!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!
- Yssup Rider
- 02-03-2022, 08:16 PM
- offshoredrilling
- 02-03-2022, 08:23 PM
Good point about the N95's. I'd wear those for 9 hours straight and they were very uncomfortable and annoying. That's why I switched to the Powecom KN95 mask. It provides a good seal and is more comfortable. And they're cheap enough that even WD would shell out a few to clean up after oral sexthe China mask is better than the USA mask ????
And the institution thing was a joke. While you are gullible when it comes to Trump and COVID, you otherwise are a wise and witty person, and there's no way you could have spent the last 40 years in a mental institution. Originally Posted by Tiny
- Tiny
- 02-03-2022, 08:32 PM
the China mask is better than the USA mask ???? Originally Posted by offshoredrillingNot necessarily. I just liked the comfort and fit of the Powecom mask and it was affordable - I was paying about $1.00 a mask. The N95 I started out using around March of 2020 was medical grade, something I bought around 2005, after the SARS scare. And it was uncomfortable as hell. I found others later that were more comfortable.
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 02-04-2022, 03:26 AM
Which poly cart do those go into? The land-fill one or the recycle one, which likely goes to the land-fill anyway?
Not necessarily. I just liked the comfort and fit of the Powecom mask and it was affordable - I was paying about $1.00 a mask. The N95 I started out using around March of 2020 was medical grade, something I bought around 2005, after the SARS scare. And it was uncomfortable as hell. I found others later that were more comfortable. Originally Posted by Tiny
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 02-04-2022, 03:42 AM
Which poly cart do those go into? The land-fill one or the recycle one, which likely goes to the land-fill anyway? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
This article just landed on my screen. Go figure:
Tens Of Thousands Of Tons Of Medical Waste Produced During COVID-19 Pandemic Threatens Health: WHO
The tens of thousands of tons of medical waste produced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic poses a threat to human and environmental health, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned in a report on Tuesday.
The extra waste is “threatening human and environmental health and exposing a dire need to improve waste management practices,” the United Nations health agency said.
According to the agency’s report, approximately 87,000 tons of personal protective equipment (PPE) was ordered between March 2020 and November 2021 through a joint U.N. emergency initiative and shipped to countries, the majority of which ended up as waste.
Authors note that over 140 million test kits have been shipped, with the potential to generate 2,600 tons of mainly plastic, non-infectious waste and 731,000 liters of chemical waste, which is the equivalent of one-third of an Olympic-size swimming pool.
Furthermore, over 8 billion doses of vaccine have been administered globally, which has created 144,000 tons of additional waste in the form of syringes, needles, and safety boxes.
The report only takes into account COVID-19 commodities procured through the joint U.N. emergency initiative and not the waste generated by the public or via other initiatives.
The WHO noted that as the U.N. and countries across the world raced to secure supplies of PPE amid the pandemic, officials were less focused on safely and sustainably managing the waste that resulted from COVID-19 related health care.
The agency is calling for “effective management systems” to be implemented, which includes guidance for health workers on how to safely and sustainably dispose of PPE and other health commodities after they have been used, noting that 30 percent of health care facilities are not equipped to handle existing waste loads.
That figure was around 60 percent in less developed countries, the agency said.
“It is absolutely vital to provide health workers with the right PPE. But it is also vital to ensure that it can be used safely without impacting on the surrounding environment,” said WHO emergencies director Dr. Michael Ryan.
The risks associated with the lack of sufficient handling of such waste can lead to needle stick injuries, burns, and pathogenic microorganisms in health workers, and also impact communities living in areas near poorly managed waste disposal sites, increasing the risk of poor water quality and contaminated air when the waste is burned.
“Significant change at all levels, from the global to the hospital floor, in how we manage the health care waste stream is a basic requirement of climate-smart health care systems, which many countries committed to at the recent U.N. Climate Change Conference, and, of course, a healthy recovery from COVID-19 and preparedness for other health emergencies in the future,” said Dr. Maria Neira, director of environment, climate change, and health at the WHO.
The authors of the report set out a series of recommendations to help stem the threat to human and environmental health, including using eco-friendly packaging and shipping, safe and reusable PPE, and recyclable or biodegradable materials.
They also called for more investment into ways to get rid of the waste without the need to burn it, such as autoclaves, a machine that is used to heat and destroy medical equipment, as well as investments in the recycling sector so that certain materials can be reused.
The WHO’s report comes amid the Biden administration’s whole-of-government effort to tackle the climate crisis via the Build Back Better (BBB) initiative, a program that would see Washington invest around $550 billion in renewable energy and climate change initiatives.
- LexusLover
- 02-04-2022, 06:35 AM
Fauci was wrong, “scientists” were wrong, Tiny was wrong; Originally Posted by bambinoThe list is almost endless.
As long as there has been an internet and those sources were available, I've consulted either John Hopkins or Mayo Clinic or both for symptoms, diagnosis, and various resolutions for improvement in condition. The use of those resources also include Rx, prescription and OTC, if they are available.
They seem reliable and consistent with one another. I have and do research on every Rx recommended and/or prescribed to me for a little over 20 years. Having friends and family as physicians I am aware that a high percentage of doctors lack adequate background research on Rx they often recommend.
Thursday afternoon used to be pharma sales rep "visitation" time and that's when I enjoyed sitting in the waiting room the most. One could distinguish them from the hottest provider you've ever seen in person by the black box style foldout case containing their "samples" for "new" drugs being marketed. (Almost everyone at one time or another has gotten those "samples" for which the office staff generate reports for the manufacturer.)
I'm glad these "mask-wearers" are keeping them on. Lady Bird is happy!
"Keeping America Beautiful"!!!!!
- Tiny
- 02-04-2022, 07:09 AM
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 02-04-2022, 10:31 AM
- HedonistForever
- 02-04-2022, 12:06 PM
There is a guy on Fox who tracks media and reports what they are and are not reporting. He said after reviewing the information he collected, very few if any MSM outlet's, even covered this story. Why, because it would look bad for Biden just like they prevented any of the worst of Hunter Biden before the election. After the election, some people, Democrats and Independents said that if they had that information before the election, they wouldn't have voted for Biden.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-...media-blackout
CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
ABC, CBS, NBC also ignored the anti-lockdown study
There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths.
According to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe.
"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-...media-blackout
CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
ABC, CBS, NBC also ignored the anti-lockdown study
There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths.
According to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe.
"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."
However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown
findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders."It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.
The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.
"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.
The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%.
The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality.
"[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness," the researchers wrote.
"But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places."
The researchers also examined studies that focused on specific lockdown measures and found that the only intervention that reduced COVID-19 mortality was the closure of non-essential businesses, which reduced mortality by 10.6%, but this effect was likely driven by the closure of bars.
Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses.
From May 2020 to April 2021, the U.S. recorded 100,306 drug overdose deaths, a 28.5% increase from the 78,056 deaths that were recorded in the previous 12-month period, according to CDC data.
A study from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice last year found that domestic violence incidents increased 8.1% in the U.S. after lockdown orders were issued.
About 97% of U.S. teachers said that their students have experienced learning loss during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Horace Mann survey last year.
The unemployment rate peaked nationwide at 14.8% in April 2020, but declined to 3.9% in December, which is still slightly higher than the 3.5% rate it was at in February 2020.
"These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best," the researchers in the Johns Hopkins University study wrote. "Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument."
findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders."It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.
The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.
"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.
The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%.
The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality.
"[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness," the researchers wrote.
"But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places."
The researchers also examined studies that focused on specific lockdown measures and found that the only intervention that reduced COVID-19 mortality was the closure of non-essential businesses, which reduced mortality by 10.6%, but this effect was likely driven by the closure of bars.
Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses.
From May 2020 to April 2021, the U.S. recorded 100,306 drug overdose deaths, a 28.5% increase from the 78,056 deaths that were recorded in the previous 12-month period, according to CDC data.
A study from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice last year found that domestic violence incidents increased 8.1% in the U.S. after lockdown orders were issued.
About 97% of U.S. teachers said that their students have experienced learning loss during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Horace Mann survey last year.
The unemployment rate peaked nationwide at 14.8% in April 2020, but declined to 3.9% in December, which is still slightly higher than the 3.5% rate it was at in February 2020.
"These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best," the researchers in the Johns Hopkins University study wrote. "Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument."
- winn dixie
- 02-05-2022, 01:27 AM
lockdowns did nothing except allow u n movements in our country
- Yssup Rider
- 02-05-2022, 09:14 AM
- Tiny
- 02-05-2022, 06:53 PM
I don't doubt the source of the study. I take issue with the way such news is reported.Good point Yssup. This didn't come from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Or the medical school there. Or its School of Public health. It would be great if some of our posters here would take info from those sources seriously, including their estimate of 901,391 COVID deaths in the USA to date.
Johns Hopkins is a university. This was a STUDY conducted by a department within that university.
Ergo - "Johns Hopkins" didn't debunk shit. A study from a department (not medical) at Johns Hopkins concluded ... "Johns Hopkins" neither knows what it's talking about or doesn't know what it's talking about.
If you were in front of a debate (or legal) judge, your case would be summarily dismissed.
Not surprising that your source of information (spin) was a YouTube video when the study has been all over the news.
And of course, it leads to others posting "evidence" that's propaganda. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
But no, instead they choose to focus on a paper written by Jonas Herby at the Center for Political Studies in Denmark (lead author), Lars Jonung, a professor of economics at Lund University, and Steve H. Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins:
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/fi...-Mortality.pdf
Hanke is the only one of the three I've heard of. He'd be a great resource if you were running a country with hyperinflation and a currency that's fast becoming worthless. That's his area of expertise, not public health.
I'd question whether this study will ever make it into a peer-reviewed paper in a recognized medical, scientific or public health journal.
They initially looked at 18,590 studies, and then weeded those down to 34 for inclusion in their metastudy. There may have been some cherry picking in the way they did their weeding. They did appear to leave out some prominent studies, the results of which were contradictory to their conclusions.
Take a look at this critique of the paper:
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...ences-website/
Ferguson, Flaxman (who wrote a paper estimating 3 million deaths from COVID were avoided by lockdowns, which was excluded from the metastudy) and Bhatt lambaste the metastudy. They appear to me to have valid criticisms. The economist, Paton, on the other hand has somewhat favorable things to say about the metastudy.
In any event saying lockdowns won't work is ridiculous. Look at New Zealand and China. Did they work in the USA and Europe? Were they worth the economic and social cost? Well, that's difficult to say. I'd say "no." I personally don't like lockdowns, but this is not as simple as Fox News would lead you to believe.
Speaking of which, Hedonist, getting your info about COVID from Fox News makes about as much sense as getting info about voting rights from MSNBC.
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 02-05-2022, 07:15 PM
I don’t like lockdowns. I wish people had voluntarily worn good quality masks and social distanced to buy time until President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed and Big Pharma delivered the vaccines. If that happened maybe the hospitals wouldn’t have been overloaded and the politicians wouldn’t have had the excuse to impose lockdowns Originally Posted by TinyBut remember, the hospitals weren't overloaded like they claimed. Yes, some were filled with people with non-life-threatening illnesses but the hospitals sent doctors home when they stop elective surgeries. In New York City Trump brought in the hospital ship and set up a field hospital in Central Park. Neither was used by more than a trickle. Cuomo sent elderly people to the hospital so that they would not die in nursing homes and blemish his record. But he put them there in the first place to contract the virus. My sister works in two different hospitals. As an X-ray technician she was very busy but she also said that there were many empty rooms.
Face it, a lot of things we have been told the last two years did not really happen the way it was reported. Hell, as of this morning nobody buy Fox and AONN have reported on the John Hopkins findings. The rest have spent zero time on the story.
- Tiny
- 02-05-2022, 07:21 PM
But remember, the hospitals weren't overloaded like they claimed. Yes, some were filled with people with non-life-threatening illnesses but the hospitals sent doctors home when they stop elective surgeries. In New York City Trump brought in the hospital ship and set up a field hospital in Central Park. Neither was used by more than a trickle. Cuomo sent elderly people to the hospital so that they would not die in nursing homes and blemish his record. But he put them there in the first place to contract the virus. My sister works in two different hospitals. As an X-ray technician she was very busy but she also said that there were many empty rooms.The CEO of the local hospital system where I live has a press conference about once a week, and I watch the videos from time to time. Where I live we were overloaded, as recently as a week ago, when over 40% of the patients in the hospitals had COVID and we were close to record highs of total patients. This was a repeat of what happened during past waves. A nearby city had to get a mobile morgue on wheels last year because the funeral homes and city morgue couldn't accommodate the bodies. And the hospitals here were spending a lot of money on traveling health professionals because we didn't have enough locally.
Face it, a lot of things we have been told the last two years did not really happen the way it was reported. Hell, as of this morning nobody buy Fox and AONN have reported on the John Hopkins findings. The rest have spent zero time on the story. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn
- Jacuzzme
- 02-05-2022, 08:18 PM
The hospital is overloaded, which doesn’t necessarily mean bursting at the seams, only what their staff can do, because people can’t go to their pcp. They’re designed to run at 90%, it’s how they make money. Nobody builds a 600 bed hospital anticipating 300 of them would be constantly empty, they’d go bankrupt. Bad public policy of ignoring, and outright discouraging, early intervention, the bedrock of successful medical care of any kind, is why you can’t get in a hospital.