President Trump tested Positive for Covid!

[THE ENGINEER]

As Rob mentioned, this is not about eliminating the threat. This is about mitigating the risks.

[flechero]

My issue with your analogy was that improperly worn paper or cotton masks are way less effective than a improperly stored condom. Condoms are the n-95 of b/c. They are VERY effective when worn properly. The paper or cotton masks (even worn right and washed frequently) are way less effective.


I'm regurgitating this because I'm not a Dr - but my circle of friends are- 2 are ortho surgeons, a Dir of the ER, an Internal Med Dr., an ENT and an Anesthesiologist. (I've literally heard this stuff ad nauseam) they say the decorative cotton and the "surgical masks" people are wearing are an absolute joke and most are not even real surgical masks. Even the real ones are to prevent whiskers and other debris in surgery from HEALTHY Dr. and HEALTHY Patients.

"Better than nothing" is what I used to argue. Their response- When they see patients with Covid or suspected of covid they either wear the "moon suit" or at a MINIMUM an n-95 plus a face shield, gown and gloves. Why? Because sometimes "better than nothing isn't really much better than nothing."

For the record, I'm not against masks. Properly rated and worn masks are proven very effective... but that's not part of any local mandate. I'm against mandates for things that don't help. A unwashed, 20 times used bandana on someone's chin and bottom lip doesn't help. 1/2 the people I see have a mask not covering the nose... That is not better than nothing.

I have a decent supply of N-95's. I wear them when going into crowded areas or when I can't distance. Otherwise, just the ineffective "surgical mask" to comply with mandates.

[THE ENGINEER]

My issue with your analogy was that improperly worn paper or cotton masks are way less effective than a improperly stored condom. Condoms are the n-95 of b/c. They are VERY effective when worn properly. The paper or cotton masks (even worn right and washed frequently) are way less effective.


I'm regurgitating this because I'm not a Dr - but my circle of friends are- 2 are ortho surgeons, a Dir of the ER, an Internal Med Dr., an ENT and an Anesthesiologist. (I've literally heard this stuff ad nauseam) they say the decorative cotton and the "surgical masks" people are wearing are an absolute joke and most are not even real surgical masks. Even the real ones are to prevent whiskers and other debris in surgery from HEALTHY Dr. and HEALTHY Patients.

"Better than nothing" is what I used to argue. Their response- When they see patients with Covid or suspected of covid they either wear the "moon suit" or at a MINIMUM an n-95 plus a face shield, gown and gloves. Why? Because sometimes "better than nothing isn't really much better than nothing."

For the record, I'm not against masks. Properly rated and worn masks are proven very effective... but that's not part of any local mandate. I'm against mandates for things that don't help. A unwashed, 20 times used bandana on someone's chin and bottom lip doesn't help. 1/2 the people I see have a mask not covering the nose... That is not better than nothing.

I have a decent supply of N-95's. I wear them when going into crowded areas or when I can't distance. Otherwise, just the ineffective "surgical mask" to comply with mandates.

My first-hand experience is that surgical masks are effective in slowing the spread of the virus. I, like many at our facility work around the same large number of folks on a daily basis, often in relatively close proximity to one another. Everyone wears a mask at all times unless eating or drinking. While eating or drinking we are sitting at least 6 feet apart. We are not wearing N95 masks. We are wearing the readily available surgical masks or fabric masks.

We have had folks test positive, however we have never had two or more people who sit or work closely together test positive for the virus. This indicates folks are most likely picking the virus outside of our facility and not infecting others within the facility.

This supports that wearing a cheap surgical mask or fabric mask is effective in slowing or stopping the transmission of the virus. This is also why I support mandates that require properly worn masks in public places, and don’t view such actions as an attack on my freedom or rights.

The risk I see with mandates is that the wrong people will create them so they wind up ineffective or they do truly infringe on a person’s rights. In the case of an infectious disease, doctors, scientists, and engineers should create the protocol, not politicians.

[parabelum]

Why is that nobody seems to answer question/analogy posed, do you support lowering the speed limit significantly to mitigate the risk of people dying in car accidents? You can’t just pick and choose your definition of risk mitigation and what level is appropriate as well as who gets to decide. Point that I have been trying to make is that we as a society accept certain degree of risk for freedoms and convenience. You think this is the first and last pandemic? Moreover, you think that surgical masks are the end all be all. Granted in the hospital ORs they are used, but freaking walking down the street or grocery aisle, at the government’s so called order? Do you know how and when the surgical masks are supposed to be disposed? Who will ensure that John Doe isn’t wearing same masks he wore for the last year?
Again, way too politicized.

Oh yes, and my first hand experience in firefighting/Ems is that speed reduction would just about eradicate fatalities in car wrecks (since Rob is going in a condom tangent ).

This thread can probably be locked. Trump is back to business thankfully.

[THE ENGINEER]

Why is that nobody seems to answer question/apology posed, do you support lowering the speed limit significantly to mitigate the risk of people dying in car accidents? You can’t just pick and choose your definition of risk mitigation and what level is appropriate as well as who gets to decide. Point that I have been trying to make is that we as a society accept certain degree of risk for freedoms and convenience. You think this is the first and last pandemic? Moreover, you think that surgical masks are the end all be all. Granted in the hospital ORs they are used, but freaking walking down the street or grocery aisle, at the government’s so called order? Do you know how and when the surgical masks are supposed to be disposed? Who will ensure that John Doe isn’t wearing same masks he wore for the last year?
Again, way too politicized.

Actions such as drastically reducing the speed limit would very likely reduce traffic fatalities, however doing so so would have a significant negative impact at a global level. Wearing a mask has minimal negative global impact while potentially significantly reducing the number of deaths due to the virus. There is no one size fits all approach.

[parabelum]

Why is that nobody seems to answer question/apology posed, do you support lowering the speed limit significantly to mitigate the risk of people dying in car accidents? You can’t just pick and choose your definition of risk mitigation and what level is appropriate as well as who gets to decide. Point that I have been trying to make is that we as a society accept certain degree of risk for freedoms and convenience. You think this is the first and last pandemic? Moreover, you think that surgical masks are the end all be all. Granted in the hospital ORs they are used, but freaking walking down the street or grocery aisle, at the government’s so called order? Do you know how and when the surgical masks are supposed to be disposed? Who will ensure that John Doe isn’t wearing same masks he wore for the last year?
Again, way too politicized.

Actions such as drastically reducing the speed limit would very likely reduce traffic fatalities, however doing so so would have a significant negative impact at a global level. Wearing a mask has minimal negative global impact while potentially significantly reducing the number of deaths due to the virus. There is no one size fits all approach.

Fair point. But what is considered “drastic”? One could say that a parent who watched their kid’s mangled body get pulled out of a wreck may not consider such measure drastic, potentially.
And we can all agree that when taken as a global statistic, number of deaths in cars far surpasses the number of deaths from covid. So, we accept then that our children, parents, friends etc. may die a gruesome death so that we are not crippled by drastic speed reduction. Forget the “global” for the moment, right now, I am talking about United States and if you want to wear a mask I support you. I myself wear one when I’m around elderly as a choice. I do not want some bureaucrat telling me that I have to, I’d like to keep our freedoms you know.

“ Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”

John Adams

[THE ENGINEER]

Why is that nobody seems to answer question/apology posed, do you support lowering the speed limit significantly to mitigate the risk of people dying in car accidents? You can’t just pick and choose your definition of risk mitigation and what level is appropriate as well as who gets to decide. Point that I have been trying to make is that we as a society accept certain degree of risk for freedoms and convenience. You think this is the first and last pandemic? Moreover, you think that surgical masks are the end all be all. Granted in the hospital ORs they are used, but freaking walking down the street or grocery aisle, at the government’s so called order? Do you know how and when the surgical masks are supposed to be disposed? Who will ensure that John Doe isn’t wearing same masks he wore for the last year?
Again, way too politicized.

Actions such as drastically reducing the speed limit would very likely reduce traffic fatalities, however doing so so would have a significant negative impact at a global level. Wearing a mask has minimal negative global impact while potentially significantly reducing the number of deaths due to the virus. There is no one size fits all approach.

Fair point. But what is considered “drastic”? One could say that a parent who watched their kid’s mangled body get pulled out of a wreck may not consider such measure drastic, potentially.
And we can all agree that when taken as a global statistic, number of deaths in cars far surpasses the number of deaths from covid. So, we accept then that our children, parents, friends etc. may die a gruesome death so that we are not crippled by drastic speed reduction. Forget the “global” for the moment, right now, I am talking about United States and if you want to wear a mask I support you. I myself wear one when I’m around elderly as a choice. I do not want some bureaucrat telling me that I have to, I’d like to keep our freedoms you know.

“ Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”

John Adams

I agree that the definition of drastic will vary from person to person. That will always be an issue.

I meant “global” as meaning on a large scale. With respect to your example of reducing speed limits to save lives that would be the difference between lowering all street and highway speed limits versus lowering the speed limit only in areas with high occurrences of accidents. Reducing speed limits only in high risk sections of road eliminates a large number of injuries and deaths, while causing minimal large scale or global negative impact. This won’t please everyone, however most would agree doing would be an appropriate or reasonable action.

Taking this approach with mask wearing would be similar to requiring masks in high risk areas such as indoor spaces where risk of transmitting an infection is high when compared to other environments, and not requiring masks in areas where risk is much lower such as uncrowded outdoor spaces. The negative impact is relatively small while the potential benefit is relatively large.

[Grayling813]

Seems relevant...read the whole article.

Against Fear
https://www.city-journal.org/trump-coro ... asculinity

We set highway speeding limits to maximize convenience at what we consider an acceptable risk to human life. It is statistically certain that every year, there will be tens of thousands of driving deaths. A considerable portion of those deaths could be averted by “following the science” of force and velocity and enforcing a speed limit of, say, 15 miles an hour. But we tolerate motor-vehicle deaths because we value driving 75 miles an hour on the highway, and up to 55 miles an hour in cities, more than we do saving those thousands of lives. When those deaths come—nearly 100 a day in 2019—we do not cancel the policy. Nor would it be logical to cancel a liberal highway speed because a legislator who voted for it died in a car accident.
We could reduce coronavirus transmission to zero by locking everyone in a separate cell until a vaccine was developed. There are some public-health experts who from the start appeared ready to implement such radical social distancing. The extent to which we veer from that maximal coronavirus protection policy depends on how we value its costs and the competing goods: forgone life-saving medical care and deaths of despair from unemployment and social isolation, on the one hand, and the ability to support one’s family through work and to build prosperity through entrepreneurship, on the other. The advocates of maximal lockdowns have rarely conceded such trade-offs, but they are ever-present.

[RoyGBiv]

My first-hand experience is that surgical masks are effective in slowing the spread of the virus. I, like many at our facility work around the same large number of folks on a daily basis, often in relatively close proximity to one another. Everyone wears a mask at all times unless eating or drinking. While eating or drinking we are sitting at least 6 feet apart. We are not wearing N95 masks. We are wearing the readily available surgical masks or fabric masks.

We have had folks test positive, however we have never had two or more people who sit or work closely together test positive for the virus. This indicates folks are most likely picking the virus outside of our facility and not infecting others within the facility.

This supports that wearing a cheap surgical mask or fabric mask is effective in slowing or stopping the transmission of the virus. This is also why I support mandates that require properly worn masks in public places, and don’t view such actions as an attack on my freedom or rights.

The risk I see with mandates is that the wrong people will create them so they wind up ineffective or they do truly infringe on a person’s rights. In the case of an infectious disease, doctors, scientists, and engineers should create the protocol, not politicians.

Thanks for sharing this. Very encouraging.

[03Lightningrocks]

Well my daughter was literally just notified that a Child in my Grand daughters school has tested positive for Covid. All the kids in that fifth grade class are now quarantined to stay home. My grand daughter is in kindergarten. All the kids are required to wear masks all day long and there are only around 12 kids per class. I suppose we are lucky it has only been one over the past month they have been in school. My worry is that it is only the beginning. Plano School system. They have been real cautious. I have my doubts about masks but have to admit I am glad the kids are required to wear them at school. It fits into my "well it can't hurt" category.

[03Lightningrocks]

Well my daughter was literally just notified that a Child in my Grand daughters school has tested positive for Covid. All the kids in that fifth grade class are now quarantined to stay home. My grand daughter is in kindergarten. All the kids are required to wear masks all day long and there are only around 12 kids per class. I suppose we are lucky it has only been one over the past month they have been in school. My worry is that it is only the beginning. Plano School system. They have been real cautious. I have my doubts about masks but have to admit I am glad the kids are required to wear them at school. It fits into my "well it can't hurt" category.

Praying you & yours stay safe & well!

Thank You

[K.Mooneyham]

If we had more accurate numbers, then mitigation strategies might become more useful than hitting the problem with the proverbial sledgehammer.

That's a bit of a false premise- masking, distancing and handwashing are not "sledgehammers" by any means(although, as with all human endeavors, those who feel they "know better" create the most draconian laws. We are hardly The Oppressed, here in Texas). Obviously, testing is still problematic. Some of the folks at Galveston National Laboratory are working on this, among many other things. We may have a vaccine by year's end, but we're still a good couple of years away from fully knowing all the finer details of this virus.

In this country, we have not seen a widespread epidemic in 70-80 years. I find it darkly humorous when people get bound up over masking, when you read some of the historical policies and actions dealing with TB, typhoid, and polio for instance.

I am by no means of the shut down the world and isolate everyone camp, that is its own measure of insanity. Equally, since we have no idea what the genetics are of our co-workers, church families, the guy at the grocery store, etc., a mask is a very small price to pay to be able to socially interact and not cause unintended harm.

For those preaching the slippery slope, the Mark of the Beast, etc., hey, if you're a believer, EVERYTHING leads to that end and it is no surprise.

First of all, I never said that those three items were the "sledgehammers", though I should have stated that I was NOT speaking ONLY about measures here in Texas. However, the post was about President Trump, so I (wrongly I guess) assumed we were talking about this thing on a nation-wide basis. Several states have used draconian lockdown measures and Biden has said, if elected, he'd lockdown the entire country (how I don't know). Also, you neatly sidestepped my skepticism of PCR testing with your offhand use of "problematic". Finally, I did NOT speak of a "slippery slope", nor used any religiously connotated phrases. Seemingly you placed that there to undermine what I had to say. I have valid complaints about this whole thing and I will not let one person dissuade me from those valid complaints.