Forums >Health and Nutrition>The COVID-19 Wild West Thread
Mmmm Bop
Jesus wept.
5k - 17:53 (4/19) 10k - 37:53 (11/18) Half - 1:23:18 (4/19) Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)
Mother of Cats
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/03/covid-19-how-effective-are-masks-protecting-others-15067 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32512240/ I'd say: http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/ but maybe Google has already learned your preferences, and shows you want you want to see. Could you point to a scientific study that demonstrates that community mask wearing is ineffective due to people taking higher risk because of the illusion of immunity? I think it's a fine theory. It's seems reasonable to suspect that people may take riskier action when they feel protected. However, I've never seen scientific proof.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/03/covid-19-how-effective-are-masks-protecting-others-15067
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32512240/
I'd say: http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/ but maybe Google has already learned your preferences, and shows you want you want to see.
Could you point to a scientific study that demonstrates that community mask wearing is ineffective due to people taking higher risk because of the illusion of immunity? I think it's a fine theory. It's seems reasonable to suspect that people may take riskier action when they feel protected. However, I've never seen scientific proof.
[Full disclosure - I wear a mask indoors at all times (except when at home) and outdoors when I am near others and not running. I've been doing so since March. I've also always worn a flu mask when flying since 2015 or so. So that tells you where I personally fall on the mask-wearing spectrum.]
I've looked at the citations above, and the CDC's observation in the first cite matches mine:
"Data regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies."
Not all science is equally powerful. We don't have any double blind/placebo-controlled studies demonstrating the effectiveness of masks. Which makes sense - it would be impossible to conduct such a trial (what would be a placebo mask? And how would you keep it double blind?) But yet the fact that we can't do a double blind/placebo controlled study to show the effectiveness (or possible lack of effectiveness) of masks means that we must be less certain of the conclusions.
The science on how to control this virus (with the exception of the vaccine itself) strikes me as similar to the science used when studying running - mostly anecdotal and observational. And we have to keep that in mind. I believe masks work. In the same way I believe keeping your easy runs super slow works. But I don't have double blind/placebo controlled scientific evidence for either.
[and heck, if we all strictly followed "the science" for running, we'd train using Billat 30/30 intervals. But I don't know anyone who has succeeded with that approach in the real world.]
I also agree that there is a human characteristic to focus on talismans - there always has been. The idea that if you just do something or use something, you'll be safe. The idea that we can control our own fates. Mask wearing, independent of the benefits from it, definitely plays into this.
Here's an interesting NYTimes article on talismans and superstition. As a psychologist notes:
“The very nature of this epidemic is one of uncertainty, not knowing whether you have come into contact with the virus,” Dr. Vyse said. “So, this circumstance is a perfect one in which to grasp for something that can’t have a real effect — because there is no real magic in the world — but that supports a psychological feeling that you have taken some action, done some small thing to regain control.”
In the vast range between rock solid science on one side and pure superstition on the other, I personally feel that masks are much closer to the science side than the superstition one. But they're not all the way there.
Everyone's gotta running blog; I'm the only one with a POOL-RUNNING blog.
And...if you want a running Instagram where all the pictures are of cats, I've got you covered.
The Baltimore BLM protests typically showed most people wearing masks, but also people taking them off to yell The local media focused on how the organizers were giving out masks & hand sanitizer, but the footage showed plenty of non-mask wearing or improper mask wearing. Around the same time, we had the re-open Maryland protests, typically that crowd did not wear masks. Then bars & restaurants re-opened in June. Travel was encouraged to Ocean City, by some point in July, Delaware had shut down their bars at the beach, which I would suspect drove people to the open MD ones. The MD sumemr spike was in the 20-39 AGs. Maryland contact tracing data available to the public where they ask about high risk activities starts on July 10, so I'm not sure how they can make any conclusions about the protests that started in early June.
I wish I could find the article I read a few weeks ago that had times in it. Essentially, if you were in a small room with someone infected, even if everyone was wearing a cloth mask, after a certain amount of time, you had a high probability of getting infected. There were also times for outdoors in close proximity with a mask.
Time is a flat circle but we talked about this way back on page 81 of this train wreck of a thread:
I found this to be a useful explainer on how to reduce the risk of transmission indoors. In summary: a multi-layered approach of masks, safe spacing, ventilation, and reducing the time of exposure. Not that I'm going to an indoor bar until this is over but good to know. https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html
I found this to be a useful explainer on how to reduce the risk of transmission indoors. In summary: a multi-layered approach of masks, safe spacing, ventilation, and reducing the time of exposure. Not that I'm going to an indoor bar until this is over but good to know.
https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html
Runners run
I'm guessing the article I saw came from this info, although it was all text. I feel like the time to get infected while in an enclosed space even if everyone was wearing masks was 16 minutes.
Good Bad & The Monkey
Right. Swiss cheese model. We also discussed that in this train wreck of a thread.
Masks help
Being distanced helps
Being outside helps
None of these things is perfect. But each one is additive to the others. So masking + distancing + being outside >> masking while being close & inside.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Interval Junkie --Nobby
Not all science is equally powerful. We don't have any double blind/placebo-controlled studies demonstrating the effectiveness of masks. Which makes sense . . .
You'll get no disagreement from me. Heck "epidemiology" and it's relationship with "public health" is at best "educated guess" level of science. Further, equating what is best for "public health" with what is best for the individual, is ignorantly, or purposely, misinterpreting the goals of public health.
Right now, I'm listening to a few conservative talking heads mock an epidemiologist who is recommending even people who have taken the vaccine, to continue to wear a mask. Why does he recommend this? Because several variable may allow the vaccinated to continue to spread the virus. The scientist emphasized he didn't know, whether true or not, as no study has confirmed either way. The heads decided this means his "i don't know" is equivalent to their [laymen] "I don't know." Therefore he is being ridiculous.
There are several problems with their logic. And while it is reasonable to disagree with the policies the epidemiologist advocates because of externalities such as the costs of mask wearing, if one wants to mitigate an unquantifiable risk the costs need to be weighed against the consequences.
In short: praying for people's health probably doesn't do anything, but the cost is pretty trivial, so people do it just in case there is a benefit. And that's perfectly reasonable. Not something worth derision.
2021 Goals: 50mpw 'cause there's nothing else to do
Right. Swiss cheese model. We also discussed that in this train wreck of a thread. Masks help Being distanced helps Being outside helps None of these things is perfect. But each one is additive to the others. So masking + distancing + being outside >> masking while being close & inside.
Yep. But it was still a bit scary to read an article that the time to get infected indoors was less than 20 minutes, even with masks & 6 feet apart. This is not mentioned much in new media or social media.
Right. Swiss cheese model. We also discussed that in this train wreck of a thread. Masks help Being distanced helps Being outside helps
+ Limiting exposure time helps
Holding your breath helps. [note: may have diminishing returns]
With all the failed court cases and recounts, I'd say he fucking lost a whole bunch of times. Total loser.
With all the failed court cases and recounts, I'd say he fucking lost a whole bunch of times.
Total loser.
He lost, it's apparent to everyone but the most sycophantic. But, it sure wasn't a loss in a "landslide", and it certainly wasn't "a mandate". Personally I think he was an embarrassment to the whole country because of his narcissistic persona and thoughtless blathering. However, nearly half the voting population felt like he was the better candidate for the job (well, probably not, most people just vote for their party regardless of who the candidate is). The VERY LARGE segment of the population who voted for him need to have their opinions heard and addressed. It's not like they are the Greens or Libertarians, and their 1-2% of votes can be dismissed as irrelevant. But with the all-or-nothing political polarization of our era, I won't hold my breath waiting for middle ground on anything.
But to bring it back around, the pandemic had a large influence on the election. Both as a talking point for both "sides", but also in the tangible mechanics of voting. I think vote by mail is great, I did it for a very long time in Oregon, and signed up for "permanent absentee" (vote by mail) in California asap. Having ONE DAY, in the middle of the work week, to vote at a designated location, is ridiculous in a country with 350 million people. A system like that favors manipulators and would-be dictators. Fraud? Maybe some via intercepted ballots, or someone in a household filling out EVERYONE'S ballots (like a misogynist husband), but more problematic is the inefficient USPS and "lost mail" that happens daily. Solution? Ballot-only drop-boxes instead of the post office. That's where we took out ballots this year. Give people a few weeks to fill out and drop off their ballots, or mail them if they must. Not just a 10-12hr period during ONE DAY to show up in person in order to count.
A lot of pandemic adjustments are going to become permanent, because they are easier/cheaper/faster; aka "better". A lot more people will be working from home from now on. I believe that more States will be adopting a vote by mail system as well. Adjustments in the method will be made to adapt, hopefully something like NOT announcing partial vote tallies, and just giving the raw numbers after all the votes are counted, likely 7-10 days after polls close, or whatever rule that particular State sets (stopping ALL counting at the close of polls at 10pm or whatever on election day is not very democratic because it disenfranchises people who met the rules by dropping off/mailing their ballot before the deadline). Maybe we need to have an election system that is consistent nationally, instead of State by State to defray silly lawsuits like Texas vs All States that Didn't Elect Trump.
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
Sure, but that article is not a research study and has several scientific flaws. It is more about the visualization than the accuracy of the exposure risk estimates.
not bad for mile 25
And 20 minutes at six feet for one pair of subjects may have a very different result than the same conditions for a different pair of people. Since no one can tell exactly what's going on, I'm more comfortable with five minutes at ten feet while masked.
I'm more comfortable sitting at my desk at home
What I wrote:"Unlike the douchebag in the whitehouse who has never admitted he was wrong about anything ever but HAS stated many times that only he knows what is right."
Part of the reply:
Trump is a megalomaniac. But I'm not sure why you would expect him to concede anything given the resistance he has encountered, as duly elected President.
Uh. Ok? I never said that.
I don't expect him to concede. Doesn't have to do with "the resistance he has encountered". It has everything to do with the evidence-backed idea that he is a racist narcissist who is also a complete idiot.People who STILL support him after he lies and lies and lies? Says a lot about their engrained racism and tolerance for absolute bullshit.
These people need to take their shineboxes and go home.I have no time for these fuckers. Fuck them.
(edited to add: I realize the actual quote is "go home and get your shinebox". I mean what I wrote.)