North Texas requiring masks again

[TheColonyEagle]

Just left the grocery store. Whereas 4-6 weeks ago I would say it was 95% no masks. Noticed today I would say it’s 50% have masks. Maybe 40%. But noticeably more had masks on today. 
 

No requirement: from the store or local govt. No one made these people put masks on….they just decided to wear them. 

[ColoradoEagle]

22 hours ago, TheColonyEagle said:

No requirement: from the store or local govt. No one made these people put masks on….they just decided to wear them. 

That’s nice. But what’s needed is 100% masks. 

[greenminer]

7 hours ago, ColoradoEagle said:

That’s nice. But what’s needed is 100% masks. 

Even better, we could all just shelter in home for 2 weeks and this thing would disappear.  But, that ain't gonna happen.

[UNTLifer]

2 hours ago, greenminer said:

Even better, we could all just shelter in home for 2 weeks and this thing would disappear.  But, that ain't gonna happen.

Just like last year?  Speaking of the vaccine, I know two people personally that had the "vaccine" and ended up contracting Covid and passing away.  Both had pre-existing conditions.  Point being, we don't have a vaccine by definition, we have injectable therapeutics.  There are also other therapeutics that have been shown to be extremely effective in combatting the Covid virus and that is the route I have chosen.  Regarding masks, I will wear them where required but doubt the effectiveness of 99% of those people are wearing.  

You want to get a shot from an experimental drug that we have zero knowledge of long term side effects, then that is your choice just as it is my choice to not go that route.  I sincerely wish you all great health and that none of you contracts the virus.

[ColoradoEagle]

21 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Just like last year?  Speaking of the vaccine, I know two people personally that had the "vaccine" and ended up contracting Covid and passing away.  Both had pre-existing conditions.  Point being, we don't have a vaccine by definition, we have injectable therapeutics. 

We have a vaccine. You just don’t know the definition of vaccine. 

[UNTLifer]

5 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

We have a vaccine. You just don’t know the definition of vaccine. 

 

vac·cine

/vakˈsēn/

 

noun

 

1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

    

    

   There is the definition.   Looks like you are the one with the comprehension issue.  The shots they are offering are not providing immunity.

Edited August 16, 2021 by UNTLifer

[ColoradoEagle]

Immunity. Not total immunity. There’s no such thing as a vaccine with 100% efficacy, doctor. 

[Censored by Laurie]

the resolve and inner-fortitude it must take to be dead wrong about something for almost a year-and-a-half, but still continue to double-down and hold the line.

if only you put that strength-of-will toward something that benefitted society rather than unnecessarily killing people

[LongJim]

The city of Denton's wording on their mandate is pretty clever, if I'm reading it correctly.  It essentially makes masks mandatory for city employees, and employees of commercial entities, and says the business has to "develop and implement a health and safety policy", which apparently tells the business to make customers wear masks.  However, the mandate goes on to say in Section IV:

"Face Coverings Strongly Urged – General Public. It is strongly urged that all people 2
years or older wear a face mask when in public indoor space. No civil or criminal penalty will be imposed on individuals for failure to wear a face mask."

So, it appears to be mainly a "strong suggestion", and something that won't be enforced?  I visited a couple of businesses in Denton yesterday, and while they had their policies posted, and many folks were wearing their accoutrements, not everyone was, and the businesses didn't enforce the policy.

Edited August 16, 2021 by LongJim

[UNTLifer]

4 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

the resolve and inner-fortitude it must take to be dead wrong about something for almost a year-and-a-half, but still continue to double-down and hold the line.

if only you put that strength-of-will toward something that benefitted society rather than unnecessarily killing people

The resolve and inner-fortitude it must take to realize there have been medical professionals treating this virus through other means than an experimental vaccine and to shout those down along with many others is just as incredible. Example?  Masks don’t work, wear masks, wear multiple masks, spray everything down, oh wait, chances of contracting through contact are less than 1%, Hydroxychloroquine (sp?) doesn’t work and is dangerous although they hand it out like candy to our military and now say it is effective?  Stuff like that?

Your opinion vs my opinion which we all have a right to. 

[ColoradoEagle]

21 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Hydroxychloroquine (sp?)

Nothing says informed medical opinion like someone who doesn't quite have the time to Google whether or not they spelled the name of a medication correctly.

[ColoradoEagle]

16 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Sorry a-hole. Kind of the same as you not having time to look up the definition of vaccine. 

That doesn't even make sense. 

[greenminer]

People are fighting over liberties and freedoms, masks and science, and here is one individual determined to tell people we have the word "vaccine" all wrong.

I would also like to point out that last year there was no true lock down.  At least, not here in the States.

[Mean Green Matt]

12 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

 

vac·cine

/vakˈsēn/

 

noun

 

1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

    

    

   There is the definition.   Looks like you are the one with the comprehension issue.  The shots they are offering are not providing immunity.

So, I’m not expressing an opinion one way or the other on the overall points you are making, but with regard to the “vaccine” definition argument, the focus in your bolded text should be on “immunity”. There are different types of immunity. There are, actually, at least a few injections colloquially called vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity (complete resistance to infection) at high levels. The flu vaccine is the first that comes to mind. It’s possible you’d also argue that is not a vaccine (which is fine). At least as we stand today, I think it’s clear the vaccines are providing some level of protection based on hospitalization rates by vaccine status. How things shake out in the long term is obviously impossible to predict. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

7 hours ago, Mean Green Matt said:

So, I’m not expressing an opinion one way or the other on the overall points you are making, but with regard to the “vaccine” definition argument, the focus in your bolded text should be on “immunity”. There are different types of immunity. There are, actually, at least a few injections colloquially called vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity (complete resistance to infection) at high levels. The flu vaccine is the first that comes to mind. It’s possible you’d also argue that is not a vaccine (which is fine). At least as we stand today, I think it’s clear the vaccines are providing some level of protection based on hospitalization rates by vaccine status. How things shake out in the long term is obviously impossible to predict. 

This is the maddening part.

Anyone who refers to it as “the jab” (I dunno where that term came from, but I’m gonna assume the science heavy-hitters we all can trust like OAN, Newsmax, Brietbart, drudge, etc…) are usually the first to try & use their newfound epidemiological brilliance to undercut the efficacy by bringing up infection rates of those who have been vaccinated… but shove their heads all the way in the sand when differentiating those who are taking up all the ICU beds & ventilators (re: most of the ones who are dying).

They simply refuse to see it & would rather roll the dice based on “my buddy’s brother had it & he said it was like a little cold.”  Everyone handles it differently!   I have a friend who is very obese get it & come out with flu-like symptoms & no hospital stay.  My sister had a friend she often ran with (very health-conscious/fit with no pre-existing conditions) pass away from it.  You never know how deadly it will be from person to person.

 

Please Mean Green faithful, our fellow alumni brothers & sisters, who have not yet been vaccinated…. I care for you.  Don’t risk your life, or the life of someone you love, & get vaccinated!  PLEASE!

[Cr1028]

9 hours ago, Mean Green Matt said:

So, I’m not expressing an opinion one way or the other on the overall points you are making, but with regard to the “vaccine” definition argument, the focus in your bolded text should be on “immunity”. There are different types of immunity. There are, actually, at least a few injections colloquially called vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity (complete resistance to infection) at high levels. The flu vaccine is the first that comes to mind. It’s possible you’d also argue that is not a vaccine (which is fine). At least as we stand today, I think it’s clear the vaccines are providing some level of protection based on hospitalization rates by vaccine status. How things shake out in the long term is obviously impossible to predict. 

I’m not saying you are wrong but I am curious what those hospitalization rates are presently. The numbers purporting that nearly all hospitalizations and deaths are of the unvaccinated and the not fully vaccinated is for the January through June time period. This is a problem because we know the vaccine wasn't even available to the bulk of the population until April. I want to see relevant statistics pertaining to the current Covid climate, regardless of how good or bad the news is. We shouldn’t act on data that doesn’t fit the present situation. 
 

When half of your time series is based on a world that no longer exists, it feels like manipulation. January through at least March and probably April should be discarded from that time series. Maybe only 70% of deaths and hospitalizations are unvaccinated instead of 99.5%. That still wouldn’t change the fact that it makes you safer to get vaccinated but it would help alleviate some of the skepticism.

[UNTLifer]

On 8/14/2021 at 8:44 AM, 97and03 said:

Incorrect. Research has shown vaccinated persons who catch the Delta variant of the virus can spread the virus, perhaps as much as non-vaccinated. 
But the vaccination largely prevents infection in the first place, so no the vaccinated are not “just as likely” to spread the virus because they are much, much less likely to contract it in the first place! And also less likely to be symptomatic if they do. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
Data from COVID-19 tests in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore are showing that vaccinated people who become infected with Delta SARS-CoV-2 can carry as much virus in their nose as do unvaccinated people. This means that despite the protection offered by vaccines, a proportion of vaccinated people can pass on Delta, possibly aiding its rise.

 

[97and03]

43 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

vaccinated people who become infected with Delta

Did you read my post? I literally said this. 
I then noted that fortunately vaccinated people are less likely to catch it or become symptomatic in the first place. Fully vaccinated people are also likely infectious for less time than unvaccinated people. So the statement that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus is just ridiculous.

The U.S. vaccines are providing solid protection against the Delta, just not perfect. But it wasn’t providing perfect against the original either. Just around 95 percent. But the main point of the vaccine was to slow the spread and prevent serious illness, right? Studies are showing Pfizer at 88 percent prevention of symptomatic disease and 96 prevention of hospitalization. Moderna with similar numbers. Even the much-maligned J&J at 71 percent prevention against hospitalization. That’s pretty damned good against a new and rapidly mutating virus. 
The vaccines are working and the overwhelming majority of hospitalizations are unvaccinated. I wish the vaccine was perfect, but that just isn’t the case (see the flu vaccine that many get but still catch the flu anyway - btw that is the decedent of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic). Viruses are MFers. Thankfully the worst of the worst like Ebola are too efficient (they kill everyone too fast) to result in this type of situation. The flu/cold type virus like Covid are so dangerous because they don’t immediately kill the host. The virus lives on and spreads and mutates indefinitely if unchecked. 

So all of this means that wearing a mask bc of Delta is a pretty good idea. 
 

Implications: Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as masking and distancing, are needed to help prevent transmission of the Delta variant from both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Edited August 17, 2021 by 97and03

[MeanGreenTexan]

40 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
Data from COVID-19 tests in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore are showing that vaccinated people who become infected with Delta SARS-CoV-2 can carry as much virus in their nose as do unvaccinated people. This means that despite the protection offered by vaccines, a proportion of vaccinated people can pass on Delta, possibly aiding its rise.

 

Which... is precisely why going back to masks would be beneficial for society as a whole.

I hate wearing mine (although I do have 2 stylish Mean Green masks!), but although I'm vaccinated, my kids aren't, and I'm not going to ask them to do something I'm unwilling to do.

You've done a lot of posting in this thread, but I've yet to see where you've flat-out denied that the vaccine increases your chance of survival if you contract the disease.   Do you believe that?

[Cr1028]

3 hours ago, 97and03 said:

Studies are showing Pfizer at 88 percent prevention of symptomatic disease and 96 prevention of hospitalization. Moderna with similar numbers. Even the much-maligned J&J at 71 percent prevention against hospitalization. That’s pretty damned good against a new and rapidly mutating virus. 

Weren’t our bodies already over 98% effective at preventing death from the virus and something like 80 or 90 percent effective at preventing hospitalization in instances of confirmed positive covid tests? I feel like I read that. I also recall something like 30% being completely asymptomatic the entirety of their infection. If it were truly as lethal as some would have you believe, they would’ve went to the same lengths they went to in snuffing out the latest ebola infections to show up on our shores. 

[denton_days]

 

[UNTLifer]

On 8/17/2021 at 12:52 PM, MeanGreenTexan said:

You've done a lot of posting in this thread, but I've yet to see where you've flat-out denied that the vaccine increases your chance of survival if you contract the disease.   Do you believe that?

I believe what @Cr1028posted. I also believe 99.9% of the masks being worn are useless. 

On 8/17/2021 at 4:00 PM, Cr1028 said:

Weren’t our bodies already over 98% effective at preventing death from the virus and something like 80 or 90 percent effective at preventing hospitalization in instances of confirmed positive covid tests? I feel like I read that. I also recall something like 30% being completely asymptomatic the entirety of their infection. If it were truly as lethal as some would have you believe, they would’ve went to the same lengths they went to in snuffing out the latest ebola infections to show up on our shores. 

Also, the vaccines may be effective but I don’t trust the long term effects of these vaccines. I believe their could be long term side effects and believe there are options other than the vaccine that are just as effective. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by UNTLifer

[MeanGreenTexan]

8 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

I believe what @Cr1028posted

Also, the vaccines may be effective but I don’t trust the long term effects of these vaccines. I believe their could be long term side effects and believe there are options other than the vaccine that are just as effective. 

Oh goodness.   
I think the age-old argument of, "Here are 50 cups of liquid.  1 of them is full of cyanide.   How comfortable are you in choosing one and chugging?" applies here.    The numbers piled up during the first round of this thing to where we proved it's not like the flu.  It's way more deadly.   Here we are in the middle of round 2, and this same argument pervades.

There are different viruses in the world.   Their contagions are at different levels.   There are several Coronaviruses that make rounds all the time that are not as virulent as the one responsible for COVID19, and cause common cold-like symptoms instead of SARS.   You've likely had a different Coronavirus before in your lifetime.  
Could you imagine what Ebola would do to the world if it were as contagious as a Coronavirus?  It would wipe out a vast population of the Earth.    Fortunately for all of us, it's not that contagious.

Assumptions like that, and lack of understanding, used to be learning opportunities, and times for us to trust those who are experts in their field.   
Nowdays, for some, NO ONE can be trusted unless they think like me.   And often times, we see people just assume they know/understand something the experts don't, and reject those experts... bringing along a ton of gullible people like pied pipers.

There are too many sad stories of death, or near death, for people who deny the efficacy of the vaccine.  These are needless.

As for the 'long term effects' of the vaccine...   How would anyone know what those are?  We're less than a year out.   What are the long-term effects of the MMR vaccine?  Polio?  Smallpox?   More recently, Chicken Pox?    I would say the long-term effects of those (eradication, or near-eradication) are pretty good!

[Censored by Laurie]

[southsideguy]

will masks be required at the football games?