On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

On 8/19/20 9:46 AM, Bill wrote:
Justan wrote:
On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with.

===

I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can
ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our
flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who
died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy.

I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any
given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I
dont like those odds.


More like 60-80%, but can be as low as 40%.


I dont like those odds either. I'll wait till they are done practicing and
really get their heads in the game.

That is impossible with a virus that mutates or is an entirely
different virus from year to year. "Flu" is a catch all term for a
range of viruses.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:07:23 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

On 8/19/20 10:18 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

On 8/18/20 9:42 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

On 8/18/20 10:44 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

I never get flu shots and I'm reluctant to get whatever they come up with.

===

I had a really nasty case of the flu 6 years ago, the sickest I can
ever remember, and never want to be that sick again. We now get our
flu shots very faithfully every year. I have known rwo people who
died from the flu, middle aged, active and otherwise healthy.

I read somewhere there's about a 15% likelihood that the flu shot for any
given year will immunize you from whatever flu is going around that year. I
dont like those odds.

It is usually higher than that but still not half. I just think
antibodies are good and maybe the flu I get will be milder.
I haven't really had anything like that since I retired tho and that
was 25 years ago. I have been social distancing since then. I just
didn't know it had a name.

Recluse?

Just never had a reason to be in a crowd like that. I have a pretty
close circle of friends. Other than that. I did the same things I do
now. I even go to the same stores.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:03:53 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Again, you're comparing medical masks to cloth masks. They are intended for
different purposes.

I've told you that at least a dozen times, but I suppose I can do it again.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:03:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:11:47 -0400, John wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:21:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:20 -0400, John wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

I read the "studies" and they are full of mights and maybes. None are
peer reviewed and there does not seem to be any control.

The most recent one I saw is the comparison study where they say
bandanas and neck gaiters are worse than nothing.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbein...navirus-study/

This is still a cough in a box study that does not directly relate the
transmission of the virus, only drops that show up in an ALIS scan.

The one that did actually track infections says

" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection."

No one here has promoted the wearing of bandanas or neck gaiters. You brought
that idea up, just so you could denounce it.

Wayne did but the point is the feckless laws do not address it at all.

And here you go, quoting a 'may', after putting down the mights and maybes. Why
not post the link and let's see what it says.

I have posted this at least a dozen times but I suppose I can do it
again.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Did you not comprehend this?

"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs)"

This study is about the use of cloth masks by professionals in HCW situations, not in Lowes by normal people buying new window shades.

You are smarter than this.

That's been pointed out to him several (maybe a dozen) times.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!