COVID Gains After Mask Rules Dropped

[Rudynate]

On 3/25/2022 at 2:10 PM, Coolwave35 said:

I’m personally over Covid at this point. I agree with the poster above that used all the words. 

That doesn't mean Covid is over you.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

... the limited extent of research findings in the direction polarized from where I think the balance rests, leaves me ‘team N95’. I am not suggesting absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

[Anyway, this is me OUT, off-grid this topic for now, heading to Spain with my travel declaration etc all completed, and better things ahead than a basically high-output low-impact board discussion such as this.]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228345/

...

🙄  Goodness! So the study you yourself referenced above states "A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory‐confirmed influenza..., laboratory‐confirmed respiratory viral infections ..., laboratory‐confirmed respiratory infection ... and influenza-like illness... using N95 respirators and surgical masks...". One can theorize all one wants about why no study has shown any difference. You might say the people weren't wearing them properly, although the studies were in healthcare settings with professionally fitted N95's. (The more likely explanation is that both filter out the infectious particle, the respiratory droplet, equally well) Yet you're going to be on "team N95" because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Did you get that from @mike carey?

I have news for you. There are no guarantees in life. Science can never prove that something is impossible. It can only prove that something is highly unlikely or negligible in scope. One can't state that there's zero chance of any difference under any circumstance. When studying almost ten thousand people in the most rigorous manner possible, one can state with a great deal of certainty that any difference, if it exists, is inconsequential. If you have properly fitted N95's, and don't mind them, great for you. I've had to wear them when going in rooms with certain patients (generally tuberculosis), and I find them extremely uncomfortable. And at least you're wearing it fully informed that there's ZERO evidence they work better than surgical masks, which I suspect is not the case for most of the dufuses I see wearing them in the park, etc., so kudos to you on that. 

The risk of getting ill from SARS-CoV2 will never, ever be zero for anyone, nor will the risk of dying form a cold or the flu, or myriads of other respiratory virus which have been around since the dawn of man and will always be around until the day we die. What we do know at this time is that the risk of serious illness from the virus is less than that of the common cold (if vaccinated), and that there's no particular reason to wear a mask now than at any other normal time (not 2020, early 2021, or during the Spanish flu or Swine flu, obviously). As we do with the flu, continued public health monitoring is always a good idea. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Unicorn

[+ Tygerscent]

On 3/29/2022 at 8:34 AM, WilliamM said:

Not helpful to keep writing it is not as  dangerous as the "common cold"  because elderly folk  may get very ill  from a cold.

 

On 5/1/2022 at 6:15 AM, Lucky said:

COVID deaths among the vaccinated are up. They now constitute 42% of the fatalities, compared to 23% last September.

The pandemic’s toll is no longer falling almost exclusively on those who chose not to or could not get shots, with vaccine protection waning over time and the elderly and immunocompromised — who are at greatest risk of succumbing to covid-19, even if vaccinated — having a harder time dodging increasingly contagious strains.

...

A key explanation for the rise in deaths among the vaccinated is that covid-19 fatalities are again concentrated among the elderly.

Nearly two-thirds of the people who died during the omicron surge were 75 and older, according to a Post analysis, compared with a third during the delta wave. Seniors are overwhelmingly immunized, but vaccines are less effective and their potency wanes over time in older age groups.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/04/29/covid-deaths-unvaccinated-boosters/

…and then comes B.A.4 & B.A.5… (Florida and South Africa…)~ Really, there is no mystery or surprise here… now that we are moving into year three, one could probably put the graphs showing outbreaks from 2020, 2021 and 2022 on top of each other to see a repeating trend~
 Anyone see those recent studies showing how even mild covid effects cognitive aging and brain shrinkage~? Maybe it’s just best to avoid covid~ 

 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2790595

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04569-5

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/03/study-reveals-some-brain-changes-even-mild-covid-19

[+ WilliamM]

7 hours ago, Unicorn said:

🙄  Goodness! So the study you yourself referenced above states "A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory‐confirmed influenza..., laboratory‐confirmed respiratory viral infections ..., laboratory‐confirmed respiratory infection ... and influenza-like illness... using N95 respirators and surgical masks...". One can theorize all one wants about why no study has shown any difference. You might say the people weren't wearing them properly, although the studies were in healthcare settings with professionally fitted N95's. (The more likely explanation is that both filter out the infectious particle, the respiratory droplet, equally well) Yet you're going to be on "team N95" because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Did you get that from @mike carey?

I have news for you. There are no guarantees in life. Science can never prove that something is impossible. It can only prove that something is highly unlikely or negligible in scope. One can't state that there's zero chance of any difference under any circumstance. When studying almost ten thousand people in the most rigorous manner possible, one can state with a great deal of certainty that any difference, if it exists, is inconsequential. If you have properly fitted N95's, and don't mind them, great for you. I've had to wear them when going in rooms with certain patients (generally tuberculosis), and I find them extremely uncomfortable. And at least you're wearing it fully informed that there's ZERO evidence they work better than surgical masks, which I suspect is not the case for most of the dufuses I see wearing them in the park, etc., so kudos to you on that. 

The risk of getting ill from SARS-CoV2 will never, ever be zero for anyone, nor will the risk of dying form a cold or the flu, or myriads of other respiratory virus which have been around since the dawn of man and will always be around until the day we die. What we do know at this time is that the risk of serious illness from the virus is less than that of the common cold (if vaccinated), and that there's no particular reason to wear a mask now than at any other normal time (not 2020, early 2021, or during the Spanish flu or Swine flu, obviously). As we do with the flu, continued public health monitoring is always a good idea. 

You should read Doctor Deborah Birx's new book. She agrees with @mike carey

[Rudynate]

12 hours ago, Rudynate said:

That doesn't mean Covid is over you.

In spite of the eyeroll from the infectious disease amateur, the numbers are going in the wrong direction for a disease that is becoming endemic.  Hospitalizations are up nationally.  We will have to wait a week or so to see what happens with deaths.

[+ WilliamM]

18 hours ago, Unicorn said:

But, with the current strain, less risk to others (regardless of their age or immune status) than the risk of the common cold (to those immunized). Neither Covid-19 viruses, nor other cold viruses, nor influenza will ever be eradicated. If you are saying we should mask when indoors now, what you are saying is that we should always mask when indoors forever--in the movie theater, airplane, etc. That doesn't make sense to me, nor, I doubt, for most people. 

Happy talk, @Unicorn the very young and old folks should wear masks. Indoors

[+ WilliamM]

10 hours ago, Unicorn said:

🙄  Goodness! So the study you yourself referenced above states "A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory‐confirmed influenza..., laboratory‐confirmed respiratory viral infections ..., laboratory‐confirmed respiratory infection ... and influenza-like illness... using N95 respirators and surgical masks...". One can theorize all one wants about why no study has shown any difference. You might say the people weren't wearing them properly, although the studies were in healthcare settings with professionally fitted N95's. (The more likely explanation is that both filter out the infectious particle, the respiratory droplet, equally well) Yet you're going to be on "team N95" because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Did you get that from @mike carey?

I have news for you. There are no guarantees in life. Science can never prove that something is impossible. It can only prove that something is highly unlikely or negligible in scope. One can't state that there's zero chance of any difference under any circumstance. When studying almost ten thousand people in the most rigorous manner possible, one can state with a great deal of certainty that any difference, if it exists, is inconsequential. If you have properly fitted N95's, and don't mind them, great for you. I've had to wear them when going in rooms with certain patients (generally tuberculosis), and I find them extremely uncomfortable. And at least you're wearing it fully informed that there's ZERO evidence they work better than surgical masks, which I suspect is not the case for most of the dufuses I see wearing them in the park, etc., so kudos to you on that. 

The risk of getting ill from SARS-CoV2 will never, ever be zero for anyone, nor will the risk of dying form a cold or the flu, or myriads of other respiratory virus which have been around since the dawn of man and will always be around until the day we die. What we do know at this time is that the risk of serious illness from the virus is less than that of the common cold (if vaccinated), and that there's no particular reason to wear a mask now than at any other normal time (not 2020, early 2021, or during the Spanish flu or Swine flu, obviously). As we do with the flu, continued public health monitoring is always a good idea. 

Most people prefer doctors who are still seeing patients on a regular basis

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rudynate said:

In spite of the eyeroll from the infectious disease amateur, the numbers are going in the wrong direction for a disease that is becoming endemic.  Hospitalizations are up nationally.  We will have to wait a week or so to see what happens with deaths.

🙄🙄🙄

Obviously, with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic "cases" rising as fast as they are, it's inevitable that the number of people testing positive on entering the hospital will increase, even if the virus has nothing to do with why the person is in the hospital. As of May 3rd, the TOTAL number of people in the hospital who test positive in the entire USA is 13,259. The number of people in the ICU is 1617. 

Tons of people "testing positive" from the huge White House Correspondents' Dinner last Saturday. Most are asymptomatic and none seriously ill. If you test large numbers of asymptomatic people, many will test positive. Nothing a sane person would panic over. 

According to 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/459736/average-daily-census-in-hospitals-in-the-us/

"In 2019, the daily average census reached some 611,000 people in hospitals located in the country."

Divide 13,259 into 611,000, and you get, guess what, 2.17%, about the background rate of positivity in the US now (someone else recently quoted 3.3%). So it looks as though most people in the hospital who test positive are in there for reasons unrelated to the viral infection. 

[Luv2play]

1 hour ago, Unicorn said:

🙄🙄🙄

Obviously, with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic "cases" rising as fast as they are, it's inevitable that the number of people testing positive on entering the hospital will increase, even if the virus has nothing to do with why the person is in the hospital. As of May 3rd, the TOTAL number of people in the hospital who test positive in the entire USA is 13,259. The number of people in the ICU is 1617. 

Tons of people "testing positive" from the huge White House Correspondents' Dinner last Saturday. Most are asymptomatic and none seriously ill. If you test large numbers of asymptomatic people, many will test positive. Nothing a sane person would panic over. 

According to 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/459736/average-daily-census-in-hospitals-in-the-us/

"In 2019, the daily average census reached some 611,000 people in hospitals located in the country."

Divide 13,259 into 611,000, and you get, guess what, 2.17%, about the background rate of positivity in the US now (someone else recently quoted 3.3%). So it looks as though most people in the hospital who test positive are in there for reasons unrelated to the viral infection. 

Nothing to see here folks. Just move along. Lol.

On 5/1/2022 at 2:51 PM, Unicorn said:

The other obvious, and more accurate, explanation is that, given that the statistics measures any death from someone who tests positive rather than someone who dies due to the virus, those who died with the virus die mostly for other reasons. Despite very high "case" numbers, deaths have stayed very low in the US. Current 7-day average is 308:

People who die BECAUSE OF the virus almost always spend some time in the ICU, because the cause of death is usually pulmonary, and this necessitates going on a ventilator. Yet the ICU rate of hospitalization has been close to zero (the ICU line is the dark blue line):

 

We all know for a fact that immunizations offer substantial protection from the virus. The fact that the deaths are becoming unrelated to immunization status shows two things: (1) many unvaccinated have immunity from infection, and (2) deaths with the virus are not due TO the virus. 

 

Even at that "low" rate, that's double the number of people killed in car accidents in the US. And those are deaths that otherwise wouldn't have happened absent the Covid pandemic. Still tragic, just as each car fatality is.

[coriolis888]

05/05/2020

More than 15 million people—equal to the population of Manila, or Rio De Janeiro, or the entirety of Zimbabwe—have died as a result of the coronavirus pandemic that began more than two years ago in Wuhan, China, the World Health Organization said. That’s one out of every 500 people on Earth. They were mostly individuals killed by the virus, but also included those who died of other afflictions because health systems were overwhelmed by the infected. Though the U.S.—long the leader in confirmed infections and deaths—has now surpassed more than a million known fatalities, the new report says a larger number of deaths were in India. —David E. Rovella Bloomberg is tracking the coronavirus pandemic and the progress of global vaccination efforts.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

1 minute ago, coriolis888 said:

That’s one out of every 500 people on Earth.

That's an acceptable number to me.  I would not be shutting down lives and livelihoods for 1 in 500 on earth. 

Back in April 2020 I assumed that my risk of death or severe lifetime side effect from living my life unchanged during the Wuhan virus spread would be 0.5%, or about 1 in 200, which was similar to polio outbreaks.  I was willing to do my part and stay 6 feet away from others except during sex.

I'm glad we now have the vaccine and this chapter can be put behind us.  The experts can now focus on more life threatening issues such as a cure for the common cold, depression, and making up for the educational development loss from distance and masked learning.

[Rudynate]

12 minutes ago, Vegas_nw1982 said:

 The experts can now focus on more life threatening issues such as a cure for the common cold, depression, and making up for the educational development loss from distance and masked learning.

Agree that this is the time for such undertakings, as opposed to the depth of a massive public health emergency.

[+ Lucky]

Covid v. The Flu

From sfchronicle.com:

Health officials are saying it, friends are saying it: COVID-19 seems on track to become as common and familiar to us as influenza. But experts stress that there are still limitations to this comparison — COVID is still, and may always be, no ordinary flu.

“It is time to accept that the presence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is the new normal,” leaders at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wrote in a paper published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “It will likely circulate globally for the foreseeable future, taking its place alongside other common respiratory viruses such as influenza.”

At the beginning of the pandemic, experts noted, drawing comparisons between COVID-19 and the flu was highly politicized — a way to minimize a new disease that would go on to kill nearly a million people in the U.S. alone. But now, with vaccines and treatments more widely available, comparing the two is more appropriate.

“Today, for a vaccinated and boosted person, the chances of a severe outcome are comparable to the flu,” said Dr. Bob Wachter, the chair of medicine at UCSF. He noted that Paxlovid, the antiviral pill used to treat COVID-19, even further reduces the chance of death.

In the Bay Area, for example, where the vast majority of people are vaccinated, all types of severe outcomes from COVID-19, including both hospitalization and death, are far lower than they were in winter 2020 through 2021, despite a surge in cases.

For many, the experience of having COVID will likely be similar to being sick with the flu — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that the two can be difficult to tell apart on symptoms alone.

But there are still key differences between the two infectious diseases that limit just how much we can learn from the yearly flu.

While the disease manifestation might be similar in the two, the underlying viruses are still very different, Dr. Jorge Salinas, an assistant professor of infectious disease at Stanford, said — and the virus that causes COVID-19 is still not very well understood.

He compared the viruses interacting with our immune system to a soccer match: getting the flu is like playing a team you know well. While surprises and upsets can occur, we generally know what to expect.

But getting COVID is something different entirely.

“COVID is a very sneaky team. We don’t know that much about it, and they may not play by the rules of the game,” he said.

Experts also noted COVID is far more infectious than the flu, which means that it puts more people at risk of severe disease and death by way of infecting far more people.

“There’s never been a flu season when you would look around and know so many people that had it,” Wachter added.

COVID also brings the potential for long-term effects, including neurological complications, heart disease and diabetes, something that the flu does not have on a large scale, experts said.

“I don’t want to be an alarmist, but there are certain viral diseases that don’t manifest until 10 to 20 years later,” Salinas said. “I am positive that we don’t know yet what the full scale of short, mid- and long-term manifestations are of COVID-19.”

Finally, COVID is still too new and unpredictable to compare to the seasonal flu, which comes and goes over the winter, experts said. While COVID has shown signs of being worse during the winter, like the flu, that is largely a product of behaviors like spending more time indoors.

“I think that there is going to be and there is already some seasonality, some variation with seasons, but I haven’t seen yet that transmission has gone down to very negligible levels in warmer months,” Salinas said.

Experts noted that COVID surges continue to happen at any point throughout the year, and with new, more infectious variants repeatedly popping up, there’s no way to predict what happens next.

“The surges have been too frequent so far to say that it will be just like flu season,” Myoung Cha, president of home-based care and chief strategy officer at Carbon Health, previously told The Chronicle.

“Counting on us having six or eight months each year of essentially freedom from COVID —I think that’s wishful thinking,” Wachter said.

But one takeaway that the flu may give us is a yearly vaccine, as the FDA noted.

Salinas noted that with the flu vaccine, experts try to predict the most common strain several months ahead of flu season before mass producing a vaccine for it, with some years producing better results than others, a pattern he thinks is conceivable for COVID as the virus continues to evolve.

But Wachter said that COVID’s lack of seasonality will make it more challenging to produce a yearly vaccine that significantly slows transmission for an entire year, making continued efforts of better, easier-to-administer vaccines and treatments even more important.

Beyond rejiggering the vaccine every season, he said, “we’re going to have to come up with different therapy or combination therapies.”

But all of this does not mean we have to live in fear of COVID forever, Salinas said. If you get vaccinated and boosted, try to limit time in crowded indoor spaces and wear masks when transmission is high, and try to gather mostly in well-ventilated places or outdoors, you can limit the spread of the disease.

“You can still socialize, you can still do a lot of things, but you can still prevent many COVID infections,” he said. “You’re not going to be able to prevent all of them, but it is possible to continue with your life and at the same time, reduce your risk of getting this infection.”

Danielle Echeverria is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: danielle.echeverria@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @DanielleEchev

[+ WilliamM]

5 hours ago, Unicorn said:

🙄🙄🙄

Obviously, with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic "cases" rising as fast as they are, it's inevitable that the number of people testing positive on entering the hospital will increase, even if the virus has nothing to do with why the person is in the hospital. As of May 3rd, the TOTAL number of people in the hospital who test positive in the entire USA is 13,259. The number of people in the ICU is 1617. 

Tons of people "testing positive" from the huge White House Correspondents' Dinner last Saturday. Most are asymptomatic and none seriously ill. If you test large numbers of asymptomatic people, many will test positive. Nothing a sane person would panic over. 

According to 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/459736/average-daily-census-in-hospitals-in-the-us/

"In 2019, the daily average census reached some 611,000 people in hospitals located in the country."

Divide 13,259 into 611,000, and you get, guess what, 2.17%, about the background rate of positivity in the US now (someone else recently quoted 3.3%). So it looks as though most people in the hospital who test positive are in there for reasons unrelated to the viral infection. 

Elderly correspondents and young children of correspondents are sane and very concerned, of course.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Luv2play said:

... And those are deaths that otherwise wouldn't have happened absent the Covid pandemic.....

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I just brought up statistics that showed that the percentage of people testing positive for the virus in the hospital is about the same as the percentage of people testing positive in the general population. The virus is incidental to almost any deaths at this point (obviously wasn't the case in 2020 or most of 2021). 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Unicorn

[+ Lucky]

5 hours ago, Vegas_nw1982 said:

That's an acceptable number to me.  I would not be shutting down lives and livelihoods for 1 in 500 on earth. 

 

Appalling. I lived through the AIDS epidemic, and there were people then too who said things like "It's just gays dying. Let them."

You dismiss the old, the sick, the diabetics, and many more people who were killed by Covid. But it wasn't you dying, so life goes on...

Edited May 6, 2022 by Lucky

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Lucky said:

...

“There’s never been a flu season when you would look around and know so many people that had it,” Wachter added...

Interminable post long on hypothesis and speculation, but entirely absent of any references to hard facts, scientific studies, or data. It's right about one thing, though. Almost everyone in the US has probably already been infected, most probably without knowing it. The comparisons with the flu are way off. Influenza is far more deadly. And, unlike for influenza, there's a simple oral medication for SARS-CoV2 which can be given to those at risk (elderly, immune suppressed), which is 89% effective at preventing serious complications (paxlovid). 

Also, the part about “I don’t want to be an alarmist, but there are certain viral diseases that don’t manifest until 10 to 20 years later,” Salinas said. is extraordinarily (and intentionally) misleading. While there are viral diseases, such as HIV, chickenpox, and Hep B or C, which can manifest decades later, those viruses all stay permanently in the host DNA. That is not the case for SARS-CoV2. Nor are any of those "viral diseases" at all related to SARS-CoV2. So yes, the speaker is being extremely alarmist and intentionally deceptive when he says that. 

The extreme deception which comes from that essay shows that the author is more interested in "making a point" with sophistry rather than discussing hard facts.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Unicorn

[EZEtoGRU]

9 hours ago, Rudynate said:

Hospitalizations are up nationally.  We will have to wait a week or so to see what happens with deaths.

Yup...hospitalizations up everywhere.  Based on the weekly numbers issued yesterday, we're now on our fourth weekly increase in Covid hospitalizations here in Michigan.  Deaths increasing in some places.  I stay masked when I am amongst others.

[+ Coolwave35]

I just remembered that there are threads on this message board where we discuss dicks, asses and 6 packs. I’m gunna go find one of those threads. They’re fun. 

[+ Lucky]

1 hour ago, Coolwave35 said:

I just remembered that there are threads on this message board where we discuss dicks, asses and 6 packs. I’m gunna go find one of those threads. They’re fun. 

And speaking of dicks, scientists have discovered that Covid can cause impotence, and it may linger even after the patient recovers! Another reason to avoid Covid!

nytimes.com:

Now scientists are examining a possible link to an altogether unexpected consequence of Covid: erectile dysfunction. A connection has been reported in hundreds of papers by scientists in Europe and North America, as well as in Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Thailand.

Estimates of the magnitude of the problem vary wildly. A paper by Dr. Ranjith Ramasamy, director of reproductive urology at the University of Miami’s Desai Sethi Urology Institute, and his colleagues found that the risk of erectile dysfunction increased by 20 percent after a bout with Covid. Other investigators have reported substantially higher increases in that risk...

...“Six months after the initial infection, patients had gotten better overall, but they continued to complain of these problems,’’ including both erectile dysfunction and low sperm counts, Dr. Ramasamy, who has written several papers on the topic, said.https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/health/covid-impotence-erectile-dysfunction.html

[+ WilliamM]

10 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Interminable post long on hypothesis and speculation, but entirely absent of any references to hard facts, scientific studies, or data. It's right about one thing, though. Almost everyone in the US has probably already been infected, most probably without knowing it. The comparisons with the flu are way off. Influenza is far more deadly. And, unlike for influenza, there's a simple oral medication for SARS-CoV2 which can be given to those at risk (elderly, immune suppressed), which is 89% effective at preventing serious complications (paxlovid). 

Also, the part about “I don’t want to be an alarmist, but there are certain viral diseases that don’t manifest until 10 to 20 years later,” Salinas said. is extraordinarily (and intentionally) misleading. While there are viral diseases, such as HIV, chickenpox, and Hep B or C, which can manifest decades later, those viruses all stay permanently in the host DNA. That is not the case for SARS-CoV2. Nor are any of those "viral diseases" at all related to SARS-CoV2. So yes, the speaker is being extremely alarmist and intentionally deceptive when he says that. 

The extreme deception which comes from that essay shows that the author is more interested in "making a point" with sophistry rather than discussing hard facts.

Lordy, making a point rather than discussing the hard facts.

It was a hard fact, @Unicorn, that Los Angeles required masks on public transportation. Did you mention it here?

Edited May 6, 2022 by WilliamM

[Guest]

2 hours ago, WilliamM said:

Lordy, making a point rather than discussing the hard facts.

It was a hard fact, @Unicorn, that Los Angeles required masks on public transportation. Did you mention it here?

Thanks for proving my point. When asked to look at hard facts, the response of the peanut gallery who disagree with me is always "I found someone, somewhere who agrees with me." (Though, as I've said before, I agree with being extra cautious on subways and busses, as people are often literally breathing down each others' necks)

[+ Lucky]

15 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Thanks for proving my point. When asked to look at hard facts, the response of the peanut gallery who disagree with me is always "I found someone, somewhere who agrees with me." (Though, as I've said before, I agree with being extra cautious on subways and busses, as people are often literally breathing down each others' necks)

 

 

I found someone to agree with me! Not someone, somewhere. It is a guy right here named @Unicornwho also thinks masks should be worn on public transit. I don't agree with his spelling of buses though. 🙂

[EZEtoGRU]

22 minutes ago, Lucky said:

I found someone to agree with me! Not someone, somewhere. It is a guy right here named @Unicornwho also thinks masks should be worn on public transit. 

...but not on airplanes...which makes zero sense.   

[+ WilliamM]

6 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Thanks for proving my point. When asked to look at hard facts, the response of the peanut gallery who disagree with me is always "I found someone, somewhere who agrees with me." (Though, as I've said before, I agree with being extra cautious on subways and busses, as people are often literally breathing down each others' necks)

The "members of the peanut gallery"  stated a fact concerning  the covid19 problems concerning  public transportation in the city.

 Don't you live close to Los Angeles? 

Enough said, @Unicorn