Poll: Do you wear a mask in stores?

Do you wear a mask in stores?

  • Yes

    Votes: 112 57.4%

  • No

    Votes: 83 42.6%
  • Total voters
    195
  • Poll closed .
#176
#176
DinkinFlicka said:
I assume you still have a wifi connection despite being 2 feet up your own ass since you post here, so I'm sure you can do some digging and see droves of people bitching and throwing tantrums over mask policies in grocery stores/gas stations.

But, if you must insist, check the third ****ing reply ITT.
Click to expand...

Where the 3rd post did it say he was going to do what you suggest here?

DinkinFlicka said:
If any business asks you to and you don't, you are inherently anti-capitalist.
Click to expand...
 
#177
#177
GAVol said:
In highly scientific terms, the mask greatly reduces what you are spitting at people from the source. The virus has to have something to ride on - namely liquid. Since the droplets are larger at the source, a mask is able to cut way down on what you're hocking in people's general direction when you talk, cough, breathe etc. Droplets get smaller the farther they are from a source because gravity pulls the larger ones down. Hence, a regular mask isn’t as good at catching the incoming because it’s porous.

Thought this was kind of interesting as far as showing what will block small particles: View attachment 289672
Click to expand...

Is that assuming that the mask is new, pristine and clean? Or have they factored in the most likely scenario of people wearing the same mask for days at a time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards and NEO
#180
#180
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, W.TN.Orange Blood, ajvol01 and 1 other person
#185
#185
GAVol said:
In highly scientific terms, the mask greatly reduces what you are spitting at people from the source. The virus has to have something to ride on - namely liquid. Since the droplets are larger at the source, a mask is able to cut way down on what you're hocking in people's general direction when you talk, cough, breathe etc. Droplets get smaller the farther they are from a source because gravity pulls the larger ones down. Hence, a regular mask isn’t as good at catching the incoming because it’s porous.

Thought this was kind of interesting as far as showing what will block small particles: View attachment 289672
Click to expand...
So, social distancing in combination with a mask is a poor idea based on this information. It's best to be closer to the masked cougher where the particles are larger and have less ability to penetrate. The further away you are, the smaller the particles to go through your own mask. Makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offset Eye
#186
#186
GAVol said:
In highly scientific terms, the mask greatly reduces what you are spitting at people from the source. The virus has to have something to ride on - namely liquid. Since the droplets are larger at the source, a mask is able to cut way down on what you're hocking in people's general direction when you talk, cough, breathe etc. Droplets get smaller the farther they are from a source because gravity pulls the larger ones down. Hence, a regular mask isn’t as good at catching the incoming because it’s porous.

Thought this was kind of interesting as far as showing what will block small particles: View attachment 289672
Click to expand...

Since the world seems now united that cloth masks are somehow good for something submicroscopic, I wanted to do some reading. I found this article to be best, but admittedly I have selection bias:
COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data

I remain unconvinced. This virus is in nanometers in size. Why are we thinking assymptomatic people are spreading it through droplets? It's seems much more likely it's spread via aerosol. It's likely this thing is spreading just as much through the mask as without, but now you are placing something on your face that you are constantly touching and adjusting. We've never had a lockdown, we've never recommended masks, why now!?

Ok, so the next question is why would medical people and communities at large push this? I know why the media and politicians are pushing this. Anxiety and fear only further enhances the environment of doom that they are trying to create, to bring down the economy, drive ratings, and do whatever it takes to win a damn election. Epidemiologists? University junk science. Only exists to chase grants and employ PhDs. The medical community? I guess groupthink. I know in my field, during the Fukushima accident, they evacuated based on the conservative linear no-threshold (LNT) model which leads to projections of a ridiculous number of cancer deaths based on large population exposure to low doses of radiation. When in reality, different populations are exposed through varying low dose of radiation every day of the year with no statistical increase in cancer. The LNT model is good for conservative decisions in regards to limits, not actual decisions. So when they evacuated large population sets, more people died from the evacuation (loss of medical care) than the radiation. Yet, if this were to happen today, every place in the world would make the same mistake. Because dumb herd mentality is a hard thing to shake. Nobody wants to be the crazy person, who gets outcast to the fringe. Nobody wants to be sued for being different.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, tennvols77 and Offset Eye
#187
#187
Pepe_Silvia said:
So would the players wear masks during the game? How are they gonna practice social distancing?
Click to expand...

Broader point is the ever-fleeting opportunity to collectively flatten the curve. There are more critical reasons to wear masks than preserving football. I'm in healthcare and appreciate the sad medical and scientific reality of the situation. Realize that isn't going to change anyone's mind. Personal experience may be the only thing that can do that. Regardless of background perspectives, this thing did not have to be this divisive. The polarized reality has been very consequential.

Back to the poll, it will be interesting to see if and how it changes over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#188
#188
PSYVOL said:
Broader point is the ever-fleeting opportunity to collectively flatten the curve. There are more critical reasons to wear masks than preserving football. I'm in healthcare and appreciate the sad medical and scientific reality of the situation. Realize that isn't going to change anyone's mind. Personal experience may be the only thing that can do that. Regardless of background perspectives, this thing did not have to be this divisive. The polarized reality has been very consequential.

Back to the poll, it will be interesting to see if and how it changes over time.
Click to expand...

You're in healthcare. Good. Are people in your neck of the woods considered positive for COVID-19 if they test positive for antibodies?
 
#189
#189
Offset Eye said:
You're in healthcare. Good. Are people in your neck of the woods considered positive for COVID-19 if they test positive for antibodies?
Click to expand...

Nope, they're not. They're seropositive for antibodies, reflecting a prior infection. Antigen positives are considered active cases. Let's cross our fingers on long-term viability of antibodies preventing reinfection for extended periods. Each passing week and month without gettting infected also matters, as we continue to learn at an exponential rate. Still some caveats, though. The virus has neurological, pulmonological, and vascular components, and we just don't know how significant or long-term those impacts will be in severe cases who do survive.
 
#190
#190
PSYVOL said:
Nope, they're not. They're seropositive for antibodies, reflecting a prior infection. Antigen positives are considered active cases. Let's cross our fingers on long-term viability of antibodies preventing reinfection for extended periods. Each passing week and month without gettting infected also matters, as we continue to learn at an exponential rate. Still some caveats, though. The virus has neurological, pulmonological, and vascular components, and we just don't know how significant or long-term those impacts will be in severe cases who do survive.
Click to expand...

Who in your space makes that distinction? As in, who decides the reporting? Also... you stated, "Antigen positives are considered active cases", but your first response to my question, "Are people in your neck of the woods considered positive for COVID-19 if they test positive for antibodies?", was, "Nope, they're not."
 
Last edited:
#191
#191
Offset Eye said:
Who in your space makes that distinction? As in, who decides the reporting?
Click to expand...
In a large healthcare system. Regardless of local/state protocols, we report number of active cases (antigen positive), patients recovered (previously ill follks who no longer exhibit symptoms and then provide repeat negative antigen tests OR antigen positives found through routine screening but asymptomatic), and total seropositives for antibodies (includes those who never knew they were ill or that they were previously antigen positive). We differentiate them to provide more accurate and clinically meaningful information. Since it's a big system, we're gathering data for the overall research effort and to inform public health strategizing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave
#193
#193
PSYVOL said:
In a large healthcare system. Regardless of local/state protocols, we report number of active cases (antigen positive), patients recovered (previously ill follks who no longer exhibit symptoms and then provide repeat negative antigen tests OR antigen positives found through routine screening but asymptomatic), and total seropositives for antibodies (includes those who never knew they were ill or that they were previously antigen positive). We differentiate them to provide more accurate and clinically meaningful information. Since it's a big system, we're gathering data for the overall research effort and to inform public health strategizing.
Click to expand...

Quite eloquent response.

So there is a differentiation? Who differentiates? Aside from a governing body, what in your professional experience/opinion differentiates those individuals that tested positive for antibodies from those that tested positive for the actual virus? I can't find data there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and tennvols77
#194
#194
Offset Eye said:
Who in your space makes that distinction? As in, who decides the reporting? Also... you stated, "Antigen positives are considered active cases", but your first response to my question, "Are people in your neck of the woods considered positive for COVID-19 if they test positive for antibodies?", was, "Nope, they're not."
Click to expand...

Get it. Could have been more clear. Antigen positives are considered active cases, meaning the virus is currently replicating in their system. If they're going to develop symptoms and be overtly ill, it's during this phase. Once the virus is cleared, there will be detectable antibodies in the blood (seropositive). Being seropostive reflects a prior infection. We do not count antibody positives/seropositives in our active case total. Hope that helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and tennvols77
#196
#196
Offset Eye said:
Quite eloquent response.

So there is a differentiation? Who differentiates? Aside from a governing body, what in your professional experience/opinion differentiates those individuals that tested positive for antibodies from those that tested positive for the actual virus? I can't find data there.
Click to expand...

Thanks and, oh yes, there is and should be differentiation. If there were more consistency in reporting protocols and better delineation, it might limit some of the confusion. Hopefully, that last post helped make the distinction. If you're sick or at immiment risk of becoming ill, the virus is actively replicating and spreading in your body (antigen positive). Once you're antibody or seropostive, you've beaten the thing and in the clear. For how long and with how much certainty is a key quesiton going forward.

Gotta be at work early in the morning. Nice exchanging some respectful messages! Rest well and GO VOLS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and tennvols77
#197
#197
PSYVOL said:
Thanks and, oh yes, there is and should be differentiation. If there were more consistency in reporting protocols and better delineation, it might limit some of the confusion. Hopefully, that last post helped make the distinction. If you're sick or at immiment risk of becoming ill, the virus is actively replicating and spreading in your body (antigen positive). Once you're antibody or seropostive, you've beaten the thing and in the clear. For how long and with how much certainty is a key quesiton going forward.

Gotta be at work early in the morning. Nice exchanging some respectful messages! Rest well and GO VOLS!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the exposition. Good talk. Yes, it appears that inconsistency with reporting protocols is a major issue. Probably, the biggest issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and tennvols77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top