, effect on equity, and resource considerations related to the interventions of interest. However, data were only available to analyse intervention effects for transmission and contextual factors. Consistent with WHO, studies generally defined confirmed cases with laboratory confirmation (with or without symptoms) and probable cases with clinical evidence of the respective infection (ie, suspected to be infected) but for whom confirmatory testing either had not yet been done for any reason or was inconclusive.
    Data analysis
    Our search did not identify any randomised trials of COVID-19, SARS, or MERS. We did a meta-analysis of associations by pooling risk ratios (RRs) or adjusted odds ratios (aORs) depending on availability of these data from observational studies, using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. We adjusted for variables including age, sex, and severity of source case; these variables were not the same across studies. Because between-study heterogeneity can be misleadingly large when quantified by I2 during meta-analysis of observational studies,21, 22 we used GRADE guidance to assess between-study heterogeneity.21 Throughout, we present RRs as unadjusted estimates and aORs as adjusted estimates.
    We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to rate risk of bias for comparative non-randomised studies corresponding to every study's design (cohort or case-control).23, 24 We planned to use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 for randomised trials,25 but our search did not identify any eligible randomised trials. We synthesised data in both narrative and tabular formats. We graded the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the GRADEpro app to rate evidence and present it in GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables26, 27 using standardised terms.28, 29
    We analysed data for subgroup effects by virus type, intervention (different distances or face mask types), and setting (health care vs non-health care). Among the studies assessing physical distancing measures to prevent viral transmission, the intervention varied (eg, direct physical contact [0 m], 1 m, or 2 m). We, therefore, analysed the effect of distance on the size of the associations by random-effects univariate meta-regressions, using restricted maximum likelihood, and we present mean effects and 95% CIs. We calculated tests for interaction using a minimum of 10 000 Monte Carlo random permutations to avoid spurious findings.30 We formally assessed the credibility of potential effect-modifiers using GRADE guidance.21 We did two sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings. First, we used Bayesian meta-analyses to reinterpret the included studies considering priors derived from the effect point estimate and variance from a meta-analysis of ten randomised trials evaluating face mask use versus no face mask use to prevent influenza-like illness in health-care workers.31 Second, we used Bayesian meta-analyses to reinterpret the efficacy of N95 respirators versus medical masks on preventing influenza-like illness after seasonal viral (mostly influenza) infection.13 For these sensitivity analyses, we used hybrid Metropolis-Hastings and Gibbs sampling, a 10 000 sample burn-in, 40 000 Markov chain Monte Carlo samples, and we tested non-informative and sceptical priors (eg, four time variance)32, 33 to inform mean estimates of effect, 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), and posterior distributions. We used non-informative hyperpriors to estimate statistical heterogeneity. Model convergence was confirmed in all cases with good mixing in visual inspection of trace plots, autocorrelation plots, histograms, and kernel density estimates in all scenarios. Parameters were blocked, leading to acceptance of approximately 50% and efficiency greater than 1% in all cases (typically about 40%). We did analyses using Stata version 14.3.

    [truncated at 33% of study text due to message board character limit
    ...

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...#secces le10


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Looks like a lot of "zero idea"



    DMC fail.

    1. You didn't even read that, damn sure didn't understand it if you think it said what you're implying.

    2. Same organization that said COVID wasn't transmissible to humans. Keep looking.
    Last edited by DMC; 07-30-2020 at 08:56 PM.

  25. #100
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    DMC can't get out of April

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •