Monday, July 29, 2024

Strict Mask, Vaccine Rules could have Saved 250K lives, says new study

Stricter COVID-19 restrictions could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the states that refused to institute them, though efforts to close nursing homes and schools likely caused more harm than good, a new study has found.

More

Comments

That's a lot of dead paste-eaters.

#1 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-07-28 11:05 PM

... "COVID-19 restrictions saved lives," the researchers wrote. ...

Conversely, the MAGA groundswell against those restrictions killed people.


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-29 12:00 AM

Obvious at the time, except for the terminally delusional.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-07-29 06:34 AM

Morning Doc!

And obvious in 1918 when the US first fought the coronavirus (then called the "Spanish Flu"). No electron microscopes until later to detect virus which is smaller than bacteria.

In 1918, California residents were fined and/or imprisoned for violating health codes.

The GOP is a death cult; they must have a monopoly on the firearms and funeral industries.

Link:

www.history.com

#4 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2024-07-29 06:47 AM

Morning, Cariolanus ...

On that 1918 epidemic, my father lived through it as a young adult. When I asked him - he was deep into history - if he could account for how/why the memory of it faded, he opined that the war's end blew everything else away, then we were in the Twenties, and people didn't want to dwell on the recent, unpleasant past. We may be seeing the same dynamic in action with COVID.

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-07-29 07:09 AM

Sounds reasonable, Doc. The 1920 GOP platform of Warren G. Harding was "Return to Normalcy." For our generation, the US got in and out of the "Forever Wars." Our Soldiers back then suffered from "shell shock" which we call today PTSD. Why discuss the terrible Spanish Flu?

But in essence, we the American people live from crisis to crisis, don't we? If it's not war, it's COVID-19. If SCOTUS isn't trampling over our civil rights, it's student debt or enormous medical bills. The double crises of opioid addiction and unstoppable gun violence are destroying American families. LA had encampments of homelessness after the mortgage crisis reminiscent of "The Grapes of Wrath".

#6 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2024-07-29 07:44 AM

Good points, all. Historical memory can be quite fickle. For example, we often hear that phrase "peace and prosperity." Yet for my entire life - since I, as an uncomprehending kid, heard the Korean War armistice news announced as a voice-over with some photo board displayed on the black-and-white screen (same way I learned the Rosenberg were executed) - this country has been at war, in one form or another (covert/overt), in this hemisphere or others. I'm sure others have a quite different take on those decades, but that's one of mine.

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-07-29 07:53 AM

Well said, Doc. Subsequent generations inherited the Monroe Doctrine from over two centuries ago (which USMC General Smedley Butler mocked in "War is a Racket"). But the crises aren't just the wars. Our society seems constantly under duress. Look at American women who have to go to Mexico or Canada for reproductive health care (if they live near the border and can afford it).

#8 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2024-07-29 08:11 AM

-Our society seems constantly under duress.

Well put. As individuals, we can choose to focus on what we can control or let constant duress suck us into a pit of despair.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-29 09:53 AM

Sometimes solutions become even bigger problems. The whole student debt crisis is a result of a well-intentioned "investment" in education. Universities are a racket, just like the military is a racket, just like big pharma is a racket. It's funny how people pick and choose which rackets they turn a blind eye to, often in alignment with those of the same political persuasion.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-07-29 09:57 AM

-Stricter COVID-19 restrictions could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the states that refused to institute them,

Only if those restrictions would have been followed. Why do you think those states refused to institute them? Because their constituents would have given them the middle finger, obviously.

This is the flaw in such studies. People in New York followed restrictions. People in red states wouldn't.

Understand, restrictions don't save lives......following restrictions do.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-29 10:02 AM

The incompetence by the CDC initially telling people that masks wouldn't protect them, as well as the exaggerations about the protections of getting the experimental vaccine and gaslighting people about its side effects, was certainly part of the problem.

#12 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-07-29 10:19 AM

95% of COVID deaths were people over age 50. 78% were people over age 65.

30.4% of deaths were people over 85

Yet, were not it not for COVID, they would still be alive today? Or they just would be dead of something other than COVID?

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-07-29 11:10 AM

The incompetence by the CDC initially telling people that masks wouldn't protect them, as well as the exaggerations about the protections of getting the experimental vaccine and gaslighting people about its side effects, was certainly part of the problem.

#12 | Posted by sentinel

No.

Initially Fauci said you don't need to wear a mask based upon what they knew at that time.

Then the science said the mask would be helpful and they changed their recommendation.

That's how science works.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 11:18 AM

Sometimes solutions become even bigger problems. The whole student debt crisis is a result of a well-intentioned "investment" in education. Universities are a racket, just like the military is a racket, just like big pharma is a racket. It's funny how people pick and choose which rackets they turn a blind eye to, often in alignment with those of the same political persuasion.

#10 | Posted by sentinel

No it's not.

Do you have any clue?

It's the result of privatizing the student loan business and lenders aiming for profit by doing a ton of dirty ---- like colluding with schools.

This has been insanely well documented.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 11:22 AM

#14

Are you aware of what scientific project carried out during that time caused the scientific community to reverse by 180 degrees?

Masks do work-that tech has been around forever. And I can't speak to the masks required in certain places in the US, but in Germany the ones that were protective of the individual were illegal. You were required to wear a mask designed to protect others.

Dumb, isn't it.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-07-29 11:52 AM

"You were required to wear a mask designed to protect others. Dumb, isn't it."

You're arguing for the right to knowingly infect others with a fatal disease. And saying the folks charged with protecting the "general welfare" don't have the authority to...well, protect the general welfare.

I dissent.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-29 12:07 PM

17- Maybe you should try reading what you're responding to before dissenting to a straw man.

#18 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-07-29 12:14 PM

Masks do work-that tech has been around forever. And I can't speak to the masks required in certain places in the US, but in Germany the ones that were protective of the individual were illegal. You were required to wear a mask designed to protect others.
Dumb, isn't it.

#16 | Posted by madbomber

Masks work on CERTAIN viruses, not others.

It depends on the transmission vehicle.

That was the big question.

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 12:17 PM

"You're arguing for the right to knowingly infect others with a fatal disease."

Why do you say that?

You're arguing that people had no right to protect themselves from a fatal disease. That they were obligated to go with something that would put themselves at risk.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-07-29 12:24 PM

" Masks work on CERTAIN viruses, not others. It depends on the transmission vehicle."

And in this case, a simple backlit video of a sneeze shows a stark difference, once you accept one simple, scientific fact:

Viral load affects severity.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-29 12:27 PM

" Masks work on CERTAIN viruses, not others. It depends on the transmission vehicle."
And in this case, a simple backlit video of a sneeze shows a stark difference, once you accept one simple, scientific fact:
Viral load affects severity.

#21 | Posted by Danforth

You are assuming the sneeze is a transmission vehicle.

That wasn't originally known for sure. Hence they didn't say mask up immediately.

In addition, it depends on whether the virus is transmitted in droplets or in aerosol. Our common masks do little for aerosol unfortunately. But still better than nothing and I wore mine.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 12:53 PM

Why do you think those states refused to institute them?

In CA even our governor couldn't follow them.


It's the result of privatizing the student loan business and lenders aiming for profit by doing a ton of dirty ---- like colluding with schools.
This has been insanely well documented.
#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
.

Interested, because Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Ergo private lenders dried up, or raised their rates (unsecured loan).

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money, did this not happen?

Since then loans for grad students went through the roof.
www.savingforcollege.com

So please post said documentation, hope it's not just one school but 100s otherwise you're just cherry picking..

The way I see the schools create the price, more money higher the price, regardless of product

#23 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-29 12:54 PM

" You are assuming the sneeze is a transmission vehicle. That wasn't originally known for sure."

It was known within weeks.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-29 01:12 PM

" it depends on whether the virus is transmitted in droplets or in aerosol. Our common masks do little for aerosol unfortunately."

"Do little" is relative. Let's cut to the chase:

Does viral load increase severity, or not?
Do masks affect in intake or expulsion of full viral load, or not?

In a related question, do you understand macro dials, or not?

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-29 01:15 PM

" it depends on whether the virus is transmitted in droplets or in aerosol. Our common masks do little for aerosol unfortunately."
"Do little" is relative. Let's cut to the chase:
Does viral load increase severity, or not?
Do masks affect in intake or expulsion of full viral load, or not?
In a related question, do you understand macro dials, or not?
#25 | Posted by Danforth

"Does viral load increase severity, or not?"
In the COVID virus, yes. Viral load is directly tied to severity.

"Do masks affect in intake or expulsion of full viral load, or not?"
Based on what we knew at the time, we weren't sure. Now we know it depends on the type of mask and variant as to whether a basic cloth mask has a significant impact on expulsion of viral load. A basic cloth mask has very little effect on aerosol unfortunately but significantly reduced droplet spread. A surgical mask or KN95 have a huge effect on aerosol spread and droplet spread.

"In a related question, do you understand macro dials, or not?"
You're confused. I'm not arguing we shouldn't have been masking up. I'm saying there is a reasonable explanation Fauci said masks were not necessary at the very outset of the virus (i.e. we didn't have enough scientific data). Now we know they were absolutely necessary for quite some time and should have been used from the outset.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 01:38 PM

You are assuming the sneeze is a transmission vehicle.

That wasn't originally known for sure. Hence they didn't say mask up immediately.

In addition, it depends on whether the virus is transmitted in droplets or in aerosol. Our common masks do little for aerosol unfortunately. But still better than nothing and I wore mine.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant

IIRC, they figured out pretty quickly it was spread by droplets.

Someone at the CDC later said there was great concern there wouldn't be enough protective gear for first responders and medical personnel if they rolled out a mask recommendation for the general public before supplies for them could be ensured.

IMO, wearing a mask protects others from us if we're infected, stopping droplets from going airborne, and us with up to 95% protection with N95 or KN95 masks against aerosol borne particles in the air.

I wish more Americans, like my late sister, had listened to experts instead of right wing BS, and lived.

#27 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-07-29 01:55 PM

I wish more Americans, like my late sister, had listened to experts instead of right wing BS, and lived.

Instead of dying unnecessarily of COVID

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-07-29 01:56 PM

Interested, because Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.
Ergo private lenders dried up, or raised their rates (unsecured loan).
Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money, did this not happen?
Since then loans for grad students went through the roof.
www.savingforcollege.com
So please post said documentation, hope it's not just one school but 100s otherwise you're just cherry picking..
The way I see the schools create the price, more money higher the price, regardless of product
#23 | Posted by oneironaut

You only show half the facts.

Obama eliminated federal guaranteed loans because the money was going to bank profits. They replaced it with DIRECT student grants so it ALL went to students.

Let me put the issue of private student loan issues into a medium you can understand:
www.youtube.com

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 02:04 PM

"Do masks affect in intake or expulsion of full viral load, or not?"

"Based on what we knew at the time, we weren't sure."

Not true.

We've had super-slow motion, backlit sneezes for decades. Seeing it with and without a mask leaves no doubt.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-29 02:33 PM

"Based on what we knew at the time, we weren't sure."
Not true.
We've had super-slow motion, backlit sneezes for decades. Seeing it with and without a mask leaves no doubt.

#30 | Posted by Danforth

Yes, and?

You're not understanding viral transmission vehicles. We weren't sure initially if the virus required droplets for transmission or aerosol. #27 makes this point.

The original COVID-19 virus and initial variants were mainly droplet based. We didn't know that initially. Or otherwise we would have known masks would be effective for the most part regardless of mask grade.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 02:43 PM

"what we knew at the time"

"It goes through air, Bob."
~Trump to Bob Woodward, Feb 7, 2020.

That's SIX WEEKS before everything shut down on March 20th.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-29 02:48 PM

"what we knew at the time"
"It goes through air, Bob."
~Trump to Bob Woodward, Feb 7, 2020.
That's SIX WEEKS before everything shut down on March 20th.

#32 | Posted by Danforth

I don't think Trump is the expert on this.

#33 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-29 04:53 PM

As Republicans have shown us, their "right" to not suffer minor inconvenience is superior to the right of people to not die.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2024-07-29 05:39 PM

Apparently Donald Trump got vaccinated against covid in January of 2021 just weeks or even days before he left the White House.

He didn't call attention to his having been vaccinated for months if not years.

#35 | Posted by Tor at 2024-07-29 06:23 PM

#11 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Can't have the latter without the former.

#36 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-07-29 06:30 PM

Yet, were not it not for COVID, they would still be alive today? Or they just would be dead of something other than COVID?

This basic question has been answered so many times, one wonders how much 'research' some people do.

You can look at how many people would have died from these diseases and see the impact COVID had. It's called excess mortality.

'Excess mortality is measured as the difference between the reported number of deaths in a given week or month (depending on the country) in 2020"2024 and an estimate of the expected deaths for that period had the COVID-19 pandemic not occurred.'

Older people die at higher rates than younger people. Yeah, we figured that out already, but thanks.

#37 | Posted by zarnon at 2024-07-29 06:58 PM

The mortality rate in deep red counties in red states was 6 times higher than deep blue counties in blue states.

#38 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-29 07:10 PM

I wish more Americans, like my late sister, had listened to experts instead of right wing BS, and lived.
Instead of dying unnecessarily of COVID

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-07-29 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag: CONDOLENCES

That story makes my heart hurt. I was so surprised how people were all up and about how masks were useless in keeping themselves from getting it never seeming to grasp it wasn't about them It was about the spit spray from their own mouths potentially infecting others because some people were infected without knowing it. Everything was all about themselves and their own comfort or inconvenience.

I didn't think I had more growing up to do but righty tighty reaction to the event changed that. Cold-blooded scumbags.

Years ago I spoke with my grandmother and great aunt both of whom lived through the Spanish Flu epidemic and lost family members to it. Back then all they had were masks. Furthermore, it attacked working-age people and probably played a part in the Great Depression.

#39 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-07-29 07:28 PM

1918 wasn't caused by a coronavirus ...

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-29 07:53 PM

Yet, were not it not for COVID, they would still be alive today? Or they just would be dead of something other than COVID?

#13 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Ahhh yes. They would have been dead anyway.

An oldie but a goodie!

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-29 07:58 PM

We weren't sure initially if the virus required droplets for transmission or aerosol. #27 makes this point.

They're not distinct entities, but parts of a spectrum of droplet sizes that float out of your mouth every time you breath, sneeze, talk, cough ... you can't have one and not the other.

Droplets were assumed (basis for much of the social distancing measures) but aerosols were suspected pretty quickly.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-29 08:06 PM

"The mortality rate in deep red counties in red states was 6 times higher than deep blue counties in blue states."

And what does the difference in mortality rates look like for things other than COVID? When looking at percentages, mortality rates often skew up in less populated areas compared to more densely populated ones.

#43 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-07-29 08:21 PM

This is the same BIDEN administration that failed to communicate with and protect Trump. Now they claim they they could have protected society from COVID.

BS! These people were told by Biden and Kamala to sacrifice us and do nothing and destroy democracy in the interim. The Dems deliberately killed thousands of your grandparents and the elderly in nursing homes in NY, PA,NJ,MD etc by bringing in infected patients. Gov Cuomo was exposed on this travesty and Dems try to cover it up.

#44 | Posted by Robson at 2024-07-29 08:42 PM

"This is the same BIDEN administration that failed to communicate with and protect Trump. Now they claim they they could have protected society from COVID."

Trump is the guy who could have given Biden Covid during a 2020 debate by refusing to be tested prior to the debate as the rules required, so spare us your faux outrage.

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-29 08:45 PM

These people were told by Biden and Kamala to sacrifice us

Why can't you idiotic sacks of s%#^ ever take responsibility for your own stupidity?

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-29 09:40 PM

#44

You're wrong. You're not stating facts. You concocted a fantasy world and you're the only one living in it.

#47 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-07-29 11:24 PM

It would take all the power of my magic lamp and all three of my wishes, but I wish Robscum could be made intelligent just long enough to realize how stupid he is.

#48 | Posted by zarnon at 2024-07-30 05:14 AM

#44 is correct. The elderly and those with co-morbidities were the most likely to die. Also the vaccine doesn't prevent anyone from getting it like they claimed. Then they tried to say you had less chance of dying. Then when that excuse also failed they brought in that you need to constantly keep getting boosters for it to work.

#49 | Posted by THEBULL at 2024-07-30 06:59 AM

Fake news.

Masks are Satanic and vaccines are the Mark of the Beast. Pandemic mitigation efforts are Nuremberg Laws.

#50 | Posted by anton at 2024-07-30 07:04 AM

Masks are cool. Ninjas wear face masks. So did Hannibal Lecter.

Vaccines are good when they've been tested for years on consenting populations and people aren't gaslit about adverse reactions they've experienced.

#51 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-07-30 07:37 AM

Then they tried to say you had less chance of dying.

#49 | Posted by THEBULL

They were right.

I had COVID twice. The vaccines saved my life, twice.

Of all the pathetic, vicious things in recent American life the MAGA desire to defend tragic death for the sake of god Trump is the worst.

Some of your friends and acquaintances died because they never got vaxxed. Every one has a story about that, including you.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2024-07-30 07:46 AM

#49 | Posted by THEBULL

You are a disgusting and dangerous little boy.

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2024-07-30 07:47 AM

Also the vaccine doesn't prevent anyone from getting it like they claimed. Then they tried to say you had less chance of dying. Then when that excuse also failed they brought in that you need to constantly keep getting boosters for it to work.

#49 | POSTED BY THEBULL

Literally none of this is true.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-30 09:24 AM

I fully encourage the GOP to not wear their masks.
Less GOP, less problems in the country.

#55 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-30 11:09 AM

And be sure to guzzle plenty of that horse ------ (paste) too...

#56 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-30 11:10 AM

It may have, sure. But know what strict rules and masks DID do? They stalled the world's economy and caused a few years of incredible problems to billions of people. This isn't even debatable, except if you choose to ignore reality. Speaking of...

"I fully encourage the GOP to not wear their masks.
Less GOP, less problems in the country."

But many did not wear masks and we still have the same proportions in our country. So, as usual, a liberal is ignoring reality because he/she doesn't like it. Your statement actually supports not wearing masks since it obviously didn't make much of a difference in our country's political dichotomy.

#57 | Posted by humtake at 2024-07-30 12:32 PM

"Also the vaccine doesn't prevent anyone from getting it like they claimed. Then they tried to say you had less chance of dying. Then when that excuse also failed they brought in that you need to constantly keep getting boosters for it to work.

#49 | POSTED BY THEBULL

Literally none of this is true."

Actually, it is. Or, I should say it is if you are a person who only believes what your side says and ignores anything that doesn't agree with your narratives. Liberals wanted to claim the entire world would die if we didn't have rules and masks. And they had a lot of evidence for it (except for Fauci coming out later and saying little of it was actually based on science which must hurt liberals so bad). But...Reps disagreed and they ALSO had a lot of evidence. But you decided to ignore the evidence because the science on their side doesn't support the science on your side. In other words, you are no better than a Rep of your own making.

#58 | Posted by humtake at 2024-07-30 12:34 PM

#58 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Ant-vaxxers such as yourself have blood on your hands.

Time to STFU.

#59 | Posted by Zed at 2024-07-30 12:37 PM

Lots of blood, and they haven't learned a thing.

#60 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-30 01:19 PM

Actually, it is.

No, it's not.

It's nothing but the narrative pushed by right wing noise machines.

All it tells me is that neither of you are very well informed.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-30 01:45 PM

"But...Reps disagreed and they ALSO had a lot of evidence."

lol.

You had evidence that there were 15 cases soon to be zero and that it would be gone by summer.

How did that work out for you?

"Liberals wanted to claim the entire world would die if we didn't have rules and masks"

Again I lol you.

"Liberals" claimed no such thing.

But 7 million deaths worldwide also is not nothing.

Speaking of nothing if we had done nothing (which is what Trumpy wanted to do) and let the virus rampage unchecked modeling data revealed that there could have been 40 million deaths in 2020 alone.


According to the unmitigated scenario, if left unchecked the virus could have infected 7 billion people and caused in the region of 40 million deaths this year. Social distancing to reduce the rate of social contacts by 40 per cent, coupled with a 60 per cent reduction in social contacts among the elderly population (at highest risk) could reduce this burden by around half. However, even at this level of reduction, health systems in all countries would be rapidly overwhelmed, the modelling revealed.

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-07-30 06:18 PM

Liberals wanted to claim the entire world would die if we didn't have rules and masks.

Do you clueless ---- ever get tired of Straw Men?

Or do you seriously believe anyone said we'd all die if we didn't wear a mask?

This is why you can't have a serious conversation with a ConservaDunce. They start at stupid then go downhill from there.

#63 | Posted by zarnon at 2024-07-30 07:59 PM

Also the vaccine doesn't prevent anyone from getting it like they claimed.

Then they tried to say you had less chance of dying.

Then when that excuse also failed they brought in that you need to constantly keep getting boosters for it to work.

Prove any of your statements are true.

You science illiterates should learn one basic fact about medicine. No treatment ever created works on 100% of the people with 100% efficacy 100% of the time. Only a complete ------ moron thinks like that. Try again, Cletus.

#64 | Posted by zarnon at 2024-07-30 08:03 PM

#64 | Posted by zarnon

My wife and I remained as boosted as possible. We got COVID twice and came through okay.

My younger sister refused to get vaccinated. She believed right wing nonsense.

She got COVID once and died in an ICU from it.

Same genes. Different ideologies. Ours kept us safe. Hers killed her.

#65 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-07-30 09:14 PM

@#64 ... Prove any of your statements are true. ...

Good luck with getting an answer to your question.

I've tried that route in the past, and the person making those unsupported assertions had nothing. Usually the person just disappeared from the thread.


#66 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-30 09:21 PM

I've tried that route in the past, and the person making those unsupported assertions had nothing. Usually the person just disappeared from the thread.

So still a win then...

#67 | Posted by zarnon at 2024-07-31 04:08 AM

Actually, it is. Or, I should say it is if you are a person who only believes what your side says and ignores anything that doesn't agree with your narratives. Liberals wanted to claim the entire world would die if we didn't have rules and masks. And they had a lot of evidence for it (except for Fauci coming out later and saying little of it was actually based on science which must hurt liberals so bad). But...Reps disagreed and they ALSO had a lot of evidence. But you decided to ignore the evidence because the science on their side doesn't support the science on your side. In other words, you are no better than a Rep of your own making.

It's the quality and quantity of evidence that a hypothesis is measured against. Science doesn't work in a straight line with answers that are set in stone forever. That's how science illiterates view it. Case in point is how ConservaDunces like yourself seem to have a Conspiracy Attack anytime anyone in science modifies or even changes their position. That's how it's supposed to work, not MAGA-down on every position until the day you die.

In Conservative's case, the research they often cite is --- quality and it's often 1-2 outlier study. The worst is when these self-styled 'researchers' spit out the results of their biased MEDLine search.

So since you have this Treasure Trove of "Masks Don't Work" research, why don't you lay the very best piece of evidence you have supporting that claim on the --------?

You'll be the first ConservaDunce to do so! It will be akin to the feeling you get when you shove your way to the front of the Black Friday line.

#68 | Posted by zarnon at 2024-07-31 05:16 AM

"The incompetence by the CDC initially telling people that masks wouldn't protect them, as well as the exaggerations about the protections of getting the experimental vaccine and gaslighting people about its side effects, was certainly part of the problem."

Let's be honest, Republican science deniers are largely responsible for the huge death toll from CIVID. They turned COVID into a divisive political war instead of a health threat. Many MAGAmorons continue their idiotic demonization of scientists and vaccines to this day We should never elect another anti-science President or Governor. In the year 2024 it is just amazing how many Americans wit little or no medical training think fear of "bigovernment" causes them to ignore the scientists who have studied disease control their entire lives. I'm sure some here will say that they will continue to reject science; I couldn't care less but I suspect that guys like Herman Caine learned the hard way how foolish their choices were.

#69 | Posted by danni at 2024-07-31 09:15 AM

This thread just shows you why global pandemics are so bad for humans.

And how viruses seem to be learning how to leverage human behavior to its advantage.

The movie Contagion was prophetic. It showed exactly how an internet connected society would react to a pandemic and by the Gawds that was exactly how we reacted. Fortunately for us the Covid pandemic was not as bad as the pandemic in the movie.

We were lucky this time. The R number for Covid was 2-3. If we ever have another pandemic with an R number as high as measles (15) our civilization is doomed. We would never be able to withstand it.

#70 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-07-31 11:39 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Mossad Weaponizes Hezbollah Pagers and Cellphones (170 comments)

Migration to US Through Panama's Jungle Cut by 80 Percent (41 comments)

Republicans Bracing for Damaging Story on North Carolina Governor Candidate (26 comments)

Fed Cuts Interest Rate (20 comments)

Survey: Gen Z Workers Easily Offended, Unprepared (16 comments)

Yes, Trump Started the Fire. and Everyone Knows It. (16 comments)

Florida Sheriff 'perp Walks' 11-year-old After Threatening Shooting (15 comments)

Trump Lied About Pet-Eating Hatians After Told Not True (15 comments)