Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

LTsharks

Members
  • Posts

    624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

12 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

5,991 profile views
  1. the odds definitely are in your favor with this statement, but at the same time statements like this are a complete joke. how could we begin to know long term risks from the vaccine when there have been no long term studies due to a lack of "long term"?
  2. Yeah right. Not fair to compare him to an old Jackson. Remember the young one? Let’s hope for something more like that.
  3. Eh. If our tackle blocks their safety that was standing right in front of him they might have picked up the 1st.
  4. Reminding you about the data? I'm shocked anyone still looks at websites like this and calls it "data". This is complete garbage. I live in Delaware. I will us it as an example: - 554 deaths on 7/1. 636 on 10/1. Increase of 82 in 3 months. Projecting 934 on 1/1, an increase of 298 in the next 3 months. Yet in DE we have had 60% of the deaths in long term care facilities. That ratio can't continue and yet this "data" suggests it will increase. - It says we have 76% mask usage as of today. So shouldn't that be the end of cases in DE? Why are they going up if we have mask usage? - These projections have been garbage since day 1 and this is just another example.
  5. I'm just saying the data does not show the decreases were because of masks. Maybe they helped, maybe they didn't, but the data shows there were other likely more important factors at play because of the timing of the decreases and even increases. I'm also not claiming masks increased cases even though I pointed out earlier that based on that one set of data I showed you could speculate that. I was not trying to imply the data showed that for certain, sorry if I it came across that I was. And I suspect you are correct, there would be no mask compliance increase that corresponded to cases taking off again.
  6. Yep. The City of Milwaukee's case rate peaked for that wave at 205 cases/day on July 13th, 3 days before the mask mandate.
  7. The WI 7 day average appears to have peaked on 7/26 at 930, 5 days before the mask mandate started on 8/1. On 8/1 the 7 day average was down to 876. If the mask mandate worked you would expect it to take 5-7 days before you could see the impact in testing. After all, the test results lag the infection date by several days. On 8/6, 5 days after the mandate, the average was down to 810. It is likely (ok, speculation on my part) it took even longer for the mask mandate to reach its peak effectiveness with whatever the highest rate of compliance ended up being in WI. It is very clear there was a trend in place before the mandate could have had an impact. The 7 day average was pretty stable from 8/24 (665) until 9/3 (674) and then it started soaring, up to 767 on 9/4. It would be pretty easy to speculate on the timing of how that rise correlates to increasing mask use, but that is just what it would be - speculation. Kind of like speculating the masks must work and the only reason they don't is because people don't care.
  8. I don't understand all of this. So aerosol spread is the same thing as droplet spread? You claim that anyone who doubts the mask studies about droplet spread don't understand how COVID spreads. Then you quote studies about aerosol spread. Are they the same thing? I wasn't under the impression that they are. But that could be a misunderstanding on my part. If a mask that contains droplets also contains aerosols it makes a big difference.
  9. Right. But the study doesn't talk about the quantify of the virus contained by the mask. Just the particles measured. They are not the same thing. Are you saying they are the same thing? I don't think they are and I don't think the study claims they are, but I could be wrong. But as long as I can cross the person of the list because their concerns are "not known" I don't have anything to worry about. I just get confused about our scientific theories based on limited evidence. You know, which ones matter and which ones don't.
  10. Serious question. Anybody have any idea?? I've read things like this: They can't work because blocking 1,000 pretty-large droplets sounds like it's great except hundreds of thousands or even millions of condensed water vapor molecule clusters were also expelled, they have enough virons on them to infect another person and very nearly zero of those are caught by the mask in either direction. The ones you see when you breathe out in the winter are >50um in size (the limit of visibility to the unaided eye); more than 50 times the size of the mean particle you actually exhale. Worse, every one of those tiny particles, unless condensed out or breathed in by someone else can remain in the air for hours since they are small enough to remain within the purview of brownian motion of air molecules; that is, they "float" so to speak because the energy of said molecular vibration and ordinary air currents, even indoors, is large compared to the pull of gravity toward the ground and thus they remain suspended in the air.
  11. What percentage of virus expelled was collected by any of the masks? Isn't that the actually question?
  12. So when did they take the test? Did they show up with it in their system, get tested on Monday, and reported positive today? Or have they been testing every day since Monday, all negative, and suddenly today they were all positive. I haven’t seen any of these articles that make the timeline clear for any of these college or pro teams. At the end of the day it’s the same problem for the sports, but it sure would be helpful to analyze if they are getting it at the facilities or bringing it in from a bunch of different directions. Has anyone seen this clarified?
×
  • Create New...