ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th July 2020, 09:13 AM   #41
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,175
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Fauci has been asked about this. His answer is forceful and straightforward: They wanted the masks in the hands of the front lines and didn't want the public hoarding them. Which, of course, they would do.
So they lied about the science? That we are supposed to follow and adhere to?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 09:42 AM   #42
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,961
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
So they lied about the science? That we are supposed to follow and adhere to?
I never viewed these early recommendations being particularly at odds with later recommendations to wear mask. I thought it was always clear that the recommendation not to used masks was because healthcare workers needed them more and that at that point it wasnít certain how beneficial they were.

Later evidence for the benefit of masks would not mean they were lying at the time. There is always going to be lots of uncertainty around an emerging virus.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 09:47 AM   #43
Cat Not Included
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 139
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
No longer with the GOP, but I will address the issue about masks. Simply put, the CDC and WHO organizations both, early in the pandemic, both advised against masks.

Were they basing their recommendations on "the science" or was it an attempt to get the masks that do work into the hands of front lines?

Did the science change, or was it a lie to prevent people from stockpiling effective masks like toilet paper? I'm pretty sure it was the latter. Masks are bad, don't wear them. Wait, now not only are the good, but you have to wear them, or go to jail. Jail is bad, so we have to release everyone so they don't get Covid, unless you are anti-mask, then we will lock your ass up. Mixed messages to say the least.
Did they ever say "masks are bad don't wear them"? The message I always heard from early one was more like "medical masks are probably unnecessary unless you are showing symptoms or highly vulnerable; medical professionals DO need masks, so please leave the masks for them and contribute the ones you have if possible".
Cat Not Included is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 09:55 AM   #44
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,504
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I never viewed these early recommendations being particularly at odds with later recommendations to wear mask. I thought it was always clear that the recommendation not to used masks was because healthcare workers needed them more and that at that point it wasn’t certain how beneficial they were.

Later evidence for the benefit of masks would not mean they were lying at the time. There is always going to be lots of uncertainty around an emerging virus.
Moreover, the point of wearing a mask has always been an issue of protecting others from you and not you from others. N95 masks can protect you from others but save them for those who require them. The homemade masks we have these days are about preventing you from infecting others.

That has always been the position of the CDC and WHO. There is more a focus now on pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread, which it is why it is important to wear your mask even if you feel fine.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 10:33 AM   #45
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,392
Well, this has gone about as expected!
Let's discuss a specific bit of anti-science: Climate. The following quotes are from this official Republican Platform.
Quote:
The current Administration, and particularly its EPA, seems not to care. Its Clean Power Plan — the centerpiece of the President’s war on coal — has been stayed by the Supreme Court. We will do away with it altogether. The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource. Those who mine it and their families should be protected from the Democratic Party’s radical anticoal agenda.
Quote:
We oppose any carbon tax. It would increase energy prices across the board, hitting hardest at the families who are already struggling to pay their bills in the Democrats’ no-growth economy. We urge the private sector to focus its resources on the development of carbon capture and sequestration technology still in its early stages here and overseas.
Quote:
We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act.
Quote:
Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.

We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund.
The bolded first sentence of that last one pretty much breaks my irony meter, since that's just what scientists have been doing in the face of Republican denial.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 10:42 AM   #46
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,703
Originally Posted by Cat Not Included View Post
Did they ever say "masks are bad don't wear them"? The message I always heard from early one was more like "medical masks are probably unnecessary unless you are showing symptoms or highly vulnerable; medical professionals DO need masks, so please leave the masks for them and contribute the ones you have if possible".
You can't expect that kind of nuance, it must be either good or bad. Nuance is next to damn socialism after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 10:50 AM   #47
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,999
The Democrats aren't a whole lot better on science when it comes to AGW. Yes, at least they acknowledge it. But then they turn around and try to talk happy horsecrap about all these wonderful green jobs and never mention all the sacrifice (i.e., increased taxes) that is really going to be involved in any meaningful carbon reduction. And most of them are still stuck on renewables needing to be 100%.

You want to see what a true green economy looks like? We're in it now. Maybe you can see the problem?

As for Covid, yeah, it drives me crazy that people aren't wearing masks because it's become a political statement. But I do note that a whole lot of Democrat mayors have suddenly discovered that protests are more important than banning large gatherings; that's not a political statement that goes against the science?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 11:18 AM   #48
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,479
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
But I do note that a whole lot of Democrat mayors have suddenly discovered that protests are more important than banning large gatherings; that's not a political statement that goes against the science?

No, not really. Large outdoor protests aren't very good at spreading the virus, unlike Trump's indoor rallies, which tend to spread the virus to several participants even before they've begun. Of course, it helps when Trump's aides remove the stickers on seats that people are not supposed to use because of social distancing.

A recent BLM protest with 15,000 participants in Copenhagen may have spread the virus to a very small handful of people. If more of them had used masks - very few did - there probably wouldn't have been any transmission of virus at all, an in any case far fewer than you would expect to get infected one night at a bar.

It's amazing how some people are not concerned at all when it comes to banning the right to assemble when people assemble for purposes that Republicans disagree with.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 11:23 AM   #49
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,124
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The Democrats aren't a whole lot better on science when it comes to AGW. Yes, at least they acknowledge it. But then they turn around and try to talk happy horsecrap about all these wonderful green jobs and never mention all the sacrifice (i.e., increased taxes) that is really going to be involved in any meaningful carbon reduction. And most of them are still stuck on renewables needing to be 100%.

You want to see what a true green economy looks like? We're in it now. Maybe you can see the problem?

As for Covid, yeah, it drives me crazy that people aren't wearing masks because it's become a political statement. But I do note that a whole lot of Democrat mayors have suddenly discovered that protests are more important than banning large gatherings; that's not a political statement that goes against the science?
Name one and provide a citation.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 11:52 AM   #50
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Name one and provide a citation.
DeBlasio of New York City:

Quote:
Mayor Bill de Blasio doubled down Friday on his decision to bless Black Lives Matter marches wherever and whenever they may happen while pulling the permits for the Big Appleís usual slate of summertime parades and street festivals due to the threat posed by large gatherings amid the coronavirus.

ďIíve said many times ó the protests, this is a particular moment in history where 400 years of oppression, 400 years of racism are being addressed in a very powerful way,Ē Hizzoner said. ďThat canít compare to anything else.Ē

De Blasio made the remarks after again reiterating that it would be unsafe to allow parades and festivals that often bring tens of thousands to the streets because of the risk of transmitting COVID-19 ó and the need to use the cityís public space and resources to bolster its street closure programs for pedestrians and restaurants.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 12:25 PM   #51
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by dann View Post
No, not really. Large outdoor protests aren't very good at spreading the virus, unlike Trump's indoor rallies, which tend to spread the virus to several participants even before they've begun. Of course, it helps when Trump's aides remove the stickers on seats that people are not supposed to use because of social distancing.

A recent BLM protest with 15,000 participants in Copenhagen may have spread the virus to a very small handful of people. If more of them had used masks - very few did - there probably wouldn't have been any transmission of virus at all, an in any case far fewer than you would expect to get infected one night at a bar.

It's amazing how some people are not concerned at all when it comes to banning the right to assemble when people assemble for purposes that Republicans disagree with.
Dann's post here is a perfect example of anti-science on the left. This quote from Brainster illustrates the point further:

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
DeBlasio of New York City:
The left is putting the importance of BLM protests above the risk of spread. When a bunch of people are all in close proximity, it doesn't matter if you are indoors or outdoors. Even face coverings are not quite good enough to totally stop the spread in close proximity.

People can gather outdoors to protest; people cannot gather outdoors to simply socialize or enjoy a parade, concert or sporting event. It doesn't make scientific sense, but it might make ideological sense.

I'm not even saying they are wrong. Much like the GOP and climate change, sometimes there are other considerations that make the science a secondary issue.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 13th July 2020 at 12:53 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 12:31 PM   #52
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,105
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
e) Claim covid-19 will kill many millions in the US

Etc, etc, etc.
The actual claim was that unchecked covid-19 would kill millions, and contrary to right-wing belief this is well supported by the science.
Trump just again claimed that "millions would have died" if 'we hadn't done what we did'. In other words, if left unchecked, millions would have died.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 12:35 PM   #53
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,703
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The left is putting the importance of BLM protests above the risk of spread. When a bunch of people are all in close proximity, it doesn't matter if you are indoors or outdoors. Even face coverings are not quite good enough to totally stop the spread in close proximity.
That should be just church services that get exemptions like that! That is what the science says after all! The science is clear you can not get covid in a church blessed by god.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 12:55 PM   #54
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
That should be just church services that get exemptions like that! That is what the science says after all! The science is clear you can not get covid in a church blessed by god.
Not at all. That's an example of the right putting church services against what science currently knows about the spread. Each side has their priorities that they are putting above the science. That's the point.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 12:57 PM   #55
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,703
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not at all. That's an example of the right putting church services against what science currently knows about the spread. Each side has their priorities that they are putting above the science. That's the point.
Yep the first amendment and seeking redress matters to democrats and having open beaches matters to republcians. That is why both NYC and florida are blowing up currently. Oh wait no only the one run by republicans is setting new records for covid infections.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 01:11 PM   #56
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep the first amendment and seeking redress matters to democrats and having open beaches matters to republcians. That is why both NYC and florida are blowing up currently. Oh wait no only the one run by republicans is setting new records for covid infections.
Quick switch to "open beaches" instead of "open churches". It's almost like you realized your "the first amendment matters to democrats," claim would run into trouble there.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 01:35 PM   #57
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,479
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Dann's post here is a perfect example of anti-science on the left.

You obviously know nothing about the science of how the virus spreads, which, of course, can't even be called anti-science. It's just old-fashioned ignorance.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 02:26 PM   #58
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
If it wasn't the truth, and they knew it wasn't the truth, that makes it what?

Since the goal wasn't to flatten the curve, or slow the infection, but control availability. In what way is that being honest about the science?
Again, at the time, masks were not necessary for the general public. Proper procedures by the government could have cut the spread off before it got out of control.

Quote:
Address it how?
By strengthening the supply chain, but closing down unnecessary travel. By making sure people directly dealing with COVID-19 had the proper gear. There are a bunch of ways to prevent community spread prior to going to facemask at every public gathering.

Quote:
By wearing masks, something they were trying to avoid recommending?
Quote:
I thought it was a run on masks, but now it's the fact that "others" will address it correctly?
Those are no mutualyl exclusive concepts.

Quote:
Based on their no-mask recommendations? Or were they telling the leaders one thing in private and then lying to the general public?
Again, they weren't lying the situation at the time did not call for masks for the general public. Only after our leaders completely failed us and community spread exploded in key areas, did we have a situation where masks should be necessary in gatherings.
__________________
SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 03:48 PM   #59
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by dann View Post
You obviously know nothing about the science of how the virus spreads, which, of course, can't even be called anti-science. It's just old-fashioned ignorance.
Really? Let's look back at your post:

Originally Posted by dann
No, not really. Large outdoor protests aren't very good at spreading the virus, unlike Trump's indoor rallies,
Outdoor protests are not magic. If a bunch of people are all together, not wearing masks, the virus is going to spread just as easily as if they were indoors.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 03:56 PM   #60
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep the first amendment and seeking redress matters to democrats and having open beaches matters to republcians. That is why both NYC and florida are blowing up currently. Oh wait no only the one run by republicans is setting new records for covid infections.
As Brainster pointed out, you switched it up here. It's not beaches that are important, it's free exercise of religion. I'm pretty sure republicans are not the only ones flocking to open beaches. Where I live, there are not that many republicans and our beaches were packed 4th of July.

The First Amendment is an issue for both sides, just for different things. If exercising the right to protest is important, then so should be exercising the right to attend church.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 04:02 PM   #61
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,720
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If a bunch of people are all together, not wearing masks, the virus is going to spread just as easily as if they were indoors.
No. It doesn't. That's kind of the point.

The Risks - Know Them - Avoid Them(University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Professor Erin Bromage)

Quote:
The reason to highlight these different outbreaks is to show you the commonality of outbreaks of COVID-19. All these infection events were indoors, with people closely-spaced, with lots of talking, singing, or yelling. The main sources for infection are home, workplace, public transport, social gatherings, and restaurants. This accounts for 90% of all transmission events. In contrast, outbreaks spread from shopping appear to be responsible for a small percentage of traced infections. (Ref)



Importantly, of the countries performing contact tracing properly, only a single outbreak has been reported from an outdoor environment (less than 0.3% of traced infections). (ref)
(cites linked to in original article).

Science: Why do some COVID-19 patients infect many others, whereas most don’t spread the virus at all?
Quote:
The factor scientists are closest to understanding is where COVID-19 clusters are likely to occur. “Clearly there is a much higher risk in enclosed spaces than outside,” Althaus says. Researchers in China studying the spread of the coronavirus outside Hubei province—ground zero for the pandemic—identified 318 clusters of three or more cases between 4 January and 11 February, only one of which originated outdoors. A study in Japan found that the risk of infection indoors is almost 19 times higher than outdoors.

Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences Of the United States of America: Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19

Quote:
Recent measurements identified SARS-Cov-2 RNA on aerosols in Wuhan’s hospitals (18) and outdoor in northern Italy (21), unraveling the likelihood of indoor and outdoor airborne transmission. Within an enclosed environment, virus-bearing aerosols from human atomization are readily accumulated, and elevated levels of airborne viruses facilitate transmission from person to person. Transmission of airborne viruses in open air is subject to dilution, although virus accumulation still occurs due to stagnation under polluted urban conditions (7, 22). Removal of virus-bearing particles from human atomization via deposition is strongly size dependent, with the settling velocities ranging from 2.8 ◊ 10−5 m⋅s−1 to 1.4 ◊ 10−3 m⋅s−1 for the sizes of 1 and 10 μm, respectively (7). For comparison, typical wind velocity is about 1 m⋅s−1 to 3 m⋅s−1 indoors (23) and is ∼1 m⋅s−1 horizontally and 0.1 m⋅s−1 vertically in stable air (7, 22). Under those indoor and outdoor conditions, the residence time of virus-bearing aerosols reaches hours, due to air mixing (7).

Outdoor transmission is possible, but far less likely than indoor transmission. Certainly not equally, not "just as easily".
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 04:12 PM   #62
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
No. It doesn't. That's kind of the point.

The Risks - Know Them - Avoid Them(University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Professor Erin Bromage)

(cites linked to in original article).

Science: Why do some COVID-19 patients infect many others, whereas most don’t spread the virus at all?


Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences Of the United States of America: Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19




Outdoor transmission is possible, but far less likely than indoor transmission. Certainly not equally, not "just as easily".
Those studies aren't looking at large crowds gathered together outside. Put a bunch of people, many not wearing masks, in a small area outside and you will have transmisison. Look at Memorial Day weeked beaches and the spike my neck of the woods had two weeks after. I think we are fooling ourselves if we thing packed beaches, protests, etc have low risk of transmission.

ETA: A quote from your first link, which I meant to include:

Quote:
If I am outside, and I walk past someone, remember it is “dose and time” needed for infection. You would have to be in their airstream for 5+ minutes for a chance of infection.
In a close-spaced outdoor gathering, you are going to be in airstream for a lot longer than 5 minutes.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 13th July 2020 at 04:15 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 04:35 PM   #63
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
No. It doesn't. That's kind of the point.

<snip>

Outdoor transmission is possible, but far less likely than indoor transmission. Certainly not equally, not "just as easily".
A valid point, but it really doesn't change anything. Either de Blasio is ignoring the science when he refuses to allow other events like parades and street fairs, or he's ignoring the science when he allows the BLM protests.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 05:53 PM   #64
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
One can speculate about screaming or proximity but the actual science, the data so far, indicates that the protests have not lead to detectable increases in COVID-19 infections.
https://time.com/5861633/protests-coronavirus/

This is fully consistent with the preexisting data that outdoor transmission is much less efficient than indoor and with masks also being a useful preventative. But the next few weeks will more fully confirm this or not.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 05:56 PM   #65
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
A valid point, but it really doesn't change anything. Either de Blasio is ignoring the science when he refuses to allow other events like parades and street fairs, or he's ignoring the science when he allows the BLM protests.
Realistically de Blasio had a better chance of refusing to allow a street fair than refusing to allow the protests.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:07 PM   #66
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,105
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
A valid point, but it really doesn't change anything. Either de Blasio is ignoring the science when he refuses to allow other events like parades and street fairs, or he's ignoring the science when he allows the BLM protests.
Parades and street fairs can be cancelled without violating people's rights or exacerbating an already tense situation. The BLM people were exercising their Constitutional rights to a peaceful assembly in order to protest. If de Blasio had tried to shut down the protests, what do you think would have been the results of that? If you thought emotions were running high then, imagine what they would have been with de Blasio sending in police to break up peaceful protests. At the time, whether he was 'ignoring the science' or not is irrelevant.

ETA: Damn. Ninja'd by Giordano.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:13 PM   #67
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
One can speculate about screaming or proximity but the actual science, the data so far, indicates that the protests have not lead to detectable increases in COVID-19 infections.
https://time.com/5861633/protests-coronavirus/

This is fully consistent with the preexisting data that outdoor transmission is much less efficient than indoor and with masks also being a useful preventative. But the next few weeks will more fully confirm this or not.

Let me put it this way: based on what we know right now, should we allow outdoor concerts? Should we allow large outdoor gatherings?

I would say the state of the science right now, is that we shouldnít because we donít actually know yet. There is risk, either way. Maybe the risk is tiny, maybe itís almost as bad as indoors depending on the density of the outdoor gathering.

We donít know. To make a blanket statement that itís hard to transmit at an outdoor rally is not an accurate statement. We donít know that.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:20 PM   #68
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
No longer with the GOP, but I will address the issue about masks. Simply put, the CDC and WHO organizations both, early in the pandemic, both advised against masks.

Were they basing their recommendations on "the science" or was it an attempt to get the masks that do work into the hands of front lines?
They were ignoring a lot of valid research.

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Did the science change, or was it a lie to prevent people from stockpiling effective masks like toilet paper? I'm pretty sure it was the latter. Masks are bad, don't wear them. Wait, now not only are the good, but you have to wear them, or go to jail. Jail is bad, so we have to release everyone so they don't get Covid, unless you are anti-mask, then we will lock your ass up. Mixed messages to say the least.
Not going down the jail rabbit hole but it was coming from the top of the CDC including Fauci trying to sidestep (hide) the fact there was a serious PPE shortage and testing issues.

Down here on the front lines, a lot of us were disgusted with the CDC Interim Guidelines because, frankly, they sucked. And not in any kind of science way. This was the most politically influenced I've ever seen the CDC.

CDC guidelines must be followed by all public health departments in the US.

[Where is kellyb when I want to tell her on this I agree with her. She has always complained about political influence in the ACIP because drug companies sat on the committee. ]
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:23 PM   #69
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,999
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
DeBlasio of New York City:
From your link:-

Quote:
Speaking on CNN Thursday night, de Blasio said the demonstratorsí calls for social justice were too important to stop after more than a month of demonstrations have not led to an outbreak of coronavirus cases
But isn't this a double standard? Why allow protests, but not events like parades and fairs?

Perhaps because...
Quote:
A late-June study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found no evidence that coronavirus cases jumped in 315 cities in the weeks after the first protests. Researchers determined that protests may have been offset by an increase in social distancing among those who decided not to march.
What's the difference between a parade or fair, and a protest march? The latter is something you probably don't want to be too close to.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:23 PM   #70
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
And?
And "your party" referred to the GOP, not both parties:
Quote:
I was mostly talking about Democrats in general instead of the ones in office. The OP says "your party"
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 13th July 2020 at 06:24 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:29 PM   #71
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Evolution denial isn't GOP national policy and so any such claims can be simply disregarded as being made marginal kooks who don't properly represent the party in that regard (regardless of how senior they are in the party at a national or state level and regardless of GOP representatives at a state level to push creationism, intelligent design or "teaching the controversy").

If not that then it's an individual's personal religious views and hence none of our business thanks to the first amendment.

The next step would be to identify Democrats with similarly kooky views (though they tend not to be so influential) and suggest that there's no difference.
So one level down (states) and that's not the GOP leadership?
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:32 PM   #72
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm troubled by lots of things. But this thread isn't an attempt at an honest conversation about any of them, so what's the point? ...
The only way there is no conversation to be had is because other than the tu quoque argument there is none.

I think the OP was asking for someone on the right to defend the anti-science position.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:37 PM   #73
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
It wasn't a lie, but the CDC was trying to prevent a run on masks. At the time of the initial statement, we hadn't experienced community spread. Health officials made the recommendation against masks based o the assumption that local, state, and federal officials would address the situation appropriately. Their fault for forgetting we put idiots In charge.
Yes we had but it's off topic here.

And your assumption is wrong because local public health officials are required to follow the CDC Interim Guidelines. They told doctors who they could test and the advice was problematic.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:38 PM   #74
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,999
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Let me put it this way: based on what we know right now, should we allow outdoor concerts? Should we allow large outdoor gatherings?
Perhaps, if the risk can be shown to be very low. But such events aren't generally necessary, so stopping them should be no big deal.

Quote:
I would say the state of the science right now, is that we shouldnít because we donít actually know yet. There is risk, either way. Maybe the risk is tiny, maybe itís almost as bad as indoors depending on the density of the outdoor gathering.
We have a pretty good idea that the risk is much lower outdoors. However the problem is that some people will take this as meaning no risk, and not take sufficient precautions. Therefore I agree that large outdoor gatherings should be discouraged - not because they are high risk, but because it muddles the messaging.

Quote:
To make a blanket statement that itís hard to transmit at an outdoor rally is not an accurate statement. We donít know that.
Based on the information we have it's accurate. The question is whether 'hard' is a low enough. In some situations it could be, in others perhaps not. Therefore giving blanket approval to all outdoor events is not prudent.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:39 PM   #75
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
AIUI, the science relating to mask use has always been unambiguous, used properly an appropriate mask provides significant protection against Covid-19 infection which is why medical personnel have always worn them.

The problem is that members of the public seem unable to use masks properly, they don't replace them often enough, they contaminate them by touching them and as a result, masks give a false sense of security which in turn means that they don't follow social distancing instructions properly. It's been a matter of balancing the benefits of their use against the risks of their misuse.

The public don't like nuanced messages, they're confusing so it's been very difficult to develop an accurate binary message.
So why is there no risk now?
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:40 PM   #76
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Fauci has been asked about this. His answer is forceful and straightforward: They wanted the masks in the hands of the front lines and didn't want the public hoarding them. Which, of course, they would do.
Got a link? Because that was in the questions he was asked. His answer was to claim we didn't have the data then we have now. He has never, to my knowledge, admitted lying to the public about masks.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 13th July 2020 at 06:41 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:43 PM   #77
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
At this point anti-vax is firmly right wing, not left wing. ....
Another group the GOP has mined for the single-issue voters.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:45 PM   #78
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by Cat Not Included View Post
Did they ever say "masks are bad don't wear them"? The message I always heard from early one was more like "medical masks are probably unnecessary unless you are showing symptoms or highly vulnerable; medical professionals DO need masks, so please leave the masks for them and contribute the ones you have if possible".
Quote from Fauci: "No one should be running around wearing masks."
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:48 PM   #79
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,678
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Moreover, the point of wearing a mask has always been an issue of protecting others from you and not you from others. N95 masks can protect you from others but save them for those who require them. The homemade masks we have these days are about preventing you from infecting others.

That has always been the position of the CDC and WHO. There is more a focus now on pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread, which it is why it is important to wear your mask even if you feel fine.
Yep, and we have always been at was with Oceania.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:50 PM   #80
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
One can speculate about screaming or proximity but the actual science, the data so far, indicates that the protests have not lead to detectable increases in COVID-19 infections.
https://time.com/5861633/protests-coronavirus/

This is fully consistent with the preexisting data that outdoor transmission is much less efficient than indoor and with masks also being a useful preventative. But the next few weeks will more fully confirm this or not.
Then why all the moaning over the beaches being opened? And I note that there is speculation that the reason the rate of infection didn't increase from the protests is that it was "offset by an increase in social distancing among those who decided not to march."

Translation: Increased infections among the marchers were offset by fewer infections among those who were scared away from the marchers. I suppose this indicates the best marches are the ones that ended in riots and looting, since these scare people away more effectively?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.