Claude_Verret

Correct. The NYT leaned left 20 plus years ago, but those days are long gone. Today they're simply the activist mouthpiece of the Democrat party. Edit: And I'm sure many will disagree with my take, but I'll just add that Fox News serves the exact same purpose for the Republicans. Neither are reputable news sources that come anywhere close to simply "leaning" one way.

This post indicates that you still don't understand what I'm saying. I retired from posting and talking to people about this stuff about a month into the pandemic. It became exhausting. Time to go back. Before I go back ill second Neos recommendation to check out The Great Influenza. Another good read would be Carl Sagan's the Demon Haunted World. Carry on fellow Sabre Spacers.

How is anything in that article inconsistent with anything that I've posted?

Not if you're an epidemiologist or public health official who wants the clearest picture and understanding of how the virus is evolving so as to implement the best methods to combat it going forward. And nobody? I think we've had a few posters who cleary didn't and possibly still don't understand the arguments im making.

Anyone who denies the benefits of social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing etc. is ignoring the established science. At the same time, anyone who pins an increase of positive cases SOLELY on not adhering to the guidelines is ignoring the scientific method and they are wrong. Im not sure how I can make my position on this any clearer. The above two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, and why I put the appropriate grain of salt caveat at the end of my post.

Attacks? The pattern I called out in your debating style is a tactic you've employed here for quite some time whether you're doing it consciously or not. I guess we are talking past each other since your questions indicate not having a grasp on how scientific studies and progress actually works. I posted something yesterday in response to liger that attempted to explain my thoughts on that.

You're right. Now we're into social media to to get our 'reliable' information. Its even worse.

I think I've made a sincere attempt to clarify my positions. I'm certainly open to clarify them further if asked direct questions on what I've actually posted.

I'll do what you do best time and time again and simply ignore the content of the post I'm responding to and ask a ridiculous question instead. Does giving a patient motrin and subsequently watching their fever subside tell you anything about the cause of the fever?

The S protein, or spike protein, is how the virus attaches and infects cells. The human cell membrane surface protein that it attaches to is the ACE2 (angiotension something) receptor. This group showed that the D614G (D=aspartic acid, 614=the amino acid number, or residue, in the S protein and G=glycine) showed greater infectivity. So the mutation that causes a change in the S protein at residue 614 from aspartic acid to glycine shows a higher ability to infect cells than the aspartic acid or D614 form of the virus in these experiments.

Kind of. There is certainly data out there in controlled lab environments that show that masks work to control the spread of virus. Im more saying that even knowing about this data, if you observe a rise in cases around the same time you see people not following recommended guidelines and you immediately pin that rise on the ignoring of guidelines, then that's unscientific reasoning and it ignores many of the other variables that could be contributing, like the study that I linked to above. Im not going to even pretend to be an epidemiologist, so I don't know how or if they even can tease out something like mask use and its impact from the data being gathered. The bottom line is that we can use the public health measures as best we can to get a handle on this thing, but the virus itself has a say in all of this as well.

Throw this into the pot as a potential cause for the rise in cases. As I said before changes on the micro level, in this case a single amino acid mutation in the spike protein domain involved in ACE2 receptor binding, can have effects as well. Appropriate grain of salt as this is a single study in a lab and has to be taken in context of all the other studies in this sub field being published. In summary, we show that an S protein mutation that results in more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 also limits shedding of the S1 domain and increases S-protein incorporation into the virion. Further studies will be necessary to determine the impact of this change on the nature and severity of COVID-19. https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2020/20200611-choe-farzan-sars-cov-2-spike-protein.html

Right. So youre validating your sources how exactly? Im sure its by going to the peer reviewed literature and assessing the study design, methodology, results and conclusions. As usual, you're clueless.

And how often do you read anything from pubmed beyond the abstract? And Google is always all too willing to take you wherever your search string tells it to. You want data telling you that people not wearing masks is akin to murder? Google will take you there. Want data that says you should flush your masks down the toilet? Google will take you there too.

Ok. Google is certainly the way most folks are tracking this pandemic I'll continue using pubmed.

I am saying that we should follow the guidelines stringently AND that we don't know for sure to what extent they are helping. Because we dont. Without getting into the weeds of molecular virology, this pandemic and its spread goes beyond just public health mitigation measures, as important as they are.

I think a more apt sports / sabres analogy that would encompass a multitude of other impacting variables unlike simply Eichel vs. other centers would be taking the Sabres 10 game winning streak of a few years ago in a vacuum and extrapolating it to a playoff berth. Back to covid, no honest person is going to say masks aren't a good thing going forward. Its simply an unknown as to what real world impact they are making right now in light of all the other variables that have potential effects. Even some of the recognized experts downplayed mask importance before they were for them.

That's not my hypothesis. If people had followed everything to the letter things could be much better now, they could be exactly the same, or less likely it could be worse . Seeing a spike in cases while also seeing widespread ignoring of the recommended guidelines is an observation that shows a correlation. Causation cannot be inferred from a simple two variable correlation. Maybe viral surveillance data will show that over recent weeks viral markers have altered such that spread is easier despite the best public health mitigation efforts. There are a multitude of other variables that can impact this.

Here's the thing. Science doesn't work that way. Going tit for tat with people on whatever study or chunk of data du juor that you wish to tout, just isn't how it works in science in general, and it certainly doesn't help when youre still in the middle of a pandemic. This novel virus is still less than a year old. The scientific community still doesn't have its arms around this thing, but they are incrementally getting better day by day. The scientific method is expressly designed to weed out inherent human biases. Its about understanding the best balance of evidence in any field related to this. So the epidemiologists for example will have read and understood the vast literature that has and will be published on this thing and that community eventually come to a reasonable consensus on what went on. Went on. When this pandemic is behind us and all the data is collected. When you're still in the middle of it, you're still guessing and looking at new potential studies to perform to better understand it. The same principles apply to the virologists, practicing physicians etc. You're certainly free to express your opinions on any of it, but you're still just guessing, and perhaps not based on a complete understanding of all the literature published to date. I know that I certainly don't have the time to read it all.

Yep, that's why I said in my scenario all other things being equal. When they aren't equal, and some variables aren't to the naked eye, then the balance can shift. Some asymptomatic people shed more virus than others. Again, people should wear masks, but i feel there is this underlying presumption that if everyone just does as told then we'll get this thing under control faster. I don't know if that's necessarily true, and neither does anyone else no matter how many credentials follow their name. But I am certain that people in the media, no matter what way they lean, are much, much further back in the darkness on this pandemic than anyone who has a scientific or medical background.

Sure, there are a lot of variables that could slide the scale. For example, indoors or outdoors I'd rather be closer to an unmasked asymptomatic carrier than a masked covid positive patient who is hacking and coughing. I could be wrong though, this is based on my experience on precautions I used when handling and manipulating concentrated influenza stocks. It will take months to years before enough data is collected and vetted on this pandemic before the scientific community can reach a comfortable consensus on what the best balance of evidence is. Everyone should be wearing masks and wearing them properly. Many who choose to wear them do so improperly based on my observations. And just wait until a vaccine is released that only gives partial or low protection, then the real craziness can begin.

Masked person at 6 ft or more > unmasked person at 6 ft or more > masked person less than 6ft.

Nearly every aspect of this whole stinking pandemic has been politicized, by both sides. The fact that we get mixed messages on masks from political leaders, including our President, along with medical experts is bound to create confusion, obstinance and digging in along party lines. It also doesn't help that its a presidential election year. Everything and anything can and will be politicized during those years.

I'd have to see the experiments, but if they're using culture plates then they are looking at bacteria since virus won't grow on solid media. Masks probably do much better with bacteria because they are larger and the mask will filter them much better than virus. Don't get me wrong, wearing masks properly will help, but if I'm going to encounter someone in public who is covid positive I'd rather encounter a maskless covid positive person at >=6 ft than a masked one at 3 feet, all other things being equal.