Dewine today....what do you think?
- Thread starter tcgobucks
- Start date
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
You will see that he can do all sorts of goofy stuff
MasonComet
U. S. American
Good stuff. Back in July there were reports that people had some immunity to COVID 19 from a SARS infection some 17 years prior, and I had been wondering why I hadn’t heard any more about it.For those interested in the science this is great news as it means that along with vaccines natural immunity will be a positive factor as humanity fights off the covid:
Immunological memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection recovery
Until now, it was unclear whether a survived SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 leads to a persistent immunological memory and thus can protect against a new infection. Several studies had shown that SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies are only detectable for a few months in many people who have...medicalxpress.com
"These so-called memory T-cells after SARS-CoV-2 infection look similar to those after a real flu. We are therefore confident that the majority of people who have survived SARS-CoV-2 infection have some protection against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2," explains Dr. Hofmann, a scientist at the Department of Medicine II at the Medical Center—University of Freiburg.
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls - Nature
SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells were found in individuals who had recovered from SARS or COVID-19 and in unexposed donors, although with different patterns of immunoreactivity.
www.nature.com
Steel Valley FB
Well-known member
Just like it’s not a coincidence that world leaders held Event 201 three months prior to COVID 19 happening. Basically, they met to discuss how to handle a global outbreak of a viral pandemic that could kill 65 million people just three months prior to the actual COVID 19 outbreak. Hmmm.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
This is the biggest and best controlled covid mask study yet. The bottom line is that masks work in targeted situations when correctly worn by experienced health care workers. For the general population not so much:
Key Results:
A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).
Key conclusion:
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.
A secondary conclusion resulting from political pressure:
Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.
Those of you familiar with clinical & claim support research will recognize how ridiculous the above sentence is. Would this count as a "conclusion" to the FDA or your Legal Department? Would you be able to argue to regulatory agencies that your product might work or it might make things worse as a way to convince them it did work? Of course not.
What a shame the authors had to add this crap to get their excellent work published. But that's the world we live in.
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 3
Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from...
www.acpjournals.org
Key Results:
A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).
Key conclusion:
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.
A secondary conclusion resulting from political pressure:
Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.
Those of you familiar with clinical & claim support research will recognize how ridiculous the above sentence is. Would this count as a "conclusion" to the FDA or your Legal Department? Would you be able to argue to regulatory agencies that your product might work or it might make things worse as a way to convince them it did work? Of course not.
What a shame the authors had to add this crap to get their excellent work published. But that's the world we live in.
This is especially alarming given that the AIDS epidemic should have imprinted on Public Health Departments and the Science MSM the important role T Cells play in human immunity. It's like they just ignored a critical area of immunological research. Shame on them.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Hey friend, speaking of ignoring, and since we are in theDeWeasel thread anyway, do you know where I can find a good template online for a protest sign ? Just for black on a white background. All I’ve got is one of those jumbo sharpie magnum markers, a 2x4 and some of that plastic version of hollow cell cardboard.
I have to get two protest signs made - for either end of the line of parked cars I will have on the street at Thanksgiving dinner. ?
Cold Duck FeWine, anyone ?
Ohio needs to started getting pants drunk... LMFAO
4GX
Well-known member
This is the biggest and best controlled covid mask study yet. The bottom line is that masks work in targeted situations when correctly worn by experienced health care workers. For the general population not so much:
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 3
Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from...www.acpjournals.org
Key Results:
A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).
Key conclusion:
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.
A secondary conclusion resulting from political pressure:
Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.
Those of you familiar with clinical & claim support research will recognize how ridiculous the above sentence is. Would this count as a "conclusion" to the FDA or your Legal Department? Would you be able to argue to regulatory agencies that your product might work or it might make things worse as a way to convince them it did work? Of course not.
What a shame the authors had to add this crap to get their excellent work published. But that's the world we live in.
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.
So, if that section is quoted correctly, the study authors contend that wearing a mask did not reduce the incidence of Covid-19 “at conventional levels of statistical significance” (can we assume they were using 95% Confidence level?), for mask wearers in a very specific setting: People WERE practicing social distancing (so NOT going to bars and restaurants, not riding on crowded public transportation of any kind, and not working in close quarters in indoor work environments)... most importantly: mask (wearing?) recommendations were NOT in effect— and community use of masks was uncommon.
So, in a study cohort in which (allegedly) everybody was keeping good distances from other people at all times, only a few people wore masks, and no mask mandate was in effect, mask-wearing did not reduce the incidence of Covid-19 incidence— BRILLIANT! Given that the point of masks (first and foremost) is to keep from spreading the virus to others with whom the mask-wearer DOES come into reasonably close contact— this study tells us very close to nothing about what mask-wearing might do to reduce Covid-19 spread in places where social distancing is NOT being practiced—or is impractical— or in communities where (PROPER) mask-wearing is ubiquitous— or in communities where social distancing IS happening— along with universal mask-wearing.
Thank you for this not very useful or relevant information... I guess it’s helpful, in recalcitrant, obstreperous, mask-resisting communities— to tell them that, if they just agree to keep their social distance from others (at ALL TIMES), then not wearing a mask will not be a factor in spreading this virus. But it does virtually NOTHING to inform communities that ARE willing to take sound medical and public health advice on the need to wear masks at all times, when in close quarters with other people, but especially when in enclosed/indoor environments.