hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 458 of 487 FirstFirst ... 358408448455456457458459460461468 ... LastLast
Results 9,141 to 9,160 of 9736

Thread: Pestilence or: How I Learned to Worry Constantly and Live with COVID

  1. #9141

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Bitesize. Nice.

  2. #9142
    Phrixus Zephyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Queenstown, NZ
    Posts
    3,707
    I work in hospitality in NZ where vaccines are mandatory and every person I know who's refused to get it and can't work is French and/or a yoga instructor.

    Body autonomy apparently means "I can't see past the end of my own nose".

  3. #9143
    Super Moderator DonorGlobal Moderator whispous's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Mails Tegg > пошел ты на хуй
    Posts
    5,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrixus Zephyr View Post
    I work in hospitality in NZ where vaccines are mandatory and every person I know who's refused to get it and can't work is French and/or a yoga instructor.

    Body autonomy apparently means "I can't see past the end of my own nose".
    It's pretentious people who are vaguely spiritual and vulnerable morons who are antivax.



    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    locking again cos you're all getting weird and being autists about tyres

  4. #9144
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    17,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    meh

  5. #9145
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,792
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    Did we ever get any numbers on mask efficiency?


    

  6. #9146
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,983
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    Look he is just telling us what it says on his work dashboard. There's a big sign saying "Current Face Mask Effectiveness:" and then after that "13.9261%+-0.0005%".

    Now he has proven his point we all need to just accept it.

    And just to be absolutely clear, Sacul doesnt get literally all his opinions from fat, moronic right wing stoner Joe Rogan and then backsolve from that. Because Joe Rogan isn't that fat, his gut just bulges out from decades of steroid abuse.
    Last edited by Lallante; December 20 2021 at 03:24:49 PM.

  7. #9147
    Super Moderator DonorGlobal Moderator whispous's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Mails Tegg > пошел ты на хуй
    Posts
    5,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    Look he is just telling us what it says on his work dashboard. There's a big sign saying "Current Face Mask Effectiveness:" and then after that "13.9261%+-0.0005%".

    Now he has proven his point we all need to just accept it.

    And just to be absolutely clear, Sacul doesnt get literally all his opinions from fat, moronic right wing stoner Joe Rogan and then backsolve from that. Because Joe Rogan isn't that fat.
    Additionally, even if we took 13% at face value, surely that's an effectiveness DEFINITELY unarguably worth taking? Is the number meant to convince us that we shouldn't bother wearing face masks?



    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    locking again cos you're all getting weird and being autists about tyres

  8. #9148
    Pegging Specialist Donor indi's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,875
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    The use of face masks has been demonstrated to significantly reduce transmission of Covid-19 - if memory serves, more so than social distancing. The CDC has a nice overview of different research papers and methods used. I don't see 13% anywhere in there, generally the percentage (prevention of spread) seems higher.

    By now we have also had several meta analyses of the efficiency in prevention of covid spread of other measures, like hand washing and social distancing. This one gives a nice overview, including the risk of bias and heterogenity of the studies used.

    Lockdowns can be used, broadly speaking, for two strategies. The first is eradication, the other is flattening the curve (there it is again). Eradication seems to have generally worked for NZ, but I think we can safely say the rest of the world has long come to terms with the fact that there's no eradicating this stuff in our countries. Funnily enough, that meta analysis I linked last also has numbers for the efficiency of lockdowns. Guess what - it actually does really work to bring down transmission. I can't think of any other reason for the development in our own numbers - government imposes measures ("non essential shops and gyms close at 5 PM") and two weeks later the exponential growth comes to an end and, amazingly enough, the R rate drops under 1. I'm not sure how you can possibly say the effects of the various lockdowns have been minimal. They have not been minimal, they flattened the curve. Our country was close to the hospital system collapsing more than once. My brother in law is a physician (of the kind that works in hospitals). Next to seeing it in the news, I've heard firsthand.

    As for the economy, strangely enough we're already ahead of where we were pre-covid. We're actually in danger of overheating.

    None of this means I'm blind to the disaster it has been for many people (domestic violence, mental health). But you know, sometimes there's no such thing as the one choice that's just great for everyone. This has really, really sucked. Despite the many things that did and do go well.

    PS Just to be abundantly clear. The healthcare system was obviously not geared for a pandemic. It still isn't. It will take us many years to build it up to a level that we'd need for a situation like this one. We'll also have to be willing to pay a lot more for healthcare than we do now as a society. These are consequences of choices we made as a country. If you ask me, this needs fixing. Oh, and vision. Lastly, I'm certainly not denying that these almost-two-years have been really rough on many people. I'm also not saying I don't care about that - I do.

  9. #9149
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,983
    Quote Originally Posted by whispous View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    Look he is just telling us what it says on his work dashboard. There's a big sign saying "Current Face Mask Effectiveness:" and then after that "13.9261%+-0.0005%".

    Now he has proven his point we all need to just accept it.

    And just to be absolutely clear, Sacul doesnt get literally all his opinions from fat, moronic right wing stoner Joe Rogan and then backsolve from that. Because Joe Rogan isn't that fat.
    Additionally, even if we took 13% at face value, surely that's an effectiveness DEFINITELY unarguably worth taking? Is the number meant to convince us that we shouldn't bother wearing face masks?
    Look, he's just asking questions. Like Lief.

  10. #9150
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    24,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    Look he is just telling us what it says on his work dashboard. There's a big sign saying "Current Face Mask Effectiveness:" and then after that "13.9261%+-0.0005%".

    Now he has proven his point we all need to just accept it.

    And just to be absolutely clear, Sacul doesnt get literally all his opinions from fat, moronic right wing stoner Joe Rogan and then backsolve from that. Because Joe Rogan isn't that fat.
    Have you lost all reading comprehension ability?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  11. #9151
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    17,222
    Quote Originally Posted by indi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    The use of face masks has been demonstrated to significantly reduce transmission of Covid-19 - if memory serves, more so than social distancing. The CDC has a nice overview of different research papers and methods used. I don't see 13% anywhere in there, generally the percentage (prevention of spread) seems higher.

    By now we have also had several meta analyses of the efficiency in prevention of covid spread of other measures, like hand washing and social distancing. This one gives a nice overview, including the risk of bias and heterogenity of the studies used.

    Lockdowns can be used, broadly speaking, for two strategies. The first is eradication, the other is flattening the curve (there it is again). Eradication seems to have generally worked for NZ, but I think we can safely say the rest of the world has long come to terms with the fact that there's no eradicating this stuff in our countries. Funnily enough, that meta analysis I linked last also has numbers for the efficiency of lockdowns. Guess what - it actually does really work to bring down transmission. I can't think of any other reason for the development in our own numbers - government imposes measures ("non essential shops and gyms close at 5 PM") and two weeks later the exponential growth comes to an end and, amazingly enough, the R rate drops under 1. I'm not sure how you can possibly say the effects of the various lockdowns have been minimal. They have not been minimal, they flattened the curve. Our country was close to the hospital system collapsing more than once. My brother in law is a physician (of the kind that works in hospitals). Next to seeing it in the news, I've heard firsthand.

    As for the economy, strangely enough we're already ahead of where we were pre-covid. We're actually in danger of overheating.

    None of this means I'm blind to the disaster it has been for many people (domestic violence, mental health). But you know, sometimes there's no such thing as the one choice that's just great for everyone. This has really, really sucked. Despite the many things that did and do go well.

    PS Just to be abundantly clear. The healthcare system was obviously not geared for a pandemic. It still isn't. It will take us many years to build it up to a level that we'd need for a situation like this one. We'll also have to be willing to pay a lot more for healthcare than we do now as a society. These are consequences of choices we made as a country. If you ask me, this needs fixing. Oh, and vision. Lastly, I'm certainly not denying that these almost-two-years have been really rough on many people. I'm also not saying I don't care about that - I do.
    No, we're definitely still thinking flattening. I think we're past the point of eradication, beyond the virus potentially mutating itself to the point of annoyance, vs what it is now.

    Masks to me are just a respect thing, I wear it for you, not for me necessarily (N95, etc, not withstanding), and I do it because I don't know if my actions, and potential lack of awareness that I have covid (the real threat), may end up literally killing someone if I'm not careful. I can see the effects in the data from places where wearing them has not been resisted (Bay Area, where I live, as a big example), that masks are actually very effective at reducing aerosolized transmission, and even if it was only "13%" less dead people, it would be well worth mandating them for any government.
    meh

  12. #9152
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    Look he is just telling us what it says on his work dashboard. There's a big sign saying "Current Face Mask Effectiveness:" and then after that "13.9261%+-0.0005%".

    Now he has proven his point we all need to just accept it.

    And just to be absolutely clear, Sacul doesnt get literally all his opinions from fat, moronic right wing stoner Joe Rogan and then backsolve from that. Because Joe Rogan isn't that fat.
    Have you lost all reading comprehension ability?
    Yes I've lost the ability to read edited content in posts in advance of them being edited. Even having gone back and read all the extra stuff he added, what does any of it change? He says "all the studies show lockdowns have 10% effectiveness" .... what does that even mean? What studies? 10% of what? A 10% reduction in transmission? In deaths? Against what comparator? Why is this information on some medical professional's dashboard but somehow nowhere in public on the internet? How is their data gathered? What methodology?

    It's "Source: Just trust me bro" with extra steps. What have I missed Keckers?
    Last edited by Lallante; December 20 2021 at 04:13:14 PM.

  13. #9153
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    3,283
    Quote Originally Posted by indi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    The use of face masks has been demonstrated to significantly reduce transmission of Covid-19 - if memory serves, more so than social distancing. The CDC has a nice overview of different research papers and methods used. I don't see 13% anywhere in there, generally the percentage (prevention of spread) seems higher.

    By now we have also had several meta analyses of the efficiency in prevention of covid spread of other measures, like hand washing and social distancing. This one gives a nice overview, including the risk of bias and heterogenity of the studies used.

    Lockdowns can be used, broadly speaking, for two strategies. The first is eradication, the other is flattening the curve (there it is again). Eradication seems to have generally worked for NZ, but I think we can safely say the rest of the world has long come to terms with the fact that there's no eradicating this stuff in our countries. Funnily enough, that meta analysis I linked last also has numbers for the efficiency of lockdowns. Guess what - it actually does really work to bring down transmission. I can't think of any other reason for the development in our own numbers - government imposes measures ("non essential shops and gyms close at 5 PM") and two weeks later the exponential growth comes to an end and, amazingly enough, the R rate drops under 1. I'm not sure how you can possibly say the effects of the various lockdowns have been minimal. They have not been minimal, they flattened the curve. Our country was close to the hospital system collapsing more than once. My brother in law is a physician (of the kind that works in hospitals). Next to seeing it in the news, I've heard firsthand.

    As for the economy, strangely enough we're already ahead of where we were pre-covid. We're actually in danger of overheating.

    None of this means I'm blind to the disaster it has been for many people (domestic violence, mental health). But you know, sometimes there's no such thing as the one choice that's just great for everyone. This has really, really sucked. Despite the many things that did and do go well.

    PS Just to be abundantly clear. The healthcare system was obviously not geared for a pandemic. It still isn't. It will take us many years to build it up to a level that we'd need for a situation like this one. We'll also have to be willing to pay a lot more for healthcare than we do now as a society. These are consequences of choices we made as a country. If you ask me, this needs fixing. Oh, and vision. Lastly, I'm certainly not denying that these almost-two-years have been really rough on many people. I'm also not saying I don't care about that - I do.

  14. #9154

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    8,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    For example face mask is at 13% solid effective
    What does this mean? 13% less aerosolized particles? (how is it being measured), 13% less viral load (how is it being measured?), or 13% less people getting COVID (how is this being measured? Who are the unlucky fuckers who got told to come to work as the control group without masks?).

    I'd be asking whomever is providing you this number for methodology notes, and proof of measurement and controls, or I'd suspect them of pulling it out of their ass.
    Look he is just telling us what it says on his work dashboard. There's a big sign saying "Current Face Mask Effectiveness:" and then after that "13.9261%+-0.0005%".

    Now he has proven his point we all need to just accept it.

    And just to be absolutely clear, Sacul doesnt get literally all his opinions from fat, moronic right wing stoner Joe Rogan and then backsolve from that. Because Joe Rogan isn't that fat.
    Have you lost all reading comprehension ability?
    Yes I've lost the ability to read edited content in posts in advance of them being edited. Even having gone back and read all the extra stuff he added, what does any of it change? He says "all the studies show lockdowns have 10% effectiveness" .... what does that even mean? What studies? 10% of what? A 10% reduction in transmission? In deaths? Against what comparator? Why is this information on some medical professional's dashboard but somehow nowhere in public on the internet? How is their data gathered? What methodology?

    It's "Source: Just trust me bro" with extra steps. What have I missed Keckers?
    Scrub without a tardis spotted

  15. #9155
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    153
      Spoiler:


    I rock one or the other every day since I work in public.

    Also really need to get rolling on the remodel of this room.

  16. #9156
    August's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    712
    Now you're gonna make me play Fallout over Christmas break.

  17. #9157
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Now you're gonna make me play Fallout over Christmas break.

  18. #9158
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,207
    Work won't let people wear that mask because it has a vent.

    In other news, omicron accounts for 73% of all new US cases. In the Pacific Northwest, it's 96%.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...
    Johns Hopkins CSSE COVID-19 Dashboard (updated link)

  19. #9159

    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    3,836
    It's impressive how fast this has taken over from Delta. And Delta was pretty damn impressive as well.

    https://assets.publishing.service.go...ember-2021.pdf

  20. #9160
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    8,346
    Welp, I have the coof.

    Had a mild cold since Monday, today my laterals came up positive.

    Still only mild cold symptoms, last vaccine was August; was due for a booster this week but obviously won't be getting that now.
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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