Some Businesses 'Still Require' Customers To Wear Masks (I knew this would happen)

[V-Tach]

DD, those same isolation patients were in a negative pressure room,( if respiratory isolation) and you had multiple layers off PROPER PPE in addition to the mask and understand cross contamination...............don't forget, I am still a Nurse with over 40 years active.....

None of that does the average citizen know, has, or understands......I don't blame anyone when I get sick......can't prove I got it from them....

By any measure.....the argument for masks forever could be made......I refuse to live under such a mandate...and face coverings are not "masks".........and virtually useless.....and that is my personal and professional opinion...............

I still want the .22 Hornet.............darn it.............

 

[IndyDave1776]

Took my wife to MD Anderson for her quarterly checkup yesterday. All good. Since they won't let anyone but patients in I go over and park in Hermann Park and wait for her call. I was absolutely amazed that, in light of lifting of the mask mandate, I saw large numbers of people, each walking alone or with a dog, and the people, not the dogs, were still wearing masks. Amazing, I am talking about 99% of the people I saw walking alone or in family groups in the wide open spaces still wearing the darned things. Comrade Sylvester and Commandante Hidalgo have done a great job herding the sheep.

At least the dogs have sense enough not to buy into this nonsense.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And I bet your wife wore her mask at MD Anderson. Why does this bother people so much for those that wear one? Do I care if people permanently disfigure their body with tattoos? Rings through their nose (or worse)? Your business, not mine.

There are two issues here:

First, most of these people are inclined to impose it on others.

Second, it is a legitimate source of concern that we are surrounded by people who do not engage in critical thought. Case in point, the CDC dismissed research prior to the covid outbreak indicating masks are ineffective. A couple weeks ago, the CDC released results of their own study indicating masks are ineffective, yet doubled down on pushing them. Then we have the lack of change in the death rate indicating that pretty much everyone who died in the last year would have died anyway. After this, we are surrounded by these fools who vote.

 

[rotor]

There are two issues here:

First, most of these people are inclined to impose it on others.

Second, it is a legitimate source of concern that we are surrounded by people who do not engage in critical thought. Case in point, the CDC dismissed research prior to the covid outbreak indicating masks are ineffective. A couple weeks ago, the CDC released results of their own study indicating masks are ineffective, yet doubled down on pushing them. Then we have the lack of change in the death rate indicating that pretty much everyone who died in the last year would have died anyway. After this, we are surrounded by these fools who vote.

Gun control, gun free zones, voting for Biden, 90% of our laws are made by people not engaged in critical thought. Masks are at the bottom of the totem poll. If I wear a mask to go into a store that I need to shop at it does not mean that I want you to wear one. Faulty logic.
Unfortunately the CDC has moved away from science and has become political.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Gun control, gun free zones, voting for Biden, 90% of our laws are made by people not engaged in critical thought. Masks are at the bottom of the totem poll. If I wear a mask to go into a store that I need to shop at it does not mean that I want you to wear one. Faulty logic.
Unfortunately the CDC has moved away from science and has become political.

All true. In indiana we have an additional mask problem. We have, if i remember correctly, five manufacturers making significant quantities of masks and a governor who is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce. We are hearing some noise about the legislature shutting down the indefinite emergence powers but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[V-Tach]

DD, I have a very good friend (a respiritory therapist) and we worked together at a hospital for years.......he takes the same line/thoughts as you do.......and we have spirited discussions still to this day about it........

It's all good........we're still good friends.................

 

[IndyDave1776]

DD, I have a very good friend (a respiritory therapist) and we worked together at a hospital for years.......he takes the same line/thoughts as you do.......and we have spirited discussions still to this day about it........

It's all good........we're still good friends.................

Well said. The ability to agree to disagree without leveraging each other is a critical element in any free society. Its also helpful in keeping friendships together.

 

[DubiousDan]

Why would anyone publish a summary that the data does not support? Guess you think politics and narratives are not present in the CDC and the government is here to help.

Too funny.

No, I think that if the study did not support their political narrative they would not have made it public. I would have been buried.

So what? So you can run a word count? What does that mean? Nothing.

I think the word count showing the word restaurant 40 times throughout a relatively short description of the study demonstrates what they intended considered the study to be about.

Read and comprehend what is written. The analyses were performed separately - read the quoted sections.

If you will bother to actually read the article and think about what is written, you would have the answers.

Does anyone with a modicum of intelligence believe that a ~1% reduction justifies their conclusion that mask mandates are helpful? I bet you will not answer that question directly, rather you will evade again.

I read the entire study as well as the appendices. The bulk of the study focused on lifting the restriction on restaurants with on short bit you think supports your claim. The portion you claim supports your claim seems small until you realize it represents a percentage of 100,000 people. A decrease in deaths of 1.8% of 100,000 people is 1800 people/100,000. Figuring on a population of 300,000,000 that would be like 540,000 lives saved. (Please check my math, I was up all night and haven't slept yet. Too much coffee)

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I think that if the study did not support their political narrative they would not have made it public. I would have been buried.



I think the word count showing the word restaurant 40 times throughout a relatively short description of the study demonstrates what they intended considered the study to be about.



I read the entire study as well as the appendices. The bulk of the study focused on lifting the restriction on restaurants with on short bit you think supports your claim. The portion you claim supports your claim seems small until you realize it represents a percentage of 100,000 people. A decrease in deaths of 1.8% of 100,000 people is 1800 people/100,000. Figuring on a population of 300,000,000 that would be like 540,000 lives saved. (Please check my math, I was up all night and haven't slept yet. Too much coffee)

View attachment 249189

View attachment 249190

Your argument makes sense in the context you are using. You did not account for 1.8 % being the CDC's top end number with 0.5% being their low-end estimate.

It is also important to realize that the CDC has been highly political for decades, with emphasis on the attempt to classify handguns as an epidemic.

Also, I would not be surprised if they put their collective thumb on the scale enough to save face. After all, they have proven themselves less than trustworthy over time.

 

[DubiousDan]

DD, those same isolation patients were in a negative pressure room,( if respiratory isolation) and you had multiple layers off PROPER PPE in addition to the mask and understand cross contamination...............don't forget, I am still a Nurse with over 40 years active.....

None of that does the average citizen know, has, or understands......I don't blame anyone when I get sick......can't prove I got it from them....

By any measure.....the argument for masks forever could be made......I refuse to live under such a mandate...and face coverings are not "masks".........and virtually useless.....and that is my personal and professional opinion...............

I still want the .22 Hornet.............darn it.............

In the ER we didn't have negative pressure until relatively recently (i left the ER in 2007 and transferred to an Acute-care clinic where all we had were gloves and masks). With a disease that spread by droplets, if a mask doesn't work and gown and gloves aren't much help. N95s weren't common in healthcare settings until the 90s when drug resistant TB and Aids came on the scene. In the early days of Aids no one knew how it was transmitted so we used gowns, gloves, head covering, shoe covers, eye protection, and masks. I don't recall how long it took them to figure out all you needed was blood and body fluid precautions. Since we didn't have negative pressure if we had a TB patient or one with suspected bacterial meningitis we'd have to get the huge HEPA filter things that were over 5' tall, and in the case of TB every one that came into contact with the patient got a course of rifampim.

The hornet is still available.

 

[DubiousDan]

Your argument makes sense in the context you are using. You did not account for 1.8 % being the CDC's top end number with 0.5% being their low-end estimate.

It is also important to realize that the CDC has been highly political for decades, with emphasis on the attempt to classify handguns as an epidemic.

Also, I would not be surprised if they put their collective thumb on the scale enough to save face. After all, they have proven themselves less than trustworthy over time.

You could be correct. if precautions only saved 0.5%/100,000 then only 150,000 lived were saved.

I don't doubt politics plays a role in most of what government does but I still think that if the numbers did not support the summary they gave for the study or any agenda they may have had, the study would never have seen the light of day. I can't prove or disprove the credibility of the numbers I just think OD is reading them wrong. I suspect that he didn't know the numbers were X/100,000 persons. It could be he's just trolling me and is being deliberately obtuse.

 

[DubiousDan]

There are two issues here:

First, most of these people are inclined to impose it on others.

Second, it is a legitimate source of concern that we are surrounded by people who do not engage in critical thought. Case in point, the CDC dismissed research prior to the covid outbreak indicating masks are ineffective. A couple weeks ago, the CDC released results of their own study indicating masks are ineffective, yet doubled down on pushing them. Then we have the lack of change in the death rate indicating that pretty much everyone who died in the last year would have died anyway. After this, we are surrounded by these fools who vote.

If you can, would you post a link to those studies. I'd like to see them. Thanks.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

DD,

You're right about...everything...OK.....how's that sound?

Now take a time out...pop some popcorn, live large...hell, maybe even eat a steak without vegetables...

Perhaps, a brisk stroll and by all means wear as many masks as you can tolerate while doing so - and keep repeating - "I'm always right about everything and anything" and repeat, repeat, repeat this mantra until everything's all better!

 

[DubiousDan]

DD,

You're right about...everything...OK.....how's that sound?

Now take a time out...pop some popcorn, live large...hell, maybe even eat a steak without vegetables...

Perhaps, a brisk stroll and by all means wear as many masks as you can tolerate while doing so - and keep repeating - "I'm always right about everything and anything" and repeat, repeat, repeat this mantra until everything's all better!

You finally get it ;-)

Can I get a salad with that steak? Gotta keep things moving lower down.

 

[oldag]

No, I think that if the study did not support their political narrative they would not have made it public. I would have been buried.



I think the word count showing the word restaurant 40 times throughout a relatively short description of the study demonstrates what they intended considered the study to be about.



I read the entire study as well as the appendices. The bulk of the study focused on lifting the restriction on restaurants with on short bit you think supports your claim. The portion you claim supports your claim seems small until you realize it represents a percentage of 100,000 people. A decrease in deaths of 1.8% of 100,000 people is 1800 people/100,000. Figuring on a population of 300,000,000 that would be like 540,000 lives saved. (Please check my math, I was up all night and haven't slept yet. Too much coffee)

View attachment 249189

View attachment 249190

That "short bit" is valid information and backs up exactly what I have said, regardless of what point the CDC was attempting to make. And you have never been able to show otherwise.

Given the nature of the data set, the 1-2% is not statistically meaningful.

No matter how much text and graphs you throw on the screen, you are still in denial.

You are welcome to the last word. But you will still be wrong, as anyone can see.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

DD,

A salad for you?

Absolutely!

Blue Cheese or Roquefort or Oil or a simple vinaigrette dressing?

You need to stock up on calories if you expect to keep up arduously arguing.

 

[Dougw1515]

You finally get it ;-)

Can I get a salad with that steak? Gotta keep things moving lower down.

You get two veggies! Biden and Fauci

 

[Texas45]

Masks will save/protect you from the virus about as much as a no guns allowed sign will save/protect you from the lunatic.

Only YOU can decide to do what YOU feel is prudent for YOUR safety and protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DubiousDan]

DD,

A salad for you?

Absolutely!

Blue Cheese or Roquefort or Oil or a simple vinaigrette dressing?

You need to stock up on calories if you expect to keep up arduously arguing.

Olive garden Italian.

 

[DubiousDan]

That "short bit" is valid information and backs up exactly what I have said, regardless of what point the CDC was attempting to make. And you have never been able to show otherwise.

Given the nature of the data set, the 1-2% is not statistically meaningful.

No matter how much text and graphs you throw on the screen, you are still in denial.

You are welcome to the last word. But you will still be wrong, as anyone can see.

The graphs and charts are from the study. That and everything else in the study refutes what you say. I suggest that you are in denial.

1-2 % of a city of 1,000,000 people is 10,000 - 20,000 people fewer who become sick. It may not be meaningful to you but it is to me.