Claude_Verret
-
Posts
6,544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Claude_Verret
-
-
56 minutes ago, SwampD said:
Still a moot point. We get it. There may be other reasons for an uptick and epidemiologists need to figure that out. But just as there is no study that proves that, there is no study that says that easing of wearing masks and social distancing isn't the reason (which you said). Therefore we shouldn't use it as a reason not to wear them.
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.
-
45 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:
Chappaqua would beg to differ...https://www.theexaminernews.com/covid-19-cluster-from-greeley-graduation-rises-to-19-positive-cases/
Soley yeh it can spread on surfaces that is why we wipe everything down coming into house as well.
How is anything in that article inconsistent with anything that I've posted?
-
8 minutes ago, SwampD said:
Nobody does not understand what you are saying. Isn't it kind of a moot point, though?
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.
-
4 hours ago, North Buffalo said:
Not following guidelines including quarantining if coming from or living in a hotspot... not just mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. Yeh it doesnt preclude other reasons for the spread but it has shown stats wise if not purely scientifically to reduce the spread. Problem is scientist dont know who is carrying it so controlled studies are still being evaluated. Though the reduction in cases in NY and Westchester all suggest if not prove the point of wearing a damn mask... socially distancing reduces your potential exposure or transmitting. All I need to know is my wife and kids didnt get it because I went to a hotel room at first sign of a fever. We wore masks inside around kids when virus first hit. And my wife and I work different shifts. Washed hands cleaned surfaces, bagged scrubs as soon as we came inside. Wiped down inside of cars. We both were in the middle of it in hospitals. Me more than her. So go ahead and ignore protocols at your own risk. This debate is inane and frankly pisses me off after seeing so many deaths. Scientifically proven debate at this point is a waste of time when stats show mask wearing and social distancing works even if not perfectly.
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, kas23 said:
I’m sure you agree that it’s a bit too early to definitively say that D614G is responsible for the uptick in cases or increased infectivity in vivo. These studies were done in a cultured cell line and who knows if this translates to increase infectivity within a living system. The increased prevalence of this mutation over time certainly indicates this, but viruses mutate often and more so at particular hot spots. Could it just be the natural history of the virus? Maybe, but don’t know. Could it be that there are different viruses depending on US geography and mitigation measures have been poorly rolled out in these different locales? Maybe, but again, don’t know for sure.
I agree with what your are writing on here. There is too much we don’t know and anyone with definitive answers is usually someone to ignore. But, in medicine, we never know things for certain, so decisions always come down to risk/benefit ratio. In the case of masks, we don’t know for certain if they are limiting infection. Same goes for the silly plexiglass we see everywhere. However, the risk/benefit ratio for wearing a mask is highly favorable, so I think everyone in the country should be wearing one if we are past the point of demanding everything to close down.
Yes, and why I put the appropriate grain of salt caveat at the end of my post.
-
10 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
Please stop with the attacks.
Is the analogy: does prescribing mitigation to a state or region and watching disease subside tell you anything about the cause of the disease? I'm not sure I get it. I think what you're after is what was the cause of the decline in fever.
Do we know for sure it wasn't the virus doing virus things in NY to explain the decline in cases or the virus doing virus things in Florida to explain the increase, and not mitigation/reopening? Probably not. How long's it going to take to figure that out?
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.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:
I said evaluate, not validate. There's a lot of good, reliable information on the Internet. We're about 15 years past the idea of, "I wouldn't trust Bob's Epidemiology Blog."
Did you know anyone can log in to Medscape?
You're right. Now we're into social media to to get our 'reliable' information. Its even worse.
-
1 hour ago, Curt said:
I think Claude and some others are talking right past each other, with little attempt from either side to make themselves clearly understood or find common ground.
Basically, a totally unproductive dialogue.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
I'll be waiting for the "let's chill out a little," "be better or be quiet" and "we don't do that here" responses from board management.
Is hand-washing proven to prevent the spread of viruses?
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?
-
9 minutes ago, Weave said:
Can you translate this in English?
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Weave said:
Well, that went sideways.
If I understand Claude correctly, all he is saying is, the data re: masks is still being collected and evaluated so no firm conclusions should be made, BUT based on what has been observed so far, wearing masks appears to make sense as a reasonable deterrent to virus transfer in casual contact situations.
Or thats what I want Claude to be saying. Either one.
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.
-
8 hours ago, PASabreFan said:
The internet is not new. Anyone with half a brain knows by now how to evaluate sources and not just click on the first link as your answer.
This sounds like every doctor I've known over the age of 60.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
Google isn't a way of tracking anything. It's a search engine. It even brings up results from pubmed.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Doohickie said:
But we do.
No, we don't know all the microscopic details, but we have empirical evidence from states and countries that have suppressed the spread of the disease. Various countries have enacted combination of testing, contact tracing, social distancing, disinfecting and mask use to reduce the spread and shrink the number of cases. I don't need to know the details if I can look at it from a macro level and see that it worked for a whole state or whole country.
Ok. Google is certainly the way most folks are tracking this pandemic I'll continue using pubmed.
-
2 hours ago, Curt said:
Not entirely addressing you specifically, sorry.
Just the whole back and forth with some saying we should be following medical/scientific guidelines more stringently, and others saying that we don’t REALLY know FOR SURE, that would help at all.
Come on people, I don’t REALLY know FOR SURE that I’m going to wake up tomorrow morning, but I’m pretty sure of it, and I probably should plan accordingly.
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.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, MattPie said:
FWIW, arguing that "well, it *happened* that after NYS went into lockdown and started mandating mask use the deaths dropped off quickly is just correlation" sounds a lot like someone saying, "well, sure, Jeff Skinner got traded to the Sabres and start scoring tons of goals with Eichel, but we don't know if he would have scored those goals with another center anyway". It's all correlation because we can't run 10-20 runs to see, but at some point you watch what's happening in Texas and Florida and say, "lockdowns and masks seem to work so it's a good idea".
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.
-
55 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Never knew that about science. Thank you.
I'd note there's flaws in your description because science is ever changing but we simply don't do anything because the science isn't settled. Again I take issue with your hypothesis that if ppl had followed the best science advice at the time we still wouldn't have this under control.
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.
-
24 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Really? So the fact the US has the highest spread in the develop world isn't because of all the randos doing whatever they want? Gonna call bs on that one. Many countries instituted lockdowns and mandatory masks, they are all better off right now than the US.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, North Buffalo said:
The kid in Chappaqua NY was presymptomatic outdoor event (High School graduation)and spread to 8 people because lack of social distancing.
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.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Weave said:
I would have to think that more time in an enclosed space moves the bar closer to the masked person regardless of distance. Thinking relatively stagnant airmass and the super spreader groups like that Seattle choir team.
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.
-
-
4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Seriously, as a Canadian, explain to me how you Americans can politicize something so simple and basic as wearing a mask into this symbol of freedom and choice? It simply boggles my mind. Do you think surgeons put them on for fun?
How are you simply getting it so damn wrong.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, SDS said:
I have seen many people who have done a cough, sneeze, talk, breathe hard experiment with and without masks. The culture of the plates and show the difference. Is that a faulty experiment?
because whenever they do it the difference between the mask plate and without the mask Clay is like night and day.
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.
New York Times in discussions to buy The Athletic
in The Aud Club
Posted · Edited by 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.