Who? Cherry-picking an unreproduced study from among hundreds of peer reviewed publications is not exactly compelling.

Want to see a different graphic, from a simple well-controlled study? Look at the new cases curve over time for North Dakota, and what happened when the governor finally enacted a mask mandate. Same population before and after, with the same demographics, geography, socioeconomic and political variables all the same. Boom, down go the infections starting 10 days later. But not in neighboring South Dakota over the same time period, where the freedom to infect has been the rule of the day from the beginning.

As for nobody having them, that's a silly comment to make. My whole family has them, and has had them since last summer. Just a month ago there were over 15 different suppliers of N95 masks or their equivalent selling on Amazon. They cost a couple of bucks a mask. Everyone in the US has been able to get one for a year now. Simple instructions for their proper use come with. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=n95+masks&ref=nb_sb_noss_1

You can have your own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts.

Please post the hundreds of peer reviewed studies for mask use. Talk about cherry picking? You provided no graph to indicate your espousals re n & s Dakota, however I provide the graphs using official data (spin that however you want) and give a strawman response. While totally ignoring the most blaring evidence above with Bavaria who was using N95s and there was no change in their curve. "Everyone has been able to get a n95" well that's nice to know assuming those are properly made, but people wearing them and having access are two different things.

The substack link I posted above had 20+ graphs from counties all over the world and they all contradict your cherry picked Dakota statement. Don't believe your listing eyes and spin it however to fit your naritive.

To say that masks are useless is absurd.

To try to construct some alternate reality based on yes, cherry-picking data to support that premise, is intellectually dishonest.

To demand that anyone objecting to the statement that masks are useless provide "hundreds" of studies as proof of that is foolish.

To make an absurd claim and then try to support it by utterly ignoring the fundamentals of statistical analysis, such as adjusting for variables and correlations, is the stuff of TV pundits and late-night talk radio.

To make a statement that directly contradicts the statements of tens of thousands of experts in the field is a show of extreme hubris as well as a grossly exaggerated sense of the importance of one's opinion.

To shout at and belittle someone else because they DARE to challenge your pronouncements that the sun is green and pigs fly is the behavior of an anal orifice.

Who is shouting at someone? Have you read your own posts in reply to things that you don't like hearing?

just continue with opinions and rhetoric without sources. Cheeri-o!

*Also had to to back and read namisgr11 comment regarding cost . "oh they're only a couple bucks each mask". Yeah pretty reasonable for the average family to spend $8/day in masks since they are supposed to be disposed of every day at maximum

They're in the public domain. If you want to disbelieve the public health officials who've reviewed the evidence and have expertise in pandemic control, and see them for yourself, you find them. And they're facts, not espousals. I'll help you out by locating for you dozens of review articles, that collectively review hundreds if not more than a thousand relevant primary studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...20covid%20mask

Here's a Dakota local news story snippet (from the Grand Forks Herald) about what happened after the Governor of North Dakota in November 2020 finally called a mask mandate, after the state became number one in the nation in new cases per capita:

North Dakota’s Governor resisted a mask mandate, but in November with rising numbers Doug Burgum changed his mind. Medical experts in North Dakota convinced him that the mandate was needed.
North Dakota’s statewide mask mandate was extended on December 9th. Research shows North Dakota has gone from first in the nation with per capita virus infections, to 10th.

They're reusable for anyone who's not a frontline healthcare worker dealing with patients potentially exposed to a large number of different pathogens. Heating them in the 'warm' setting of an oven to 160-170 degrees F for 15 minutes works great to kill SARS-CoV2, as established by well controlled and published study. Leaving them untouched for a couple of days works well, too, as they're not a surface the virus survives on for more than a very short time. And there are over 20 companies selling them right now on Amazon alone. So they're neither unavailable as you stated nor expensive as you claimed.

The more you open your mouth, the deeper your foot seems to go into it.

PFR did not ask for someone to post the hundreds of studies showing masks efficacy until that person claimed PFR was cherry picking from hundreds of studies. If you or someone want to claim PFR is cherry picking data, you need to post some links to all this plentiful counter data. PFR at least posted the data.

Similarly if you wish to claim support from tens of thous@nds of experts you need to cite a fair number of them. There are many other experts who disagree. Just because they disagree with your position does not make them kooks, crackpots or even non experts which has been a common tactic of yours.

Reality is that good N95 and maybe even some KN95 masks worn consistently and correctly probably had some moderate efficacy against early variants. But those masks were never in the us in widespread, proper use. And it was not just the anti mask and or anti vaccine crowd causing this. Just look at the Congress masker in chief Ms. Pelosi. She loves to run around in public with those stylish, poor fitting, useless cloth masks

But even if suddenly everyone was wearing good, proper fitting masks Delta changes things. If such masks were merderately effective with a spread ratio of 3, now that Delta spread ratio is 6 - 9 those masks will have minimal efficacy.

Btw, me personally I wear masks always when required and sometimes when not required. I also own a few N95 masks that I often but not always use. Since my daughter actually intubated many dozens of covid positive patients, she was trained in how to resterilize her very limited number of N95 masks early in the pandemic and shared how with me. Also I have over 30 years of being fit tested for full and half face respirators, 30 years of SCBA training (as well as being a recreational scuba diver). I know when a mask fits, how to adjust them, which ones should fit me and how to care for them. So I am far from anti mask.

As to the van, I scheduled my first jab within five minutes of when I was eligible through my employer. I will get my booster as soon as I can. Plus there is a decent chance I recently had a breakthrough case of covid. Did not get tested since symptoms were extremely mild and I was already isolated I just made sure to keep isolating until 72 hours past all symptoms.

But I am still willing to admit that mask mandates as imposed are likely to have minimal impact. Not worthless but also not a solution. The reality is that covid is now likely just another endemic illness like colds and flu. Most will initially catch it as a child and carry some level of immunity for the rest of their life. They will occasionally get reinfected but for the vast majority their prior immunity will make each case minor or even less. We might eventually vaccinate young kids with booster throughout their lives. But it is very unlikely to disappear. Also unlikely to remain a plague like scourge forever.

Maybe making those requirements will be best in the long run with the perceived dealer shortages they are going to have anyway.

Sorry, dude. You're the one touting nonsense. The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't met that burden.

But hey, continue to post specious and silly rationalizations to self-justify your reluctance to wear a mask, if that makes you feel better. I think you're less dangerous when pacified.

Considering this is a poker message board and we all deal with odds and percentages, even if masks only lower the chances of you getting it by 10% isn't that enough to say "Yes, they should be mandatory indoors", when you are literally gambling with your life and the lives of the people you spend a lot of time with?

And in addition to the above, that's not even considering that they've always said masks help others more than they help the wearer.

you're an angry man. Most people with homes and mortgages itemize their deductions. And creating a larger standard deduction helps the poor and middle class.

You just answered your own question. The typical antimasker doesn't give a crap about anyone else, so if a mask isn't gonna protect him, why wear it?

Hell, we have vaccines that DO protect oneself, and people aren't taking that either, why would we expect people to inconvenience themselves to protect others by wearing a mask?

This is why short of some miraculous technological advancement, we have no shot in hell of avoiding climate change destruction. If we can't even get people on the same page to stamp out a disease killing literally thousands of people every day, what chance do we have of people uniting to fix a relatively gradual problem like climate change?

Th

Sigh. The primary consequence of itemizing is that you lose your standard deduction. A larger standard deduction is a disincentive to itemize. The larger standard deduction only helps if the net tax owed is smaller as a result. But for the average taxpayer, that isn't the case. In fact, the Trump "tax cuts" were only for the wealthy and big corporations (fifty percent!!!). The middle class's tax bills went up by an average of 2%.

It was a shell game--classic Trump--and people like you fell for it--also classic Trump.

Another howler is that Republicans are screaming about the deficit now, but didn't seem to care that Trump increased it by $1.9 trillion.

For people moving to Vegas (to return to the original topic), the Trump tax rules could seriously affect how affordable a house could be. There are a LOT of expenditures--not just mortgage interest--that are very common for homeowners but are no longer deductible.

Of course. That's why we have all these people here bleating that masks "don't make any difference." They can't realistically say that a small reduction in risk isn't important, so they have to pivot to the nonsense that said reduction doesn't happen at all.

I don't give two shits if some numbnuts wants to infect himself and get sick and/or die. But I do care if he infects others in the process.

This "FREEDUMB!" bullcrap is something distinctive to American culture, and we should be ashamed of it. Most other countries' citizens have a sense of shared social responsibility. We, by contrast, have 75 million (or so) people who think that their desires "Trump" all other considerations.

The only real driver of meaningful change will be, unfortunately, far more frequent and severe natural disasters. People will gradually start to wake up. Of course, by the time that translates to political action: loosening the death grip huge corporations have on society, educating people about renewable energy, electing officials who prioritize climate change mitigation efforts even at a substantial political cost, it'll be too late to prevent disaster.

We're boned, and we deserve what we're getting.

I'd be skeptical that even that would move the needle. we've got hospitals/ICUs filled with covid infected people, and there are still deniers out there claiming it's all a hoax. Even if cities are getting flooded and fries are growing out of control, they'll just say those are normal weather patterns. we're doomed.

Is there a timeline on when the mask stuff will be lifted ? Tried google. :/

..... the earlier of

(a) week that Covid infection rates are no longer deemed a significant problem ..... or,

(b) about 2 months before the next federal elections .... about Sept 1, 2022

Curious, what did you "try" searching on Google, "the mask stuff" ?

Then why wasn't N95 included in the thing you posted?

I don't understand your question, having posted many "things". My posts in this thread have been consistent in reiterating the position of public health officials that N95 and their equivalent masks worn properly are considered an effective tool for helping mitigate spread of the virus, and supported as such by a preponderance of scientific evidence published in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. I also posted a link to a search conducted in PubMed, the scientific publication database maintained by the federal government, documenting the review articles published on the topic that are the foundation for the public health position. N95 and equivalents aren't the only masks providing benefit, but the evidence indicates they provide the most benefit.

Looking if there was a specific criteria Nevada was using like if infection rate was sub x for y weeks.

Im aware they're iirc using CDC guidelines but not every state/area is so just curious. Thanks for helping.

https://www.wsop.com/news/2021/Aug/1...AIN-EVENT.html


Must be fully vaccinated to play

Good policy decision, noticed it extends to cash games at the same venue as well.