Jump to content



Are Trump's rallies spreading coronavirus? Why it's hard to know the full impact


webfact

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, sucit said:

"Bernheim said in an email the work relies on statistical methods to infer causation after an event has occurred." 

 

In other words, "we know nothing, but just decided we'd spew out some nonsense anyway". I wonder if their statistical method was about as good as the one from Fergueson who got us in this mess. 

 

Same as everyone else in the world nowadays, deciding upon your facts based on political affiliations. Again, this is what got us into this mess in the first place. 

Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow. Cholera was raging in London. The theory in those days was that it was due to bad air. Louis Pasteur had yet to discover bacteria. Snow, using statistical methods, figured out that a certain pump was the source. He successfully put a stop to that particular epidemic. And he did that without having a clue about bacteria. It turns out, though, that even though Snow was successful, it wasn't followed up on right away. Apparently there were lots of people who believed of him that he know nothing but decided to spew out a lot of nonsense anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Modern_era

It's clear you have as little appreciation of the importance of statistics in tracking and sourcing outbreaks of disease as those 19th folks did. But given that the existence of bacteria and viruses is common knowledge today,  you have a lot less of an excuse.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow. Cholera was raging in London. The theory in those days was that it was due to bad air. Louis Pasteur had yet to discover bacteria. Snow, using statistical methods, figured out that a certain pump was the source. He successfully put a stop to that particular epidemic. And he did that without having a clue about bacteria. It turns out, though, that even though Snow was successful, it wasn't followed up on right away. Apparently there were lots of people who believed of him that he know nothing but decided to spew out a lot of nonsense anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Modern_era

It's clear you have as little appreciation of the importance of statistics in tracking and sourcing outbreaks of disease as those 19th folks did. But given that the existence of bacteria and viruses is common knowledge today,  you have a lot less of an excuse.

Snow of course was a very intelligent, well thinking man.

Edited by stevenl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow. Cholera was raging in London. The theory in those days was that it was due to bad air. Louis Pasteur had yet to discover bacteria. Snow, using statistical methods, figured out that a certain pump was the source. He successfully put a stop to that particular epidemic. And he did that without having a clue about bacteria. It turns out, though, that even though Snow was successful, it wasn't followed up on right away. Apparently there were lots of people who believed of him that he know nothing but decided to spew out a lot of nonsense anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Modern_era

It's clear you have as little appreciation of the importance of statistics in tracking and sourcing outbreaks of disease as those 19th folks did. But given that the existence of bacteria and viruses is common knowledge today,  you have a lot less of an excuse.

 

"Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow."

 

Meh....that was just one letter away from a 'know nothing' comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkyy57iMaB0

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt you really believe this weak deflection. It's not either/or. Social distancing helps, Masks help. Following the rules helps. The rules, by the way, formulated by the Trump administration.

So essentially, you are calling me a liar. OK. But let's move beyond that in the hope you will decide personal attacks aren't an effective discussion or debate tactic.

 

Now, specifically, what did I post that qualifies as "a weak deflection"? And more importantly, why do you think that? Now, I'm happy to reword and enhance my position in the hopes we can have a substantive debate rather than engage in the personal attacks you have chosen thus far. If the virus does not spread in crowds packed together closely, does that suggest social distancing is needed or does it indicate social distancing is not needed? The only relevant difference between the Trump rallies and Antifa/BLM protests and riots is face masks appear to be worn more at Antifa/BLM protests and riots. So, it seems logical to me that masks are likely the key issue and social distancing is not.

 

As far as the rules formulated by the Trump administration, that doesn't matter to me. I think things through logically. It is for that reason I disagree with Trump on many substantive issues.

Edited by MajarTheLion
clarity
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It would make more sense if observation was employed. The BLM supporters seem to be mostly wearing masks. The Trump supporters mostly are not, following the example of their cured idol. Or is that in remission? It has not occurred to them they won't be getting the same world-class, taxpayer funded treatment he did if they get sick.

If you want to claim masks are ineffective, they seem to work just fine in many Asian countries. The numbers do tell the story.

Yes, I've addressed the issue of masks. Please see previous posts. I am happy to debate the issue with you. Just to stimulate some productive debate on the issue, let's take a look at what America's top expert on the issue, Anthony Fauci, said:

 

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

 

Fauci saying masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" hardly sounds like he thinks masks are very effective. Am I making a fair assessment of his words? If no, why?

 

Also, Dr. Fauci says people should wear goggles for COVID-19 protection.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/fauci-urges-americans-to-wear-goggles-for-added-covid-19-protection/

 

I'm curious. Are you wearing goggles?

  • Sad 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

And freedom to endanger others. Whether it's by not wearing masks or firing off guns whenever and wherever you please!!!

Most jurisdictions have laws about where and when guns can be fired. For the most part, people obey those laws. Of course, there are criminals who don't, and that's why they're criminals. In addition, there are about 20,000 gun laws. Again, the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. Bottom line: it appears to me your two statements don't really belong together, based on facts.

 

But how far off into the weeds (for lack of a better term) with the "freedom to endanger others" argument do we want to go? Every time you drive a car, you are endangering others. Every time you go to the store while ill with the flu, you endanger others.

 

Let's look at some COVID-19 statistics to put things in perspective. There have been 9.3 million known cases of COVID-19 in the US. 9,300,000 / 340,000,000 = 2.7%. It's more than safe to say these cases didn't happen all at once. So I will use 0.6% as the odds of any given person at any given time having the virus. I know of no way to calculate the actual risk of transmitting the virus, so we'll let that go. If you have a plan on that, I'm all "ears". So there's a 0.5% chance I have a virus with that has the survival rate described below:

 

items.[0].videoTitle

 

https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-19-fatality-rate-including-asymptomatic-cases

 

The math does not look very scary or risky to me. As we already know, there is an average of 2.6 co-morbidities among people who have died from the virus, with the vast majority of deaths being people 55 or over:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

 

https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/

 

All this is to say let's keep things in perspective. Rational thought is the way to navigate one's way through any difficulty in life. It's even more important to do as a country.

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Most jurisdictions have laws about where and when guns can be fired. For the most part, people obey those laws. Of course, there are criminals who don't, and that's why they're criminals. In addition, there are about 20,000 gun laws. Again, the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. Bottom line: it appears to me your two statements don't really belong together, based on facts.

 

But how far off into the weeds (for lack of a better term) with the "freedom to endanger others" argument do we want to go? Every time you drive a car, you are endangering others. Every time you go to the store while ill with the flu, you endanger others.

 

Let's look at some COVID-19 statistics to put things in perspective. There have been 9.3 million known cases of COVID-19 in the US. 9,300,000 / 340,000,000 = 2.7%. It's more than safe to say these cases didn't happen all at once. So I will use 0.6% as the odds of any given person at any given time having the virus. I know of no way to calculate the actual risk of transmitting the virus, so we'll let that go. If you have a plan on that, I'm all "ears". So there's a 0.5% chance I have a virus with that has the survival rate described below:

 

items.[0].videoTitle

 

https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-19-fatality-rate-including-asymptomatic-cases

 

The math does not look very scary or risky to me. As we already know, there is an average of 2.6 co-morbidities among people who have died from the virus, with the vast majority of deaths being people 55 or over:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

 

https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/

 

All this is to say let's keep things in perspective. Rational thought is the way to navigate one's way through any difficulty in life. It's even more important to do as a country.

What you don't note is that, as before, hospitalizations are surging upwards. Just as happened before when Florida, Texas, and Arizona decided to relax restrictions. So not only are Covid patients affected, but others who need the services of a hospital are as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yes, I've addressed the issue of masks. Please see previous posts. I am happy to debate the issue with you. Just to stimulate some productive debate on the issue, let's take a look at what America's top expert on the issue, Anthony Fauci, said:

 

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

 

Fauci saying masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" hardly sounds like he thinks masks are very effective. Am I making a fair assessment of his words? If no, why?

 

Also, Dr. Fauci says people should wear goggles for COVID-19 protection.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/fauci-urges-americans-to-wear-goggles-for-added-covid-19-protection/

 

I'm curious. Are you wearing goggles?

What you don't note about the mask question is that scientific consensus changed as research showed that masks are indeed effective.  That's how science works. So Fauci was simply channeling opinion at the time. Also, there was a big shortage of N95 masks that continues to this day (thanks Trump) and Fauci wanted to make sure front line health care professionals had access to what relatively few there were. Subsequent epidemiological research showed that cloth masks work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Most jurisdictions have laws about where and when guns can be fired. For the most part, people obey those laws. Of course, there are criminals who don't, and that's why they're criminals. In addition, there are about 20,000 gun laws. Again, the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. Bottom line: it appears to me your two statements don't really belong together, based on facts.

 

But how far off into the weeds (for lack of a better term) with the "freedom to endanger others" argument do we want to go? Every time you drive a car, you are endangering others. Every time you go to the store while ill with the flu, you endanger others.

Don't you see the contradiction in what you just wrote? Yes, there are laws restricting where people can fire guns. Isn't that a limitation on their freedom? And the case is even worse for autos. You actually have to have a license to drive one. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? And if you drive unsafely, you can lose that license or worse. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? As for the flu, particularly if it's a bad one, preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down. If that's the case, it should be made a rule to wear masks. That would also be a limitation on freedom.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't note about the mask question is that scientific consensus changed as research showed that masks are indeed effective.  That's how science works. So Fauci was simply channeling opinion at the time. Also, there was a big shortage of N95 masks that continues to this day (thanks Trump) and Fauci wanted to make sure front line health care professionals had access to what relatively few there were. Subsequent epidemiological research showed that cloth masks work.

 

Honestly, this seems very odd to me. There wasn't enough known about the efficacy of masks in early 2020, but there was enough research to change the opinion of Fauci, the country's top expert on infectious diseases, with many decades of experience, in a span of a few months? I'd love to read any links you have to support your claim.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't note is that, as before, hospitalizations are surging upwards. Just as happened before when Florida, Texas, and Arizona decided to relax restrictions. So not only are Covid patients affected, but others who need the services of a hospital are as well.

 

The topic is "Are Trump's rallies spreading coronavirus? Why it's hard to know the full impact." I'm sure that your reply is related to the topic. I just don't see how. Please help me understand so we can continue debating the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Honestly, this seems very odd to me. There wasn't enough known about the efficacy of masks in early 2020, but there was enough research to change the opinion of Fauci, the country's top expert on infectious diseases, with many decades of experience, in a span of a few months? I'd love to read any links you have to support your claim.

I'm really puzzled by what media you read that you don't know about this. So many articles relaying what scientists have found.  A simple search term "new research showing the effectiveness of masks": resulted in this link popping up as #1: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Don't you see the contradiction in what you just wrote? Yes, there are laws restricting where people can fire guns. Isn't that a limitation on their freedom? And the case is even worse for autos. You actually have to have a license to drive one. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? And if you drive unsafely, you can lose that license or worse. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? As for the flu, particularly if it's a bad one, preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down. If that's the case, it should be made a rule to wear masks. That would also be a limitation on freedom.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm

No, I don't see a contradiction. I am all for laws and policies that make sense. I don't see where I posted anything against wearing masks. That said, your statement that (emphasis added by me) "preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down" seems to be a very flaccid endorsement. I would argue that your assessment is not cause to make wearing a mask mandatory. Based on the statistical and demographic data I already posted, it seems obvious to me the solution is different suggestions for different groups with different risk factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

The topic is "Are Trump's rallies spreading coronavirus? Why it's hard to know the full impact." I'm sure that your reply is related to the topic. I just don't see how. Please help me understand so we can continue debating the topic.

There's evidence in the article I just linked to that addresses this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

No, I don't see a contradiction. I am all for laws and policies that make sense. I don't see where I posted anything against wearing masks. That said, your statement that (emphasis added by me) "preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down" seems to be a very flaccid endorsement. I would argue that your assessment is not cause to make wearing a mask mandatory. Based on the statistical and demographic data I already posted, it seems obvious to me the solution is different suggestions for different groups with different risk factors.

Again, look at that article. Since you have just pointed out that this is about Trump rallies, tell me what conditions are there at Trump's rallies that are different from other closely packed outdoors events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm really puzzled by what media you read that you don't know about this. So many articles relaying what scientists have found.  A simple search term "new research showing the effectiveness of masks": resulted in this link popping up as #1: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

 

From your link:

 

"In hospitals and other health-care facilities, the use of medical-grade masks clearly cuts down transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But for the variety of masks in use by the public, the data are messy, disparate and often hastily assembled."

 

That is in perfect alignment with my thoughts on masks. Masks have generally been used by professionals in a sterile or very clean environment, using masks with specific filtration abilities. So yes, there are going to be positive results that can be documented.

 

The general public is being told to put any piece of cloth over their face. They breathe in and out, grab the masks, get more bacteria on their hands then handle produce and other items with the hands they just touched to the dirty masks.

 

Here is another statement I found interesting (emphasis added by me):

 

"...and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease."

 

I find that to be a very wobbly statement. It certainly doesn't sound very scientific, as "hint" and "might" aren't remotely close to being scientific terms.

 

So I guess I should say I somewhat agree with the information in the link you provided in that there isn't definitive evidence to suggest forcing everyone to wear a mask is either effective or worth restricting people's breathing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Again, look at that article. Since you have just pointed out that this is about Trump rallies, tell me what conditions are there at Trump's rallies that are different from other closely packed outdoors events?

As previously stated, the primary difference between Trump rallies and BLM/Antifa protests and riots appears to be less masks are worn at Trump rallies. As such, that seems to suggest social distancing is unnecessary. We're told the virus doesn't spread from Antifa/BLM protests and riots. There is no social distancing at these events. Doesn't that at least suggest social distancing is not needed in order to keep the virus from spreading? Or perhaps could the studies showing the virus doesn't spread at these events be wrong? It seems to me you can't have it both ways.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

 

From your link:

 

"In hospitals and other health-care facilities, the use of medical-grade masks clearly cuts down transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But for the variety of masks in use by the public, the data are messy, disparate and often hastily assembled."

 

That is in perfect alignment with my thoughts on masks. Masks have generally been used by professionals in a sterile or very clean environment, using masks with specific filtration abilities. So yes, there are going to be positive results that can be documented.

 

The general public is being told to put any piece of cloth over their face. They breathe in and out, grab the masks, get more bacteria on their hands then handle produce and other items with the hands they just touched to the dirty masks.

 

Here is another statement I found interesting (emphasis added by me):

 

"...and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease."

 

I find that to be a very wobbly statement. It certainly doesn't sound very scientific, as "hint" and "might" aren't remotely close to being scientific terms.

 

So I guess I should say I somewhat agree with the information in the link you provided in that there isn't definitive evidence to suggest forcing everyone to wear a mask is either effective or worth restricting people's breathing.

 

 

Cherry picking much?

I guess, to your way of thinking, it's better to be sorry than safe.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yes, I've addressed the issue of masks. Please see previous posts. I am happy to debate the issue with you. Just to stimulate some productive debate on the issue, let's take a look at what America's top expert on the issue, Anthony Fauci, said:

 

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

 

Fauci saying masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" hardly sounds like he thinks masks are very effective. Am I making a fair assessment of his words? If no, why?

 

Also, Dr. Fauci says people should wear goggles for COVID-19 protection.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/fauci-urges-americans-to-wear-goggles-for-added-covid-19-protection/

 

I'm curious. Are you wearing goggles?

Your quote is from very early in the pandemic, Fauci now endorses the wearing of masks.

 

Trump has mocked Biden for wearing a mask. That's a matter of record. Then he got world-class treatment for the coronavirus he caught, at taxpayer expense. Attendees at his rallies won't be that fortunate, under his non-existent health plan they'll be lucky to get paracetamol.

I wear goggles when I am swimming. I don't wear blinkers.

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" ( John Maynard Keynes )

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2020 at 7:26 PM, JensenZ said:

This time he'll win the electoral AND the popular vote... and the House AND the Senate.... Can't wait to see the Democrats crying about that.

So sorry you won't be feeling that bout of schadenfreude you were so looking forward to. Maybe next time you should stick to predictions without the nastiness.

Edited by placeholder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.