59 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

They're not claims. They are facts. Stop being lazy and take up my challenge.

You are challenging other people to do the research and find the sources that support your "facts". 

 

No.  Do your own d*mned research!  And if you won't support what you claim are facts, don't expect people to believe them.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You are challenging other people to do the research and find the sources that support your "facts". 

 

No.  Do your own d*mned research!  And if you won't support what you claim are facts, don't expect people to believe them.

A total reversal of what I said, which was to do their own research (my own is based on months of trawling a huge number of resources and condensing my findings into easily digestible factbites) and challenge me with any which disputes the conclusions I have reached.

 

Kao jai?

Edited July 7, 20206 yr by Krataiboy

Obviously it's airborne. That's why such a virus was released. Otherwise how are you going to tell people, stay home blah blah and bring the global economy to it's knees. 

21 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

A total reversal of what I said, which was to do their own research (my own is based on months of trawling a huge number of resources and condensing my findings into easily digestible factbites) and challenge me with any which disputes the conclusions I have reached.

 

Kao jai?

You'll find that the mods disagree with you on this one for obvious reasons. Not that i'm going to do anything about it.

10 minutes ago, A1Str8 said:

Obviously it's airborne. That's why such a virus was released. Otherwise how are you going to tell people, stay home blah blah and bring the global economy to it's knees. 

Airborne in this context doesn't mean what you think it means. Which is entirely understandable. Larger droplets of liquid expelled from the lungs are not considered to be airborne. They're more like projectiles that will soon fall to the ground if they don't hit anything on the way down. Very small particles though, can be sustained for a long time in the air. It's the significance of these that are in question.

Edited July 7, 20206 yr by johnpetersen

47 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

A total reversal of what I said, which was to do their own research (my own is based on months of trawling a huge number of resources and condensing my findings into easily digestible factbites) and challenge me with any which disputes the conclusions I have reached.

 

Kao jai?

Except your facts are wrong. Go research it to prove i am right.

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Except your facts are wrong. Go research it to prove i am right.

Yes, you would think after spending months of trawling a huge number of websites, Krataiboy would be inclined to share just a few of his resources with us. Does seem strange. Not that we would ever doubt that he or she has in fact spent months trawling a huge number of websites.

Edited July 7, 20206 yr by johnpetersen

Have we had any definitive studies that prove paper masks offer any significant protection?

 

All I see are a few graphs/diagrams which explain what we knew already.

 

It's probable they are of modest benefit imo- perhaps more so indoors.  Every little bit helps I guess.

 

(One anomaly in my eyes: it's scientifically accepted that paper masks are not much good at protecting against pm10 in air pollution, so why would they be any good with tiny viral particles?  Perhaps pm10 is smaller- I don't know....)

You know the worst thing so far about this virus?

 

Faux-experts in a p1ss1ing contest about what they've found on the internets providence.

23 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Believe what you like.

 

I'm certainly not going to mollycoddle you by citing the numerous sources of the information I posted. Do your own research and I'm happy to debate facts you come up with which dispute mine.

That is against netiquette, common decency and TVF rules. Make claims, back them up. Making claims without showing any proof and telling others to refute the claims with valid links is simply not done.

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Have we had any definitive studies that prove paper masks offer any significant protection?

 

All I see are a few graphs/diagrams which explain what we knew already.

 

It's probable they are of modest benefit imo- perhaps more so indoors.  Every little bit helps I guess.

 

(One anomaly in my eyes: it's scientifically accepted that paper masks are not much good at protecting against pm10 in air pollution, so why would they be any good with tiny viral particles?  Perhaps pm10 is smaller- I don't know....)

There have been several epidemiological studies and the consensus is yes. I think one of the problems with the way people think about masks is that they defend the mask wearer from breathing in virus bearing droplets. But what's more important is that they impede the passage of such droplets from the mask wearer.

https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-visualization-droplets-covid-19.html

On 7/6/2020 at 5:23 AM, Crazy Alex said:

And the *experts* continue to make it up as they go.

Real experts and properly-trained scientists always revise their findings and recommendations as new evidence appears. It's called the scientific method and holds that nothing is ever proven 100%, it's always just the best working hypothesis based on the available evidence (and therefore subject to change if the evidence changes).

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Real experts and properly-trained scientists always revise their findings and recommendations as new evidence appears. It's called the scientific method and holds that nothing is ever proven 100%, it's always just the best working hypothesis based on the available evidence (and therefore subject to change if the evidence changes).

Yes and that new evidence are cases of infections that are not caused by droplets. But airborne has to be quantified: just passing by  an infected person indoors would not have enough virus in that exposure to result in an infection. But if you were in a crowded, poorly ventilated indoor setting having a conversation with an infected person for about 15 minutes the virus could be transmitted. Or a 5 minute conversation with 3 infected persons. Droplets are the primary cause of infections, but crowded indoor settings can have airborne transmissions.

6 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Real experts and properly-trained scientists always revise their findings and recommendations as new evidence appears. It's called the scientific method and holds that nothing is ever proven 100%, it's always just the best working hypothesis based on the available evidence (and therefore subject to change if the evidence changes).

 

4 hours ago, morrobay said:

Yes and that new evidence are cases of infections that are not caused by droplets. But airborne has to be quantified: just passing by  an infected person indoors would not have enough virus in that exposure to result in an infection. But if you were in a crowded, poorly ventilated indoor setting having a conversation with an infected person for about 15 minutes the virus could be transmitted. Or a 5 minute conversation with 3 infected persons. Droplets are the primary cause of infections, but crowded indoor settings can have airborne transmissions.

To put it in simple terms:  Research on means of transmission, and means of avoiding transmission, continues.  That's a good thing.

 

The new research does not change the fact that wearing face masks, especially in crowds or indoor public areas, reduces the transmission rate of the virus. 

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/880832213/yes-wearing-masks-helps-heres-whyhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/16/fact-check-cloth-masks-help-protect-others-contracting-covid-19/5333264002/

On 7/6/2020 at 3:17 AM, Bender Rodriguez said:

for one, pictures of virus are FAKE ... electron microscope is BLACK & WHITE only... this is an "artist" render of a virus

As yet an actual image of the virus itself doesn't exist, all the images of the virus are computer generated. We have a  cgi virus, that is supposed to be acting according to a computer generated simulation, already retracted by J H University as being wildly inaccurate predicting hugely over exaggerated scenarios which was the basis of the lockdowns. This is what the predictions were for Sweden in a 'do nothing', and 'moderate' action scenario, in red is the 'actual'

On 7/6/2020 at 8:54 PM, pineapple01 said:

WHO is like Tourist thing of Thailand. Rather large but no one listens anymore to the bs.

Yeah we should all listen to Dr. Trump

3 hours ago, 7fish said:

As yet an actual image of the virus itself doesn't exist, all the images of the virus are computer generated. We have a  cgi virus, that is supposed to be acting according to a computer generated simulation, already retracted by J H University as being wildly inaccurate predicting hugely over exaggerated scenarios which was the basis of the lockdowns. This is what the predictions were for Sweden in a 'do nothing', and 'moderate' action scenario, in red is the 'actual'

Transmission electron microscopic image of an isolate from the first U.S. case of COVID-19, formerly ... [+]

 CDC/ C.S. GOLDSMITH AND A. TAMIN

https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2020/04/18/what-does-coronavirus-look-like-cdc-releases-images-from-first-american-covid-19-patient/#620f88a43577

 

topic continues here:

 

WHO acknowledges 'evidence emerging' of airborne spread of COVID-19

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1171707-who-acknowledges-evidence-emerging-of-airborne-spread-of-covid-19/

 

//CLOSED//

/Admin