Illinois Road Videos

[Rothman]

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

Of course.  I'm just some guy on the Internet.  Take a look at the studies yourself.  The link below is straight from the CDC.  Granted, it hasn't been updated since December, but I assume it's about as definitive of a list of scientific studies as you're going to find.  Maybe there's a more up-to-date list of studies out there.  If so, please let me know, and I'd be interested to look through them.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454

The Bangladesh study I mentioned is the only one listed that was a cluster-randomized trial.  If you're looking for scientific studies that don't just rely on (1) self-reporting, (2) general trend lines without cause-and-effect certainty, or (3) very small population sizes, then the pickings are quite slim indeed.

The Bangkok study from April—May 2020 was a case-control study of more than 800 people showed strong correlation, but it was only studying known close contacts of infected individuals.  (Not the type of contact one commonly encounters while shopping for colored pencils in Wal-Mart.)

Larger-scale studies from later in 2020 tend to show declines in transmission ranging from around 25% down into the single digits.

It's not about cherrypicking studies, but listening to scientists that are reviewing the entire state of the art and not just Googling for what's publicly available.

CDC's mask recommendations are based on such.  That's what I follow.

Anyone remember when the CDC was actively not recommending cloth masks indoor or otherwise?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

I want to say that recommendation flipped during April/May 2020 after it became apparent the recommended N95s were going to be well short of anticipated supply demand. 

Even now the CDC is way more about recommending N95s over anything else:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

As evidence is collected, science evolves.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

Of course.  I'm just some guy on the Internet.  Take a look at the studies yourself.  The link below is straight from the CDC.  Granted, it hasn't been updated since December, but I assume it's about as definitive of a list of scientific studies as you're going to find.  Maybe there's a more up-to-date list of studies out there.  If so, please let me know, and I'd be interested to look through them.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454

The Bangladesh study I mentioned is the only one listed that was a cluster-randomized trial.  If you're looking for scientific studies that don't just rely on (1) self-reporting, (2) general trend lines without cause-and-effect certainty, or (3) very small population sizes, then the pickings are quite slim indeed.

The Bangkok study from April—May 2020 was a case-control study of more than 800 people showed strong correlation, but it was only studying known close contacts of infected individuals.  (Not the type of contact one commonly encounters while shopping for colored pencils in Wal-Mart.)

Larger-scale studies from later in 2020 tend to show declines in transmission ranging from around 25% down into the single digits.

It's not about cherrypicking studies, but listening to scientists that are reviewing the entire state of the art and not just Googling for what's publicly available.

CDC's mask recommendations are based on such.  That's what I follow.

Anyone remember when the CDC was actively not recommending cloth masks indoor or otherwise?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

I want to say that recommendation flipped during April/May 2020 after it became apparent the recommended N95s were going to be well short of anticipated supply demand. 

Even now the CDC is way more about recommending N95s over anything else:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

As evidence is collected, science evolves.

I don't know, the military and the WHO were sure more willing to jump to those cloth masks early in the pandemic.  Conversely the CDC was very slow to react and didn't do a whole lot to get ahead of the early pandemic.

Some of the recent actions and mandates by the CDC in late game COVID have almost be purposely slow as a counter to how they reacted early in the pandemic.  Ending up in court over the airline mask mandate was one of worst possible outcomes for the CDC given it questions their authority to make broad health mandates.  Suddenly dropping the COVID test for international flight feels to me like it was attempt to avoid another Federal court date that would probably end negatively. 

Looking back at all of this, I think there is plenty of reason to question the credibility of the CDC as a body that is truly prepared to handle a national health/disease concern.  There certainly is a lot at stake if the Appellate Courts pick up the CDC airline mask mandate for hearing. 

Regarding the County Transmission status on the CDC webpage, is there a substantial point?  Sure it might be valuable to individuals who have a health concern or want to follow the County Transmission guidelines.  All the same, few local level authorities are willing to listen or institute mandates anymore based off what the CDC says. 

[kphoger]

That's the definition of cherrypicking, however unintentional.

[Rothman]

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

Of course.  I'm just some guy on the Internet.  Take a look at the studies yourself.  The link below is straight from the CDC.  Granted, it hasn't been updated since December, but I assume it's about as definitive of a list of scientific studies as you're going to find.  Maybe there's a more up-to-date list of studies out there.  If so, please let me know, and I'd be interested to look through them.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454

The Bangladesh study I mentioned is the only one listed that was a cluster-randomized trial.  If you're looking for scientific studies that don't just rely on (1) self-reporting, (2) general trend lines without cause-and-effect certainty, or (3) very small population sizes, then the pickings are quite slim indeed.

The Bangkok study from April—May 2020 was a case-control study of more than 800 people showed strong correlation, but it was only studying known close contacts of infected individuals.  (Not the type of contact one commonly encounters while shopping for colored pencils in Wal-Mart.)

Larger-scale studies from later in 2020 tend to show declines in transmission ranging from around 25% down into the single digits.

It's not about cherrypicking studies, but listening to scientists that are reviewing the entire state of the art and not just Googling for what's publicly available.

CDC's mask recommendations are based on such.  That's what I follow.

Anyone remember when the CDC was actively not recommending cloth masks indoor or otherwise?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

I want to say that recommendation flipped during April/May 2020 after it became apparent the recommended N95s were going to be well short of anticipated supply demand. 

Even now the CDC is way more about recommending N95s over anything else:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

As evidence is collected, science evolves.

I don't know, the military and the WHO were sure more willing to jump to those cloth masks early in the pandemic.  Conversely the CDC was very slow to react and didn't do a whole lot to get ahead of the early pandemic.

Some of the recent actions and mandates by the CDC in late game COVID have almost be purposely slow as a counter to how they reacted early in the pandemic.  Ending up in court over the airline mask mandate was one of worst possible outcomes for the CDC given it questions their authority to make broad health mandates.  Suddenly dropping the COVID test for international flight feels to me like it was attempt to avoid another Federal court date that would probably end negatively. 

Looking back at all of this, I think there is plenty of reason to question the credibility of the CDC as a body that is truly prepared to handle a national health/disease concern.  There certainly is a lot at stake if the Appellate Courts pick up the CDC airline mask mandate for hearing. 

Regarding the County Transmission status on the CDC webpage, is there a substantial point?  Sure it might be valuable to individuals who have a health concern or want to follow the County Transmission guidelines.  All the same, few local level authorities are willing to listen or institute mandates anymore based off what the CDC says.

If you're not listening to a group like the CDC, then who are you listening to instead?

[abefroman329]

Ending up in court over the airline mask mandate was one of worst possible outcomes for the CDC given it questions their authority to make broad health mandates

Given the fact that said ruling was issued by a 12-year-old Trump-appointed Federalist Society stooge rated "not qualified" to be a judge by the ABA, that's an interesting takeaway.

Looking back at all of this, I think there is plenty of reason to question the credibility of the CDC as a body that is truly prepared to handle a national health/disease concern.

That's ludicrous.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

Of course.  I'm just some guy on the Internet.  Take a look at the studies yourself.  The link below is straight from the CDC.  Granted, it hasn't been updated since December, but I assume it's about as definitive of a list of scientific studies as you're going to find.  Maybe there's a more up-to-date list of studies out there.  If so, please let me know, and I'd be interested to look through them.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454

The Bangladesh study I mentioned is the only one listed that was a cluster-randomized trial.  If you're looking for scientific studies that don't just rely on (1) self-reporting, (2) general trend lines without cause-and-effect certainty, or (3) very small population sizes, then the pickings are quite slim indeed.

The Bangkok study from April—May 2020 was a case-control study of more than 800 people showed strong correlation, but it was only studying known close contacts of infected individuals.  (Not the type of contact one commonly encounters while shopping for colored pencils in Wal-Mart.)

Larger-scale studies from later in 2020 tend to show declines in transmission ranging from around 25% down into the single digits.

It's not about cherrypicking studies, but listening to scientists that are reviewing the entire state of the art and not just Googling for what's publicly available.

CDC's mask recommendations are based on such.  That's what I follow.

Anyone remember when the CDC was actively not recommending cloth masks indoor or otherwise?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

I want to say that recommendation flipped during April/May 2020 after it became apparent the recommended N95s were going to be well short of anticipated supply demand. 

Even now the CDC is way more about recommending N95s over anything else:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

As evidence is collected, science evolves.

I don't know, the military and the WHO were sure more willing to jump to those cloth masks early in the pandemic.  Conversely the CDC was very slow to react and didn't do a whole lot to get ahead of the early pandemic.

Some of the recent actions and mandates by the CDC in late game COVID have almost be purposely slow as a counter to how they reacted early in the pandemic.  Ending up in court over the airline mask mandate was one of worst possible outcomes for the CDC given it questions their authority to make broad health mandates.  Suddenly dropping the COVID test for international flight feels to me like it was attempt to avoid another Federal court date that would probably end negatively. 

Looking back at all of this, I think there is plenty of reason to question the credibility of the CDC as a body that is truly prepared to handle a national health/disease concern.  There certainly is a lot at stake if the Appellate Courts pick up the CDC airline mask mandate for hearing. 

Regarding the County Transmission status on the CDC webpage, is there a substantial point?  Sure it might be valuable to individuals who have a health concern or want to follow the County Transmission guidelines.  All the same, few local level authorities are willing to listen or institute mandates anymore based off what the CDC says.

If you're not listening to a group like the CDC, then who are you listening to instead?

I listed a few in my reply.  Given I'm a department safety manager on a base I'm tied more to what military experts say/mandate versus the CDC.  If you're asking me for an opinion outside of my scope of work, I would prefer to get advice more from the WHO than the CDC. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Ending up in court over the airline mask mandate was one of worst possible outcomes for the CDC given it questions their authority to make broad health mandates

Given the fact that said ruling was issued by a 12-year-old Trump-appointed Federalist Society stooge rated "not qualified" to be a judge by the ABA, that's an interesting takeaway.

Looking back at all of this, I think there is plenty of reason to question the credibility of the CDC as a body that is truly prepared to handle a national health/disease concern.

That's ludicrous.

Say the order is reversed in the Court of Appeals does survive a Supreme Court challenge?  At this point it probably a pretty fair chance the CDC would lose in a Supreme Court hearing (which ironically is also because of who is appointed).  Where does that leave the CDC?  Either way, getting to this point at all isn't optimistic. 

I mean hey, if the CDC got on board with the rest of the world and recommended cloth masks early I would feel differently.  We were wearing them as Federal body well before the CDC said to, so why the hesitancy on their end?  Reacting slow is the exact opposite of what a body with the authority to make emergency recommendations is supposed to do. 

[abefroman329]

I mean hey, if the CDC got on board with the rest of the world and recommended cloth masks early I would feel differently.  We were wearing them as Federal body well before the CDC said to, so why the hesitancy on their end?  Reacting slow is the exact opposite of what a body with the authority to make emergency recommendations is supposed to do.

Why don't we wait until a public health crisis where POTUS and his drooling sycophants don't make it their full-time job to undermine the shit out of the CDC and then we can evaluate their performance.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Minnesota has a few hill signs. It's still flat.

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean hey, if the CDC got on board with the rest of the world and recommended cloth masks early I would feel differently.  We were wearing them as Federal body well before the CDC said to, so why the hesitancy on their end?  Reacting slow is the exact opposite of what a body with the authority to make emergency recommendations is supposed to do.

Why don't we wait until a public health crisis where POTUS and his drooling sycophants don't make it their full-time job to undermine the shit out of the CDC and then we can evaluate their performance.

The military didn't wait, the individual branches were very much opposite the Trump administration on COVID measures (including mandating cloth masks) early on.  To me that clearly conveyed Federal entities were perfectly capable acting upon their own whims in terms of implementing safety measures versus what the POTUS wanted.  The CDC didn't act accordingly and lost a lot of public trust in the process.  All these measures are supposed to be about public safety and not politics.

[kphoger]

Yeah, when did the CDC become so political?

[Max Rockatansky]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Minnesota has a few hill signs. It's still flat.

Michigan does too, but I don't think anyone is arguing it isn't one of the flatter states either.

[abefroman329]

Yeah, when did the CDC become so political?

Is this a rhetorical question?

[kphoger]

Yeah, when did the CDC become so political?

Is this a rhetorical question?

No.  I feel like they sometimes change their position based on the political climate rather than on actual scientific insight.  Maybe I'm wrong about that...

[SectorZ]

POLITICAL

[If Rothman can just scream "FICTIONAL" on every thread that pisses him off that it's in the wrong place, I am starting this]

[kphoger]

POLITICAL

[If Rothman can just scream "FICTIONAL" on every thread that pisses him off that it's in the wrong place, I am starting this]

Right.  Let's get back on track.  How about that hill?

For what it's worth, here is a view looking back toward the precipitous, mountainous, dizzyingly steep hill:  https://goo.gl/maps/EzcwPD5PfDEwW7iY9

[Max Rockatansky]

POLITICAL

[If Rothman can just scream "FICTIONAL" on every thread that pisses him off that it's in the wrong place, I am starting this]

Right.  Let's get back on track.  How about that hill?

I was unaware the force of friction on tires would actually scale such a massif without sliding down.

I've only peeled rubber by simply driving up a hill one time–on Mountain Street, heading north from Cliff Street (and Main Street), in Eureka Springs (AR).

https://goo.gl/maps/nxP1K8BR6yTNtfAy7
https://goo.gl/maps/XiVj4L8f5TVWWvWd6

It ain't Illinois, but it doesn't look like Arkansas is flat.

[kphoger]

It ain't Illinois, but it doesn't look like Arkansas is flat.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post.

Check my post again for the correct link.

[Flint1979]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Minnesota has a few hill signs. It's still flat.

Michigan does too, but I don't think anyone is arguing it isn't one of the flatter states either.

Ehh the western U.P. is pretty hilly in several spots and there are some hills in the Lower Peninsula I'd say it's about middle of the pack for hilly to flat terrain. The Thumb area and Saginaw area are pretty flat and Flint is about 150 feet or so higher in elevation than Saginaw is but you'd really never notice the elevation change along I-75.

[Max Rockatansky]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Minnesota has a few hill signs. It's still flat.

Michigan does too, but I don't think anyone is arguing it isn't one of the flatter states either.

Ehh the western U.P. is pretty hilly in several spots and there are some hills in the Lower Peninsula I'd say it's about middle of the pack for hilly to flat terrain. The Thumb area and Saginaw area are pretty flat and Flint is about 150 feet or so higher in elevation than Saginaw is but you'd really never notice the elevation change along I-75.

Less flat than Illinois and by Midwest standards sure. 

[thspfc]

POLITICAL

[If Rothman can just scream "FICTIONAL" on every thread that pisses him off that it's in the wrong place, I am starting this]

Well looks like Rothman has been a member since 2009 so he can do whatever he wants. You on the other hand might be subject to moderation.

[Max Rockatansky]

Did I miss something, was someone actually asking for moderation?

[Rothman]

Did I miss something, was someone actually asking for moderation?

I want excess.  Heck with moderation.

[Flint1979]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Minnesota has a few hill signs. It's still flat.

Michigan does too, but I don't think anyone is arguing it isn't one of the flatter states either.

Ehh the western U.P. is pretty hilly in several spots and there are some hills in the Lower Peninsula I'd say it's about middle of the pack for hilly to flat terrain. The Thumb area and Saginaw area are pretty flat and Flint is about 150 feet or so higher in elevation than Saginaw is but you'd really never notice the elevation change along I-75.

Less flat than Illinois and by Midwest standards sure.

I agree. Michigan does have it's flat areas but it also has it's hilly areas too.

[hbelkins]

So the new standard is that unless a state is totally and completely without any elevation changes whatsoever, it's not flat?

A few hills here and there does not make a state un-flat.