|
Post by sigurdur on May 28, 2020 11:17:55 GMT
[ Snip ] Ratty, when you mentioned changing the goal posts midstream, I thought you might be referring to my May 1 forecast. I copied the forecast above which shows the 13,000 new case projection. You must have been referring to something else. Yes .... it was a weak attempt at humour. Have a good trip. Very weak. Get checked for the Covid! Soon!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 27, 2020 2:21:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 27, 2020 0:15:27 GMT
There is a reason China controls the rare earth market. They don't care about environmental destruction if the results are dominance. Rare earths are a very messy high cost operation. Sigurdur, environmental destruction is open to debate. Is the keystone pipeline in your area an environmental disaster? It hasn't been an environmental disaster to date.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 26, 2020 3:27:28 GMT
Then I would ask ... do all those strategic company employees start looking like and acting like government workers? Like the CDC that can't manage a timely mass testing rollout. And the benefits. So, though acquisition cost is zero, net return from operations still needs to be positive to yield a return. I'm trying to think of a government operation that actually makes a profit. I haven't even mentioned outright graft and corruption. Real assets that are maintained and required will continue to be priced ever higher in deflated currency. A problem has always been that a sizeable portion of the population cannot afford to own such assets outright. No, not run by the government. I’m currently looking at something in the rare earth metals mining and processing business. Rare Earth metals are necessary for the manufacture of commercial and military electronics. China currently controls the business and the US relies on China. The government would invest and receive a low return commensurate with their cost of capital. There is a reason China controls the rare earth market. They don't care about environmental destruction if the results are dominance. Rare earths are a very messy high cost operation.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 25, 2020 3:13:24 GMT
😡😡😡
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 25, 2020 2:51:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2020 23:28:42 GMT
McKintire 2015. The study found cotton masks to be 3% effective against a virus. N95 were 44% effective. Sigurdur, I try my best to find the facts on issues so I can determine the best choices. There is a large discrepancy on the reported effectiveness of masks and I’m trying to find an answer. I am always worried that when I comment on things that people will take it personally and that is not my intent. I read the MacIntyre study in light of your comment that “The study found cotton masks to be 3% effective against a virus. N95 were 44% effective.” I’m guessing this conclusion comes from this statement in the report. “Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Without reading the details of the report one might come to your conclusion, but this refers to a test where finely ground salt is suspended in air and blown through the material being tested. The number is how much salt is removed. Why this was shown in the summary in a way which could be misinterpreted to mean it was comparing the effectiveness of the masks against a virus made me wonder. So I checked to see who might be behind the study and that is shown at the end. It appears to be 3M who sells medical masks. It is also interesting to see that the cotton masks used in the study were supplied to the users. Apparently 3M is supplying both the cotton masks and the medical masks. And they appear to be low quality cotton masks based on the particle penetration tests although it is possible that it is representative of some cotton masks used by hospital workers in Asia. And these are what are called medical masks which are different from N95 masks. And now to the findings. The study shows an “Attack Rate” comparison for laboratory-confirmed viruses. For the cotton mask group it was 5.4% vs 3.3% for the medical mask group. What is missing is the attack rate is for those without masks. The reason is over 99% of the people in the hospital wear masks and there are so few who don’t that a statistically significant comparison isn’t possible. It is reasonable to conclude that 3M’s medical masks are better than certain cotton masks. I didn’t see anything which justifies the claim that masks, in general, don’t work to some degree against C-19. Nothing seems to be perfect. I never take thoughtful discussion as a personal attack. I don't wear a mask because of my environment. I won't criticize anyone who wants to wear a mask. My wife was a nurse for 42 years. She observes people doing stupid things with their masks. In doing so, any protection is lost for the mask wearer. Someone talked about the seal. When I am in a dusty bin, the lack of seal from common masks is observable. If the bin has any mold, I wear my respirator. The seal is much better. The false sense of security with normal mask users is not justified. They feel like they are doing something, when in reality they are doing very little. A virus is Biohazard level 3 because of the very small size.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2020 16:28:56 GMT
bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577?fbclid=IwAR2uwMqBISdfnudIP4yv3Fx-q2ygp2oPjslGMvqJml8UeRUVDtdgGDmT9T0Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2020 16:28:20 GMT
I started to believe it...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2020 3:17:50 GMT
😅😅😅😁😁😁👍👍
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 23, 2020 21:45:59 GMT
McKintire 2015. The study found cotton masks to be 3% effective against a virus. N95 were 44% effective.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 23, 2020 21:39:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 23, 2020 18:02:33 GMT
Gov Bergum obviously doesn't know the science in that a face mask against a virus is about worthless. Bacteria......pretty durn good!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 23, 2020 5:09:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 23, 2020 4:53:43 GMT
A very good friends daughter had Covid19. She had a sore throat for about 4 hours. Her dad is a vitamin nut. He prescribed a bunch of supplements.
To make a short story shorter, she recovered and is fine.
|
|