Kansas Crimson

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 1:41 pm those of us without our heads up our backside. know darn well where the china fungus came from.




what in our lifetime has been more politicized.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 1:33 pm (don’t feed the troll)

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 4:21 pm And we know damn well the reason some of you don't want to have a real discussion about the covid 19 origins.

Early on, you lashed out at anyone that suggested covids origin was a lab, and labeled them a conspiracy theorist. And as time went on, everything indicates covid did in fact originate in a lab

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 4:02 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 4:21 pm And we know damn well the reason some of you don't want to have a real discussion about the covid 19 origins.

Early on, you lashed out at anyone that suggested covids origin was a lab, and labeled them a conspiracy theorist. And as time went on, everything indicates covid did in fact originate in a lab

PhD had a conversation with you and got tire of your bullshit and left.

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 5:48 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 4:02 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 4:21 pm And we know damn well the reason some of you don't want to have a real discussion about the covid 19 origins.

Early on, you lashed out at anyone that suggested covids origin was a lab, and labeled them a conspiracy theorist. And as time went on, everything indicates covid did in fact originate in a lab

PhD had a conversation with you and got tire of your bullshit and left.

PhD was a cunt who thought his opinions outweighed everyone else's. Everyone gets stuff wrong, but PhD was wrong about a lot of stuff. He had this pompous attitude about everything related to covid, he argued with me for a couple years. But as time went on too many of my conspiracies came true, and PhD couldn't stomach the idea that the lowly randy was the one who was realistic about covid. So he flaked out

Importance As demonstrated by the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, viruses spread by the respiratory route can cause deadly pandemics, and face masks can reduce the spread of these pathogens. The effectiveness of responses to future epidemics and pandemics will depend at least in part on whether evidence on masks, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, is utilized.

Observations Well-designed observational studies have demonstrated the association of mask use with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings, and rigorous evaluations of mask mandates have found substantial protection. Disagreement about whether face masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been exacerbated by a focus on randomized trials, which are limited in number, scope, and statistical power. Many effective public health policies have never been assessed in randomized clinical trials; such trials are not the gold standard of evidence for the efficacy of all interventions. Masking in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is supported by robust evidence from diverse settings and populations. Data on the epidemiologic, environmental, and mask design parameters that influence the effectiveness of masking provide insights on when and how masks should be used to prevent transmission.

Conclusions and Relevance During the next epidemic or pandemic caused by a respiratory pathogen, decision-makers will need to rely on existing evidence as they implement interventions. High-quality studies have shown that use of face masks in the community is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and is likely to be an important component of an effective response to a future respiratory threat.