(06-18-2020 08:27 PM)JMUPurple Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 07:41 PM)14SemesterDuke Wrote:  It’s hard to reconcile that there’s people who exist who refuse to wear a mask because they think it infringes on their rights. Classic American trait of worrying about no one except themselves.

How hard is it to wear a mask for a max of 1 hour a week to protect employees and those around you? Unbelievable.

Like I said earlier there are several reasons I don't wear a mask not just that its an infringement of my rights. Another is that I'm not convinced that it is even beneficial. There have been so many errors in the predictions and responses to this virus. The models that predicted infections and deaths were horribly wrong. Then first CDC said don't wear masks there useless. Then they said wear them. I'm linking a CDC article from May that says studies find mask ineffective at stopping the spread of flu. If it won't stop the flu it wouldn't stop Covid.

The lockdowns and mitigation were initially proposed to prevent hospitals from being over run. That never happened. Once we saw that was not going to happen, in my opinion, we should have gone back to normal living. Anecdotally, I have an aunt who locked herself in the house much of the time, wore a mask and gloves anytime she went out. She still got Covid and passed away a couple weeks ago. She was elderly and had other conditions that made her high risk.

Finally, I can assure you I care about others. I am retired law enforcement and spent 30 year trying to help others. Though in the current climate there may be persons on this board who would even argue with that.

I never meant to get so bogged down in an off topic discussion so this is my last post on the subject. The link to the CDC article is below.

To get back on topic, GO DUKES! PRAYING FOR A FOOTBALL SEASON!

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

That’s a fair response. To each his own own guess. Go Dukes.

(06-18-2020 08:27 PM)JMUPurple Wrote:  The link to the CDC article is below.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

I was curious and looked at this. It is actually a WHO funded paper written by authors at Hong Kong University, China.

Quote: This study was conducted in preparation for the development of guidelines by the World Health Organization on the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza in nonmedical settings.

This study was supported by the World Health Organization. J.X. and M.W.F. were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (project no. C7025-16G).

For some reason CDC chose to display/publish this, but it isn't their work. It isn't very scientific in my mind as it relied on the authors "surveying the literature" of other various articles and then drawing their own conclusions.

Quote: We searched 4 databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) for literature in all languages ... For each review, 2 authors (E.Y.C.S. and J.X.) screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts independently.

The "literature" they used was all over the map:

Quote: A study conducted in the United States (16) showed no major effect of hand hygiene, whereas a study in Egypt (18) reported that hand hygiene reduced the risk for influenza by >50%. A pooled analysis of 2 studies in university residential halls reported a marginally significant protective effect

Quote:Respiratory etiquette is defined as covering the nose and mouth with a tissue or a mask (but not a hand) when coughing or sneezing, followed by proper disposal of used tissues ... The authors did not specify the type of respiratory etiquette used by participants in the study ... Respiratory etiquette is often listed as a preventive measure for respiratory infections. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence to support this measure.

THIS is scientific???

WHO is the same organization that told us "no human to human spread" ... specifically they said "investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission"

Ever notice how WHO loves to make statements like "we found no evidence" to imply that something is not true? Its sprinkled all thru this paper. Just because they are too incompetent to find evidence while searching literature doesn't prove something is false (in this case the effectiveness of masks).

If this is the quality of work being produced with WHO funds, I'm a lot less upset about that funding getting cut.

Other more rigorous studies have been finding the exact opposite of what this paper concludes.

(06-19-2020 02:07 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 08:27 PM)JMUPurple Wrote:  The link to the CDC article is below.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

I was curious and looked at this. It is actually a WHO funded paper written by authors at Hong Kong University, China.

Quote: This study was conducted in preparation for the development of guidelines by the World Health Organization on the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza in nonmedical settings.

This study was supported by the World Health Organization. J.X. and M.W.F. were supported by the Collaborative Research Fund from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (project no. C7025-16G).

For some reason CDC chose to display/publish this, but it isn't their work. It isn't very scientific in my mind as it relied on the authors "surveying the literature" of other various articles and then drawing their own conclusions.

Quote: We searched 4 databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) for literature in all languages ... For each review, 2 authors (E.Y.C.S. and J.X.) screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts independently.

The "literature" they used was all over the map:

Quote: A study conducted in the United States (16) showed no major effect of hand hygiene, whereas a study in Egypt (18) reported that hand hygiene reduced the risk for influenza by >50%. A pooled analysis of 2 studies in university residential halls reported a marginally significant protective effect

Quote:Respiratory etiquette is defined as covering the nose and mouth with a tissue or a mask (but not a hand) when coughing or sneezing, followed by proper disposal of used tissues ... The authors did not specify the type of respiratory etiquette used by participants in the study ... Respiratory etiquette is often listed as a preventive measure for respiratory infections. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence to support this measure.

THIS is scientific???

WHO is the same organization that told us "no human to human spread" ... specifically they said "investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission"

Ever notice how WHO loves to make statements like "we found no evidence" to imply that something is not true? Its sprinkled all thru this paper. Just because they are too incompetent to find evidence while searching literature doesn't prove something is false (in this case the effectiveness of masks).

If this is the quality of work being produced with WHO funds, I'm a lot less upset about that funding getting cut.

Other more rigorous studies have been finding the exact opposite of what this paper concludes.

Here is another article. This time from the New England Journal of Medicine. The article is about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks in medical facilities but also touches on their ineffectiveness in the general population. My point is not to prove masks are ineffective. My point is to say no one has convinced me that they are effective. The CDC has given conflicting information, and there are studies and medical advice on both sides. I feel like I have a right to choose for myself whether or not to wear one. Here is the link to this article along with a few quotes from the article.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”

“The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”

“What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea.”

“It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis.”

“Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.”

Note that the first few quotes cover ground that is already commonly understood. Masks aren’t to protect you. They’re to protect others around you.

I'm on the side that believes mask don't actually do much. Based on what I've read, I agree they probably aren't really affecting the spread. I still wear one though. Why? Well, why not? Cost prohibitive? Nope. Large inconvenience? Nope. Does it shrink my pp? God I hope not! For me, it's kinda like holding a door open. I don't have to, and I can exercise my right to not hold the door for anyone, but I guess that's me just being empathetic to others?

Worst case, it does nothing and I wear an awesome JMU mask on my face. Best case it actually prevents others from getting sick.

(06-19-2020 07:50 PM)JMU08 Wrote:  I'm on the side that believes mask don't actually do much. Based on what I've read, I agree they probably aren't really affecting the spread. I still wear one though. Why? Well, why not? Cost prohibitive? Nope. Large inconvenience? Nope. Does it shrink my pp? God I hope not! For me, it's kinda like holding a door open. I don't have to, and I can exercise my right to not hold the door for anyone, but I guess that's me just being empathetic to others?

Worst case, it does nothing and I wear an awesome JMU mask on my face. Best case it actually prevents others from getting sick.

Very well stated. Kudos. I especially like the analogy to holding a door open. That is one thing most people immediately are magnetized to James Madison University from the minute they step on campus. That is, something as "simple" as a member of the community holding a door open for you. I don't like the concept of JMU "Nation". I like the concept of JMU "Family". Looking out for one another. It's sad and shameful that some folks have forgotten those JMU roots. And hell, I'm not even a JMU alum. I'm the proud father of one though. Hopefully, some of those concerned about their sacred individual rights will open their eyes and hearts towards others like JMU once impressed upon them if not already in other scenarios/backgrounds. Great analogy. Maybe one day this country will get back to decency and looking after one another - and when I say "one another" I mean ALL of us. Let's hope.

Further aiding Dukester's hypothesis perhaps...

...21 Clemson football players test positive for COVID-19.

Dang, I remember back in my college days 35 years ago when you worried about getting the crabs and needing a shot for that. Of course, the guys at Duke and Harvard got the lobsters, but I digress.

:>)

(06-19-2020 05:41 PM)JMUPurple Wrote:  Here is another article. This time from the New England Journal of Medicine. The article is about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks in medical facilities but also touches on their ineffectiveness in the general population. My point is not to prove masks are ineffective. My point is to say no one has convinced me that they are effective. The CDC has given conflicting information, and there are studies and medical advice on both sides. I feel like I have a right to choose for myself whether or not to wear one. Here is the link to this article along with a few quotes from the article.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”

“The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”

“What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea.”

“It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis.”

“Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.”

This article was written more as an opinion piece by doctors about medical practice inside of hospitals. It really wasn't a scientific study.

Also ... full context is VERY important. A single sentence without the surrounding pieces is a bit misleading about what was being said. This was talking about the specific conditions inside of a hospital:

Quote:"a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients."

"Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes "

Gee, that sounds possible at a gym, football, or basketball game ...

The doctors creating this article seem to be concerned that "universal masking" inside a hospital could lead to shortages at the more critical areas. Some doctors use a new medical mask for each interaction they have with a patient (every few minutes).

Quote:And then the potential benefits of universal masking need to be balanced against the future risk of running out of masks and thereby exposing clinicians to the much greater risk of caring for symptomatic patients without a mask.

Quote:"Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.
Such measures include vigorous screening of all patients coming to a facility for symptoms of Covid-19 and immediately getting them masked and into a room; early implementation of contact and droplet precautions, including eye protection, for all symptomatic patients and erring on the side of caution when in doubt"

The article IN CONTEXT was not arguing against masks. It was suggesting that a lot of other measures are also needed in hospital settings, and that "universal masking" of healthcare workers is not sufficient in that environment.

One thing I did find informative about that article is that at least some doctors feel the risk of exposure from Asymptomatic individuals is minimal compared to those who show fever or cold/flu symptoms. The linked articles provide a basis for this, though they also noted there has been some asymptomatic spread in hospitals.

The problem with mass, densely populated public events is that it is difficult to screen out everyone who is symptomatic (sniffles or sore throat, etc) compared to the screening that occurs at a medical facility. Even with temperature checks, I'm skeptical my gym will screen out everyone with symptoms, just based on what I've seen previously with those sneezing or coughing, etc. I will probably check out the gym again soon, but if I don't see adequate spacing, or anyone with even mild sneezing/coughing, thats a red flag to me.

(06-19-2020 08:12 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  Further aiding Dukester's hypothesis perhaps...

...21 Clemson football players test positive for COVID-19.

Dang, I remember back in my college days 35 years ago when you worried about getting the crabs and needing a shot for that. Of course, the guys at Duke and Harvard got the lobsters, but I digress.

:>)

It would be smart for a particularly savvy coach to get the infections out of the way in the summer and achieve herd immunity before the season starts and avoid losing key players.

I'm not saying Clemson is doing this, but it seems to make sense.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ml...227579001/

Baseball shutdown, but this could also be a way for owners to shorten the season.

Quote:Major League Baseball, which has had at least 12 major-league players and staff members test positive for COVID-19, has decided to immediately shut down all of their spring training facilities in Arizona and Florida, a high-ranking official with direct knowledge of the decision told USA TODAY Sports.

It's questionable how successful the pro team sports (NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL) will be with returning in another month.

It's certainly too soon for college football.

(06-19-2020 08:12 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  Further aiding Dukester's hypothesis perhaps...

...21 Clemson football players test positive for COVID-19.

Dang, I remember back in my college days 35 years ago when you worried about getting the crabs and needing a shot for that. Of course, the guys at Duke and Harvard got the lobsters, but I digress.

:>)

You don't need a shot for crabs, just a little medicated shampoo (Kwell, if I remember correctly). I know this because a preacher's daughter was once kind enough to share her crabs with me in the summer of '79. At least, I believe she was the donor (Squire Hill was the Wild West in those days). Got 'em again a year later in the Philippines. Good times! Thankfully, I never got anything worse than crabs.

(06-19-2020 08:12 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  Further aiding Dukester's hypothesis perhaps...

...21 Clemson football players test positive for COVID-19.

Dang, I remember back in my college days 35 years ago when you worried about getting the crabs and needing a shot for that. Of course, the guys at Duke and Harvard got the lobsters, but I digress.

:>)

This was out of 315 athletes/students tested, with the caveat:
"The university stated that most of the positive cases have been asymptomatic. There have been no hospitalizations as a result of coronavirus."

Some unanswered questions:
1) how much spread has happened outside the university, and are merely asymptomatic cases being detected once students arrive at school?

2) are the testing and quarantine protocols actually improving the situation overall compared to if these students were not at school and unaware of the infection?

I would be more concerned if there is evidence of spread occurring at the school, and serious symptoms or hospitalization resulting from that. Good testing and isolation protocols at schools could be better than what we have otherwise occurring.

(06-19-2020 09:21 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  It would be smart for a particularly savvy coach to get the infections out of the way in the summer and achieve herd immunity before the season starts and avoid losing key players.

Love when a global pandemic that has killed 462,000 people (and counting) gets treated with the seriousness of a chicken pox lollipop.

(06-19-2020 07:50 PM)JMU08 Wrote:  I'm on the side that believes mask don't actually do much. Based on what I've read, I agree they probably aren't really affecting the spread. I still wear one though. Why? Well, why not? Cost prohibitive? Nope. Large inconvenience? Nope. Does it shrink my pp? God I hope not! For me, it's kinda like holding a door open. I don't have to, and I can exercise my right to not hold the door for anyone, but I guess that's me just being empathetic to others?

Worst case, it does nothing and I wear an awesome JMU mask on my face. Best case it actually prevents others from getting sick.

My view is more "lets get on with life, but take some reasonable precautions for now"

I don't think masks are perfect, but quite a few studies suggest that they can reduce risk. It also seems to be common sense, just like it was always etiquette to cover your mouth in some fashion when you sneeze.

When the virus first became known in March timeframe, you would see people stare or flinch everytime someone sneezed. This is just like covering your sneezes to reduce risk a bit and make nearby people more at ease. The studies are suggesting infection rates will also continue to drop if we all do this. That improves the odds of things being closer to "normal" before we get vaccines. Even a 30-40% reduction in spread would be helpful.

with so much conflicting information, it is really hard to decifer where we are with convid.

covid won't threaten the US, covid is a huge issue
we dont need masks, we do need masks
masks are helpful, masks are ineffective
covid spreads on surfaces, it doesnt spread on surfaces
covid cant be spread by asymptomatics, it can't be spread
cases are increasing, tests are increasing but cases, hospitalizations and deaths are falling
social distancing prevents spread, rallies and protests are fine
we have 120k deaths, we have 70k deaths
there will be second wave, covid is sars and will run its course

(06-20-2020 01:12 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 09:21 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  It would be smart for a particularly savvy coach to get the infections out of the way in the summer and achieve herd immunity before the season starts and avoid losing key players.

Love when a global pandemic that has killed 462,000 people (and counting) gets treated with the seriousness of a chicken pox lollipop.

Approximately how many of those have been healthy 18-21 year olds?

while many teams (european soccer, baseball, college teams) are having positive tests, from what I can tell all but a very few are asymptomatic. it is also unclear if they are AB positives, or PCR, huge difference. if all asymptomatic and asympomatics dont spread, then the risk is much different

it is obvious, covid is much more widespread then previously known. like the flu & pneumonia, for a segment of the population, covid is life threatening. for the rest, the impact ranges from no symptoms, mild symptoms to a very difficult recovery. what is unclear is the extent of the spread and the % of various impact and outcomes. until that becomes more clear, it is hard to know how this plays out in the coming months. with so much unknown, the leagues and colleges are rightfully being conservative in their management of this

path to sports in the fall - this is widespread, the vast majority of the young, if positive, are testing positive for antibodies or are asymptomatic and are not spreaders

no sports in the fall - this is widespread, the positives are spreaders

pursue the path, hope for the more positive outcome and adjust as needed.

JMU plan at this time.

https://www.dnronline.com/news/coronavir...439f8.html

(06-20-2020 08:59 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 01:12 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 09:21 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  It would be smart for a particularly savvy coach to get the infections out of the way in the summer and achieve herd immunity before the season starts and avoid losing key players.

Love when a global pandemic that has killed 462,000 people (and counting) gets treated with the seriousness of a chicken pox lollipop.

Approximately how many of those have been healthy 18-21 year olds?

It's almost like you still don't get it. Encouraging the spread of a highly contagious disease is irresponsible, regardless of the health of carriers.

Think back to your college self. Were you what you would call "a responsible person?" Do you honestly think a large group of 18-21 year olds carrying COVID would take the necessary precautions to ensure they did not spread their disease to others? That they would quarantine themselves to the football field (and somehow prevent spread to coaches / staff) and their dorms, somehow not infect staff at D-Hall, definitely not go out into Harrisonburg when there's nothing else going on at JMU in the middle of July?

It is my opinion that you are not a reasonable person.

(06-20-2020 08:59 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 01:12 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 09:21 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  It would be smart for a particularly savvy coach to get the infections out of the way in the summer and achieve herd immunity before the season starts and avoid losing key players.

Love when a global pandemic that has killed 462,000 people (and counting) gets treated with the seriousness of a chicken pox lollipop.

Approximately how many of those have been healthy 18-21 year olds?

And how many of those deaths were from other causes but attributed to COVID, and how many of those deaths were preventable? My guess is as high as 50%.