1042 replies to this topic

[Dorian Grey]

Dorian, now you're simply grasping at straws to avoid the true issue of whether masks provide some degree of protection for both the mask wearer and the rest of us and therefore both help in limiting the spread of and some degree of avoided infection versus masks do nothing at all but cause hard feelings.

There is no doubt in my mind that diligent use of high quality masks have had a big impact on my avoiding infection to date and very likely you too have potentially avoided exposure due to mask usage without even realizing it.

 

Don't know that I've ever opined masks provide no protection at all...  "If you absolutely can't avoid close contact indoors, wear a mask, & it may help, but don't portray them as magic shields against aerosol infections, and destroy entire (dining) economies because you can't eat while wearing them."

 

My humble opinion is that the limited protection they offer has been over-played, and the resulting false sense of security has resulted in folks dropping their guard with social distancing which is far more effective.  

 

Once masks became mandatory, the "wash-your-hands" / social distancing got pushed to a back burner, and masks became the Holy Grail of plague safety.  We saw how well this worked over the Winter, when plague swept the masked-up globe like a tsunami.  

 

When something isn't working well, logic dictates different priorities.  Keep some distance between yourself & the rest of the world, & stop swapping air with strangers.  It ain't that hard, & just might be more effective.  

 

There is no plague in Wuhan anymore, as they enforced social distancing & isolation, which completely halted transmission in less than a month.  

 

We can go with what the evidence shows works, or keep trying what doesn't.  I prefer evidence based protocols.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 09 March 2021 - 07:35 PM.

[Florin]

Nobody has ever said that masks were magic shields that would provide 100% protection from infection or would be on the level of antibiotics but that doesn't negate the fact they are another tool to limit exposure and very likely help avoid some degree of contagion and corresponding disease and potential deaths if used correctly.

 

I've been wearing N95 and KN95 masks the past year and I've been around dozens of coworkers that ended up infected as well as who knows how many people out shopping and I've avoided exposure. I believe it's reasonable to believe I would of joined my coworkers if I too would of depended on cheap disposable surgical masks worn around my chin.

 

The thing is that only surgical and cloth masks are recommended, not N95s respirators, and there has been no change in social distancing guidelines either, despite the spread of more contagious variants. This is very likely to be one of the major causes driving the latest waves of this pandemic and makes mask-wearing (not respirator-wearing) much less effective. So, if mask wearing no longer makes much of a difference and there's no recommendation to use better protection, the legitimacy of continuing the mask mandates is thrown into question.

[Hebbeh]

The vaccine is likely going to be a false sense of security as it appears that they have little efficacy against the more contagious strains that are quickly emerging and becoming dominant. It would be foolhardy to drop your guard and become complacent now.

And I can assure you I've never lived in fear. But in spite of being 64, I still have a responsibility to raise a 2 year old toddler to adulthood and as such, plan on being around for awhile longer.

I live my life responsibly for the benefit of loved ones. But to each their own.

And I wouldn't be so quick so assume the plague isn't still raging in China.

[Daniel Cooper]

The vaccine is likely going to be a false sense of security as it appears that they have little efficacy against the more contagious strains that are quickly emerging and becoming dominant. It would be foolhardy to drop your guard and become complacent now.

And I can assure you I've never lived in fear. But in spite of being 64, I still have a responsibility to raise a 2 year old toddler to adulthood and as such, plan on being around for awhile longer.

I live my life responsibly for the benefit of loved ones. But to each their own.

And I wouldn't be so quick so assume the plague isn't still raging in China.

 

Please cite the evidence that the vaccine has "little efficacy" against the new strains.

 

And I'll be honest with you, even if that were true, at some point I don't care. The lethality of this virus to someone at my age (55) and condition is low. I could just as easily step off a curb and be hit by a bus tomorrow. I'm just not going to live my life forever not taking part in it. I'm done sitting home. We have a finite amount of time in this world, and I don't intend to spend a lot more of it in lockdown.

 

This mask thing really has turned into a religion. I heard a medical type on a cable news channel the other day touting the virtues of continued mask wearing "even if the vaccine works as well as we hope it does".  That's not a science based position.  That's some sort of weird emotional entanglement with mask wearing.

[Mind]

 

 

The vaccine is likely going to be a false sense of security as it appears that they have little efficacy against the more contagious strains that are quickly emerging and becoming dominant. It would be foolhardy to drop your guard and become complacent now.

 

The degree of contagiousness is not the primary concern, it is the lethality. There will be new variants every month, every year, just like cold and flu viruses.

[Dorian Grey]

Party Time at the Super Monkey, Wuhan 2021

 

 

Looks like some are still wearing masks, except when it's time for a smoke!  

 

Click: "Watch on Youtube" 

Edited by Dorian Grey, 09 March 2021 - 08:51 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Have you met an article, that considers all of the factors that may influence the effect of masks - wearing it corectly, good filters, the concentration of the viruses in the cough, the size of the virus, the number of viruses needed to infect, the contageous index of the virus, etc.

[Florin]

Okay, do you believe the CDC? A study (un-controlled for anything except cases) of all counties in the U.S. showed about a 1% decrease in the growth rate of COVID cases in counties with mask mandates.

 
What do you expect if there's poor compliance (stuff like indoor dining) and more contagious variants running around? A miracle?
 
Even so, the decrease in the growth rate of cases and deaths was almost 2% (not 1%) and might have decreased even more if the study lasted longer (there was a downward trend). If these stats are adjusted to compensate for poor compliance due to dining, the rate of growth of cases drops by 3% and deaths by 5%. These numbers might become even better if other kinds of compliance (like indoor gym openings) is taken into account.
 
The bottom line for me is that masks probably worked a lot better at the start of the pandemic but they should have been dropped in favor of reusable respirators as soon as the supply issues (if there really were any) were sorted out.
 

Based upon this result, it should not be surprising that Florida with no state-wide mandates is very similar to places like California.
 
You keep obscuring/ignoring the point. Based upon the statements from CDC, NIH, WHO, and national media outlets, because Florida has no statewide mask (NPI) mandates, they should be GUARANTEED to have 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times more deaths than places like California. It didn't happen. Florida and California are less than 10% different.
 
Florida did better than places like New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, and many other states that had very strict NPI mandates. It wasn't supposed to be that way. People can keep ignoring the data, but it won't go away.

Florida actually does have local mask mandates and even where there aren't any, I'm sure a lot of people wear masks.
 
In any case, the point I was making was to point out that your point about Florida doing better than California was wrong.

The most likely reason Florida did better than places like New York City is because the virus arrived there much earlier and the mask mandate was implemented way too late. If Florida wouldn't have done any NPIs, it would probably look at least as bad as South Dakota or even NYC.
 

This is so well known that it isn't even controversial among hardly anyone debating what the best response to the pandemic is.
 
I could spend all day citing health agencies from almost every country in the world  - showing the same thing (obese patients dominate the ICU in the Netherlands, elderly are the most at risk in India).

That wasn't my point. The point is that if NPIs don't work (or not the much) as you claim, then there should be no big difference in outcomes in places that have similar health and age stats, but there are huge differences just like I pointed out.

[Daniel Cooper]

 
What do you expect if there's poor compliance (stuff like indoor dining) and more contagious variants running around? A miracle?
 
Even so, the decrease in the growth rate of cases and deaths was almost 2% (not 1%) and might have decreased even more if the study lasted longer (there was a downward trend). If these stats are adjusted to compensate for poor compliance due to dining, the rate of growth of cases drops by 3% and deaths by 5%. These numbers might become even better if other kinds of compliance (like indoor gym openings) is taken into account.
 
The bottom line for me is that masks probably worked a lot better at the start of the pandemic but they should have been dropped in favor of reusable respirators as soon as the supply issues (if there really were any) were sorted out.
 

Florida actually does have local mask mandates and even where there aren't any, I'm sure a lot of people wear masks.
 
In any case, the point I was making was to point out that your point about Florida doing better than California was wrong.

The most likely reason Florida did better than places like New York City is because the virus arrived there much earlier and the mask mandate was implemented way too late. If Florida wouldn't have done any NPIs, it would probably look at least as bad as South Dakota or even NYC.
 

That wasn't my point. The point is that if NPIs don't work (or not the much) as you claim, then there should be no big difference in outcomes in places that have similar health and age stats, but there are huge differences just like I pointed out.

 

The problem with your position Florin is that it has become unfalsifiable.  If a study shows that masks aren't that effective, it's because there wasn't enough compliance, or the masks weren't good enough, etc. etc. 

 

You're worked yourself into a position where you can't accept any evidence that masks aren't effective. 

 

And you've already moved over the respirators.  Let me ask you something - how many hours do you spend masked per day?  Are you mostly at home? 

 

I spend about 9 hrs a day/5 days a week, and then a couple of hours each day on the weekend.  I can't image spending that amount of time in a respirator of any sort.

[Florin]

I'm not answering for Dorian, but lots of studies before covid-19 have concluded that masks were minimally effective for halting the transmissions of upper respiratory infections like flu. There have been studies subsequently that have come to conclusions on both sides of the fence post covid-19.
 
And that ought to be a clue.  Things that really work well - antibiotics for instance - you don't find studies on both sides of the issue. When antibiotics first arrived it was like a miracle. People that would clearly have died previously could recover in a matter of days. Diseases like tuberculosis which were previously long drawn out death sentences suddenly weren't.  There was  a very strong signal in the data that these drugs worked and nobody of any knowledge disputed that.

But the flu has disappeared, and it's like a miracle and with less side effects than antibiotics. You see, it just may take most people wearing masks (and maybe stuff like social distancing and cutting down on indoor dining) to have a significant effect, something that the older studies failed to take into account, as far as I know.
 

With masks we get a study here that shows a positive effect, a study there that shows little or no effect, back and forth.  What that tells you is that the signal is not strong - it is of the same magnitude as the noise. So, one study finds it and the next study doesn't. That's what you expect when you have a low signal to noise ratio.
 
I don't doubt that masks do something positive. But, only weakly so. Some will argue "Well, we could have had better masks or people could have been even more compliant". And you can't argue with that. You can always do something better. But these things have been far from a slam dunk.

If you can do something a lot better, why not do it? Make sure that everyone that wants a reusable respirator has access to one and lift the mask mandates.

Edited by Florin, 09 March 2021 - 09:41 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Please cite the evidence that the vaccine has "little efficacy" against the new strains.

 

I'm surprised you haven't kept up with the current developments with respect to the mutated strains as this has been covered extensively in the news.  The emerging strains are the real concern now.  The South African variant is in my state now.

 

New study warns Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines could be far less effective against South Africa variant | TheHill

 

When analyzing volunteer vaccinee sera — or fluid from individuals who had been fully vaccinated — the results were similarly grim; neutralizing activity was “significantly lower” against B.1.351, regardless of which vaccine patients received. 

Moderna’s vaccine candidate was found to be 12.4 times less effective against the South African variant, and Pfizer’s was found to have a reduced effectiveness by about 10.3 times. 

[Hebbeh]

The degree of contagiousness is not the primary concern, it is the lethality. There will be new variants every month, every year, just like cold and flu viruses.

 

I assumed you were familiar with the developments indicating the emerging variants are both more contagious and therefore not surprisingly more lethal and deadly.

 

California coronavirus strain may be more infectious—and lethal | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)

 

 

California coronavirus strain may be more infectious—and lethal

The scientists also studied the medical records of 324 people with COVID-19 who were cared for at UCSF clinics or its medical center. The researchers adjusted the data to account for differences in age, gender, and ethnicity, and found that, compared with patients who had other viral strains, those carrying the variant were 4.8 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU and more than 11 times more likely to die.

 

 

 

U.K. Covid Variant Is Likely 30-70% Deadlier, New Research Finds (forbes.com)

 

 

U.K. Covid Variant Is Likely 30-70% Deadlier, New Research Finds

 

Evidence continues to grow that that the U.K. variant, otherwise known as B.1.1.7, is likely more lethal, and leads to more hospitalizations and cases compared to wild-type strains of the virus, based on data released on a British government website.

The new research complied data and studies from multiple institutions and found “increased severity” of Covid-19 cases compared to non-variants. The study noted that B.1.1.7 cases were 30-70% more lethal in comparison to the original wild-type strains.

 

 

 

U.K. COVID Variant May Be More Lethal (webmd.com)

 

Even as efforts to vaccinate Americans gain steam, more evidence has emerged that suggests a coronavirus variant already known to spread faster is also likely to be more deadly.

The B.1.1.7 variant, which is thought to have originated in Britain, is already firmly entrenched in America and could soon become the dominant strain, according to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, "the overall picture is one of something like a 40 to 60 percent increase in hospitalization risk, and risk of death," 

 

[Florin]

The problem with your position Florin is that it has become unfalsifiable.  If a study shows that masks aren't that effective, it's because there wasn't enough compliance, or the masks weren't good enough, etc. etc. 
 
You're worked yourself into a position where you can't accept any evidence that masks aren't effective.

 
I haven't any study that indicates or implies masks are not effective for this pandemic. All of them seem to say the opposite, yet you insist that they don't. Can you even list one study that agrees with your position?
 
And you, of course, continue to studiously ignore the fact that the flu has been wiped out. Weren't there a bunch of studies that were inconclusive about this? Don't you think a study involving the entire world has a little more weight?
 
Unfalsifiable? Yeah, whatever.
 

And you've already moved over the respirators.  Let me ask you something - how many hours do you spend masked per day?  Are you mostly at home?

I've always advocated respirators. The only reason I mentioned masks is due to potential supply concerns about respirators, and I had some hope that masks might be enough (at least until the supply issue was resolved) given what happened in Asia.
 

I spend about 9 hrs a day/5 days a week, and then a couple of hours each day on the weekend.  I can't image spending that amount of time in a respirator of any sort.

Have you actually tried using a reusable respirator (not the disposable N95 kind)? Personally, I've found that wearing one to be much more comfortable then any mask with earloops and disposable N95s. Although I've never worn a respirator for an entire day, I have worn one for about two hours continuously without any problem. And if I really needed to, I don't see why I couldn't wear it all day with a few breaks. Maybe a reusable respirator won't work out for you, but it won't hurt to at least try it.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

re:post #523

 

"...the flu has been wiped out."

 

Due mostly to masking?  I suspect not. Not a peer-reviewed article, so take it with a grain of salt. There are just too many confounds to be able to pin the reduction in flu to a specific or even a "mostly" cause.

 

I've worn N95 masks when working in dusty environments. After a day's labor (or labour) my skin, around the periphery of the mask, was coated with dust. Which makes sense. Why wouldn't particulate matter not take the paths of least resistance? (please ignore all anecdotal "evidence").

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 10 March 2021 - 01:54 AM.

[Florin]

The logic is simple. International travel is probably not important, since it hasn't stopped any of the variants from spreading. Flu vaccines are probably not important, since they don't seem to have been used at scale in most of the world. School closures might have some effect but there hasn't been any outbreaks in the ones that have opened. What's left? Masks and social distancing, but social distancing probably won't work without masks. This is why I strongly suspect that masks are the most important element in the disappearance of the flu.

Edited by Florin, 10 March 2021 - 02:54 AM.

[platypus]

Of course properly worn masks reduce transmissibility, FFP2/FFP3:s more than surgical ones. If everyone wears them indoors where people congregate, even better. 

[pamojja]

Of course properly worn masks reduce transmissibility, FFP2/FFP3:s more than surgical ones. If everyone wears them indoors where people congregate, even better.

At my working-place, a homeless-shelter, every co-worker has to wear FFP2 mask since the beginning. The out-come:

None of our guests, which of course aren't required in their living-quarter - where they eat, smoke or sleep - to wear a mask during those times. Additionally many of them have compromized immunity mainly from addictions, and during the day out don't care about masks. - But none of them got covid until today!

Of my 4 co-workers in night-shifts and long close contacts with those non-protected clients, none got it either.

However, in our daytime councelling department 5 out of 8 co-workers there got mild covid. All throughout wearing FPP2 masks, having only 1-on-1 contacts, but none being able to trace the infection. Only 1 was one evening on the brink of going to the hospital, but already the next morning the fever broke.


I'm in the absurd situation that I still don't know of even 1 person personally having been hospitalized due to covid. And only know of the 5 coworkers with mild covid, all wearing FPP2 masks troughout.

But if one considers that only 1 in 66 of the whole population got infected. And only 1 in 2972 of the whole world population died of covid, it becomes less absurd that I would know only 5 mildly infected (5x66=330 = approx. the number of known persons to me), but none who died (for which I would have been in contact with 2972 persons..).

However, how absurd or likely that none of our homeless clients, being out during the day not caring about masks, never got covid? Of my FFP2 wearing co-workers even 5?

If one closes one's eyes off any black swans, of course there aren't any.

Edited by pamojja, 10 March 2021 - 12:08 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

In multifactoral things like that the perfect would be to be checked if each involved factor has an effect or not.

E.g. not do masks work or not, but:

1. does a filter reduces the number of the viruses in equal other circumstances

2. does decreased volume of the microorganism reduces the chance of infections in equal other circumstances

3. does fitting the mask perfect to the face reduces the chances of infection in equal other circumstances

4. does wearing the mask correctly, not only over the mouth reduces the number of the viruses in equal other circumstances

etc.

Seen from this angle, my medical experience and knowledge lead me to the hypothesis that the masks work.

 

[geo12the]

At my working-place, a homeless-shelter, every co-worker has to wear FFP2 mask since the beginning. The out-come:

None of our guests, which of course aren't required in their living-quarter - where they eat, smoke or sleep - to wear a mask during those times. Additionally many of them have compromized immunity mainly from addictions, and during the day out don't care about masks. - But none of them got covid until today!

 

 

They mentioned in a recent TWIV (this week in Virology) that for reasons no one understands intravenous drug users are less susceptible to COVID.  And in a paper I read on the Ivermectin C-19 site mentioned that fentanyl use is associated with less COVID.  

[Mind]

 

 

But the flu has disappeared, and it's like a miracle and with less side effects than antibiotics. You see, it just may take most people wearing masks (and maybe stuff like social distancing and cutting down on indoor dining) to have a significant effect, something that the older studies failed to take into account, as far as I know.

 

I personally know several family and friends who had cold and flu-like illnesses in 2020. Several people I work with took days off because of cold and flu-like illnesses. They took COVID tests which came up negative, so they were told to go home and recuperate. I have seen numerous reports, even here in the LongeCity forum of people getting sick, getting a negative COVID test and then just recovering from their illness after a few days.

 

It is a myth that there has been NO cold and flu over the last year. I can't be the only one who knows people who got sick. That would be weird.

[Mind]

Just another CDC study affirming that most COVID hospitalizations were among overweight or obese people. Not a myth, as some in this thread have suggested.

[Hebbeh]

So only 119K died that counted as the other 423K were overweight or obese and therefore not worth considering.  Am I understanding this correctly?

[Florin]

I personally know several family and friends who had cold and flu-like illnesses in 2020. Several people I work with took days off because of cold and flu-like illnesses. They took COVID tests which came up negative, so they were told to go home and recuperate. I have seen numerous reports, even here in the LongeCity forum of people getting sick, getting a negative COVID test and then just recovering from their illness after a few days.
 
It is a myth that there has been NO cold and flu over the last year. I can't be the only one who knows people who got sick. That would be weird.

 
There has been almost no flu activity for the 2020-2021 season during which masks have been widely used.





https://www.cdc.gov/...eekly/index.htm

[geo12the]

I personally know several family and friends who had cold and flu-like illnesses in 2020. Several people I work with took days off because of cold and flu-like illnesses. They took COVID tests which came up negative, so they were told to go home and recuperate. I have seen numerous reports, even here in the LongeCity forum of people getting sick, getting a negative COVID test and then just recovering from their illness after a few days.

 

It is a myth that there has been NO cold and flu over the last year. I can't be the only one who knows people who got sick. That would be weird.

 

Usually I know tons of relatives, friends and acquaintances  who are sick over the winter.  Honestly I know of not a single person who has had a cold or flu this past year. I think you might be the only one, but maybe other folks will chime in with their observations. 

 

The only ones I know who have gotten sick have had COVID, most recently  several relatives that chose to vacation in Florida, eat out at restaurants there and not wear masks. Now they all have COVID.  

[Daniel Cooper]

But the flu has disappeared, and it's like a miracle and with less side effects than antibiotics. You see, it just may take most people wearing masks (and maybe stuff like social distancing and cutting down on indoor dining) to have a significant effect, something that the older studies failed to take into account, as far as I know.
 

If you can do something a lot better, why not do it? Make sure that everyone that wants a reusable respirator has access to one and lift the mask mandates.

 

See, this is a bit of (probably unintentional) dishonesty on your part.

 

Yes, flu infections are way down. And I've said nothing to contradict that.

 

But you've pulled a neat trick here. You've implied that flu deaths are down because of masks.  That would be a reasonable conclusion if the only thing we'd done in the last year was masking.

 

But, a significant percentage of our workforce is now working from home (if not unemployed). Most school children have not done in person learning for a year, restaurants have either been shuttered entirely or placed under significant capacity restrictions, and most forms of mass congregation (movies, concerts, football games, etc.) have either been forbidden or severely restricted. And yes, in addition to all that masks have been required in most (but not all) states.

 

But you seem to want to attribute all of the decrease in flu transmission to the masks. That won't stand the least amount of scrutiny.  There is some controversy as to the extent to which masks work. But there absolutely no controversy that if you keep people apart you will significantly suppress the transmission of all upper respiratory infections. If you're content to sit by yourself in your house and almost never go outside again, you'll probably never catch the flu in the remainder of your life. 

 

We're going to have to be honest if we hope to ever get to the truth here.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 11 March 2021 - 09:18 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Sure, all those things have an additive effect Daniel, but even though some people have been working from home and some kids have been doing virtual schooling, most of us throughout the country have still reported to work every single day through this ordeal and lots of schools remained open.

 

More people have jobs that can not be performed remotely than people that do so most of us were still rubbing elbows with coworkers every day.  And I know that schools here in CO and in AZ had a choice of either virtual or in person and from my understanding it was about half and half.  Schools in SD and other states were never shut down to my knowledge.

 

And many churches remained open at least during part of the pandemic if not open the entire time depending on the state and locality.

 

And supermarkets and hardware stores and other retail businesses never shut down.

 

The difference in all these situations was masks.

 

Edit:  And I would like to add that during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday seasons when flu really picks up and passes around, traveling was almost back to normal from what I recall was reported with everybody intent on traveling to be with family pandemic or not.

 

2nd Edit:  What about the states that were criticized for never shutting anything down like SD?  There isn't any flu in SD either.  But I do know most people there were smart enough to use masks.

Edited by Hebbeh, 11 March 2021 - 07:06 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Fallacy of composition

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

 

Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc

[Mind]

So only 119K died that counted as the other 423K were overweight or obese and therefore not worth considering.  Am I understanding this correctly?

 

No you are not understanding...and I realize it is intentional.

 

Florin hinted that the elderly/obese connection with COVID mortality was a not real, which is absolutely false and borne out by the data.

 

Knowing this fact, accepting this fact, could have led to better pandemic management. More people died because because of an unfocused response. It is tragic.

[Florin]

See, this is a bit of (probably unintentional) dishonesty on your part.

 

Yes, flu infections are way down. And I've said nothing to contradict that.

 

But you've pulled a neat trick here. You've implied that flu deaths are down because of masks.  That would be a reasonable conclusion if the only thing we'd done in the last year was masking.

 

But, a significant percentage of our workforce is now working from home (if not unemployed). Most school children have not done in person learning for a year, restaurants have either been shuttered entirely or placed under significant capacity restrictions, and most forms of mass congregation (movies, concerts, football games, etc.) have either been forbidden or severely restricted. And yes, in addition to all that masks have been required in most (but not all) states.

 

But you seem to want to attribute all of the decrease in flu transmission to the masks. That won't stand the least amount of scrutiny.  There is some controversy as to the extent to which masks work. But there absolutely no controversy that if you keep people apart you will significantly suppress the transmission of all upper respiratory infections. If you're content to sit by yourself in your house and almost never go outside again, you'll probably never catch the flu in the remainder of your life. 

 

We're going to have to be honest if we hope to ever get to the truth here.

 

The gaping hole in your reasoning (probably unintentional) is that while the flu has disappeared, covid has run rampant.

Edited by Florin, 12 March 2021 - 02:36 AM.

[Florin]

No you are not understanding...and I realize it is intentional.

 

Florin hinted that the elderly/obese connection with COVID mortality was a not real, which is absolutely false and borne out by the data.

 

Knowing this fact, accepting this fact, could have led to better pandemic management. More people died because because of an unfocused response. It is tragic.

 

I didn't hint at that at all; this is just a strawman you created. You might want to reread my comment in context, because it appears you still don't understand it or pretend you don't.

 

https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=904050