Grocery shopping yesterday, people are stupid

[AK_Stick]

Nothing like arguing against science, logic, common sense, statistics and multiple other nations results armed only with a junior high science understanding and emotion as your weapons. 

[UnifiedFieldTheory]

6 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I'm not upset, not even a little bit.  I think it's a shame that so many people have died, but it is what it is.  Covid is here for the duration.  I'm not pretending it isn't happening, I'm just looking at the probability that I'll get it at some point (very high) and the probability that I will have significant problems as a result (very low) and taking concrete steps to reduce the likelihood that Covid becomes a problem for me.

Since February I've dropped from 189 pounds to 172, while putting on about 5 pounds of muscle.  I've improved my cardiovascular health to the point where I hit 100% of my theoretical max heart rate (163) without breaking a sweat during my stress test last week.  My mild high blood pressure is now running in the one hundred and teens over the 70-80s.  A1C is better and cholesterol is down to 173 from 300+.  Not bad for 57.

So, by taking steps that I knew would have a positive impact on my ability to survive Covid, I significantly reduced my risk profile.  I guarantee that improved my likelihood of surviving this thing more than social distancing and a mask would.   

Most people are to lazy to do all that, so they put on masks or cower in their homes, or both.

You know this disease is outright knocking off fit and healthy people - the ones that it doesn't imbue with long term lung, heart, kidney, and vascular issues...right?  No one knows why.

Read that again:  No one knows why.

Yes, being fit should make your chances better.  However, it appears that it doesn't really matter and no one knows why. 

You really want to take that risk?  

[UnifiedFieldTheory]

7 hours ago, SarahMcGlocklan said:

I understand the truth is so upsetting you need to pretend it’s not happening.  
 

oh and don’t look at Florida and Arizona’s numbers or how death is a lagging indicator.  

Yes, the specious "Wull, if the case rates are up but people aren't dying, how do you explain that?" argument...

Here's the thing - you don't test + for The Rona then just suddenly drop dead upon reading the word "positive".  

If you're going to die from it, it is often a very protracted, incredibly drawn-out, miserable manner of dying.  

Folks, check in again after a month and see where those lagging* indicators are going.

*death rates are going up slowly but surely.  Yes, we're getting better at treating it, but not good enough to explain the sudden abandon that so many are engaging in because they're tired of lockdown and have decided everything's grand.

[SigMan]

22 minutes ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Then wear one. You should probably social distance too if that makes you ‘feel’ safer.

I do when I consider it appropriate just like I’m sure that you will do whatever you please. Just don’t pretend that masks and social distancing are ineffective. The science and research exists if you care enough to find it and can understand it. 

[Wyzz Kydd]

Please point me to this research on masks and social distancing relative to Covid. This research has been done in the last five months?

5 hours ago, SigMan said:

I do when I consider it appropriate just like I’m sure that you will do whatever you please. Just don’t pretend that masks and social distancing are ineffective. The science and research exists if you care enough to find it and can understand it. 

 

[NPTim]

6 hours ago, SigMan said:

I do when I consider it appropriate just like I’m sure that you will do whatever you please. Just don’t pretend that masks and social distancing are ineffective. The science and research exists if you care enough to find it and can understand it. 

I’ll just leave this here.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR2y19-wv4JpVuUeIqCAjWFVyUfbbn0RrglffqI9muVnRlaA7olZrqi_b28

[SigMan]

4 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Please point me to this research on masks and social distancing relative to Covid. This research has been done in the last five months?

 

You need research on social distancing specific to Covid from the last five months? Do you really need a study to tell you that staying away from people who may be infected reduces your risk of getting infected? Feel free to do all the research you want, but I'm not doing it for you when you've made clear that you aren't interested in a good faith discussion.

[SigMan]

4 hours ago, NPTim said:

I’ll just leave this here.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR2y19-wv4JpVuUeIqCAjWFVyUfbbn0RrglffqI9muVnRlaA7olZrqi_b28

Why? Do you think masks are ineffective at reducing the spread of Covid?

This article isn't a meaningful study. It's effectively an editorial with no specific analysis of how masks do or don't work. On the other hand, there are a lot of articles showing how different masks reduce aerosol droplet exposure. E.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850220301063?via%3Dihub; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002618.

The very same authors of the study you cited later wrote a letter to the NEJM clarifying that "some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836. So maybe that editorial isn't the best evidence that masks don't work given that its authors don't agree.  

[SarahMcGlocklan]

21 minutes ago, SigMan said:

You need research on social distancing specific to Covid from the last five months? Do you really need a study to tell you that staying away from people who may be infected reduces your risk of getting infected? Feel free to do all the research you want, but I'm not doing it for you when you've made clear that you aren't interested in a good faith discussion.

To be fair humanity has only been successfully using this technique since the beginning of recorded history.  That we know of.  

[Wyzz Kydd]

36 minutes ago, SigMan said:

You need research on social distancing specific to Covid from the last five months? Do you really need a study to tell you that staying away from people who may be infected reduces your risk of getting infected? Feel free to do all the research you want, but I'm not doing it for you when you've made clear that you aren't interested in a good faith discussion.

I'm willing to except the proposition that distancing yourself from others reduces your risk of infection.  Taking that at face value seems reasonable.  I'm not willing to except the arbitrary 6 foot rule.  That got pulled out of someone's a**.  There's no scientific basis for it at all.  I suspect (but don't know) that six feet does pretty much zero good, given how far airborne water droplets can travel.  I think it's a bogus number that sheeple accept and abide by because they're not particularly bright and accept what the 'experts' tell them without critical examination and also without regard for the fact that those same experts have lied to us in the past. (see Fauci and his original mask recommendation then follow up explanation for why he misled the public).

Here's what the FDA says about 'surgical masks', not the homemade ones:

"If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain germs (viruses and bacteria), keeping it from reaching your mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of your saliva and respiratory secretions to others.

While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the mask and your face."

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks

Anybody see any statement in there to the effect that surgical masks actually DO protect you as opposed to MAY protect you?  Keep in mind, this is what is being said about commercially produced surgical masks.  They MAY protect you.  Now imagine just how effective that mask you made out of a sock is. 

Here's something else the FDA says about surgical masks:  "Surgical masks are not intended to be used more than once."

Here's what the CDC says about masks: " The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend that the general public wear N95 respirators to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including coronavirus (COVID-19). Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for health care workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance."

So, they believe these masks provide protection, but recommend you not wear one.  Why, because your life isn't as important to them as the lives of health care workers. To be fair, at least they're being honest about it now.  Back in February they were flat out lying.

But please, keep taking the advice of people who don't have your best interests in mind while making sly little remarks impugning the intelligence of those who choose not to take advice from people who have both lied to us in the path, and who admittedly don't have our best interests in mind. 

I want to drive that point home just a bit farther.  You're taking advice from people who have straight up admitted that they're willing to see you potentially exposed to the virus in order to reserve critical supplies for people they prefer to you.  Not only that, when this started they straight up lied to you in order to achieve that purpose, and you still trust them and take their advice.  

Who has an intelligence, or gullibility problem here?  Not me.

[Swampfox762]

Well.....

On the Original topic here, "grocery shopping yesterday, people are stupid"....Sure ain't no doubt about THAT!!!

So, on that note I just said Screw it, and used "Insta Cart app"!  Ordered a bunch of stuff from BJ's, all using the App.  You can even track the shopper and know when they are coming to your house. Within about an hour this nice lady comes to the house and drops off All of our stuff!!!  (Already paid for with Credit card on the app, so she just goes on her way)   Really pretty slick.  Let most of it sit there for a couple hrs in the Garage, then wiped off packages with sanitizer and packed the stuff away!!  Everybody needs to get out once in awhile just to GET OUT!!!!!!  BUT....I'll definitely be using Insta Cart again, especially when I need "Big Box Store" stuff.  I really hate goin to Big Box Stores....

Any of you Guys and Girls Used Insta Cart?  I sure Like how it works!!!

[Wyzz Kydd]

One final point.  Here are some numbers from the CDC.  To date there have been 3,296,599 diagnosed cases of COVID in the US.  As of the same date there have been 134,884 deaths (which sucks).  The CDC says that there are likely 10 cases for every diagnosed case, so that means that to date approximately 32,965,990 have contracted COVID.  The CDC also says that approximately 8 out of 10 deaths were individuals over 65 years old.  So if you're under 65, the probability of you dying from Covid is 26,977 (20% of 134,884) divided by 32,965,990, or .08%.  put another way, out of every 1,000 people under 65 who contract COVID, 8/10 of a person will die. Less than one. 

Damn, I'm not sure I'm willing to risk a less than one in a thousand chance of death if I don't wear a mask or go out in public. 

These are numbers from the federal agencies many on this thread trust so much. 

[SigMan]

16 minutes ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

But please, keep taking the advice of people who don't have your best interests in mind while making sly little remarks impugning the intelligence of those who choose not to take advice from people who have both lied to us in the path, and who admittedly don't have our best interests in mind. 

I want to drive that point home just a bit farther.  You're taking advice from people who have straight up admitted that they're willing to see you potentially exposed to the virus in order to reserve critical supplies for people they prefer to you.  Not only that, when this started they straight up lied to you in order to achieve that purpose, and you still trust them and take their advice.  

Who has an intelligence, or gullibility problem here?  Not me.

Where have I said what advice I’m taking or not?  Why do you think I’m walking around wearing masks made of socks?  Really, the only thing I’ve said is that:

1. Social distancing reduces transmission; and

2. The use of masks reduces transmission. 
 

There is reasonable debate about specifics, e.g., what is the right distance and when does it make sense to use masks, but nothing I’ve said should be remotely controversial. 

[Walt Longmire]

You wear the mask to lessen the chance of infecting others. How hard is it for some people to grasp that concept?

[NPTim]

1 hour ago, SigMan said:

Why? Do you think masks are ineffective at reducing the spread of Covid?

This article isn't a meaningful study. It's effectively an editorial with no specific analysis of how masks do or don't work. On the other hand, there are a lot of articles showing how different masks reduce aerosol droplet exposure. E.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850220301063?via%3Dihub; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002618.

The very same authors of the study you cited later wrote a letter to the NEJM clarifying that "some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836. So maybe that editorial isn't the best evidence that masks don't work given that its authors don't agree.  

Draw your own conclusions.

[SigMan]

4 minutes ago, NPTim said:

Draw your own conclusions.

I have, and you felt the need to interject. I was trying to understand what point you were trying to make. 

[Wyzz Kydd]

23 minutes ago, Walt Longmire said:

You wear the mask to lessen the chance of infecting others. How hard is it for some people to grasp that concept?

I'm going to make a change to that statement.   You wear the mask because you HOPE it lessens the chance of infecting others. 

 

The concept of why people are wearing them is easy to understand.  Proof that masks actually achieve that objective is lacking.  Why is that so hard to grasp?  Particularly since even the FDA doesn't claim that surgical masks are effective.  

This is directly from the FDA website

"While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes."

During the middle ages people wore those weird looking long nosed masks with crap stuffed in the beak because they "believed" those masks provided protection.  Turned out they were wrong. 

[Rizzo]

13 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Lol. Thanks for making my point. The efficacy of masks to stop Covid can’t be established. So we’re being told to wear them based on the hypothesis that they will help slow the spread. There’s no evidence of that, in fact there’s more evidence that HCG will help but say that and the media will laugh at you.

You never had a point. That’s the funny thing. Thread title is dead on the money...?
 

A double-blind study, by definition, is one in which neither the participants nor the experimenters know who is receiving a particular treatment/test/drug being tested. 

I can’t imagine anyone being brain-dead enough to not realize they’re wearing a mask, but then I read your posts, and suddenly anything is possible.

Sigman nailed it: you were either being intentionally disingenuous- as seems to be your style- or you were just pretending to know what you’re talking about, so you threw that term in there because you thought it sounded “science-y”.

Which is it?

[UnifiedFieldTheory]

1 hour ago, Walt Longmire said:

You wear the mask to lessen the chance of infecting others. How hard is it for some people to grasp that concept?

The issue is that we told people that wearing masks helps protect other people (and by extension, ultimately you personally, but that's a logic leap a lot of people are too ******* stupid to follow).  

If we'd said "Masks will protect you" from the outset...well, then, people would be more likely to wear them because it seems more and more Americans are just a damned selfish bunch.

Here's a graphic for the unutterably stupid, complete with helpful pictures and colors.  Maybe this will assist (probably not, we're dealing with a bunch of toddlers who never got out of the AIN'T NO ONE GOAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO phase of their development).

[Wyzz Kydd]

24 minutes ago, Rizzo said:

You never had a point. That’s the funny thing. Thread title is dead on the money...?
 

A double-blind study, by definition, is one in which neither the participants nor the experimenters know who is receiving a particular treatment/test/drug being tested. 

I can’t imagine anyone being brain-dead enough to not realize they’re wearing a mask, but then I read your posts, and suddenly anything is possible.

Sigman nailed it: you were either being intentionally disingenuous- as seems to be your style- or you were just pretending to know what you’re talking about, so you threw that term in there because you thought it sounded “science-y”.

Which is it?

So this is sort of like the "have you stopped beating your wife question?"  It's not a binary situation.  The answer is I was making the point (which was made for me by SigMan) that the claims being made and directives given by the CDC and the WHO, are not verifiable (as in cannot be proved scientifically and have not been proved or tested) and not based on anything scientific.  The government itself admits that the efficacy of surgical masks against ANY contaminant is uncertain.  Unlike you, I'm providing numbers and quotes, with links to back them up.  Rather than refute that, you engage in personal attacks.  Cool with me.  

Undisputed fact 1.

The FDA's own guidance for surgical masks does not claim that they are effective, and in fact specifically states that they do not stop or block very small particles in the air. They should also only be used once.

Undisputed fact 2.

Dr. Fauci advised against face masks when this whole thing started and subsequently admitted he did so, not because he didn't think they would help, but because he didn't want people buying them when medical personnel needed them.  He lied intentionally.

Undisputed fact 3.

There is zero scientific support for social distancing of six feet, or for that matter any specific number of feet.  Zero! 

Undisputed fact 4.

Based on the CDC's own numbers the probability of someone under 65 dying from COVID is less than one in a thousand. 

 

For perspective, the odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash are 1 in 114.  Odds of dying from COVID (assuming you even contract it) .8 in 1,000.

https://www.nsc.org/work-safety/tools-resources/injury-facts/chart

Better sell your motor vehicles, the odds of one of those things killing you is almost 9 times greater than the odds of COVID killing you.

[Wyzz Kydd]

9 minutes ago, UnifiedFieldTheory said:

The issue is that we told people that wearing masks helps protect other people (and by extension, ultimately you personally, but that's a logic leap a lot of people are too ****ing stupid to follow).  

If we'd said "Masks will protect you" from the outset...well, then, people would be more likely to wear them because it seems more and more Americans are just a damned selfish bunch.

Here's a graphic for the unutterably stupid, complete with helpful pictures and colors.  Maybe this will assist (probably not, we're dealing with a bunch of toddlers who never got out of the AIN'T NO ONE GOAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO phase of their development).

It seems the CDC doesn't agree with you or with those numbers.

“CDC can’t confirm the accuracy of the numbers reflected in this image. Currently we are not finding any data that can quantify risk reduction from the use of masks”, a CDC spokesperson told Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-coronavirus-mask-efficacy/partly-false-claim-wear-a-face-mask-covid-19-risk-reduced-by-up-to-98-5-idUSKCN2252T6

I love crow and irony.  Here we have Mr. Unified Field Theory going on about how stupid people are then he provides a graphic that Reuters ruled was 'partly false' and that the CDC specifically said they 'can't confirm the accuracy of the numbers in the graphic.'

 

I'm sorry, just exactly who was stupid again?

Edited July 14, 2020 by Wyzz Kydd

[UnifiedFieldTheory]

56 minutes ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I'm going to make a change to that statement.   You wear the mask because you HOPE it lessens the chance of infecting others. 

The concept of why people are wearing them is easy to understand.  Proof that masks actually achieve that objective is lacking.  Why is that so hard to grasp?  Particularly since even the FDA doesn't claim that surgical masks are effective.  
This is directly from the FDA website

"While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes."

During the middle ages people wore those weird looking long nosed masks with crap stuffed in the beak because they "believed" those masks provided protection.  Turned out they were wrong. 

Oh, for ****'s sake - let me posit this assumption to you:

If there was a drug that was cheap and readily available in multiple forms with no side effects that would give you an even 25% better chance of not catching The Rona, would you take that drug?

Yes, of course you would, you'd be clearing the ******* shelves of said drug and stockpiling it in your pantry against future outbreaks (with the notion that this one ever ends).

Ohai, welcome to a mask - available in multiple forms, multiple versions, multiple weights, at a price point that damn near anyone can afford.  Hell, many places give them away free.  They do not impede your oxygen flow and/or hold in carbon dioxide while simultaneously allowing the virus to pass - based on the relative sizes of virus particles versus oxygen and CO2 molecule sizes, I will blow that argument right the **** out of the water so don't even start.

The only reason you don't want to wear a mask is your oversized sense of outrage that some gubbmint person is telling you that you have to - and since you don't want to admit the reason you don't wear a mask boils down to YOU DON'T WANT TO...you come up with spurious research and out-and-out bullshit to bolster your claim that masks don't work, or they're unhealthy for you, or they're some huge government conspiracy to take away your rights or your guns or you privacy or your balls or whatever.

Just admit it.  You don't want to be told what to do even if it helps other people, even if it can help you, because your ego won't permit it.  

[Wyzz Kydd]

??

[UnifiedFieldTheory]

3 minutes ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

It seems the CDC doesn't agree with you or with those numbers.

“CDC can’t confirm the accuracy of the numbers reflected in this image. Currently we are not finding any data that can quantify risk reduction from the use of masks”, a CDC spokesperson told Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-coronavirus-mask-efficacy/partly-false-claim-wear-a-face-mask-covid-19-risk-reduced-by-up-to-98-5-idUSKCN2252T6

 

 

Cool - you don't agree with the percentages and you dug up an article that bolsters your argument.  Remove the percentages and the risk ratios will be reasonably the same, even without the numbers you're taking exception to.

Actually, you know what?  Don't wear a mask.  Don't social distance.  Don't do anything to keep you from catching The Rona.  If it was just your ass on the line or winding up in the hospital (ask tadbart how his experience went), I wouldn't give a rat's ass.  Unfortunately, it's honyaks like you happy-assholeing around who are spreading this **** like wildfire.  Thanks a lot.

[Wyzz Kydd]

1 minute ago, UnifiedFieldTheory said:

Cool - you don't agree with the percentages and you dug up an article that bolsters your argument.  Remove the percentages and the risk ratios will be reasonably the same, even without the numbers you're taking exception to.

Actually, you know what?  Don't wear a mask.  Don't social distance.  Don't do anything to keep you from catching The Rona.  If it was just your ass on the line or winding up in the hospital (ask tadbart how his experience went), I wouldn't give a rat's ass.  Unfortunately, it's honyaks like you happy-*******ing around who are spreading this **** like wildfire.  Thanks a lot.

You're welcome! 

BTW, it's a direct quote from the CDC, not just an article.   They specifically said they can not find ANY data to quantify risk reduction from masks, NONE!

Of course you'll continue to ignore that and instead call me names and blame me for spreading the disease, that's cool with me too.  

So to deal with a less than one in a thousand chance of death you take advice from people who have lied to you and openly state they have no data to support what they want you to do. 

They just hope it will help.

Yet you call me stupid. I don't know whether you're stupid or not, but I'm pretty sure you're gullible.   I have a great deal on a time share if you're interested.