how many times do they touch their face? wash masks? reuse?

That's the other problem.  I rarely see any info or PC's about how to use the mask. Like don't touch the front, use only for X hours then rotate and wash, etc... How many times do I see people keep their mask in their pocket or purse when not using.  But then again, it is just a cloth mask, so really doesn't matter.

Isn't that the whole point?  Don't gather people together when there's a highly infectious virus spreading?  I don't see the Trump rallies 6 feet apart.

Talking about masks at Trump and Biden rallies.

Focus.

One side wears masks, the other side ignores medical advice.

I see a literal TON of Democrats doing things that are against "medical advice." 

Smoking, excessive drinking, drinking and driving, overweight, eating unhealthy foods, too much sugar, no exercise, skipping dental and eye exams, ....

Your point is ridiculous.   The Dems made masks into a political issue, and the leader of that ignorant strategy was Biden. 

There's so much wrong about dividing the country, but it's much worse when you politicize science and medicine.  You know ..... like you did in this comment.

How can you know that?

There aren't enough actual attendees to make that judgement re: Biden rallies.

The last "rally" I saw clips of for Biden had a dozen people confined to circular spaces marked 6' apart.  Masks, in that situation, are not necessary, according to the science. 

Look it up.  Masks are recommended in public where social distancing is not feasible or enforced.

I have seen video of multiple Trump events where people were in close proximity and no wearing masks. They have found evidence that Trump rallies served as super spreading events. Herman Cain died from Covid after attending a Trump event with no masks or distancing.

This is not to say all Trump rallies are like that though, I have seen some where people wear spread out to observe the 6'rule. All the Biden events I saw had either masks, distance, or both

BTW, I didn't politicize science, Trump and his followers did when they ignored the science and suggested it was a hoax and that out rights were being so infringed by a small piece of cloth over our mouth.

I went out and got a second opinion.
Masks are useless.
Never, ever listen to a Democrat.

I listen to doctors and science for medical advice and so far, nearly everything I have looked into proves masks are effective. (some types more, some types less)

I have seen video of multiple Trump events where people were in close proximity and no wearing masks. They have found evidence that Trump rallies served as super spreading events. Herman Cain died from Covid after attending a Trump event with no masks or distancing.

This is not to say all Trump rallies are like that though, I have seen some where people wear spread out to observe the 6'rule. All the Biden events I saw had either masks, distance, or both

BTW, I didn't politicize science, Trump and his followers did when they ignored the science and suggested it was a hoax and that out rights were being so infringed by a small piece of cloth over our mouth.

Who is "they?"
What "evidence?"

Biden ran his entire campaign on 2 issues:  Covid and Character.  Every Democrat I saw on TV was politicizing the virus, dividing Trump supporters from Liberals saying Liberals were "for science".

I believe I've seen several studies that demonstrate Conservatives and Republicans are much less emotional and use objective facts to decide their positions.  In short, the media reports it backward (as usual).

Trump trusted his science and medical advisors, but he also had to trust his other advisors on the economy, military, international affairs, national security, diplomatic issues with China and allies, etc.

We don't elect scientists to run the country.  We elect a Chief Executive.  In the beginning, Trump got one set of suggestions from his medical people, and as time went on, that advice changed several times.  Nobody can argue it didn't.  Nobody was told to wear masks the first 2 months or more -- save them for the hospital workers and first responders.  I have a video on the contradictory advice Fauci gave Trump and the nation for months.

This whole "doesn't believe or trust the science" is a Liberal talking point borrowed from Climate Change.  It's 100% false.

Who is "they?"
What "evidence?"

Doctors and scientists who track these sort of things. I seen it reported in multiple sources.

Biden ran his entire campaign on 2 issues:  Covid and Character.  Every Democrat I saw on TV was politicizing the virus, dividing Trump supporters from Liberals saying Liberals were "for science".[/quote

I believe I've seen several studies that demonstrate Conservatives and Republicans are much less emotional and use objective facts to decide their positions.  In short, the media reports it backward (as usual).

Trump trusted his science and medical advisors, but he also had to trust his other advisors on the economy, military, international affairs, national security, diplomatic issues with China and allies, etc.

Trump shot himself in the foot with covid and it very well may have cost him the election. Biden didn't even have to twist Trump's position on covid, Trump hurt himself when he couldn't even follow the advice of his own chief medical expert.

We don't elect scientists to run the country.  We elect a Chief Executive.  In the beginning, Trump got one set of suggestions from his medical people, and as time went on, that advice changed several times.  Nobody can argue it didn't.  Nobody was told to wear masks the first 2 months or more -- save them for the hospital workers and first responders.  I have a video on the contradictory advice Fauci gave Trump and the nation for months.

I am not talking about Fauci's initial advice, which was done to protect the supply for emergency workers, I am talking about everything after Fauci was pushing distancing and masks. Trump didn't follow that at all. It's not like Trump was following initial advice and then changed when the advice did.

Doctors and scientists who track these sort of things. I seen it reported in multiple sources.

So, you should have no problem posting  links to all those sources.  Where are they?   

Trump shot himself in the foot with covid and it very well may have cost him the election. Biden didn't even have to twist Trump's position on covid, Trump hurt himself when he couldn't even follow the advice of his own chief medical expert.

Which advice?  There were so many times he was advised and then the advice was changed.  Was he supposed to follow the NEW advice before it was offered?  How does that work exactly?

I am not talking about Fauci's initial advice, which was done to protect the supply for emergency workers, I am talking about everything after Fauci was pushing distancing and masks. Trump didn't follow that at all. It's not like Trump was following initial advice and then changed when the advice did.

First you say it's not about the initial advice, then you say it is about that initial advice because "It's not like Trump was following initial advice."  You can't have it both ways.

I listen to doctors and science for medical advice and so far, nearly everything I have looked into proves masks are effective. (some types more, some types less)

science will tell you that the world is a cruel place. doctors will tell you never to leave your house because the world is a cruel place for your own safety. Because of the nature of their job - saving lives - Drs are risk averse. Very few have experience managing anything outside the medical community i.e. Dr. Sarah Park and the like.

IF we wear masks everywhere, even in full sun, with no one around (what's the purpose of wearing a mask by yourself?) it makes more sense to wear a helmet every time your drive your car. Yes a mandatory helmet law for car and truck drivers. Heck, we do that in the military anyways. When was the last time anyone drove a tactical vehicle without your helmet?

science will tell you that the world is a cruel place. doctors will tell you never to leave your house because the world is a cruel place for your own safety. IF we wear masks everywhere, even in full sun, with no one around (what's the purpose of wearing a mask by yourself?) it makes more sense to wear a helmet every time your drive your car. Yes a mandatory helmet law for car and truck drivers. Heck, we do that in the military anyways. When was the last time anyone drove a tactical vehicle without your helmet?

Why do we allow people to drive motor vehicles at all?  Think of all the lives we can save if everyone used peddle power or horses.

science will tell you that the world is a cruel place. doctors will tell you never to leave your house because the world is a cruel place for your own safety. Because of the nature of their job - saving lives - Drs are risk averse. Very few have experience managing anything outside the medical community i.e. Dr. Sarah Park and the like.

I question whether that is actually the case...

So, you should have no problem posting  links to all those sources.  Where are they?   

How about Dr. Fauci for starters.

Which advice?  There were so many times he was advised and then the advice was changed.  Was he supposed to follow the NEW advice before it was offered?  How does that work exactly?

First you say it's not about the initial advice, then you say it is about that initial advice because "It's not like Trump was following initial advice."  You can't have it both ways.

Dr. Fauci initially stated we didn't all need to run out and get masks. He later changed his advice and said we should wear masks and social distance. Even after Dr. Fauci gave that advice Trump still gathered in groups unnecessarily and avoided wearing masks. My comment clearly didn't ask Trump to obey Dr. Fauci's advice before he gave it, I clearly said he failed to follow his mask advice after it had been updated.

How about Dr. Fauci for starters.

That's not a link.  Do you need help with Google again?

Dr. Fauci initially stated we didn't all need to run out and get masks. He later changed his advice and said we should wear masks and social distance. Even after Dr. Fauci gave that advice Trump still gathered in groups unnecessarily and avoided wearing masks. My comment clearly didn't ask Trump to obey Dr. Fauci's advice before he gave it, I clearly said he failed to follow his mask advice after it had been updated.

"He later changed his advice and said we should wear masks and social distance. "

Untrue.  What he and the CDC said was we need to social distance whenever and wherever possible.  Mask should be worn when social distancing is not feasible.

You stated it as if it's both all the time.  It was "A is best, but if not A, then B."  This is why people got so confused.  The media took words in press conferences and interpreted them based on how they expected them to be worded. 

Trump is a grown man.  If he didn't wear a mask, it's because the mask was not for HIS protection, but for the protection of others in case HE was infectious.  He was taking COVID-19 tests every week. Masks don't protect the wearer as much as the people around him.  We had that pounded into our heads for months.  In fact, wearing a mask can cause worse infections if people are not washing them properly, touch them all the time to adjust, don't have a good fit and are less careful about social distancing because they are "protected" by that piece of cloth on their faces.

Watch the Steven Crowder video.  It says everything I did and more, and in a way you might be able to comprehend. 

Given the virus was a new thing, and nobody knew anything about it for a long time, no advice could have been judged as sound at that point in time.  Only hindsight gives us the ability to know what to do if a similar pandemic is started, but no guarantees the advice you think would have worked now will work then.

Trump took the advice at the time it was given.  Taking advice does not always mean following it.  Look at how many Democrats raking Trump over the coals for simply not wearing a mask 24/7 went to get a haircut in the lockdown, told crowds it's okay to go to Chinatown, wore masks that kept falling down as the give a presser and keep having to touch it to fix it, or even walking around with their nose completely exposed above the mask.

The whole "I blame Trump for COVID-19 deaths" thing is ridiculously stupid.  The people saying that would have had the same decisions to make based on many more considerations than just one medical advisor's input.  I doubt any of them would have made any difference in the infection count or death rate.  In fact, since Trump was blasted for shutting down travel from China which we know saved countless lives, the others would have killed thousands more by delaying that order.

Look up #millionMAGAmarch happening right now over the weekend....how a peaceful protest is done and the thugs who attack the protest’s participants.

Here is the guy whos telling us to wear a mask. As a real doctor, he also knows better. Do not remove ur mask in public.

This pic was taken after he walked within 2 feet of a group of people because the sidewalk was crowded. So to say no one is around him is false. After he saw the pic being taken, he put the mask on.


So people wonder why trust is lost for the CDC and Fauci and other government officials. Gov of CA just got caught for attending a party, even after saying parties are a no go. He apologized. I guess that makes it all good now. Right?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Green is a bottom teir doktah and an enemy of the 2nd Amendment.

Trump rallies as super spreader events

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3722299

Trump rallies as super spreader events

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3722299

Every one of the people putting their name on that paper are in the Stanford University's Department of Economics.

How do economics staff members of a California university have the qualifications to write about Trump's rallies as they relate to anything scientific or biological?  Other than this being purely a statistical exercise, it doesn't.

There was no contact tracing, mask usage or other direct evidence provided for the sample.  Since the entire nation has seen an increase ("spike") in reported cases, most of whom did not visit a Trump rally nor hang out with those attendees unless they social distanced and wore masks (like they all tell us to do), the exclusion of the current rise in cases as a factor in Trump rally attendance related cases is totally unscientific.

This sentence in their abstract says all we need to know: 

"There is reason to fear that such gatherings can serve as “superspreader events,”
severely undermining efforts to control the pandemic "

Fear and control.  We must be afraid, even though realistically there is NO WAY to control a pandemic.  To assume anyone can control a virus for which there is no vaccine nor herd immunity is arrogant and/or just plain stupid.  The only thing they can control is human behavior.  That's the underlying purpose of this paper.

"We conclude that the rallies LIKELY LED TO more than 700 deaths," and they EXTRAPOLATED approximately 30,000 infections occurred as a result of these rallies.  If we have faith (believe) in these calculated cases of COVID-19, that's 700/30,000 death rate, or .02333.  So, using a virus that has a reported death rate of less than one percent, they somehow calculated a death rate of 2.33%?  Is there something about a Trump rally that increases the likelihood of dying if you get infected?  I'm curious, because the death rate of their sample size is almost 3 times that of the national rate.

Other studies of individual rallies showed no increase in infection nor death rates.  They state that in the paper, but blow it off as too simplistic. Then the authors stated they used 10 weeks of follow-up stats (10 wks ~= 2.5 months), to define whether the effects of the rally were negative.  A lot can happen in 2.5 months that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with rally attendance.

All of that is just from a quick glance.  I don't trust this paper enough to fully analyze their extrapolated results.

Looks like someone needed to burn some grant money on an anti-Trump project before he's no longer President.   

Every one of the people putting their name on that paper are in the Stanford University's Department of Economics.

How do economics staff members of a California university have the qualifications to write about Trump's rallies as they relate to anything scientific or biological?  Other than this being purely a statistical exercise, it doesn't.

There was no contact tracing, mask usage or other direct evidence provided for the sample.  Since the entire nation has seen an increase ("spike") in reported cases, most of whom did not visit a Trump rally nor hang out with those attendees unless they social distanced and wore masks (like they all tell us to do), the exclusion of the current rise in cases as a factor in Trump rally attendance related cases is totally unscientific.

This sentence in their abstract says all we need to know: 

"There is reason to fear that such gatherings can serve as “superspreader events,”
severely undermining efforts to control the pandemic "

Fear and control.  We must be afraid, even though realistically there is NO WAY to control a pandemic.  To assume anyone can control a virus for which there is no vaccine nor herd immunity is arrogant and/or just plain stupid.  The only thing they can control is human behavior.  That's the underlying purpose of this paper.

"We conclude that the rallies LIKELY LED TO more than 700 deaths," and they EXTRAPOLATED approximately 30,000 infections occurred as a result of these rallies.  If we have faith (believe) in these calculated cases of COVID-19, that's 700/30,000 death rate, or .02333.  So, using a virus that has a reported death rate of less than one percent, they somehow calculated a death rate of 2.33%?  Is there something about a Trump rally that increases the likelihood of dying if you get infected?  I'm curious, because the death rate of their sample size is almost 3 times that of the national rate.

Other studies of individual rallies showed no increase in infection nor death rates.  They state that in the paper, but blow it off as too simplistic. Then the authors stated they used 10 weeks of follow-up stats (10 wks ~= 2.5 months), to define whether the effects of the rally were negative.  A lot can happen in 2.5 months that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with rally attendance.

All of that is just from a quick glance.  I don't trust this paper enough to fully analyze their extrapolated results.

Looks like someone needed to burn some grant money on an anti-Trump project before he's no longer President.   

Ah selectively believing in statistics.   Election fraud, these statistics prooooove it.  Covid? Nah numbers lie impossible to tell. 

I am slightly amazed you would think massive events of people close to each other would have no effect on covid.

Ah selectively believing in statistics.   Election fraud, these statistics prooooove it.  Covid? Nah numbers lie impossible to tell. 

I am slightly amazed you would think massive events of people close to each other would have no effect on covid.

Nothing you said is relevant to this discussion.

But, we're getting used to that.

You think you can troll me?  LOL!  Go read a book on trolling before you even try.  I'm sure AssHole has a few he'll lend you.

I am slightly amazed you can't read plain English.  Where did I ever say that?

I do notice you didn't bother to address a single word I actually DID post.     Too lazy to do even a minimal amount of discussion?