Submitted by goodguyfdny t3_zh9iuh in nyc
[deleted] t1_izod806 wrote
Reply to comment by FrankFriendo in NYC healthcare worker sounds alarm on city's mental health crisis by goodguyfdny
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izoff1q wrote
>Haha yeah, the government wasn't literally welding people into their homes so authoritarianism was no big deal and totally didn't destroy the economy!
Lie.
>Can you explain to me how letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "saved lives"?
By reducing transmission rate. Go take a class in epidemiology.
>Lol at "the experts".
Do you're "the experts" then? Leave it to the professionals ya douche.
[deleted] t1_izok3ur wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izokdlw wrote
>Can you explain to me how letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "reduces transmission rates"? Would condoms that let through 90% of HIV particles reduce HIV infections?
Not worth my time. Go take that class I told you to. Condoms also are not 100%, btw.
>I cited a peer reviewed study from a physics journal that proves cloth and surgical masks do almost nothing. You have cited nothing but screaming government talking points like the good little fascist you are.
You cited a study showing they reduce the transmission rate. Ironic that you'd call me a fascist.
sysyphusishappy t1_izolnqx wrote
> Condoms also are not 100%, btw.
🤣 Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks are? Or are they closer to 99% effective?
> You cited a study showing they reduce the transmission rate. Ironic that you'd call me a fascist.
Uh, what? Can you not read? The data from that study showed they let through 90% of COVID aerosols. Can you explain how that "reduces transmission rate"?
Please tell me how a condom that let through 90% of HIV would "reduce the transmission rate" of HIV.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
[deleted] t1_izomeci wrote
>🤣 Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks are? Or are they closer to 99% effective?
Ah, so you're advocating for lockdowns? We did that too :).
>Uh, what? Can you not read?
Can you not? 10% reduction in aerosols reduces transmission rates dramatically. Compound interest and all that.
>Please tell me how a condom that let through 90% of HIV would "reduce the transmission rate" of HIV.
Sure: it would reduce the amount of HIV particles being spread by 10%. Make sense?
sysyphusishappy t1_izoq1d9 wrote
> Ah, so you're advocating for lockdowns? We did that too :).
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So you're admitting that cloth masks that let through 90% of COVID aerosols DO NOT "reduce transmission" like you just claimed? Now you're arguing for even more authoritarian lockdowns since you've admitted cloth masks do nothing?
Why don't you answer my question. Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks or closer to 99% effective?
If condoms were 10% effective like cloth masks, would they "reduce transmission" of HIV or nah?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
> Can you not? 10% reduction in aerosols reduces transmission rates dramatically. Compound interest and all that.
Lol. How would that even work theoretically? Would condoms that let through 90% of HIV particles "reduce transmission rates dramatically" for HIV?
How on earth does "compound interest" not work the other way here? As in if you"re indoors for half an hour letting through 90% of COVID aerosols what happens to the transmission rate? Does it stay the same?
> Sure: it would reduce the amount of HIV particles being spread by 10%. Make sense?
But you only need a few particles to get infected and the likelihood of becoming infected increases dramatically over time. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What do you think the odds of HIV infection are after using a 10% effective condom for 10 minutes? Is it 90% or 100%?
[deleted] t1_izoqu99 wrote
>So you're admitting that cloth masks that let through 90% of COVID aerosols DO NOT "reduce transmission"
They reduce the aerosols by 10%, which has a compounding effect. If you want 100% you should lock down. What's so hard to understand?
>Why don't you answer my question. Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks or closer to 99% effective?
Closer to 87% in real life. How is it that those 13% don't lead to a global HIV pandemic? Hint: other layers of protection.
This is epidemiology 101. You should take it.
>How on earth does "compound interest" not work the other way here?
Because when you're going from 100% to 90% and compounding, the latter number is much less over time. Take a math class.
>But you only need a few particles to get infected and the likelihood of becoming infected increases dramatically over time. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>What do you think the odds of HIV infection are after using a 10% effective condom for 10 minutes? Is it 90% or 100%.
So per your example a 99% condom also wouldn't help. Lol.
sysyphusishappy t1_izourrv wrote
> They reduce the aerosols by 10%, which has a compounding effect. If you want 100% you should lock down. What's so hard to understand?
How does this "compounding effect" work exactly? Say you are in a crowded room wesring a mask for half an hour. How does letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "compound" over that half an hour?
> Closer to 87% in real life. How is it that those 13% don't lead to a global HIV pandemic? Hint: other layers of protection.
🤣🤣
So 87% effective is the same level of protection as 10% effective? Letting through 13% is just like letting through 90%? If condoms were 10% effective then we sure as fuck would have a global HIV pandemic. But they're not are they? They are 87% effective.
> Hint: other layers of protection.
I see. So cloth masks do almost nothing so we need even more authoritarian responses?
> Because when you're going from 100% to 90% and compounding, the latter number is much less over time. Take a math class.
🤣🤣
Explain to me how this "compounding effect" works over 10 minutes wearing a 10% effective condom. What do you think your odds of infection are after ten minutes?
> So per your example a 99% condom also wouldn't help. Lol.
🤣🤣
So to be clear, you think 10% effectiveness and 99% effectiveness are the same thing?
[deleted] t1_izov8me wrote
>How does this "compounding effect" work exactly? Say you are in a crowded room wesring a mask for half an hour. How does letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "compound" over that half an hour?
Say it let through 100%. Would people not have a higher chance of contracting the virus if one person among the group was sick?
Go enroll in epidemiology 101. It's not my job to fix your bad education. I'm just posting here so the other readers know what a fascist (or just stupid?) POS you are.
sysyphusishappy t1_izow9k4 wrote
> Say it let through 100%. Would people not have a higher chance of contracting the virus if one person among the group was sick?
?
What point did you think you were making here? They let though 90% as peer reviewed data from a physics journal proves. How does the 10% they block."compound" over time while the 90% they let through doesn't compound?
> Go enroll in epidemiology 101. It's not my job to fix your bad education.
You had to learn from me that your government talking points were wrong and cloth masks let through 90% of COVID aerosols, so not sure how you think I'm the one with the bad education here.
Or maybe the thing you wish happened compounds over time while the thing you wish didn't happen magically does not compound over time.
You're doing just great! I am sure the government will be giving you a medal any day now for denying the laws of physics to protect the integrity of their authoritarian policies.
🤣
[deleted] t1_izox0si wrote
Answer my question. Do you think a mask that lets through 100% of particles spreads a disease more or less than one that does 90%?
Yes, as people infect each other, that population of sick people compounds over time.
You're really not doing that well at this point. Let me help you out: https://www.coursera.org/courses?query=epidemiology
sysyphusishappy t1_izoxqnh wrote
> Answer my question. Do you think a mask that lets through 100% of particles spreads a disease more or less than one that does 90%?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Is this a joke? What happens with your "compounding effect" after a half hour in a crowded room wearing a mask that lets through 90% of COVID aerosols? What do you think happens to the odds of infecting someone else over that time period? Does it stay at 90% or does or go up?
Is a 90% risk of infecting others "effective"?
> Yes, as people infect each other, that population of sick people compounds over time.
I see. So what, you think masks led to a 10% reduction in infections?
[deleted] t1_izoyl4j wrote
>🤣🤣🤣🤣
>Is this a joke? What happens with your "compounding effect" after a half hour in a crowded room wearing a mask that lets through 90% of COVID aerosols? What do you think happens to the odds of infecting someone else over that time period? Does it stay at 90% or does or go up?
>Is a 90% risk of infecting others "effective"?
So basically you can't answer, lol.
>I see. So what, you think masks led to a 10% reduction in infections?
More than 10%. Don't forget the compounding effect over time. Ah wait, you don't understand any of this further than "this media blocks X% of particles" 😂
sysyphusishappy t1_izozltm wrote
> More than 10%. Don't forget the compounding effect over time. Ah wait, you don't understand any of this further than "this media blocks X% of particles" 😂
This is highly amusing. So the thing you want to happen compounds over time but the thing you don't want to happen doesn't compound over time.
[deleted] t1_izp1p8e wrote
>This is highly amusing. So the thing you want to happen compounds over time but the thing you don't want to happen doesn't compound over time.
The thing I don't want compounds less if you block it. This can't be made any more simple. You're trying to pull some kind of "gotcha" but you're not smart enough to do it.
Either those masks block some particles or they don't. If they block any, that has a compounding effect over time vs if you just let the disease spread unimpeded. The more blocking, the better.
Go take the course. You've already been schooled enough on here.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp2jfo wrote
> The thing I don't want compounds less if you block it. This can't be made any more simple. You're trying to pull some kind of "gotcha" but you're not smart enough to do it.
Huh?! 🤣
It "compounds less" but it still compounds and since we are STARTING at 90% what does it compound to?
I'll ask you for a third time. What happens to your risk of spreading COVID after a half hour in a room wearing a mask that lets through 90% of COVID aerosols? Does it go up, go down, or stay the same at 90% risk?
[deleted] t1_izp3nx8 wrote
>It "compounds less" but it still compounds and since we are STARTING at 90% what does it compound to?
Take out a calculator and multiply 1.9^100. Now do 2^100.
See the difference? That's why you should take epidemiology 101.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp429d wrote
🤣 Why can't you answer my question? We start at 90%. What does it compound to over half an hour?
[deleted] t1_izp4fbs wrote
I've answered your question. You are just refusing to recognize reality at this point. Pandemics are created due to unchecked transmission of a contagious disease.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp9crk wrote
No you didn't. We start at 90% risk of infection. What does it compound to in half an hour?
[deleted] t1_izpa6gq wrote
Yes, I did. Go reread my posts and do the math yourself. Your little contrived example isn't how this works. Pandemics occur over large geographic areas in the span of months and years. Much of the transmission is in passing and not in small rooms where people are sitting together for a long time -- that's what the lockdowns/social distancing target. Duh.
sysyphusishappy t1_izqfbu7 wrote
> Much of the transmission is in passing and not in small rooms where people are sitting together for a long time
Any evidence for this? Also, the idea that letting through 90% of COVID aerosols magically stops the spread despite the laws of physics is pretty amusing.
[deleted] t1_izqiskx wrote
It's amusing that you think letting through 100% has the same effect as letting through 90%. You don't seem that great at physics, tbh.
[deleted] t1_izoitei wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments