Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
COVID-19 Check-in 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I’m going to keep posting stuff from Breitbart just because it upsets you ...(people). .The very first time I did I knew right then I was on to something. A news source that accurately repeats another news source is a valid news source.
MarketWatch: Do you have any estimate on how much less likely people are to transmit coronavirus if they’re wearing a mask: 50%? 99%? Or …?
Fauci: We don’t know exactly. There have been a number of meta analyses. One published in the Lancet on June 1 said masks and respirators reduced the risk of infection by anywhere from 78% to 85%. Your guess is as good as any: 50% to 75% or 80% is probably correct.
This thread has now been closed TWICE after the moderators were called out for being one-sided - primarily you.
The first time, you quickly deleted the post you made, in which you referred to “WE”, meaning the Yale side of things, and also deleted my response. You then said, “Well things have gotten out of hand. Closing this thread” before anyone had a chance to see what you had done.
Soon one of you will come along to reprimand people for making snide remarks like the one you just made.
So he never said "we don't know if masks really work" or something along those lines but rather that he can't give an exact number for how much it lowers the likelihood of transmitting the virus and said it's probably between 50-80%.
Don't dish it if you can't take it.
Is it?
My only point is this. If 50% of the time you come up with really sound, well-spoken arguments, and 50% of the time you spew ridiculous nonsense, does anyone pay attention to you? I would argue that normally, if the ratio is 95/5 you still have no credibility.
For that matter, in this day and time of PC overreacting, it's probably closer to 99.9/0.1, but I digress...
If your favorite source is quoting another (more) reputable outlet, just quote the other outlet. You would be amazed how many more posters will read it - IMO...
my comment was “that’s basically what he said” and that’s basically what he said. I was the one who paraphrased.
“Your guess is as good as mine.”
REAL SCIENCE, RIGHT?
Full disclosure - I had to look up "dolt.". I have been called worse, no biggie.
The Lancet. Isn’t that the same group who published the HCQ thing that had to be withdrawn, and has now been restarted by WHO?
I edited because I decided it was unnecessary, and that you, in particular, are undeserving. My apologies.
And to your other point - fair enough, but it doesn’t excuse remaining uninformed. It was just a little jab for people who think he still has a good name. He already discredited himself in the eyes of many, but not with that comment.
The your guess is as good as mine refers to 50%-80% reduced transmission not if masks work at all. It's hard to generate exact numbers for this type of stuff. There is evidence it works fairly effectively.
Yes. I believe he referred to the evidence as “anecdotal.”
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you would usually refer to that as “weak.”
What do you mean...”you people” ?!?
Rules for thee, none for me. It’s all part of my master plan to turn this into a huge liberal wasteland sponsored by antifa mwah ha ha!!!!
The recommendation for wearing masks was not based on anecdotal evidence