ADVERTISEMENT

Wear a mask

Ah, moving the goalposts, I see. First it was "where were we going to put them?"

That's not a goal post. That is my question.
In the initial spread of this virus and as hospitals started to look like they might reach capacity in the near future. What were our options? Where do we send them, how do we staff these new places. etc...

Whether or not these facilities already had COVID in their community is immaterial.

I disagree. It's entirley material.
If 100 people died at a facility because we sent 1 infected person where there was no virus, it would be entirely different vs 100 people dying at a facility where they already had a virus that was spreading.

They were putting CONFIRMED (and suspected) positives back in nursing homes, a policy put in place shortly after NYS did. Both NJ and NY have a greater absolute number and percentage of deaths of those in LTC facilities. You can keep defending Murphy on this, but I'm not buying it.

I'm not really interested in defending Murphy. I think we could have established a better policy. I just don't agree with the idea that allowing these patients back after they were discharged from the hospital caused the additional deaths.

I believe it was worse in NY and NY because it hit us first and we were not prepared. Other areas in the country got to see what was happening here first and prepare for what was coming. We had no testing available when this was spreading here. Other states did have testing available when it started to hit their states so they were able to take additional measures to help reduce the spread.
 
We knew from what we saw in Italy that the elderly were at a much higher risk. We also knew that we had to protect healthcare workers with PPE. California and Washington also got it early, but didn't have the same problems. Unfortunately some states did not prioritize protecting nursing home staff which accelerated the spread.
 
What medical journal did you review that says masks "make the virus go away"?

A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%. This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings. We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.

-- From the New England Journal of Medicine on Friday
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbie Solo
A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%. This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings. We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.

-- From the New England Journal of Medicine on Friday

Really? That makes the virus "go away"?
 
Really? That makes the virus "go away"?

i know you're picturing a guy putting a mask on and all the virus on earth magically disappearing, but yeah, stupid, that would very slowly reduce the presence of the virus. viruses need hosts to replicate, and hosts are mostly acquired by airborne transmission. More masks = less transmission = fewer hosts = less replication = less virus. the virus would still spread at a greatly reduced rate because no mask is 100% effective (and you'd need contact tracing and isolation to totally eliminate it), and we will have a vaccine because universal masking could totally eliminate the virus but to answer your question, yes it could, in conjuction with finding and isolation the sick, make the virus go away
 
We knew from what we saw in Italy that the elderly were at a much higher risk. We also knew that we had to protect healthcare workers with PPE. California and Washington also got it early, but didn't have the same problems. Unfortunately some states did not prioritize protecting nursing home staff which accelerated the spread.

About a third of NJ facilities had reported a case of Covid before NJ established a policy that they need to accept discharged patients. None of that was due to re-admissions, and it was spreading rapidly before people even believed it was here.

I won't really take issue if you think Murphy should have been more proactive in February and early march by protecting these facilities by obtaining PPE and mandating all workers at these facilities wear masks etc.
 
i know you're picturing a guy putting a mask on and all the virus on earth magically disappearing, but yeah, stupid, that would very slowly reduce the presence of the virus. viruses need hosts to replicate, and hosts are mostly acquired by airborne transmission. More masks = less transmission = fewer hosts = less replication = less virus. the virus would still spread at a greatly reduced rate because no mask is 100% effective (and you'd need contact tracing and isolation to totally eliminate it), and we will have a vaccine because universal masking could totally eliminate the virus but to answer your question, yes it could, in conjuction with finding and isolation the sick, make the virus go away

Firstly, according to the WHO, it is not classified as airborne. And you need a cure or a vaccine to completely eliminate it. None of the things you pulled out of your posterior would eliminate the virus.
 
Firstly, according to the WHO, it is not classified as airborne. And you need a cure or a vaccine to completely eliminate it. None of the things you pulled out of your posterior would eliminate the virus.

1) it's real, and can be done without a vaccine https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/08/how-iceland-beat-the-coronavirus
2) the classification of it being airborne or not airborne when everyone agrees it spreads in aerosolized particles doesn't matter because masks help with both. that's just splitting hairs, and besides the WHO is about a week away from revising that stance anyway
 
Whether the WHO revises it or not, there is no evidence that it's airborne, only theory; and given that no other viruses in the class are airborne, that's still my bet. I don't see how Iceland compares with the US, given that most US cities are much larger. And I can tell you from doing contact tracing that your fellow Americans of every stripe are not super-cooperative, with a lot of hang-ups and "none of your business" replies. I don't disagree with your philosophy regarding mask wearing, only your delivery of the message.
 
Whether the WHO revises it or not, there is no evidence that it's airborne, only theory; and given that no other viruses in the class are airborne, that's still my bet.


It's in aerosols. We just haven't confirmed how much exposure you need for an infectious dose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/...ne-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html

I'm interested in reading the letter and what they are using as support.

On masks getting rid of the virus, they could play a roll if we all agreed to wear them.

Once we are able to start testing millions per day, those who are infected can isolate themselves. Those who don't know they are sick will be wearing a mask which will reduce how many people they infect. After a short period of time, the virus would pretty much be gone if we were all willing to do our part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbie Solo
It's in aerosols. We just haven't confirmed how much exposure you need for an infectious dose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/...ne-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html

I'm interested in reading the letter and what they are using as support.

On masks getting rid of the virus, they could play a roll if we all agreed to wear them.

Once we are able to start testing millions per day, those who are infected can isolate themselves. Those who don't know they are sick will be wearing a mask which will reduce how many people they infect. After a short period of time, the virus would pretty much be gone if we were all willing to do our part.

It's in aerosols. We just haven't confirmed how much exposure you need for an infectious dose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/...ne-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html

I'm interested in reading the letter and what they are using as support.

On masks getting rid of the virus, they could play a roll if we all agreed to wear them.

Once we are able to start testing millions per day, those who are infected can isolate themselves. Those who don't know they are sick will be wearing a mask which will reduce how many people they infect. After a short period of time, the virus would pretty much be gone if we were all willing to do our part.

Nice NY Times hit piece on the WHO. Agree with isolation and mask wearing. You're never going to get full compliance, and contact tracing is tricky at best. Even still, the virus would not be "gone."
 
Nice NY Times hit piece on the WHO. Agree with isolation and mask wearing. You're never going to get full compliance, and contact tracing is tricky at best. Even still, the virus would not be "gone."

There is a lot going on there but I think some people are frustrated about the messaging.

If you walk into a room with poor ventilation and stand 15 feet away from someone who you know is infected and talk to them for an hour, what is the likelihood you will get infected?

Droplet transmission says very unlikely. Airborne transmission says pretty much certain... in reality it is probably somewhere in the middle but probably more likely than not.

The W.H.O sticks with that not meeting the definition on airborne but frustrated scientists look and say we should revisit the definition of airborne then so we don't mislead the public.
 
Thanks, but where? We were alerted that hospitals were planned on being set up at East Stroudsburg Univesity, Atlantic City Convention Hall and the Lacouris Center in Philly. None ever had a patient.

Meadowlands was set up, had minimal patients....which was my point...they wanted the wrong patients....
 
  • Like
Reactions: HALL85

So, you weren't wrong then to feel concern for the healthcare workers that were being put in harms way... but it's kind of odd that when I feel similar concern about healthcare workers who are being put in harms way, you feel the need to interject and downplay my concern because they signed up for it by working in healthcare.

I am not even saying everyone needs to be vaccinated. I don't believe that, but there is a segment of the population that clearly should be (+50 and or unhealthy) and we are seeing spikes in hospitalizations in areas where those people at risk did not get vaccinated, and many of them are not making a rational choice but one driven by nonsense conspiracy theories.

It's a shame.

 
I am not even saying everyone needs to be vaccinated. I don't believe that, but there is a segment of the population that clearly should be (+50 and or unhealthy) and we are seeing spikes in hospitalizations in areas where those people at risk did not get vaccinated, and many of them are not making a rational choice but one driven by nonsense conspiracy theories.

It's a shame.


Maybe you should stop playing doctor and tell people what they should or shouldn't do. It's their personal decision, just like it's their personal decision on what to eat, smoke, exercise, etc. Do you care as much about their motivations to do all of those things? I think the only people that are influenced by wild conspiracies are those who are obsessed with social media. Maybe that's the problem.
 
I am not even saying everyone needs to be vaccinated. I don't believe that, but there is a segment of the population that clearly should be (+50 and or unhealthy) and we are seeing spikes in hospitalizations in areas where those people at risk did not get vaccinated, and many of them are not making a rational choice but one driven by nonsense conspiracy theories.

It's a shame.


I agree. If you're 50+ years old and/or otherwise unhealthy, I think getting the vaccine is a prudent decision. If you're under 50 and healthy, you're at low risk to begin with. If you want to take the vaccine, great, go ahead. But I'm not going to be out here forcing EVERYONE to take it like the talking heads on TV and some politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merge
Do you care as much about their motivations to do all of those things?

Care? Of course. As much? Bluntly - No. Those things are not contagious.

A person's choice to make bad decisions doesn't kill thousands of healthcare workers. Healthcare workers don't need to worry about bringing home diabetes and heart disease to their families.

I think the only people that are influenced by wild conspiracies are those who are obsessed with social media. Maybe that's the problem.

Sure. I'm not arguing about where the source of the conspiracy theories are coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
I agree. If you're 50+ years old and/or otherwise unhealthy, I think getting the vaccine is a prudent decision. If you're under 50 and healthy, you're at low risk to begin with. If you want to take the vaccine, great, go ahead. But I'm not going to be out here forcing EVERYONE to take it like the talking heads on TV and some politicians.

I agree. I don't believe it should be mandated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shu09
Care? Of course. As much? Bluntly - No. Those things are not contagious.

A person's choice to make bad decisions doesn't kill thousands of healthcare workers. Healthcare workers don't need to worry about bringing home diabetes and heart disease to their families.
But someone can be carrying the virus whether they are vaccinated or not. And they work in an environment where dealing with infectious and contagious disease is part of daily life.
 
But someone can be carrying the virus whether they are vaccinated or not. And they work in an environment where dealing with infectious and contagious disease is part of daily life.

You think the risks posed to healthcare workers is the same in NJ compared to states that have 5-6 times the number of hospitalized Covid patients per capita, and have been seeing the numbers increase every day?

Come on... Just let this one go.
 
You think the risks posed to healthcare workers is the same in NJ compared to states that have 5-6 times the number of hospitalized Covid patients per capita, and have been seeing the numbers increase every day?

Come on... Just let this one go.
What's 5-6 times? 12 vs 2? And once again, they face a risk every day from other contagious diseases.
 
What's 5-6 times? 12 vs 2?

5 per 100k in NJ, 2 weeks ago it was 4.

30 per 100k in Florida. 2 weeks ago it was 14.

Jacksonville FL, has one tenth the population of New Jersey but has more people hospitalized with Covid than all of New Jersey.
 
5 per 100k in NJ, 2 weeks ago it was 4.

30 per 100k in Florida. 2 weeks ago it was 14.

Jacksonville FL, has one tenth the population of New Jersey but has more people hospitalized with Covid than all of New Jersey.
Ok, but what's the actual number in a hospital. You can't just look at a state by state comparison. If we are talking about healthcare workers being overwhelmed and at risk you need to look at it from the hospital level.
 
Ok, but what's the actual number in a hospital. You can't just look at a state by state comparison. If we are talking about healthcare workers being overwhelmed and at risk you need to look at it from the hospital level.

That information used to be readily available but Florida stopped reporting.

 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Keep looking...I'm sure you can find it.

Pass. That article combined with the rate of hospitalizations in the state and recent increases is enough for me to feel sympathy for the workers who have to deal with the new surges. Not for you though... I get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Pass. That article combined with the rate of hospitalizations in the state and recent increases is enough for me to feel sympathy for the workers who have to deal with the new surges. Not for you though... I get it.
Reading comprehension is not a strength of yours. Enjoy the day.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Because I get tired of repeating myself....and you ignore what I say.

You've been clear.
The recent surges in certain areas impacting health systems is not sufficient enough to warrant additional sympathy from you over what you normally feel for healthcare workers. It is for me. The end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT