(12-11-2020, 08:58 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2020, 12:29 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The UK's allergy advice is not significantly different from the advice about every other vaccine, people with known allergies have to be careful. Australia's failed vaccine used an HIV protein which in turn caused a few people to generate HIV antibodies, no one got HIV from the vaccine. Less than 5% of test subjects had a reaction of any severity to the Pfizer vaccine, and the difference was 1/10th of 1% between those who received the vaccine and those who received the placebo. The side effects of inflammation, headache, chills, fever, etc are, again, not significantly different than any other vaccine. In short, the side effects are in fact minimal and not unexpected. Get the shot or don't, but at least argue facts and not fear-mongering.
It is certainly different and a departure from 2 days before, unless they just didn't bother to tell anyone. Why did they feel the need to tell people if it's standard and these people should already know to not take it?
6 people died in the Pfizer testing, 4 without and 2 with the vaccine. Yes people die, but generally it takes a long time to analyze the data and confirm that nothing caused the death. Having 1 person die is bad, no clue how they got approval with multiple deaths.
Maybe the vaccine will be great and maybe it will be bad but I won't be a test subject. We don't know how they got to +90% effectiveness, they were struggling to get to 50% previously.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Why do we tell people not to use a toaster oven in the shower? Because of liability. And would you really have wanted them to cover it up? How would you feel when that leaked out? Transparency in this process is essential to public trust.
The 90% effectiveness number was the very first result from any of the late stage trials, so I'm not sure how you conclude that they could only get to 50% before. The 50% number is the efficacy rate required by the FDA for them to consider and EUA. For consideration, the annual flu shot barely reaches 60% efficacy most years, so anything at that level would be a successful vaccine. 90% is closer to the Measles vaccine that is >97% effective, so having such a high success rate isn't uncommon either. And the results were blinded as with all late stage clinical trials, so the evaluation was independent of the participants in the trial.
The two who died did so from an MCI and Arteriosclerosis, and they passed at different phases of the protocol, and neither was determined to be vaccine related by the FDA. You should be happy with this since the other 4 who died were injected with salt water as a placebo and they died of similar circumstances meaning no causation or correlation to the vaccine.
(12-11-2020, 09:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2020, 08:39 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]The new definition of "social irresponsibility".
I could use a good laugh, why don't you explain the "science" supporting your mask theory?
Are you really unable to understand the relationship between the party and the shutdown?
The science is pretty clear, the use of masks without 1. correct and continual use, and 2. adherence to the entire spectrum of PPE protocols leads to little to no reduction in transmission of viral contagions. In fact, the use of ineffective cloth face masks actually creates a false sense of security that relaxes the use of the truly effective protocols. So every time Suzy Sunshine touches her mask, pulls down her mask, wears her mask under her nose or chin, reuses her mask without washing it, stands within 6 feet of another person, or fails to wash her hands properly she almost certainly eliminates any benefit received from wearing a non-standardized, ill-fitting, Chinese-manufactured, insufficiently layered, piece of cotton on her face.
But hey, you don't have to take my word for it, this guy sourced like 50 different studies in his review:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect...sound-data
Putting aside that this is one of the worst written, confused articles ever, the author still support the wearing of masks, but conclude that the best safety measures are social distancing and reducing time in enclosed spaces. Also conclude that masks do work, but they need to be N95 ones.
(12-11-2020, 03:40 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2020, 09:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The science is pretty clear, the use of masks without 1. correct and continual use, and 2. adherence to the entire spectrum of PPE protocols leads to little to no reduction in transmission of viral contagions. In fact, the use of ineffective cloth face masks actually creates a false sense of security that relaxes the use of the truly effective protocols. So every time Suzy Sunshine touches her mask, pulls down her mask, wears her mask under her nose or chin, reuses her mask without washing it, stands within 6 feet of another person, or fails to wash her hands properly she almost certainly eliminates any benefit received from wearing a non-standardized, ill-fitting, Chinese-manufactured, insufficiently layered, piece of cotton on her face.
But hey, you don't have to take my word for it, this guy sourced like 50 different studies in his review:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect...sound-data
Putting aside that this is one of the worst written, confused articles ever, the author still support the wearing of masks, but conclude that the best safety measures are social distancing and reducing time in enclosed spaces. Also conclude that masks do work, but they need to be N95 ones.
Just because you're confused doesn't make the material confusing.
(12-11-2020, 08:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2020, 03:40 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]Putting aside that this is one of the worst written, confused articles ever, the author still support the wearing of masks, but conclude that the best safety measures are social distancing and reducing time in enclosed spaces. Also conclude that masks do work, but they need to be N95 ones.
Just because you're confused doesn't make the material confusing.
It's a terrible analysis. Full of contradictions. You can use it to support the notion that masks don't work, just as easily as it supports the notion that masks work.
Prove me otherwise.
Trump vaccine ready to ship.
(12-11-2020, 11:31 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Trump vaccine ready to ship.
I suspect you’ll in first in line for the vaccine as it is endorsed by your beloved President.
(12-11-2020, 11:48 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2020, 11:47 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect you’ll in first in line for the vaccine as it is endorsed by your beloved President.
No.
Poor Trump, first his Supreme Court abandon him, now Stoudcrowd does. I think this is officially the end of The Don.
(12-11-2020, 10:32 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2020, 08:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Just because you're confused doesn't make the material confusing.
It's a terrible analysis. Full of contradictions. You can use it to support the notion that masks don't work, just as easily as it supports the notion that masks work.
Prove me otherwise.
The whole point was that the "science" supporting masking in incomplete and often contradictory; it could in fact be a net negative. JIB said they don't work, the science doesn't prove him wrong.
(12-12-2020, 10:35 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2020, 10:32 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]It's a terrible analysis. Full of contradictions. You can use it to support the notion that masks don't work, just as easily as it supports the notion that masks work.
Prove me otherwise.
The whole point was that the "science" supporting masking in incomplete and often contradictory; it could in fact be a net negative. JIB said they don't work, the science doesn't prove him wrong.
It's just common sense that masks slow the spread of any virus that can be transmitted through the air. I don't know how anyone can dispute that. It's as plain as day. Does that really need explanation?
(12-12-2020, 11:44 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2020, 10:35 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The whole point was that the "science" supporting masking in incomplete and often contradictory; it could in fact be a net negative. JIB said they don't work, the science doesn't prove him wrong.
It's just common sense that masks slow the spread of any virus that can be transmitted through the air. I don't know how anyone can dispute that. It's as plain as day. Does that really need explanation?
What kind of masks Marty? Cloth? N95?
(12-12-2020, 11:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2020, 11:44 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]It's just common sense that masks slow the spread of any virus that can be transmitted through the air. I don't know how anyone can dispute that. It's as plain as day. Does that really need explanation?
What kind of masks Marty? Cloth? N95?
All of them, Katie.
(Just because N95 is better, doesn't mean cloth is does anything bad, doesn't mean it does nothing at all)
(12-12-2020, 11:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2020, 11:44 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]It's just common sense that masks slow the spread of any virus that can be transmitted through the air. I don't know how anyone can dispute that. It's as plain as day. Does that really need explanation?
What kind of masks Marty? Cloth? N95?
Any and every kind of mask helps slow the spread of the virus through the capture of respiratory droplets at the point of source. Different designs and materials have widely varying rates of efficiency. The "science" isn't exactly complicated.
Why didn't our government use our tax dollars to send every household N95 masks?
(12-12-2020, 11:44 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2020, 10:35 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The whole point was that the "science" supporting masking in incomplete and often contradictory; it could in fact be a net negative. JIB said they don't work, the science doesn't prove him wrong.
It's just common sense that masks slow the spread of any virus that can be transmitted through the air. I don't know how anyone can dispute that. It's as plain as day. Does that really need explanation?
Common sense is frequently wrong when examined with rigor.
(12-12-2020, 12:45 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Why didn't our government use our tax dollars to send every household N95 masks?
Because they're a bunch of selfish jerks with no sense of common purpose, and think we're all selfish jerks too?
(12-12-2020, 11:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2020, 11:44 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]It's just common sense that masks slow the spread of any virus that can be transmitted through the air. I don't know how anyone can dispute that. It's as plain as day. Does that really need explanation?
What kind of masks Marty? Cloth? N95?
Anything that will hold back your breath. Come on! You know this! Why do you cover your mouth when you cough? It's the same thing!
(12-12-2020, 03:14 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2020, 11:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]What kind of masks Marty? Cloth? N95?
Anything that will hold back your breath. Come on! You know this! Why do you cover your mouth when you cough? It's the same thing!
And every bit as effective too!
(12-12-2020, 03:21 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2020, 03:14 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Anything that will hold back your breath. Come on! You know this! Why do you cover your mouth when you cough? It's the same thing!
And every bit as effective too!
It's a bit sad that you think covering your mouth is ineffective. Everyone knows you cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze to stop projecting droplets on to others.
That's what masks do, they help you stop infecting others. Plus if the other wear a mask, it provides a barriers between your noise and mouth and any droplets.
If everyone wears masks, it makes a difference.
