Duck Hunting Forum banner
41 - 60 of 1313 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,484 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
The Pas Swamp Donkey said:
Next you'll be arguing that masks don't work either.............
Vaccines work if you take them.

The way ordinary people wear and behave with the masks they wear, they don't work and likely increase the risk. Plot mask use with infections and unlike with the vaccine, you don't see a drop or we would not have a problem. There is a big difference between theoretically and in practice. For many the mask gives a false sense of security, so they take risks they would not without their security blanket. It's supposed to be "wear a mask if you cannot social distance" and not "wear a mask so I don't have to social distance."

In practice masks do little to nothing and maybe make it worse or we would see different results.

Do NOT do anything with a mask you would not do without one.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,092 Posts
One thing that always bothered me about the mask. If you social distance then you should be good?

Someone is exposed to a positive Covid. Unless they are around said person for 15 minutes then there is not much concern. It used to be 30 minutes now.

What gives.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
43,074 Posts
cartervj said:
Someone is exposed to a positive Covid. Unless they are around said person for 15 minutes then there is not much concern. It used to be 30 minutes now.
huh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,484 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
HNTFSH said:
cartervj said:
Someone is exposed to a positive Covid. Unless they are around said person for 15 minutes then there is not much concern. It used to be 30 minutes now.
huh?
Hopefully, this is based on data. However, who the hell knows. It's like speeding. You have to define a number. There's no perfect number. Nothing magic happens at the 15-minute mark just like 73 inches is not that different than 71 inches but all are a lot safer than 24 inches.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...ng/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period* starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to test specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,092 Posts
HNTFSH said:
cartervj said:
Someone is exposed to a positive Covid. Unless they are around said person for 15 minutes then there is not much concern. It used to be 30 minutes now.
huh?
There is some sort of criteria for length for time for a person to be exposed to a positive covid person
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
43,074 Posts
cartervj said:
HNTFSH said:
cartervj said:
Someone is exposed to a positive Covid. Unless they are around said person for 15 minutes then there is not much concern. It used to be 30 minutes now.
huh?
There is some sort of criteria for length for time for a person to be exposed to a positive covid person
Are you saying that is now a longer or shorter period of time?

I'd think it more relative to the type of contact and what happens during the exposure. I can't imagine time is a factor beyond the fact that time adds more of the former.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,493 Posts
The Pas Swamp Donkey said:
Vaccines work. Next you'll be arguing that masks don't work either.............
Please allow me to quote a foremost authority on this topic..... me. :lol3:

Rat Creek said:
Don't take this wrong. I am thrilled there is a vaccine for polio.
The two points you seem to be willfully missing are:

(1) These by definition are "EXPERIMENTAL" vaccines using totally new approaches which have never been used on humans. They are NOT similar to other vaccines. In fact, some medical people object to calling them vaccines because they are so dissimilar from all the traditional vaccines from polio to shingles. :fingerpt:

(2) The point on polio and hygiene is that without the vaccine, stepped up hygiene had infections on an almost vertical path lower. It is interesting. It is not saying the Earff is flat. It is not an either/or proposition. :fingerhead: Good hygiene was doing wonders, and except for the two hundred or so who were crippled by the vaccine early on, the vaccine ended the match with a choke hold. :hammer:

Oh, and I seriously doubt masks work. If you seek "experts" who say they do, they are easy to find. The same can be said for the contrary. :fingerhead: :yes:

The designed purpose of a surgical mask is to keep those conducting the procedure from expelling spittle into the open wound. Or as my friend who is now a heart/lung surgeon said, a place to put the vicks vapor rub the first few times going into surgery in med school, to help "mask" the smoking flesh smell from the cauterizing scalpel. :eek: :help:

If you were given a science project to create a nice, warm, moist environment to help a virus survive and multiply, and wanted to make the trip convenient for the virus from the parking lot to the pie hole, I bet you would create a mask as the ideal approach. :yes:

Virtue masks are there to demonstrate your emotional investment in the pandemic. :bow:

Do self aggrandizing experts ever take note that the places with the most stringent virtue mask requirements have equal or greater cases? If virtue masks worked, we would be saying, remember back in the summer of 2020 when we saved the Earff with our BLM virtue masks? :no:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,493 Posts
HNTFSH said:
I'd think it more relative to the type of contact and what happens during the exposure. I can't imagine time is a factor beyond the fact that time adds more of the former.
I doubt anyone really knows, but a person needs prolonged exposure to any virus to take on enough of it to get infected. I guess it is possible a single virus particle could make it happen, but that is like winning the lottery in a bad way. Our bodies are great at filtering via our mucus membrane system. Something like a quart or half gallon of nasal stuff washes stuff away everyday.

That is the "time" aspect of exposure to an infected person for an extended period of time. Like everything else, it is situational. :yes:

Now if it is your dental hygienist who is infected and she is working over your beautiful smile, from twelve inches away, for thirty minutes, I am guessing that "in your face" exposure is 1,000x compared to sitting across the table from someone or 1,000,000x walking down the street. :rolleyes:

Back when I used to travel on planes, when I heard someone coughing near me, I would hold my breath for a good thirty seconds, as I heard another "expert" say that any particulate would drop to the floor or back of my neck by then. :oops: That and my hand sanitizer were my secret weapons that anecdotally worked 100% of the time, so the science is settled on that matter. :hammer:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,484 Posts
Discussion Starter · #49 ·
Rat Creek said:
(1) These by definition are "EXPERIMENTAL" vaccines using totally new approaches which have never been used on humans.
Never BEFORE because they have been used on humans which demonstrated that they do in fact reduce the risk of the virus. That's what they have been doing all too slowly for the last year.

Granted we neither know the long term effects of being infected by the virus nor being injected with the vaccine. We can make educated guesses from a fairly large dataset at this point that make it pretty clear that being exposed to the virus will kill a whole lot more than the vaccine. Granted not so for young healthy people, but definitely so for seniors and most middle aged Americans.

But yes we have an experimental vaccine and an experimental virus. Almost everybody must get one before this thing goes away and possibly both depending on the duration of effective immunity for those that survive being infected by the virus.

And the quicker we make this virus irrelevant by vaccination, the more likelihood we have that the virus will not mutate sufficiently to make the vaccinations and previous infections ineffective at providing protection from future exposures. Letting it mill around in the young healthy people until it mutates to thwart immunization so it can kill more doesn't seem like a prudent plan given the massive suffering and death caused so far.

But I just don't understand how people think on this.

There are the vaccine is pointless or somehow for most it is worse than getting the virus even though all the data and anecdotal evidence (who doesn't know someone that hasn't died or suffered horribly at this point?) suggest clearly this is far worse than the flu or the common cold. Granted I don't think we've taken them seriously enough in the past and I think we've largely overreacted to this.

There are also people like my mother-in-law who had the :censored: virus but doesn't think it is safe to go out until she gets vaccinated. Seriously, ***! :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: I've been as inoculated as you ever will be right now. No more effective vaccine than the actual virus assuming it doesn't kill you. But until she gets vaccinated, she's afraid to go anywhere :no: :no: :no:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,493 Posts
I think you would benefit from listening to "experts" explain how this vaccine technology is different. I cannot explain it sufficiently except to say that when I hear a medical professional describe it, the differences are significant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,493 Posts
SpinnerMan said:
There are the vaccine is pointless or somehow for most it is worse than getting the virus even though all the data and anecdotal evidence (who doesn't know someone that hasn't died or suffered horribly at this point?) suggest clearly this is far worse than the flu or the common cold.
Guilty as charged. :hammer: With a 99.997% survival rate with NO treatment, I like those odds. :thumbsup: If I contract it, and who is to say I have not already had it, I will do the Zinc, Vitamins C and D approach as it seems to make those odds even better. :thumbsup: Heck, I am already doing those supplements, so there you go. :yes: And I may contact the Frontline Doctors Group for a HCQ prescription as a kicker..... if I cannot get a donation from my sister in law who takes it for lupus. :wink:

SpinnerMan said:
No more effective vaccine than the actual virus assuming it doesn't kill you. But until she gets vaccinated, she's afraid to go anywhere :no: :no: :no:
We can thank the fake news and Swamp Fauci for that disinformation. I work with a leftist who heard on CNN (about six months back) that there is no proof that the virus will not re-infect again and again forever. AHHHHHH, we are all going to die. :eek: Hey, they had a doctor on saying so, so it must be true, right? :huh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,484 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
Rat Creek said:
I think you would benefit from listening to "experts" explain how this vaccine technology is different. I cannot explain it sufficiently except to say that when I hear a medical professional describe it, the differences are significant.
I have listened and I have looked at the results of the trials and now the administration of millions of doses.

Different does not mean worse. It can be better. It can just be different.

It is effective and there is no indication of any issues nor any reason to be concerned that there would be more issues than traditional vaccines. There are many types of vaccines. They are all different and all were once "experimental."

The question is do they work and what are the risks.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-types
Vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA), an intermediary between DNA and protein, also are being developed. Recent technological advances have largely overcome issues with the instability of mRNA and the difficulty of delivering it into cells, and some mRNA vaccines have demonstrated encouraging early results. For example, NIAID-supported researchers developed an experimental mRNA vaccine that protected mice and monkeys against Zika virus infection after a single dose.

Rather than delivering DNA or mRNA directly to cells, some vaccines use a harmless virus or bacterium as a vector, or carrier, to introduce genetic material into cells. Several such recombinant vector vaccines are approved to protect animals from infectious diseases, including rabies and distemper.
The mRNA vaccines didn't just appear this past year without a long history of development. The time was simply right for the next technology innovation to be used in human vaccines. They were used in animals for other diseases and now humans for this.

That's how technology advances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,493 Posts
And as I have a 99.997% chance of surviving (probably higher given I am in better than average shape) IF I contract it and do nothing with therapeutics, I will take a hard pass on the experimental vaccine. Risk versus Reward. :hammer:

I recommend you get it as often as possible. :hi:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,484 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
Rat Creek said:
And as I have a 99.997% chance of surviving (probably higher given I am in better than average shape) IF I contract it and do nothing with therapeutics, I will take a hard pass on the experimental vaccine. Risk versus Reward. :hammer:

I recommend you get it as often as possible. :hi:
Most people think their odds are much better than they are.

Actually, I believe our ages are similar, so that put you in the group with an average risk of dying at around 0.1%. Even if you are 10 times less likely, even healthy people can get a comorbidity like catching the flu simultaneously or something that opens the door which is why I believe we have perfectly healthy people suffer some times, that would be 0.01% or about 40 times higher than that. Which it is unlikely you are actually at 10 times less risk than the average person in the group.

When I actually was the model of health, 30, thin, fit, running 25-30 miles per week, lifting 3-4 times per week, ..., I caught the flu, no problem. Then I caught pneumonia because the flu opened the door. Took me months to get back to where I was. Today, no way I'm back to where I was in months or maybe ever. And it's not far fetched. The odds of getting two infections at the same time. If just 1% of the population has each, that means only 99.99% don't have both. That's why even the healthy die and suffer. Two or three not so rare events hit at the right time and your :censored: If you get just Covid, you probably will be OK, but do you have anything undiagnosed or what else are you going to catch at the same time that will multiply your problems?

And then there is the risk of hospitalization, risk of permanent damage, ... Which are much more prevalent than those that succumb. Just because you don't die, doesn't mean you won't suffer possibly permanently that degrade your quality of life. And that is if you are simply purely 100% self centered. Because if you are not, then there is the risk of giving to others that are not the model of health.

Get Covid and you are probably 99% likely to not suffer seriously or die. 1% suffer and about 0.2%-0.4% chance of dying if you get it (probably 50%-90% chance without the vaccine for anyone, granted I'm aware of the I'm better let the other people take the risk for me argument - the equivalent of going to Canada during Vietnam). Take the vaccine, and those odds drop by orders of magnitude for those that identify as healthy middle aged men. BTW, another reason you are likely way underestimating your risk. Men are more at risk than women, so the average for the age is half men and half women and you are in the wrong half that puts your risk above average. I doubt identifying as a woman will help.

But I get it. It's the basic liberal argument. We don't really know anything except that I'm right. Maybe not about any of the facts, but I'm still right. :thumbsup:

But enjoy your extremely rare status as a 99.997%'er.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
77,478 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
816 Posts
Wrong. Please go to any of the following REPUTABLE sources and investigate. CDC (Centre for Disease Control) WHO (World Health Organization) FDA (Food and Drug Administration) , MAYO clinic, Harvard Health, JAMA , and you can do a medline search under the NIH (National Institute of Health) and look for meta-analaysis, which is a review of current articles dealing with the subject. I'll take the conclustion from the one meta analysis here , which was a review of 19 controlled data studies (placebo controlled). Conclusion :

"The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented."

Similar results may be found at The Lancet and the European Respiratory Journal.

None of my results were published at Facebook University or the College of YOUTUBE or Trump University.

Don't tell people to take hydroxychloroquine. Double blind scientific studies and meta analysis have found it to be totally ineffective.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
77,478 Posts
The Pas Swamp Donkey said:
Wrong. Please go to any of the following REPUTABLE sources and investigate. CDC (Centre for Disease Control) WHO (World Health Organization) FDA (Food and Drug Administration) , MAYO clinic, Harvard Health, JAMA , and you can do a medline search under the NIH (National Institute of Health) and look for meta-analaysis, which is a review of current articles dealing with the subject. I'll take the conclustion from the one meta analysis here , which was a review of 19 controlled data studies (placebo controlled). Conclusion :

"The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented."

Similar results may be found at The Lancet and the European Respiratory Journal.

None of my results were published at Facebook University or the College of YOUTUBE or Trump University.

Don't tell people to take hydroxychloroquine. Double blind scientific studies and meta analysis have found it to be totally ineffective.
None of what you posted refutes the science that viruses pass thru masks. the N-95 allows pass through of virus particulate size larger than the thresh hold for infection. Please post something that refutes this fact.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
77,478 Posts
Here ya go...
Results: The results indicate that the penetration of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of 5%.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/

That 5% is above the threshhold for infection by at least 3 orders of magnitude. You will still get infected, with just 5% particulate pass thru. And that is my point-they do not work against viruses.

Conclusion: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.
The protective capabilities offered by N95 masks are largely attributed to the masks' removal of more than 95% of all particles with an average diameter that is 300 nm or less. The average size of Sars-CoV-2 is 60-140nm.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
77,478 Posts
And that is for the best masks...the N-95 masks. I don't see many people wearing n-95 masks, and of those wearing them, they are not wearing them properly. Most of the masks I see are just cotton, and that isn't going to do jack squat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,658 Posts
SpinnerMan said:
I read the thread in the Honey Hole on Experimental Vaccince https://www.duckhuntingchat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=911562

Three things jumped out at me, but didn't really want to get into a controversial topic in there so I moved my comments to new threads here.

Rat Creek said:
So the vaccine is worse than covid? :umm:
Not even close.

Maybe for young healthy people. For some of them it may be safer to get the virus than the vaccine. However, nobody ends up giving it to other people that die because you got vaccinated. My sister-in-law gave it to her parents. Thankfully they didn't die, but they were a lot closer than they would have liked to have been. If she had got vaccinated, she wouldn't have nearly killed her parents.

Even if we are talking about 100 deaths per 1,000,000 vaccinations. If we vaccinated all 330,000,000 Americans, that would be 33,000 deaths and the reality is that it is probably 1/10th of that or less. After all we are vaccinating the weakest and probably most effected first. The virus has killed a minimum of 10 times that already and given that probably no more than 1 out of 3 have gotten it so far, we are looking at doubling that number before we reach herd immunity without the vaccines. So 33,000 deaths compared to another 300,000 to 500,000 deaths would be a massive amount of lives saved. And it's not just death that the virus causes. A lot of people have other serious health consequences, not just the suffering through the virus, my father-in-law was extremely sick for a month and when you are almost 80 you don't just bounce back from that, but also many have probably permanent damage that will impacts on their life.

Hundreds of thousands of more will die without the vaccine.

At most thousands will die with the vaccine. The only problem is we can't vaccinate quickly enough. As a result we will probably lose another 100,000 more at least and millions more will suffer badly and often permanently.

Obviously you start vaccinating the highest risk people first, but you keep going down the list until this :censored: thing is sent to the ash heap of history like polio and other disease we have vaccinated into irrelevance. Maybe we don't have to vaccinate anyone under 25 to do that, but when your risk group comes up and this thing is still around, I think it's immoral to not get vaccinated.
Wrong you can still get it and spread it after the MRNA is shot in your arm. It only helps you get through it.
 
41 - 60 of 1313 Posts
Top