45catfan

To achieve heard immunity we need the folks who are responsible for the current spike to continue to get it...the younger segment of the population. As long as the elderly/pre-existing conditions folks wear their masks, social distance and limit their exposure as much as possible, that's what we need to be concerned with. If we limit the exposure of the young and healthy, how do we achieve heard immunity? All we do is drag it out. We have 3 scenarios to get trough this: -The virus burns itself out -We achieve effective heard immunity -A viable vaccine is developed Waiting on a vaccine isn't the answer because it is at best 6 months away. While the virus keeps mutating to an increasing milder form, how long until it's deemed no worse than the common cold? A combination of the first two scenarios is the best answer to get through this. I have no doubt this thing is here to stay, just like influenza A and B, but hopefully a vaccine can help us get past the next outbreak sometime beyond this year. It isn't the answer to get us through the current situation.

You literally have more people getting shot in Chicago, getting struck by lightening in India or drowning in a flood in Japan than dying if 40 years-old or younger in South Carolina from COVID-19.

Why do you even bother anymore? I do commend the effort. "Some dude" posted the video, but complied clips from several medical experts to make the video and it was immediately panned. As you have probably figured out, minds are made up one way or another by now. At this point you could literally spend all day posting link after link and if it does't fit the narrative, it will be somehow discredited. Trenches have been dug, period.

Pence would take over and be put on the ballot in November for the POTUS and a new VP would be added as a running mate. Quick question: can/will the Dims usurp Biden if he were to win, citing his dementia...plugging in an un-elected official of their choice or would the DNC attempt to play puppeteer for four years? Remember (for those old enough) the DNC went bonkers pointing out Reagan was unfit to serve out the remainder of his second term when it was revealed he had early stages of Alzheimers.

Now the truth is coming out...the WHO is taking back that China warned them about the Wuhan virus. In fact it was one of THEIR OFFICIALS (the WHOs) in China became suspicious after reading a headline about a troubling trend in pneumonia cases and decided to inquire about it. So it wasn't the CCP that blew the whistle, it was actually the WHO blew it and initially tried to cover for the CCP. "WHO officials have said for months that CCP officials disclosed the existence of the outbreak to the WHO and repeatedly praised Chinese authorities for their supposed transparency. But a new, official timeline WHO published this week undercuts its earlier claims. The WHO now says that its office in China “picked up a media statement by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission from their website” on cases of so-called viral pneumonia in the Chinese city. The office then passed on word of the existence of the virus." -The Epoic Times So the CCP would have kept trying to sweep this under the rug if nobody would have bothered to press them about it.

It's a 50/50 chance.

Yep, but on the other hand if we weren't testing as diligently and fudging the numbers *cough* (China) *cough* then it would be a government conspiracy to kill people. It's no win situation and exactly the way some people want it until, you know, a certain point time.

Dynamics of an airborne disease and some people do not quite grasp that. If you breathe, which is to say not being dead, you can get this no matter what you do. It doesn't just linger in the air of grocery stores, churches, restaurants or bars. Short of living in an astronaut suit with your own oxygen supply, you have a decent chance of getting this. I think that's where the mentality is different. People like the lady in the article thought there would be no way she could get this if she did x,y,z. When dealing with microscopic particles in the air, you are at risk...period. You can don PPE all day long and it will reduce the risk, but there is still a risk, none-the-less. That is the reason analysts keep saying such a high number of people will have or had this by year's end. Two things will happen: either we will reach effective (not total) heard immunity to the point the viral impact dwindles naturally or we get a vaccine before then. At this point, it looks like the first scenario may occur.

No, but you didn't answer the question kiddo.

How old are you, 14?

Lol! I never said useless, but please continue... Dude I have been around the block a time or two and whether you meant to or not, people that are activists for something (which you strongly feel about masks) overplay the word game to heighten the importance of their cause. Yes, mask wearing slows the spread of the virus, but that is all it does is slows down the transmission rate from person-to-person. Throw any other descriptive word in there you want, but that's the reality of it. Stopping, preventing, halting...whatever is overstated.

He was engaging in pretzel logic and managed to get himself all twisted up. He may restate it after he figures out how to untangle himself. Apply WD-40 and a shoe horn.

Yet I was an dense one for the silver bullet satirical statement. At least we are on the same level on now.

Exactly.

Again, using Huddle logic there. I'm glad you agree. I was trying the 4corners approach. Obviously it works for him.

And here we go with the ole Huddle "you don't understand" fall back argument. Yes, I know what semantics means, however, I would say to you that the average person takes prevention as a literal meaning to STOP. So no, I don't think you chose that word by accident. Mask do not stop the spread, it reduces the spread. It's not really a tom-A-to; tom-a-to thing. Even when I do go out with a mask, I still know there's a very real chance I may catch it and that mask isn't preventing crap.

Just used Huddle logic in that instance. Sometimes satirical statements reach people better here.

So other people can still get it even with a mask? Man, I thought a mask was a COVID-19 silver bullet.

It's only a semantic if you want it to be. I know the difference, but if you choose not to, so be it. Reduction of spread sounds so less effective than prevention, wouldn't you say?

Typical comeback. Outside of N-95s, the effectiveness is as low as 50%, homemade cloth coverings even less. While masks help reduce the spread, they do not prevent COVID-19 spreading.

Nope, but the intent was implied. Literal definition from Websters dictionary of prevent: to keep from happening or existing

Masks R-E-D-U-C-E chances of getting a respiratory illness, they do not PREVENT. FYI, I do wear a mask when going to places with a lot of people.

NYC is only now really reopening, just give it time. They are behind the curve, literally, based off reopening later than just about everyone else. All they did was delay what is bound to eventually happen. Just give it a few weeks (see, I can play this game too). Smart decisions like sticking COVID-19 patients in nursing homes?

It's amazing the number of outlets where you can easily find accumulative case counts and number of deaths, but you have to really dig to find the number of recovered cases. Secondly, you would think total case count (while important) would be secondary to the active case count. But, you know, that doesn't drive headlines and fear mongering.

Not going to happen, so don't count on it.