Player To Be Named Later said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

Well, there's the small detail that active immunity may only last for 2 or 3 months. If that's the case, what is the benefit to hurrying and letting everyone get sick as quickly as possible?

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-new-uk-study-shows-antibodies-fade-after-three-weeks-2020-7

---

Virtually all the experts are in agreement that immunity almost certainly provides a benefit for years, not months. Why won't you listen to the experts? Do you hate science?

---

Do you hate the scientists in that article? Only like scientists that agree with you?

---

The author's title is ridiculous and demonstrates little understanding of the human immune system.

So you do think we should rush out to get as many people sick with this thing as rapidly as we can do so?

Fat Girlfriend sure seemed to imply it.

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

So you do think we should rush out to get as many people sick with this thing as rapidly as we can do so?

---

Yes, yes, of course. I thought that was patently obvious in my statement.


I'd make that more sarcastic, but I think I maxed it out.

Complete Idiot said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

So you do think we should rush out to get as many people sick with this thing as rapidly as we can do so?

---

Yes, yes, of course. I thought that was patently obvious in my statement.


I'd make that more sarcastic, but I think I maxed it out.

---

Well if you were following the conversation about that idea that I was having with Fat Girlfriend, instead of jumping in to chime in on only half of the conversation, you wouldn't have to worry about how people were taking what you were saying. That's what happens when people pick half of a conversation between other people to comment on while glossing over the other.

You accused me of wanting people to go to covid parties a page back even though I've never said any such thing.

Even though I think it was clear I was addressing the author, and the article, only - I've edited out the other parts of the exchange you were having.

I don't like the article. Amazingly, I can have that opinion and also the opinion we shouldn't get people sick as rapidly as we can.

GAC06 said:

---

You accused me of wanting people to go to covid parties a page back even though I've never said any such thing.

---

Like I said above, you chimed in to half of a conversation I was having with someone else about the topic while ignoring the other half. That's why you got caught up in it.

Fat Girlfriend was implying that we should just allow cases to blow up because that will get us to some perceived herd immunity fastest.

I "got caught up in it" when I pointed out that it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that immunity only lasts 2-3 months. Then you started making stupid accusations instead of logically arguing a point.

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

Fat Girlfriend sure seemed to imply it.

---

Not at all. Honestly, that's a vicious and unthoughtful to interpret what I wrote.

dp

Old RV Ag said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Mask mandates do not stop this virus. And they certainly do not guarantee compliance.

Social distancing, good hygiene, and steps to mitigate respiratory droplet contamination combine to slow the spread.

---

Here is my question...why do we want to slow the spread, except to ensure that hospitals aren't overwhelmed? Wouldn't it be better to go ahead and get it behind us? If masks don't actually stop people from getting sick, but rather merely delay people from getting sick, then shouldn't we acknowledge that?

---

Well, there's the small detail that active immunity may only last for 2 or 3 months. If that's the case, what is the benefit to hurrying and letting everyone get sick as quickly as possible?

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-new-uk-study-shows-antibodies-fade-after-three-weeks-2020-7

---

Virtually all the experts are in agreement that immunity almost certainly provides a benefit for years, not months. Why won't you listen to the experts? Do you hate science?

---

Says the guy who says masks don't help.

---

Why was my reply to this deleted? Because I called the guy a liar? But he did lie. He claimed that i said thar masks don't help, and that's not true. His post should have been deleted, not mine.

fat girlfriend said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

Fat Girlfriend sure seemed to imply it.

---

Not at all. Honestly, that's a vicious and unthoughtful to interpret what I wrote.

---

Vicious and unthoughtful? Calm down a notch.

When you ask if we should really be trying to slow down the spread at all, that's how it sounds like something you'd be ok with.

So what measures ARE you ok with that we could implement to not run into this thing head first on purpose?

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

So what measures ARE you ok with that we could implement to not run into this thing head first on purpose?

---

What I've already said. Implement wide spread mask usage in communities which are on track for their hospitals to be overwhelmed.

Take the easy way out...... figured you would.

At this stage in my life, I should already know better than to argue with a fat girlfriend anyway

bay fan said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Mask mandates do not stop this virus. And they certainly do not guarantee compliance.

Social distancing, good hygiene, and steps to mitigate respiratory droplet contamination combine to slow the spread.

---

Here is my question...why do we want to slow the spread, except to ensure that hospitals aren't overwhelmed? Wouldn't it be better to go ahead and get it behind us? If masks don't actually stop people from getting sick, but rather merely delay people from getting sick, then shouldn't we acknowledge that?

---

Well, there's the small detail that active immunity may only last for 2 or 3 months. If that's the case, what is the benefit to hurrying and letting everyone get sick as quickly as possible?

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-new-uk-study-shows-antibodies-fade-after-three-weeks-2020-7

---

It's odd to me the herd immunity crew never addresses this little fact.

---

Sweden didn't shut down. Are they on the rise again or no? I haven't checked. Maybe they are. I'm glad someone did what they did so we can compare. They should be picking up again soon if there isn't immunity.

Agsrback12 said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Mask mandates do not stop this virus. And they certainly do not guarantee compliance.

Social distancing, good hygiene, and steps to mitigate respiratory droplet contamination combine to slow the spread.

---

Here is my question...why do we want to slow the spread, except to ensure that hospitals aren't overwhelmed? Wouldn't it be better to go ahead and get it behind us? If masks don't actually stop people from getting sick, but rather merely delay people from getting sick, then shouldn't we acknowledge that?

---

Well, there's the small detail that active immunity may only last for 2 or 3 months. If that's the case, what is the benefit to hurrying and letting everyone get sick as quickly as possible?

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-new-uk-study-shows-antibodies-fade-after-three-weeks-2020-7

---

It's odd to me the herd immunity crew never addresses this little fact.

---

Sweden didn't shut down. Are they on the rise again or no? I haven't checked. Maybe they are. I'm glad someone did what they did so we can compare. They should be picking up again soon if there isn't immunity.

---

Y'all keep saying and then people who live there say it was esssntially a self imposed lockdown. The only country who didn't shutdown was Brazil and it's a nightmare there.

I'm still stuck on face masks. If they work, open things up!

fat girlfriend said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Y'all keep saying and then people who live there say it was esssntially a self imposed lockdown. The only country who didn't shutdown was Brazil and it's a nightmare there.

---

That's just false. Denmark was back to school in like May. People in Sweden were hanging out in bars with no masks.

---

Anecdotal but my friends that live in Denmark had a vastly different experience this past spring. Everyone d wearing a mask land they left their house maybe once a day. Some businesses closed as did a lot of schools and daycares. They seemed to take precautions way more seriously than we did.

nai06 said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Y'all keep saying and then people who live there say it was esssntially a self imposed lockdown. The only country who didn't shutdown was Brazil and it's a nightmare there.

---

That's just false. Denmark was back to school in like May. People in Sweden were hanging out in bars with no masks.

---

Anecdotal but my friends that live in Denmark had a vastly different experience this past spring. Everyone d wearing a mask land they left their house maybe once a day. Some businesses closed as did a lot of schools and daycares. They seemed to take precautions way more seriously than we did.

---

I don't know that I agree with this. I think we're more a victim of really poor timing of events.

I think we effectively showed we could flatten a curve. We took it seriously. I think we did it way too early here in Texas and probably shut things down with less than 1% of the population infected. That's my gut feeling, haven't looked into those numbers. We were always going to increase in cases as we opened up.

However, I say victim of some bad timing, because as we were opening up, we had massive protests for 2 weeks straight where people weren't following social distancing rules at all. Timelines seem to support this as well. We had been opening up for about 1 1/2 months to 2 months before the protests, and while some increases were happening, there weren't crazy spikes. That shows to me we were taking things seriously. Then the spikes really start to happen 2 weeks after bars and protests happen. It's like a dam broke or flood gates were opened unintentionally.

I personally think had we not had the protests, and not opened bars as much, we would not be where we are today.

All this to say I don't think we have a true view of what happens if everything is open at 75%+.

just posted this on a similar thread: I didn't read the thread im just answering the OP.

mask order is working, imho. lets look at Harris County.

GIVEN
June 22nd: Lina Hidalgo issues Harris County mask order
June 26th: Abbott orders bar shutdown
July 2nd: AbboTt makes state-wide mask order.
AND
From infection to ICU hospitalization, there's 10-17 days.

On July 9th, our ICU hospitalizations began to plateau. That was 16 days after the first mask order.

This is pretty weak correlational evidence, but, the timeline DOES match up. To me, I think the best course of action is to continue recruiting more staffing to help prevent burnout on ours, and keep the mask order and bar shutdown in place. As long as our death rate is low (it is) and our ICUs have capacity (they do) then I sleep well at night.