How is Sweden doing with COVID-19 today?

Mask do not reduce overall transmission 10-15%; that would be significant; they may reduce droplet release by that much but that does not by any means translate to anything useful; it certainly does not translate to 10-15% reduction in transmission. It is nice though that you feel fine to force assumption based policy on people and call anyone questioning why we are deviating from the norm without evidence guilty of be naïve or malicious. How about no, how about you don't know what you are talking about, how about you are the naive one, how about your intent is either a selfish serve to your own paranoia or completely malicious. You are the charlatan selling panic. 99% chance I have much much more scientific experience than you do; you childish liar.

Harambe wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Why are you posting as multiple people on this thread? What is wrong with you?

The only person doing this is you -- who posts as LFH or LFH 2. Serious case of projection

Um...I am not trying to deceive. If I post from a phone or a computer, I need to use another name. So, using the same name should indicate the same person. Next time I will write my name with device II, so the stupid people realize it is still me. You on the other hand try to create an army of different identities that all agree with you. Psychopathic at best. I am also not trying to stir panic and chaos and I don't hope for more death. I am trying to convince people to calm the f down and stop listening to the lying fear mongerers like yourself that have ruined many many lives this year.

Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

zxczxcv wrote:

Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

Based on what studies? The only study I am aware of (Danish) concludes the complete opposite.

[quote]zxczxcv wrote:

The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks.

[quote]zxczxcv wrote:

This statement is an outright lie. The study was also modeling projections for deaths to come, full of assumptions because that's what models do. Why don't you find the data that shows the vast majority....51% is not a vast majority either. Precious, just stop your lying. Please, people are suffering because of this BS. By the way, I wear a mask almost all day trying to help people and continue doing good science. You hide in your house with no mask on.

Other guy wrote:

zxczxcv wrote:

Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

Based on what studies? The only study I am aware of (Danish) concludes the complete opposite.

Correct; and from the country that sent its kids back to school after Easter, does not wear masks and has one of the lowest deaths per capita in Europe. That doesn't count though, Precious's alter-ego's assumption based on the misread of a modeling projection is more important and the fear must increase or we will all die and start killing elder species of all kinds across the entire universe. We are stupid and selfish for wanting to trust the actual data.

A lot of words to say: "I have no clue the effect of masks, but my dogma is forcing me to bloviate" Less ranting, paragraph breaks, succinct ideas would be make you easier to read. Just admit the data is POOR but experiments point toward a positive effect. You are demanding a massive effect before you'll support mandates, fine, whatever bro. But acting like you better than others know the level masks reduce transmission is just hilarious. Wanna bet on our relative scientific experience?

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Mask do not reduce overall transmission 10-15%; that would be significant; they may reduce droplet release by that much but that does not by any means translate to anything useful; it certainly does not translate to 10-15% reduction in transmission. It is nice though that you feel fine to force assumption based policy on people and call anyone questioning why we are deviating from the norm without evidence guilty of be naïve or malicious. How about no, how about you don't know what you are talking about, how about you are the naive one, how about your intent is either a selfish serve to your own paranoia or completely malicious. You are the charlatan selling panic. 99% chance I have much much more scientific experience than you do; you childish liar.

aopfhp wrote:

All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

A Scientist wrote:

aopfhp wrote:

All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

No, if the death count ticks above 0 to a handful a day, I will think about it; I doubt they will ever see death rates return to their early summer numbers; all of this is hype on cases.

- another scientist

Yes, I will admit that the data on masks being effective is poor to non-existent. On the other hand there is data saying masks in the general public is not an effective mitigation tool.

This is a good start. No string of weird name-calling, ranting. One clear argument. Simple sentences. You're learning. We can agree to disagree on the effectiveness of masks in societal settings. It's clear that a 51% chance for a 5% effect size is not acceptable for you to change your life etc. Luckily most people are willing to take a shot at it or else we'd be in an even worse position. If we waited for incontrovertible evidence in every crisis we would fail each and every time, but you know this. You just like the contrarian bent - that was me in my younger years.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Yes, I will admit that the data on masks being effective is poor to non-existent. On the other hand there is data saying masks in the general public is not an effective mitigation tool.

A Scientist wrote:

aopfhp wrote:

All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

Sweden, a nation of 10 million plus people, has not seen double figures in daily deaths in over three months. Even by the CDC own inflated numbers (dying "with" Covid).

So scary.

Billings, Montana is out of ICU beds, because of Covid. Minimal mask wearing by Trumpets there. Relationship ?!? I'll wear my mask !

zxczxcv wrote:

Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

And it "could" also save zero and an airplane "could" drop out of the sky this morning onto my head and kill me, and I "could" back out of my driveway today and be t-boned be a semi and the sun "could" blow up and incinerate all of us.

These scientists do these studies and our idiotic, power hunger politicians, and you useful idiots on here (and elsewhere), govern/spread fear, based on the worst possible outcome, which is virtually 100% of the time wrong (to say nothing of the assumptions to get there).

I don't mock anyone for not complying. I don't exaggerate data.

I just tell you stuff you don't want to hear.

You want to pretend that this is no big deal. 300k+ extra Americans are dead already and you want to keep your fingers in your ears.[/quote]

And he closes by exaggerating data to spread panic. You can't make this up!

Other guy wrote:

A Scientist wrote:

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Sweden, a nation of 10 million plus people, has not seen double figures in daily deaths in over three months. Even by the CDC own inflated numbers (dying "with" Covid).

So scary.

Sweden is still at the early stages in their current outbreak. Other countries have been in similar circumstances and have effectively fought back (Victoria, Australia, Israel, Vietnam, etc.). Sweden does have an excellent health system and good tracing and tracking. They can crush this outbreak if they want to.

If they continue their "light touch" and this outbreak continues to spiral out of control, you will see deaths rise in a few weeks. The current outbreak, like many in Europe, started in young people having parties as colleges went back into session in the Fall. The cases take weeks to move from affecting more of the young age groups to spreading into older and more vulnerable groups. When that happens, the deaths will climb. Sweden has a chance to stop that right now and have taken some steps to up restrictions in the areas seeing the most significant outbreaks.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

[quote]zxczxcv wrote:

The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks.

[quote]zxczxcv wrote:

This statement is an outright lie. The study was also modeling projections for deaths to come, full of assumptions because that's what models do. Why don't you find the data that shows the vast majority....51% is not a vast majority either. Precious, just stop your lying. Please, people are suffering because of this BS. By the way, I wear a mask almost all day trying to help people and continue doing good science. You hide in your house with no mask on.

That wasn't me. But since you asked, I am generally in line with Osterholm on masks. Masks do not make you invincible. Masks should be worn to prevent transmission via large droplets. Most masks do a decent job of stopping large droplets. But the problem is that people think that masks make them safe in all situations and start taking on excessive risks. This is a big problem because COVID 19 also spreads through aerosols. Only the N95 masks really protect you from breathing in or transmitting COVID via aerosols. Surgical masks do a good job stopping large droplets, but aerosols can come in or go out the sides of the masks. The surgical mask will reduce aerosols, but do not eliminate them. Cloth masks can do a lousy job on both aerosols and large droplets and a lot depends on the construction of the mask and the materials used. So, masks are a bit like seat belts. They are an important safety measure, but they do not standing alone protect you from all harm. Masks wearing must be done in conjunction with limiting the amount of time spent with other people, limiting the number of people you are exposed to and maximizing the ventilation either by being outside or being in a room with excellent ventilation either through a MERV-13 filter with ultra violet light and/or having doors or windows open to the outside.

No it isn't. You are full of it dude. Sweden has already had two other case spikes, one towards to the end of June and one in early August...neither were follow by any rise in deaths. You can guess all you want, but that is all it is and you are spreading fear with no evidence and people will suffer in Sweden because of the fear mongering liars trying to incite panic. That blood is on your hands with many other liars.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Correct; and from the country that sent its kids back to school after Easter, does not wear masks and has one of the lowest deaths per capita in Europe. That doesn't count though, Precious's alter-ego's assumption based on the misread of a modeling projection is more important and the fear must increase or we will all die and start killing elder species of all kinds across the entire universe. We are stupid and selfish for wanting to trust the actual data.

Denmark has a mask mandate as of a few days ago