Why would anyone choose to be a healthcare worker in the future

992 Views | 30 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by J.B.Katz
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.


If our species survives .... our descendants will marvel how our culture consistently prioritized entertainment over science , education and health .
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.
Didn't most healthcare professionals know going in that they were going to be exposed to sick people and disease? I would think so. What do you propose that your government should have done differently? Like with most other professions, if you don't like your job or the risks associated with it, get another job.

You are basically accusing and judging Americans that get sick for making healthcare workers sick. That sucks.
"Fear does not prevent death. It prevents life."
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.
Didn't most healthcare professionals know going in that they were going to be exposed to sick people and disease? I would think so. What do you propose that your government should have done differently? Like with most other professions, if you don't like your job or the risks associated with it, get another job.

You are basically accusing and judging Americans that get sick for making healthcare workers sick. That sucks.

You are basically saying you dont care enough about healthcare workers to wear a mask, social distance and respect science. That sucks way more.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.
Didn't most healthcare professionals know going in that they were going to be exposed to sick people and disease? I would think so. What do you propose that your government should have done differently? Like with most other professions, if you don't like your job or the risks associated with it, get another job.

You are basically accusing and judging Americans that get sick for making healthcare workers sick. That sucks.

You are basically saying you dont care enough about healthcare workers to wear a mask, social distance and respect science. That sucks way more.
Actually, I do all of those things. You, Sir, can go pack sand.
"Fear does not prevent death. It prevents life."
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been around the Doctors and nurses dealing with a Tuberculosis outbreak in East Africa. I'm confident in saying our healthcare workers have it way better than many other places. Not that I don't respect and appreciate all they do.

And we're still pushing the idea that failure to mask is why this is exploding? I think many relish the blame game. Much harder to grasp the inevitability of a highly contagious airborne microscopic virus. So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
wuzzybear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.
Didn't most healthcare professionals know going in that they were going to be exposed to sick people and disease? I would think so. What do you propose that your government should have done differently? Like with most other professions, if you don't like your job or the risks associated with it, get another job.

You are basically accusing and judging Americans that get sick for making healthcare workers sick. That sucks.

OK well this is sure enough personal to me. Although retired I worked in hospitals, not cushy breast augmentation clinics!, for years at Baylor and at Duke Med Ctrs and I can tell you FIRST HAND what it is like to be scolded and congratulated daily and yes, you damn sure know what you are signing up for, but the job is a burn out stress bomb waiting to go off on any given day. Most RN's change jobs bc although you try not to let it be an emotional experience after a while you can't help it and so you move somewhere else or you become an administrator or manager. Sometimes you work when you are sick yourself and sometimes you are called in at a moments notice because someone else is sick. The only thing I would not tolerate is not having the tools I need to properly care for a pt, but that is why you have a "safe harbor" option and you can withdraw with notice from a situation if you don't feel safe. Nobody wants to do this, but in order to protect your license it is necessary.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the work cuz I function well under stress and the pay is really good in most places. Travel nursing if you like to move about is the best of both worlds. At Duke I worked with RN's from all over the world and almost went to Saudi Arabia as a rehab specialist that would have paid me $200K/year for 5yrs tax fee, but I weighed my options and decided I couldn't handle the climate or the women! LOL. Nevertheless, I made great friends and I don't remember ever blaming a single pt if I got sick. As you said it is just part of the gig. If anything, it gave me a stronger immune system which only means I could be a carrier but never get sick although I could make you sick as such.

Like any profession you take the good with the bad. I've had pts code on me and die and I saved a few too. I was a cardiothoracic RN so I mainly dealt with heart and lungs and I did not like GI, neurology or cancer pts although everybody knows enough to at least give standard care.

As far as the pandemic goes this is no different than any other disease we've ever had but it's just more noted bc it is more deadly. The real truth is you could have it right now and you might not ever know it or you could fall flat on your face in 24hrs. But it makes me crazy when politicians yap and yap about it as if they know anything. I'm telling you right here and now you don't know squat until you have lived through it. Masks are ridiculous but hey if it makes you psychologically feel better by all means wear it. You just like a bank robber!!!

Govt will weaponize anything they can. They don't care about you and this Fauci guy changes his mind as often as I change underwear. I laugh my a-s-s off when I see Biden giving a indecipherable speech to a bunch of people sitting in crop circles, but this is what our society has come to. And that is why I have so many firearms as I know how and where to put a bullet in somebody such that they will never know what hit em. That's my solution to health care. I've worked in the OR and had gunshot victims at Parkland, even some like Kennedy where your brains are falling out of your skull or put someone in a medically induced coma so I can pull their face off and treat that. Remember FACE-OFF with Travolta and Cage...well I've seen that. I've pulled bullets out of orifices and peeled skin off to get to it. You get tough pretty damn quick or you go throw up and never come back.

That was my life for years !!!
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.


Who's being selfish? Most Americans are taking precautions. Saw a statistic that at least 90% of Texans are complying with the mask mandate, despite its limited effectiveness.

What you're saying makes for a good sound bite. It just doesn't have any basis in fact.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.


Who's being selfish? Most Americans are taking precautions. Saw a statistic that at least 90% of Texans are complying with the mask mandate, despite its limited effectiveness.

What you're saying makes for a good sound bite. It just doesn't have any basis in fact.
warm-fuzzies for Karen, I mean Katz
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.


Now do police officers who earn less than nurses.
VaeBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is what I don't get. People getting upset with people not wearing masks. Everywhere I go I see people wearing masks. The only places I see people not wearing a mask is in a restaurant when they are eating. Or if they are outside yards away from anyone else. I even see people in their cars wearing masks. Where are you people going or live that you don't see people wearing masks?
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd say most a drawn to the profession to help people and make a difference.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.


Now do police officers who earn less than nurses.
Good comparison, actually. Doctors and nurses aren't discouraged by the risk. They're discouraged by the futility of trying to help people (and politicians) who are actively working against them.
wuzzybear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

riflebear said:

J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.


Now do police officers who earn less than nurses.
Good comparison, actually. Doctors and nurses aren't discouraged by the risk. They're discouraged by the futility of trying to help people (and politicians) who are actively working against them.
Finally something we agree on!!! As I said above this is what "safe harbor" is for. YOu have to protect your license and this declaration allows an RN to do that w/o retribution.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
The problem is that none of your counter-data actually contradicts mine. The science I referred to was a study of cloth masks.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
The problem is that none of your counter-data actually contradicts mine. The science I referred to was a study of cloth masks.
And they keep showing how cloths masks have a 20-30% effectiveness at best while some, like bandanas and gaiters, actually break apart saliva drops into smaller elements and release them through repetitive breathing, not to mention the cloth absorbs external particulate. All that wouldn't matter if cloth masks weren't the main method people are using. If it were surgical masks and N95 as the main vehicle the argument changes slightly. And the science is certain that 6 feet is a useless distance against an aerosolized virus.

Neither the CDC or WHO are going to back an ineffective mask narrative as that's asking for public panic, especially as much has gone into public narrative. The crazy thing is that Fauci was right at the beginning, but somewhere along the way we got distracted. Not that masks are completely ineffective, but that they are the main tool to address infection spread.
syme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

I'd say most a drawn to the profession to help people and make a difference.


Only to find out it's this goodwill and commitment to patients that allows them to be easily exploited by an army of administrators.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
The problem is that none of your counter-data actually contradicts mine. The science I referred to was a study of cloth masks.
And they keep showing how cloths masks have a 20-30% effectiveness at best while some, like bandanas and gaiters, actually break apart saliva drops into smaller elements and release them through repetitive breathing, not to mention the cloth absorbs external particulate. All that wouldn't matter if cloth masks weren't the main method people are using. If it were surgical masks and N95 as the main vehicle the argument changes slightly. And the science is certain that 6 feet is a useless distance against an aerosolized virus.

Neither the CDC or WHO are going to back an ineffective mask narrative as that's asking for public panic, especially as much has gone into public narrative. The crazy thing is that Fauci was right at the beginning, but somewhere along the way we got distracted. Not that masks are completely ineffective, but that they are the main tool to address infection spread.
"In a review of observational studies, an international research team estimates that surgical and comparable cloth masks are 67% effective in protecting the wearer. In unpublished work, Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and her colleagues found that even a cotton T-shirt can block half of inhaled aerosols and almost 80% of exhaled aerosols measuring 2 m across. Once you get to aerosols of 4-5 m, almost any fabric can block more than 80% in both directions, she says." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Not saying they should be the main tool at all. Individually, they're the last line of defense when you can't avoid contact. Collectively, they're part of an effective overall strategy to reduce transmission.


LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
syme said:

J.R. said:

I'd say most a drawn to the profession to help people and make a difference.


Only to find out it's this goodwill and commitment to patients that allows them to be easily exploited by an army of administrators.
also like LEOs
wuzzybear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
syme said:

J.R. said:

I'd say most a drawn to the profession to help people and make a difference.


Only to find out it's this goodwill and commitment to patients that allows them to be easily exploited by an army of administrators.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. MY FELLOW RN'S NEED TO HEAR THIS AND YES, YOU ARE RIGHT. IT WAS A SECOND CAREER FOR ME AND PERSONALLY VERY REWARDING. GOD BLESS!
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
The problem is that none of your counter-data actually contradicts mine. The science I referred to was a study of cloth masks.
And they keep showing how cloths masks have a 20-30% effectiveness at best while some, like bandanas and gaiters, actually break apart saliva drops into smaller elements and release them through repetitive breathing, not to mention the cloth absorbs external particulate. All that wouldn't matter if cloth masks weren't the main method people are using. If it were surgical masks and N95 as the main vehicle the argument changes slightly. And the science is certain that 6 feet is a useless distance against an aerosolized virus.

Neither the CDC or WHO are going to back an ineffective mask narrative as that's asking for public panic, especially as much has gone into public narrative. The crazy thing is that Fauci was right at the beginning, but somewhere along the way we got distracted. Not that masks are completely ineffective, but that they are the main tool to address infection spread.
"In a review of observational studies, an international research team estimates that surgical and comparable cloth masks are 67% effective in protecting the wearer. In unpublished work, Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and her colleagues found that even a cotton T-shirt can block half of inhaled aerosols and almost 80% of exhaled aerosols measuring 2 m across. Once you get to aerosols of 4-5 m, almost any fabric can block more than 80% in both directions, she says." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Not saying they should be the main tool at all. Individually, they're the last line of defense when you can't avoid contact. Collectively, they're part of an effective overall strategy to reduce transmission.



I already addressed the cherry picking of research that Nature article did, and provided two direct studies. If you haven't before, look up what an "observational study" is, which is what you quoted above.
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's there calling
Waco1947
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
The problem is that none of your counter-data actually contradicts mine. The science I referred to was a study of cloth masks.
And they keep showing how cloths masks have a 20-30% effectiveness at best while some, like bandanas and gaiters, actually break apart saliva drops into smaller elements and release them through repetitive breathing, not to mention the cloth absorbs external particulate. All that wouldn't matter if cloth masks weren't the main method people are using. If it were surgical masks and N95 as the main vehicle the argument changes slightly. And the science is certain that 6 feet is a useless distance against an aerosolized virus.

Neither the CDC or WHO are going to back an ineffective mask narrative as that's asking for public panic, especially as much has gone into public narrative. The crazy thing is that Fauci was right at the beginning, but somewhere along the way we got distracted. Not that masks are completely ineffective, but that they are the main tool to address infection spread.
"In a review of observational studies, an international research team estimates that surgical and comparable cloth masks are 67% effective in protecting the wearer. In unpublished work, Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and her colleagues found that even a cotton T-shirt can block half of inhaled aerosols and almost 80% of exhaled aerosols measuring 2 m across. Once you get to aerosols of 4-5 m, almost any fabric can block more than 80% in both directions, she says." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Not saying they should be the main tool at all. Individually, they're the last line of defense when you can't avoid contact. Collectively, they're part of an effective overall strategy to reduce transmission.



I already addressed the cherry picking of research that Nature article did, and provided two direct studies. If you haven't before, look up what an "observational study" is, which is what you quoted above.
The nature article references both observational studies and experiments. You responded to the findings of the observational study with experimental data. I responded with experimental data showing why your experimental data fails to rebut the observational study.

In plain language, the Nature study observed that cloth masks work. Your data purported to show that they couldn't possibly work because the virus is smaller than the weave of the fabric. My data showed that the virus usually travels on particles (including aerosols) large enough to be screened by the fabric, thus explaining how the masks work.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
The problem is that none of your counter-data actually contradicts mine. The science I referred to was a study of cloth masks.
And they keep showing how cloths masks have a 20-30% effectiveness at best while some, like bandanas and gaiters, actually break apart saliva drops into smaller elements and release them through repetitive breathing, not to mention the cloth absorbs external particulate. All that wouldn't matter if cloth masks weren't the main method people are using. If it were surgical masks and N95 as the main vehicle the argument changes slightly. And the science is certain that 6 feet is a useless distance against an aerosolized virus.

Neither the CDC or WHO are going to back an ineffective mask narrative as that's asking for public panic, especially as much has gone into public narrative. The crazy thing is that Fauci was right at the beginning, but somewhere along the way we got distracted. Not that masks are completely ineffective, but that they are the main tool to address infection spread.
"In a review of observational studies, an international research team estimates that surgical and comparable cloth masks are 67% effective in protecting the wearer. In unpublished work, Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and her colleagues found that even a cotton T-shirt can block half of inhaled aerosols and almost 80% of exhaled aerosols measuring 2 m across. Once you get to aerosols of 4-5 m, almost any fabric can block more than 80% in both directions, she says." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Not saying they should be the main tool at all. Individually, they're the last line of defense when you can't avoid contact. Collectively, they're part of an effective overall strategy to reduce transmission.



I already addressed the cherry picking of research that Nature article did, and provided two direct studies. If you haven't before, look up what an "observational study" is, which is what you quoted above.
The nature article references both observational studies and experiments. You responded to the findings of the observational study with experimental data. I responded with experimental data showing why your experimental data fails to rebut the observational study.

In plain language, the Nature study observed that cloth masks work. Your data purported to show that they couldn't possibly work because the virus is smaller than the weave of the fabric. My data showed that the virus usually travels on particles (including aerosols) large enough to be screened by the fabric, thus explaining how the masks work.
My data showed that only a small percentage is stopped, as did yours with the only conflicts of the data coming from observational studies and statistical modeling. You should also look into the DANMASK study.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

So unless you're wearing an electrostatic mask that filters inhale and exhale breathing, and your social distancing has moved to 6 yards instead of 6 feet, I'm sorry to tell you that your efforts are mostly futile.
Not true.
Very true unfortunately. Do more than mask Sam. Seriously.
The ball is in your court on this one. I recently pointed out that studies showing the effectiveness of masks don't disagree with your theory about aerosol transmission. In fact they assume it to be true.

As for doing more than mask, that should go without saying. It would be foolish to rely on masks alone, just as it would be foolish to walk through the snow in sock feet. That doesn't mean socks are futile or unimportant if you want to keep your feet warm. A great deal of the analysis from your side consists of isolating individual measures, arguing that they're less than perfect in isolation, and concluding that they must be worthless. This is a fallacy. No one's saying that masks are a panacea. They are one of many layers of protection.
I keep giving you the science to counter the narrative articles. Realize you are using opinion pieces with interpretation of information and I keep giving you the hard data. Masks of certain types have some effectiveness while some actually make it worse for the wearer. So try to go beyond saying "masks". Using your socks in the snow analogy, there's a difference between wearing wool waterproof socks in the snow and ankle high athletic cotton socks. One would give you protection, the other provides none and may actually make it worse. I'm telling you to stop obsessing about the socks and focus on shoes and pants.
The problem is that none of your counter-data actually contradicts mine. The science I referred to was a study of cloth masks.
And they keep showing how cloths masks have a 20-30% effectiveness at best while some, like bandanas and gaiters, actually break apart saliva drops into smaller elements and release them through repetitive breathing, not to mention the cloth absorbs external particulate. All that wouldn't matter if cloth masks weren't the main method people are using. If it were surgical masks and N95 as the main vehicle the argument changes slightly. And the science is certain that 6 feet is a useless distance against an aerosolized virus.

Neither the CDC or WHO are going to back an ineffective mask narrative as that's asking for public panic, especially as much has gone into public narrative. The crazy thing is that Fauci was right at the beginning, but somewhere along the way we got distracted. Not that masks are completely ineffective, but that they are the main tool to address infection spread.
"In a review of observational studies, an international research team estimates that surgical and comparable cloth masks are 67% effective in protecting the wearer. In unpublished work, Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and her colleagues found that even a cotton T-shirt can block half of inhaled aerosols and almost 80% of exhaled aerosols measuring 2 m across. Once you get to aerosols of 4-5 m, almost any fabric can block more than 80% in both directions, she says." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Not saying they should be the main tool at all. Individually, they're the last line of defense when you can't avoid contact. Collectively, they're part of an effective overall strategy to reduce transmission.



I already addressed the cherry picking of research that Nature article did, and provided two direct studies. If you haven't before, look up what an "observational study" is, which is what you quoted above.
The nature article references both observational studies and experiments. You responded to the findings of the observational study with experimental data. I responded with experimental data showing why your experimental data fails to rebut the observational study.

In plain language, the Nature study observed that cloth masks work. Your data purported to show that they couldn't possibly work because the virus is smaller than the weave of the fabric. My data showed that the virus usually travels on particles (including aerosols) large enough to be screened by the fabric, thus explaining how the masks work.
My data showed that only a small percentage is stopped, as did yours with the only conflicts of the data coming from observational studies and statistical modeling.
Nope.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.
Why would they be a health worker in the future? Probably because a pandemic of this level occurs once every 100 years or so, and just like in 1918 when this is over life will resume as usual and most people won't think much about it until it happens again.

You are way over estimating the percent of folks not taking mandates seriously, it's not close to 50%, and a lot of those ignoring the mask rules selfishly are in communities that vote overwhelmingly democrat, if you live or work in that community.
By the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller said:

J.B.Katz said:

...when we have treated these workers so badly during the pandemic.

None of them, not even docs, earns enough to be forced to risk their lives daily because half of Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are OK with these people risking their lives daily because their government and about half of the American people value selfishness over responsibility.
Why would they be a health worker in the future? Probably because a pandemic of this level occurs once every 100 years or so, and just like in 1918 when this is over life will resume as usual and most people won't think much about it until it happens again.

You are way over estimating the percent of folks not taking mandates seriously, it's not close to 50%, and a lot of those ignoring the mask rules selfishly are in communities that vote overwhelmingly democrat, if you live or work in that community.
Don't know where you're getting your facts, but the states suffering now are not "overwhelmingly democrat" and Covid doesn't care about your politics.

Worst outbreaks now are in states where leaders haven't required masks, like North and South Dakota.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/18/us/covid-state-restrictions.html

If you take out the states that got hit badly early--NY, NJ, MA and CT--the states with most deaths based on population are the ones with no restrictions or the ones that just enacted them when their hospitals got overwhelmed; https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.