The renewed “outbreaks” are nearly all happening in cities that allowed the
riots protests following the media hype of the George Floyd death while resisting arrest. Most other areas (especially rural) are not experiencing the “upsurge”.
The media is telling us that the hospitals in those cities Intensive Care units are “at 90% capacity”…thing is, on a NORMAL day, those same hospitals are generally at over 85% capacity level, as this is where the hospital is profitable. If they are at 50%, the facility is losing money. There isn’t a lot of spare capacity just waiting around for someone.
She pointed out that the “Upsurge” in cases oddly didn’t happen (or at least wasn’t REPORTED by the media) until shortly after the stock market began a record level of increase, moving quickly back towards economic recovery, with the market moving rapidly (V-Shaped Recovery?) Then the Media began telling us about the increase in cases….when the increase had begun a week before. And in most places, the upswing, while worrying, is not anywhere near the infection or hospitalizaton levels of a month or 6 weeks ago.
Finally, Masks: (ETA: It was pointed out to me that the linked article no longer says what it did when I posted this…apparently the videos and the article have been memory-holed)
Cloth masks don’t help the wearer. Even most medical masks don’t really help the wearer that much. Medical masks are designed to prevent the wearer from spreading droplets of spittle that may contain virii or bacteria onto a compromised patient.
Studies show that a bandanna or a two-layer cloth mask pretty much does nothing to stop the aerosolized droplets from a human mouth or nose carried in their breath….in other words, they are useless. It takes more than 4 layers to do much good. Also the same simulation shows that an unprotected sneeze or cough can let the droplets travel as far as 12 feet, making the current spacing..IE “Social Distancing” of 6 feet….pretty much bullshit. And in air that is moving, say in an air-conditioned building, it may travel 17-20 feet or more.
So in other words, unless we are all wearing cone style medical or industrial masks or 4 or more layers of cloth, the current masks and distancing are simply a waste of time. Most cloth masks are only slightly more useful than nothing at all.
Which is why the medical folks (and Dr (clueless) Fauci) originally stated that “Masks are useless”.
Funny though; the only thing you'e hearing about on CNN and MSNBC-Haw is that TRUMP is responsible for the NATIONAL uptick in cases because of the rallies he had… in Tulsa and Arizona.
…Show the "science" there, Rachael Maddow…
The mask thing reminds me of the "air raid drills" we had in school in the '60's. After being fed a steady diet of A-bomb test footage, we were told to sit against the walls in the hallways, to put our head between our legs, and cover our heads with our hands. Of course, after seeing footage of buildings literally swept away by A-bombs, some of us asked "What good is this going to do?" "Just do as we tell you" was all we got back.
The fact of the matter is that all "d'gubmeyent" can do now is to give us the same useless advice; "Wear a mask." When we ask what good that will do, we get the same "Just do as we tell you…" Fact is, the money that should have been spent preparing for the possibility of something like this was spent giving "refugees" a leg up on the rest of us, and sending illegal aliens to college… Think of every tax dollar you've paid; state and federal income tax, property tax sales tax… Where's the ROI? THAT is what "they" don't want you to ask…
Pay no mind to that man behind the curtain…
Yup. Cloth masks are of limited value.
I think it is a ploy so rural people can know the cultural benefits of living in the Big-City. You know, doing our shopping and visiting the bank while wearing masks and to enjoy the aesthetics of bulletproof glass everywhere.
Ok, it is not bulletproof. But the looks, dog.
I pity the folks working in factories burning serious calories. Masks are hot and leakage steams up safety glasses.
Are you going to post any of this information, or at least a link to data that supports the claims you make?
When I google this stuff, I find that the cities experiencing outbreaks are cities that opened their bars, restaurants and other indoor gathering spots to 100% capacity.
As I commented earlier, there are a number of cities that experienced serious protesting but aren't spiking.
Oh well, just wondering.
"Pete": Does the link not show up for you? It does for me. And it pretty much tells the story.
Your link discusses various masks and their effectiveness or lack there of.
Your post talks about a lot more than masks.
Now, as you would say, reread my post for content!
Where is your data linking the recent outbreak to the protests?
How do you separate the above data (if it exists) from data showing cities with infection upticks that reopened bars, restaurants and other indoor gathering spots to 100% capacity?
Why are certain cities (Minneapolis, New York, Seattle) that had protests not seeing spikes, and some are even seeing declines?
Now regarding your link, you are referring to the livescience.com article by Rachael Rettner?
If so, you'd probably better reread it for content. For instance, the article states, "However, the single-layer bandana (made from an elastic T-shirt material) and folded handkerchief were less effective. Droplets leaked through the mask material and traveled more than 3.5 feet (1 m) with the bandana and more than a foot (0.3 m) with the handkerchief." Those distances are a whole lot less than the unprotected 12 feet. The two-layered cotton mask cut the distance to 2.5 inches. Add in 6 feet of social distancing and mask wearers seem pretty well protected–according to the article.
If you're going to make shit up, don't site an article that discredits most everything you say.
And while we're at it, tell me how all those business owners and church-goers who were arrested AND being prosecuted for violations of social distancing are doing. To refresh your memory, I found a grand total of FOUR. Did you just make that post up too?
Y'know, Pete, you sound just like a guy that is on another forum that goes by CenterPuke….and he is just as much of an ass as you appear to be.
The original version of the article showed (and stated) that masks were not effective at all. Oddly, the entire article has changed. Even the video is different. Just for the record. I wasn't making it up. Don't imply I am a liar. You only get one chance here with that.
As for the rest, if you are unable to use Google or other search engines then I feel sorry for you. But to help, here is an article from earlier:
https://www.livescience.com/are-face-masks-effective-reducing-coronavirus-spread.html Perhaps this can help you with your research.
I really don't care much one way or another. If you are gonna be an ass, however, do it somewhere else. Perhaps on that other blog where the standards of behavior for some folks are different.
Differences of opinion are welcomed. You are welcome to post links refuting what I post. But be an ass again and you are gone.
Alright B, your blog, your rules. I'll try to be better with this post than I was with my last.
First off, I'm not Center Puke. I was a tower and tracon guy. My name is Pete.
As for the link in your post, I can only go where your link redirects me. That redirection comes with no backstory. Obviously I found the link odd because I double-checked the article in my comment.
So I read the original article you linked, the one that led you to the conclusion that bandannas and two-layered cotton masks "are useless." The author of the article comes to a slightly different conclusion; "But experts are still mixed on the potential usefulness of non-N95 masks." And that conclusion came before the editor's note that was added on the day the article was posted (June 2). The editor's note advises the reader of the removal of the first study described in the article by the researchers who conducted it because the case size was so small that they "could not determine whether the findings were reliable." The editor's note also contained a link to a study that "has suggested that face masks are an effective method for containing the spread of the virus, used along with staying six feet apart from other people." Now add in the article to which your link presently redirects and which I mentioned in my previous comment, and I don't see the logical conclusion to be that all non-N95 masks are useless.
One last comment about the link (the original or the current one) from your post. It only dealt with masks. When I asked for data supporting the other items you brought up in your post, you told me to use the link. Neither of the articles had any reference to Covid-19/protest data or Covid-19 media coverage/stock market impact.
Which leads me to my google search of "Covid 19 and George Floyd protests." Articles from about the first week of June ask whether there will be a spike in cases due to the protest. Starting about June 14, I find articles like the following:
In Chicago: https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/06/19/covid-19-protests-infections/
In Minneapolis: https://www.wired.com/story/what-minnesotas-protests-are-revealing-about-covid-19-spread/
New York, Philly, and Minneapolis (also suggests spikes in TX, AZ, FL and CA might be linked to bars and restaurants): https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/protests-covid-outdoor-masks.html
This article did a study of 13 cities that experienced protests; only one, Phoenix, had a spike and that could be attributed to the opening of bars and restaurants: https://www.ktvu.com/news/little-evidence-that-george-floyd-protests-spread-coronavirus-in-us
Another for Minneapolis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/recent-protests-may-not-be-covid-19-transmission-hotspots-11592498020
Most everything I find says there is little or no link between the protests and the Covid spike. You and your friend who is good with health statistics have come to a different conclusion. Where can I find the data you used to come to your conclusion?