Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Update, UK, US and Global" video.

  1.  @vubear  Ok ok I will, I will. Goggle mops says go North on the 95, past the zink mine, exit the Ivermictin exit by the feed store. Traffic is lite.
    5
  2.  @lizeggar2421  I'm all in favor of it if it works. But they are both serious drugs, not orange juice or sunshine. . And unlike Ivermectin which has about zero reported cases of toxicity. . Hydrocholorquin has been used for malaria since 1955. They don't list the mental side effects for either one on wikipedia, but I can tell you, suicide, depression, and pyshcosis are known among the people who travel the world and so might take these things, and we've known about it since the 60s.
    3
  3.  @lizeggar2421  Yeah that's possible, it was a long time ago and I didn't have to take it! Thanks for your input.
    3
  4.  @janetairlines1351  There are vaccines for non-human coronaviruses.
    2
  5. You've never heard of chloroquine suicides? Everyone knew about that in the 1980s if you were traveling in India or Africa. It's not a trivial drug, it can mess your mind up.
    2
  6.  @petertorvik8413  Masks provided 14.3% risk reduction for the wearer: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429
    2
  7. Why ascribe to apathy what can be explained by confusion? . In truth, we have no estimates of virus prevalence in our community. Yet, we are told to do x y and z, instead of being given the information we need.
    2
  8. Let's try it. Hydroxychloroquine
    2
  9.  @privatefeaces  Not much. . Generally speaking, you don't get sick from yourself. . Although mathematically I'm sure it's true that masks retain some virus, some of which you then breath back in, in a practical sense It's probably not important. . I'm not a fan of mandatory masks. I like masks, just not authoritarianism.
    2
  10. Our state epidemiologist said that can be true: 1) doctors do recommend some people not wear masks, for sever asthma and other reasons. 2) to stop an outbreak, you don't need 100% mask compliance. 3) people that are immune won't help anything by wearing a mask. they help just by existing. 4) so don't be mean to people, but let's get to 70%+ mask usage.
    2
  11. The best brains would say "Random invitation surveys" and "Estimate the virus prevalence." . Apparently nobody is listening to them outside Iceland, UK and Thailand. Where has all the science gone, long time passing?
    1
  12. I think it takes ~2 days minimum, but you I'm not Copernicus here.
    1
  13.  @RussCR5187  a simple, cheap at-home test like that could be as helpful as a vaccine!
    1
  14. Why should they report negative results? The number of + and - do not matter to public health. . What matters is an estimate of the virus prevalence, which must be done with random samples. Not self-selected samples.
    1
  15. was 7, now 10
    1
  16. Nobody has shares in Ivermectin, it's not a company, and it's patent ran out decades ago. . It's been given at zero or low cost for billions (with a "b") of doses. . This is a moment to ask yourself, "who told me that shit?" and consider stop listening to them.
    1
  17. Masks give 14.3% risk reduction. Staying 1m away gives 10%. Eye protection 10%. . (meta analysis of ~ 170 studies)
    1
  18.  @horatiogrande8011  I found it! . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429
    1
  19. 535 foolish members, by the latest count. . I will take one off the list when they suggest actually, scientifically, estimating virus prevalence.
    1
  20. Idea: you're just making that stuff up Christians cover their heads going into church. They wear masks when they are doctors. So I call bs
    1
  21. link? sounds interesting!
    1
  22.  EmtronVenger  Science is alive and well. It won't be reported in the news, however.
    1
  23. Yes. We need random invitation surveys.
    1
  24. They should use science. Science is our friend. .
    1
  25. What is the prevalence of the virus now, in any state or major city? . Unknown. . Science needs to be employed in this type of situation here.
    1
  26. I think the truth, like tuna salad, is in between. . I agree the death rate is actually way lower than often assumed, like 1/10th as high, possibly less. . However, it's a no brainer that masks work. But they are not 100% and people should stop stressing -- stress is also bad for health lol. Masks give about 14% protection. . But, not everyone needs to wear a mask. Anyone who is immune doesn't need to, not for their sake or anyone else's. . When both sides ignore simple basic proven facts, I find myself shrugging and going back to simple things like cat herding and rooftop forestry, just to relax.
    1
  27.  @DS40764  Masks reduce risk ~ 14%, which is nice, but it's hardly bulletproof. . I hear you about the god complex. My main issue is the lack of random testing. If you want to know who has voter support, you do a poll. But now... nothing? They don't want to know the actual numbers?? . The numbers are, as you say, questionable, but that's not for any reason of fraud or reporting consistency. One cannot use haphazard numbers to estimate prevalence. I took stats in grad school. One simply cannot do that. We need random invitation testing studies.
    1
  28. Different disease. 14 is actually very long for a respiratory disease. Did you watch the show here? He talks about where the #s come from
    1
  29. I agree. Where are the random invitation surveys? . When we want to know who's winning in the 2nd district, we do a dozen polls. When a worldwide virus shuts down the world, we don't do any??
    1
  30. By my count, zero Democratic governors believe in (and understand) science. . Evidence: zero random-sample testing programs.
    1
  31. Because the actual smart ones don't say anything worth while.
    1
  32. Maybe they are going for herd immunity, without saying so. . Blue states too! Nobody is doing random invite surveys to estimate the actual prevalence.
    1
  33. You don't wear it at home watching tv! You wear it going out in public where if you don't you might accidentally kill someone.
    1
  34.  @braveheart4603  Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of 172 studies, mask use reduces risk 14.3% . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429 . However I agree about not shaming people. I think that's counterproductive, not to mention mean.
    1
  35.  @braveheart4603  I totally agree the authoritarian approaches are not good! . I can't stand people to be insulted for not wearing masks when our government, including every state, is failing to provide basic, simple, cheap information like "What's the prevalence now?" . I've been wearing a mask for months too, but I don't freak out if it's not 100%. Some people are already immune and have no reason to wear one at all.
    1
  36. It is known for occasional but severe psychological disturbance. Also, vision effects, and I think nausea. There were stories of people going suicidal crazy, so if you have a bad reaction, get off it right away I guess. . I never took it as I was in a low-malaria part of India. Friends took it. . It's not a trivial drug in terms of safety, unlike Ivermectin, which appears to have almost no reports of toxicity despite billions of doses.
    1