Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Likely Dr. Moe, Dr. Howard and Dr. Fine. Commonly known as Larry Moe and Curley.
J.M.
What is it in you that makes you ridicule people you disagree with? It is quite sad and makes discussion hard.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
I saw an interview with three top epidemiologists and they all said we need to protect the elderly and vulnerable, let everyone else get exposed and build immunity. They said it would take 3-6 months and then there would be enough immunity to cover the vulnerable. Restricting those who do not get sick, but build immunity to the virus is the opposite of what we need to be doing. Not my words, but theirs.
Robert...is this what you were looking for?
Three of the world's top epidemiologists are going public to contradict Dr. Fauci and other doctor politicians who are calling for renewed lock-downs over the Coronavirus. They are: Dr. Martin Kulldorff - Harvard Medical School Professor, Dr. Sunetra Gupta - Oxford University Epidemiology Professor, and Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya - Stanford Epidemiology Professor. They were interviewed Monday night by Laura Ingraham on Fox News. They claim that the consensus in the scientific community is NOT in favor of locking down entire populations, but only those at most risk, and they are calling for the end of lock-downs for the vast majority of the population who are not at risk for COVID. And they are not alone. They published the "Great Barrington" declaration this week which has already been signed by over 1000 medical and public health scientists within the first few hours of being published.
I saw an interview with three top epidemiologists and they all said we need to protect the elderly and vulnerable, let everyone else get exposed and build immunity. They said it would take 3-6 months and then there would be enough immunity to cover the vulnerable. Restricting those who do not get sick, but build immunity to the virus is the opposite of what we need to be doing. Not my words, but theirs.
Robert...is this what you were looking for?
Three of the world's top epidemiologists are going public to contradict Dr. Fauci and other doctor politicians who are calling for renewed lock-downs over the Coronavirus. They are: Dr. Martin Kulldorff - Harvard Medical School Professor, Dr. Sunetra Gupta - Oxford University Epidemiology Professor, and Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya - Stanford Epidemiology Professor. They were interviewed Monday night by Laura Ingraham on Fox News. They claim that the consensus in the scientific community is NOT in favor of locking down entire populations, but only those at most risk, and they are calling for the end of lock-downs for the vast majority of the population who are not at risk for COVID. And they are not alone. They published the "Great Barrington" declaration this week which has already been signed by over 1000 medical and public health scientists within the first few hours of being published.
It looks like the number of medical professionals signing on is increasing.
By Wednesday morning, nearly 3,200 medical and public health scientists, nearly 4,800 medical practitioners, and over 73,100 others had signed onto the declaration.
We estimate the impact of mask mandates and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on COVID-19 case growth in Canada, including regulations on businesses and gatherings, school closures, travel and self-isolation, and long-term care homes. We partially account for behavioral responses using Google mobility data. Our identification approach exploits variation in the timing of indoor face mask mandates staggered over two months in the 34 public health regions in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. We find that, in the first few weeks after implementation, mask mandates are associated with a reduction of 25 percent in the weekly number of new COVID-19 cases. Additional analysis with province-level data provides corroborating evidence. Counterfactual policy simulations suggest that mandating indoor masks nationwide in early July could have reduced the weekly number of new cases in Canada by 25 to 40 percent in mid-August, which translates into 700 to 1,100 fewer cases per week.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
We estimate the impact of mask mandates and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on COVID-19 case growth in Canada, including regulations on businesses and gatherings, school closures, travel and self-isolation, and long-term care homes. We partially account for behavioral responses using Google mobility data. Our identification approach exploits variation in the timing of indoor face mask mandates staggered over two months in the 34 public health regions in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. We find that, in the first few weeks after implementation, mask mandates are associated with a reduction of 25 percent in the weekly number of new COVID-19 cases. Additional analysis with province-level data provides corroborating evidence. Counterfactual policy simulations suggest that mandating indoor masks nationwide in early July could have reduced the weekly number of new cases in Canada by 25 to 40 percent in mid-August, which translates into 700 to 1,100 fewer cases per week.
Yeah, I have seen data like this as well. You have no more right to spread your germs in this situation as you do to dump raw sewage into the local stream. Seen that done too.
We estimate the impact of mask mandates and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on COVID-19 case growth in Canada, including regulations on businesses and gatherings, school closures, travel and self-isolation, and long-term care homes. We partially account for behavioral responses using Google mobility data. Our identification approach exploits variation in the timing of indoor face mask mandates staggered over two months in the 34 public health regions in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. We find that, in the first few weeks after implementation, mask mandates are associated with a reduction of 25 percent in the weekly number of new COVID-19 cases. Additional analysis with province-level data provides corroborating evidence. Counterfactual policy simulations suggest that mandating indoor masks nationwide in early July could have reduced the weekly number of new cases in Canada by 25 to 40 percent in mid-August, which translates into 700 to 1,100 fewer cases per week.
Well that's certainly not what happened in the two local regions where indoor masking was mandated. In the one region the mandate came into force June 12 or 13 in the other July 12 or 13. In both cases daily infections were dropping at the time of the mandate. In the first region the case rate actually rose in the first week after the mandate before beginning to drop again, then reached a plateau before beginning to rise again, as now.
In the second region the case rate continued to drop, plateaued, and then began to rise again.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
