I am responsible..............

Author: sadolite

Posts

Total: 210
#151
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
helping people make an informed choice is the best way of convincing people, not demanding, shaming, forcing etc
disagree. you can explain to people till you are blue in the face that it is a bad idea to drink and drive. people will still do it. If you don't enforce laws protecting the public good, then people will act against the public good. in this case, there will always be people who deny the evidence, or simply don't care. They will decide they would rather take the risk. But it isn't just their life they are gambling with. It is everyone's lives and the state of the entire economy. 

those where studies, they didn't actually study people or anything, it was assumptions.
what? Why would you think that a study didn't study anything?

then you clearly missed the point, there's always a risk as I said, there always will be, just like flu, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.
true, and the risks are many, many times higher with covid than the flu. It is way more deadly. 

IE saliva carries corona, and masks stop saliva.
reduces =/= stop
ok, so massively reduces the spread of covid is still a huge improvement.

tell that to nudist and nude beach goers
because we have determined specific zones where it is permissible to do so. Everywhere else it is illegal. 

Newsflash, ladies: it’s legal to go topless in New York State.
topless is not nude. 

anyway, it is an infringement on rights to be forced to wear a mask, they and you try to justify it, even if it is justified it's still and infringement right?
lol you just confirmed that it is illegal to go naked, but they say that it is an infringement of your rights to be forced to wear something. You are already forced to wear things to go outside. 

I want proof not "maybe" "might" and assumptions, just the facts.
you already have them. 

1) it is a fact that covid is in infected people's saliva.
2) it is a fact that a mask massively reduces the risk of your saliva ending up on another person or surface they may touch
3) as a result of facts 1 and 2, wearing a mask helps to reduce the spread of covid. 

It isn't complicated. Its not like there is some astrophysics needed to calculate things. It is very simple. But you insist like more study is needed to prove things we already know. 
#152
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
 you can explain to people till you are blue in the face that it is a bad idea to drink and drive. people will still do it.
oh I totally get where you are coming from, if they won't do what you want force them under threat of law or people with guns, I totally understand your point of view, personally just because it's difficult and you won't succeed 100% shouldn't mean you just result to force, but I know you disagree with that.
people will still do it
that really made me laugh because I said the same thing about gun laws and you turn around and use the same argument, it's pretty darn funny, doubt you'd admit it.
Why would you think that a study didn't study anything?
well, there was no number of people in the study, pretty much no criteria for the study, other than  it may, might take my word for it, I don't consider that proof.

massively reduces the spread of covid is still a huge improvement.
it might reduce the spread of covid from asymptomatic people.
 it is a fact that a mask massively reduces the risk of your saliva ending up on another person or surface they may touch
your opinion is not fact as evidenced by your "studies" that use terms like may or might etc

also your examples of things you can NOT do is vastly different than a government trying to MAKE you do something.  again driving and the most of the examples you gave weren't rights anyway, which I though you'd understand after all the posts about them.
you can choose not to believe the f.d.a. and what they state about masks, you seem to ignore the facts and accept maybe, might as factual statements.


#153
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
oh I totally get where you are coming from, if they won't do what you want force them under threat of law or people with guns, I totally understand your point of view, personally just because it's difficult and you won't succeed 100% shouldn't mean you just result to force, but I know you disagree with that.
people already have the facts. You already have the facts. People don't care.  Some of them think some hypothetical threat to their freedom is more important than the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Some of them simply don't believe facts or reality. Some of them are too stupid to understand. But at the end of the day lives are on the line. The country will never be able to get back to normal until we get covid under control. And until everyone socially distances and wears masks that isn't going to happen. 

We can't let their suspicion, ignorance or stupidity allow people to die and the country to slide deeper into a depression. 

people will still do it
that really made me laugh because I said the same thing about gun laws and you turn around and use the same argument, it's pretty darn funny, doubt you'd admit it.
not really. I am saying people will do stupid things unless we as a society prevent it. You are saying people will do stupid things so we should do absolutely nothing about it and let people die. 

well, there was no number of people in the study, pretty much no criteria for the study, other than  it may, might take my word for it, I don't consider that proof.
I linked to an article on it. One of the papers they referenced was research looking at a number of different studies. They were using all of these as a basis for their results. Why would you think there were no people? How would that even make sense?

it might reduce the spread of covid from asymptomatic people.
It definitely would reduce the spread. That is beyond question at this point. If you think it wouldn't you would have to give a reason why since i have explained several times why it would. 

your opinion is not fact as evidenced by your "studies" that use terms like may or might etc
all studies use those words. It takes years of research before studies begin to draw absolute conclusions. Tests have to be repeated over and over and over in order to be certain. There hasn't been time for that yet. 

also your examples of things you can NOT do is vastly different than a government trying to MAKE you do something. 
no they weren't. They make you put on clothes to go outside. They make you wear a helmet to ride a bike. etc. Society has lots of rules for what is required of people. If the government can write a law saying you have to wear clothes, they can also decide you need to wear a mask. In fact, a mask is probably much more important than wearing pants. No one is going to get hurt because they see your genitals. Alot of people could get hurt if you give them covid. 

you can choose not to believe the f.d.a. and what they state about masks, you seem to ignore the facts and accept maybe, might as factual statements.
what are you talking about? Are you saying that the FDA is telling people not to wear masks? What facts am I ignoring?
#154
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
what are you talking about? Are you saying that the FDA is telling people not to wear masks? What facts am I ignoring?
how masks work and what they will and won't filter etc

anyway it's clear you are convinced you know everything and aren't willing to consider anyone else's opinions or sides without bashing them
simply don't believe facts or reality. Some of them are too stupid to understand.
I'm done with this topic, there's no more point in it.
#155
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
how masks work and what they will and won't filter etc

anyway it's clear you are convinced you know everything and aren't willing to consider anyone else's opinions or sides without bashing them

Did they tell people that masks don't work and not to wear them? Or are you just throwing out vague bullshit?

simply don't believe facts or reality. Some of them are too stupid to understand.
I'm done with this topic, there's no more point in it.
Well i have repeatedly shown you why masks work. You agree that masks work. Then you backtrack and ramble about maybe they don't work. Maybe they are just attacking our rights!!! but can't explain why a rule to wear a mask is any different than rules we already have mandating clothing or safety equipment. 

basically, i have dismantled your arguments, but then you just repeat yourself. Since you clearly have your mind set on "mask bad!!", you are right there is no point discussing it. 
Topic's author
#156
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Death23
What ever you say, I believe mask manufactures. They are bound by hard irrefutable science and liability. The Govt paid health experts are bound by nothing and can say anything with 0 liability. They are not even bound by ethics or their own Hippocratic oath. 
#157
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
your lack of understanding is just too frustrating for me, I keep repeating myself but you are too arrogant and closed minded to even try to understand, yes masks should be worn by those actively sick, i've said that and I'll say it again, I'm not convinced those who are NOT SICK need to wear them.  maybe you can only understand things in small bites like this.
#158
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@sadolite
don't recall her name but they said she could possibly be a Biden v.p. pick, anyway she tested positive and when interviewed she was so shocked since she wore a mask and did everything they recommended.  I wonder how many of the deaths and people in the hospital did everything they were supposed to do and they got it anyway.  You'd think that would be an extremely important detail to track.  Also how many did they themselves infect?  It's highly contagious, you'd think along with the person hospitalized there would be a couple more they came into contact with, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  Isn't that a bit strange when you think about it?
#159
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
your lack of understanding is just too frustrating for me, I keep repeating myself but you are too arrogant and closed minded to even try to understand, yes masks should be worn by those actively sick, i've said that and I'll say it again, I'm not convinced those who are NOT SICK need to wear them.  maybe you can only understand things in small bites like this.
You do keep repeating yourself, however the things you are repeating don't really make sense. You keep repeating sick people should wear masks, absolutely. And if we could determine who was sick and get them to wear a mask before they started spreading Covid, that would be a perfectly logical argument. However we can't do that. Lots of people are asymptomatic and don't know they are sick. Lots of people are sick but have mild symptoms so they don't think it's covid. 

It isn't possible to get masks on all the sick people because alot of them don't know they are sick/have covid. So if you make exceptions for who has to wear a mask, then covid will spread. It is very simple. 
#160
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
actively sick......sneezing, coughing like I said before.
#161
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
actively sick......sneezing, coughing like I said before.
ok, but lots of people can have mild or no symptoms at all and spread the virus. They don't realize they are sick. There is no way to get them to wear a mask unless: 

1) we massively ramp up test so that virtually everyone is tested
2) we get everyone to wear a mask

Unless we do one of those 2 things, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to reopen the economy. Unless you prefer to keep the country on lock down for the next 6 months to a year. 
#162
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
there is no proof that asymptomatic people spread it, only that's it's possible, how many hospitalized got it even though they followed all the guidelines?  I'm not convinced asymptomatic people should be forced to wear masks under threat of imprisonment, force or by people with guns.
#163
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
there is no proof that asymptomatic people spread it, only that's it's possible
there are multiple studies that show it happens. 

, how many hospitalized got it even though they followed all the guidelines? 
how is this relevant? The guidelines are intended to slow the spread. They are not going to be able to prevent every case, but they will reduce the number of cases. There are still going to be cases of people who follow the guidelines and still get sick. but there will be alot less cases than if we don't follow the guidelines. 

I'm not convinced asymptomatic people should be forced to wear masks under threat of imprisonment, force or by people with guns.
why? Even if you don't believe asymptomatic people spread it (which several studies have shown they can), then there are still lots of people out there who will only develop mild symptoms and will think it's no big deal. They will still spread corona all over the place and keep america locked down for a long time as well as resulting in the deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of people. 

Wearing a mask is a mild inconvenience. They are kind of uncomfortable. But they aren't going to hurt you. They aren't going to prevent you from living your life in any way. They are safety equipment. It is no different that using "threat of imprisonment, force or by people with guns" to enforce laws that make you wear clothes outside your house, or wear a bicycle helmet. We already have these rules in place. this is just a minor change to those rules in order to save thousands of lives, not to mention billions of dollars since we will be able to get the economy open faster. 
#164
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
your first link
There are some infected people who are “truly asymptomatic,” she said, but countries that are doing detailed contact tracing are “not finding secondary transmission onward” from those cases. “It’s very rare,” she said.
and
At the WHO event Tuesday, officials stressed that even as scientists are still learning more about the virus and how it spreads
“suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms,” according to WHO’s interim guidance on masks issued last week.
your other link
The absence of COVID-19 symptoms in persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 might not necessarily imply an absence of harm. More research is needed to determine the significance of subclinical lung changes visible on computed tomography scans.

love the qualifying statements in that one, might, they love that word
In some cases (4, 5), the viral load of such asymptomatic persons has been equal to that of symptomatic persons, suggesting similar potential for viral transmission. 
ah suggesting, another fave.
We must therefore acknowledge the possibility that some of the proportions of asymptomatic persons are lower than reported.
there's a lot more but I don't have the time or will to read it all, but feel free to quote what you think is pertinent. 
#165
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It's funny to consider why we are not doing the exact same things we do for normal flu, which is to quarantine the sick and elderly and actively promote young people to stock up on vitamins and eat healthy so that they can develop the herd immunity that lowers the spread of the flu. You remember the "drink plenty of liquids" we used to tell young healthy people to do and then get back to work? You know, back when we encouraged herd immunity instead of actively suppressing herd immunity among the young and healthy?

That "hospital overcrowded" bullshit was over in early May. We are now experimenting on a world population actively suppressing the immune systems that specifically ward against novel viruses of an entire generation with all this hyper sanitation. And you know as Jeff Goldblum famously said in his dino film, "life (viruses) will always find a way. The unintended consequence of avoiding herd immunity among the young and healthy could be incalculable when the next mutated flu-like virus rolls around on bodies used to being protected by human barriers and not organic natural protections against viruses in general. Hell, even stuff we thought was gone hundreds of years ago might make a comeback. Viruses are always one mutation ahead.
#166
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
love the qualifying statements in that one, might, they love that word
of course, any responsible doctor would use that. It requires years of testing and many, many rounds of repeated studies to make empirical statements. They aren't allowed to announce the results of their study as if it is empirical fact. 

ah suggesting, another fave.
again, all responsible studies this early into a new virus use this language. 

Your entire post just essentially showed that you will look for anything to try to prove your predetermined opinion rather than actually look at the facts. You are now nit picking how responsible studies report their findings and pretending like this invalidates the study. 
#167
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
It's funny to consider why we are not doing the exact same things we do for normal flu, which is to quarantine the sick and elderly and actively promote young people to stock up on vitamins and eat healthy so that they can develop the herd immunity that lowers the spread of the flu.
I don't know how you are not getting this. Covid is not like the flu. It is 10-30 times deadlier. And even those who survive can have long term, even permanent, impacts to their health. 

 You know, back when we encouraged herd immunity instead of actively suppressing herd immunity among the young and healthy?
There is no evidence that exposure to Covid will prevent you from getting it again. There are already documented cases of people getting it more than once. You are suggesting we should gamble hundreds of thousands of lives on a guess. 
#168
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It is 10-30 times deadlier

It's not, no matter how much you inflate the death count, it's marginally 1.5 times deadlier than a bad flu outbreak. I say marginally because we don't know how many people we killed by purposefully infecting nursing homes, which we never ever did before during normal flu outbreaks.
#169
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not, no matter how much you inflate the death count, it's marginally 1.5 times deadlier than a bad flu outbreak.
The death rate from the flu is roughly 0.1%. The death rate from covid is hard to pin down as it varies by region, but it has been more like 3%. Covid is much, much deadlier than the flu. 



#170
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Go read this article.


Hyper-sanitization by saturating the human body with antibodies isn't a new concern when it comes to weakening the immune response in humans to novel viruses. It's like a muscle that can atrophy. Medical experts have been warning about the over-reliance of antibodies and other forms of artificial immune responses for decades. Our technology has NO CURES for novel viruses. It's not the COVID-19 that's going to kill you. It's what comes after when your body isn't used to fighting on its own.
Topic's author
#171
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
All the research and science surrounding Covid 19 is clearly subjective as no one can agree on anything, most especially the so called experts. They are all using the so called same facts to come up with their differing opinionated recommendations.  The only people who are 100% in agreement on any aspect of Covid 19 are mask manufacturers and what masks do and don't filter Covid 19.
#172
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Hyper-sanitization by saturating the human body with antibodies isn't a new concern when it comes to weakening the immune response in humans to novel viruses. 
so your argument is that we should let 3% of the US population die and not do anything about it? That would be over 3 million people dead. 
#173
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@sadolite
All the research and science surrounding Covid 19 is clearly subjective as no one can agree on anything, most especially the so called experts. They are all using the so called same facts to come up with their differing opinionated recommendations. 
it takes years of research and repeated testing and study. You are basically advocating for not believing doctors and scientists because the research isn't 100% conclusive yet. By the time the research is conclusive hundreds of thousands will be dead. 

The only people who are 100% in agreement on any aspect of Covid 19 are mask manufacturers and what masks do and don't filter Covid 19.
because you are asking the wrong question. The point of the mask is not to filter covid, it is to prevent your saliva from spreading. Since your saliva will carry covid, preventing that from spraying out will significantly reduce the spread of covid. mask companies agree they don't filter covid, but they also agree that they do filter saliva (which carries covid). 
#174
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3

here is a link to a segment about corona in a specific texas hospital. Take a look at 5:10 for a section where the doctor describes getting calls about 10 sick "young people" in one day, all who needed a ventilator or they will die. He only had 3 beds available. 

But fox would have you believe this is just like the flu and young people will be fine if they catch it. That is a lie. It also highlights the serious danger we are in if hospitals reach the limit of their capacity. If the hospitals run out of beds, then people who would otherwise recover will start dying. Some regions are getting close to, if not already at maximum capacity. 
#175
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
@HistoryBuff
History buff got baited by you, let me make it simple; if the healthy herd immunity groups go home to, touch the same surfaces as or even slightly interact with the elderly and vulnerable, it will result in death (unlike with the flu). Also, unlike with the flu, you don't always know you've got it when you're the less-at-risk type.
#176
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
f the healthy herd immunity groups go home to, touch the same surfaces as or even slightly interact with the elderly and vulnerable, it will result in death (unlike with the flu). Also, unlike with the flu, you don't always know you've got it when you're the less-at-risk type.
fair points. But my point wasn't that letting huge numbers of people die to build up herd immunity was a good plan. My point was that there is no evidence that would even work. So the cost we would pay might be entirely for nothing since it seems like getting covid might not confer immunity from it. So basing our entire strategy on a guess that doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence is a terrible idea. 
#177
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your argument is that we should let 3% of the US population die and not do anything about it? That would be over 3 million people dead.


Your math is wrong, as usual.
#178
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
If the healthy herd immunity groups go home to, touch the same surfaces as or even slightly interact with the elderly and vulnerable, it will result in death (unlike with the flu). Also, unlike with the flu, you don't always know you've got it when you're the less-at-risk type.

But unlike normal flu-like outbreaks where we quarantine the sick and the elderly, those deaths are at a minimum, as compared to COVID where our policy was to infect nursing homes on purpose.
#179
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Your math is wrong, as usual.
sorry, was writing it quickly. You're right. Your plan would kill more like 10 million people. Probably more because hospitals would run out of beds by then and the death rate would spike. 

#180
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
But unlike normal flu-like outbreaks where we quarantine the sick and the elderly, those deaths are at a minimum, as compared to COVID where our policy was to infect nursing homes on purpose.
what? No one infected a nursing home on purpose. The point was to quarantine everyone. That includes the sick and the elderly as well as everyone else.