46 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

You’re absolutely right. There was no need for economic hari kari. All americans had to do was put a mask on -before- it started raging across this country.

So Americans are now to be blamed for heeding the advice of the NIH?  Do remember that they were on-record with Dr Fauci himself in at least one mid-March video telling Americans that they shouldn't be walking around in masks. 

And even after their reversal on that position, I've still seen no data that supports the idea that amateur mask solutions do anything but help slow the spread down.  Not stop it...slow it down. 

We have had very low number of new infections here locally for at least six weeks now.  But would I sit in an airplane, or a movie theater, or a comedy club, or concert hall or other crowded venue even if every person had a mask on?  Absolutely not. 

1 minute ago, MartinRex007 said:

Absolutely! However I don't think the researchers at John Hopkins are preoccupied with trying to manipulate the data, I think they have more important things to worry about, at least I would hope they do!

But...they should be.  Certainly they have to realize just by site usage alone now many people are looking at the story they're presenting.  And I think their IT guys could handle that without burdening the guys doing the real research.

7 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Dr Fauci himself in at least one mid-March video telling Americans that they shouldn't be walking around in masks. 

The big push now for wearing masks has to do with the high potential of asymptomatic carriers, simple masks like cotton seem to help if you are a asymptomatic carrier, it reduces the chance of you spreading it. However it won't be that effective in preventing you from getting it (unless you have something like the N95 mask), but if everyone wears a masks that reduces the overall pool of potential airborne viruses that can be past along.

In the beginning when folks were being told don't bother with wearing masks that was because they were not that effective in preventing you from getting it (virus to small for most masks to block), but now we know a high percentage of folks can be asymptomatic it now makes sense because it helps reduce passing it on from asymptomatic carriers. Any infected droplets that get expelled while coughing will get absorbed by the mask material, thus reducing the chance of spread. 

Martin

4 minutes ago, w6kd said:

But...they should be.

Have you looked at the site lately, to me it looks like they have changed it.

Martin

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

34 minutes ago, w6kd said:

So Americans are now to be blamed for heeding the advice of the NIH?  Do remember that they were on-record with Dr Fauci himself in at least one mid-March video telling Americans that they shouldn't be walking around in masks. 

And even after their reversal on that position, I've still seen no data that supports the idea that amateur mask solutions do anything but help slow the spread down.  Not stop it...slow it down. 

Very very good points. No argument from me. Utter stupidity from the government back there. The advice given back then was rooted in logistics. Not health and safety and a view of getting through this. That surgeon general needs to be fired for that all caps tweet telling people to not wear masks. How many lives, points on the dow, increase in debt and damage to gdp did that bad advice cost? Anybody with half a brain realized even back then that we should all have masked up. I was flabergasted at their recommendation to not wear masks back then. I knew this was going to go very very bad for us. I knew it would hit us worse than any other country at that point. During the first week of february, I was already reading articles warning of asymptomatic transmission and that people may not show symptoms for two weeks. I did the math on that. The answer was masks for everyone.

Amateur masks are a lousy solution. Better than nothing, which is lousier, but at least they keep people from spitting out. If a better mask is available, people need to use those instead. They were just supposed to be a stop gap.

You ask the blunt question of whether americans are to be blamed for heeding the advice of the nih. The answer is no. The nih needs to be blamed for giving out very bad advice. People have to be held accountable for this. A lot of people have lost their lives or their livelihoods because of these failures. Holding people accountable is the least we can do. And going forward, americans need to stop resisting the masks. The government needs to mandate and provide them. If we don’t do that, this will drag on a lot longer than we can bear.

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by KevinAu

12 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

Have you looked at the site lately, to me it looks like they have chanced it

Yes...several times a day, usually.  This is the map that comes up on the home page:  Who would suspect, after looking at that sea of red over the US, that only about 0.4%--four out of every thousand people--had a confirmed case of COVID-19?

 

12 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

Very very good points. No argument from me. Utter stupidity from the government back there. The advice given back then was rooted in logistics. Not health and safety and a view of getting through this. That surgeon general needs to be fired for that all caps tweet telling people to not wear masks. How many lives, points on the dow, increase in debt and damage to gdp did that bad advice cost? Anybody with half a brain realized even back then that we should all have masked up. I was flabergasted at their recommendation to not wear masks back then. I knew this was going to go very very bad for us. I knew it would hit us worse than any other country at that point. During the first week of february, I was already reading articles warning of asymptomatic transmission and that people may not show symptoms for two weeks. I did the math on that. The answer was masks for everyone.

Amateur masks are a lousy solution. Better than nothing, which is lousier, but at least they keep people from spitting out. If a better mask is available, people need to use those instead. They were just supposed to be a stop gap.

As I've said before, I think that was to discourage people from rushing out and buying up tons of masks like they were doing with toilet paper. It seemed to me at the time that they were actually trying to save the masks for first responders.

Just now, HiFlyer said:

As I've said before, I think that was to discourage people from rushing out and buying up tons of masks like they were doing with toilet paper. It seemed to me at the time that they were actually trying to save the masks for first responders.

Yes. Logistics.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Exactly.  The media, scientists, and govt. officials know well how to manipulate data and present it to the public in a way that favors whatever agenda they are pursuing.  The great majority of the public are not well-versed in data interpretation, or critical thinking for that matter, so they are easily fooled.  That doesn't mean they are stupid, just not savvy in the varied techniques of propaganda.

This is fascinating. I remember a time when we trusted scientists and society progressed. Then again, I'm not surprised that we are now turning against infectious disease specialists - a few years back it was climate scientists and before that evolutionary biologists that had the evil plots about global warning and evolution.

I have a book on my shelf written a half-century ago by Richard Neustadt titled "Anti-intellecutalism in American Politics". There is a long-standing tradition of suspicion of education and complicated concepts in American society. This is just the latest incranation.

Cheers!

16 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

they were actually trying to save the masks for first responders.

Correct, and because cheap masks or home made masks would not stop the virus their recommendation was don't wear them because of the false sense of security it would give to some folks. Once it was well established there was a substantial number of asymptomatic cases, and even a cheap mask would help reduce the spread to others it then became a recommendation. If there would of been enough N95 masks in the early days for everyone to wear we most likely would not have the number of cases and fatalities we have now and the recommendation would of been for everyone to wear them. Unfortunately with this pandemic one had to go with what they had! 

And one last note before I fly my Learjet into the side of a mountain!

We are all responsible for our own health, do your homework and do not rely on others, you will be disappointed every time!

Martin

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

54 minutes ago, w6kd said:

that only about 0.4%--four out of every thousand people--had a confirmed case of COVID-19?

Most people who do data analysis when dealing with a US population of over 327 million people would state this as 40 cases per 100,000 people, both correct but like graphs can be misleading. 

Martin

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

4 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

Most people who do data analysis when dealing with a US population of over 327 million people would state this as 40 cases per 100,000 people, both correct but like graphs can be misleading.

Actually it's 400 per 100,000...but scaling it down to something the average person might be able to visualize can be helpful when trying to impart a sense of proportion.  Most people have probably been in or around a crowd of a thousand...but 100,000 people is abstract. 

Similarly, we shouldn't talk about a three-trillion dollar bailout bill...it is better represented as three million million dollars, or even better as ~$91,500 for every man, woman, and child in America.

1 minute ago, w6kd said:

Similarly, we shouldn't talk about a three-trillion dollar bailout bill...it is better represented as three million million dollars, or even better as ~$91,500 for every man, woman, and child in America.

I'm fine with that, as long as we use that logic and methodology for all government expenditures.

2 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Actually it's 400 per 100,000.

Yes, just did the math. In that case I would report it as 40 cases per 10,000.

Martin

Here's the thing. Maybe my mask is only 10% effective. Maybe it is really 57% effective. Maybe it is only 1% effective. Where I live, I will gladly go with that 1%. That's not fear or playing the odds. That's just trying to stay alive. Where I live has the highest infection rate in the county. And that's just known cases.