Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 3:19:15 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 3:33:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On the matter of masks and COVID19, there has been a lot of obsession
with getting 95% percent rated masks (even if nobody wears them well
enough to achieve that level of performance). Anyway, there is a
back-of-the-envelope analysis that bounds the problem:
Assume that we have a population where the same kind of mask is worn
by all, and that this mask is only 75% effective (this is low).
People spend most of their time talking, not coughing, so we will use
talking for this example. The math is the same.
Person A is talking, generating droplets. A\'s mask stops 75% of the
droplets and passes the remaining 25%.
Person B is listening. B\'s mask blocks 75% of A\'s 25%, and passes 25%
of that 25% along, receiving a net of 6.25%.
The current value of R (number of people who catch COVID per infected
person) is say 5 (this is high). The net value of R is thus
(5)(0.25)(0.25)= 0.3125, well below the unity required for COVID to
even hang on, never mind grow.
You have done nothing more than manufacture numbers with no basis in reality. You have no actual evidence to support what you are saying. This is worse than saying nothing at all because it is total speculation.
Or so Flyguy thinks. In fact it is a decidedly obvious exposition of the obvious, which is worth doing for people who aren\'t bright enough to do it for themselves - which does include Flyguy - but are bright enough to realise that it makes sense when it is done for them - which clearly doesn\'t include Flyguy, who isdefinitely part of the depressingly extreme tail of the distribution of very dim people.
--
SL0W MAN, Sydney
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 11:28:09 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 3:19:15 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 3:33:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On the matter of masks and COVID19, there has been a lot of obsession
with getting 95% percent rated masks (even if nobody wears them well
enough to achieve that level of performance). Anyway, there is a
back-of-the-envelope analysis that bounds the problem:
Assume that we have a population where the same kind of mask is worn
by all, and that this mask is only 75% effective (this is low).
People spend most of their time talking, not coughing, so we will use
talking for this example. The math is the same.
Person A is talking, generating droplets. A\'s mask stops 75% of the
droplets and passes the remaining 25%.
Person B is listening. B\'s mask blocks 75% of A\'s 25%, and passes 25%
of that 25% along, receiving a net of 6.25%.
The current value of R (number of people who catch COVID per infected
person) is say 5 (this is high). The net value of R is thus
(5)(0.25)(0.25)= 0.3125, well below the unity required for COVID to
even hang on, never mind grow.
You have done nothing more than manufacture numbers with no basis in reality. You have no actual evidence to support what you are saying. This is worse than saying nothing at all because it is total speculation.
Or so Flyguy thinks. In fact it is a decidedly obvious exposition of the obvious, which is worth doing for people who aren\'t bright enough to do it for themselves - which does include Flyguy - but are bright enough to realise that it makes sense when it is done for them - which clearly doesn\'t include Flyguy, who is definitely part of the depressingly extreme tail of the distribution of very dim people.
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 12:35:39 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 8/23/2020 7:26 AM, John Doe wrote:
Why is this newbie troll complaining about adding one group?
The whiner should be complaining about me posting its header,
that\'s a lot more annoying...
John Doe seems annoyed upstart trolls are muscling in on his
troll-territory. He worked hard at being top troll and demands tribute
trolls calling out other trolls, that is when you know a group has hit saturation
I\'m pretty sure the troll ratio is durn close to 100% in this group. Or maybe I should say \"drama queens\".
On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 10:07:28 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 11:28:09 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 3:19:15 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 3:33:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On the matter of masks and COVID19, there has been a lot of obsession
with getting 95% percent rated masks (even if nobody wears them well
enough to achieve that level of performance). Anyway, there is a
back-of-the-envelope analysis that bounds the problem:
Assume that we have a population where the same kind of mask is worn
by all, and that this mask is only 75% effective (this is low).
People spend most of their time talking, not coughing, so we will use
talking for this example. The math is the same.
Person A is talking, generating droplets. A\'s mask stops 75% of the
droplets and passes the remaining 25%.
Person B is listening. B\'s mask blocks 75% of A\'s 25%, and passes 25%
of that 25% along, receiving a net of 6.25%.
The current value of R (number of people who catch COVID per infected
person) is say 5 (this is high). The net value of R is thus
(5)(0.25)(0.25)= 0.3125, well below the unity required for COVID to
even hang on, never mind grow.
You have done nothing more than manufacture numbers with no basis in reality. You have no actual evidence to support what you are saying. This is worse than saying nothing at all because it is total speculation.
Or so Flyguy thinks. In fact it is a decidedly obvious exposition of the obvious, which is worth doing for people who aren\'t bright enough to do it for themselves - which does include Flyguy - but are bright enough to realise that it makes sense when it is done for them - which clearly doesn\'t include Flyguy, who is definitely part of the depressingly extreme tail of the distribution of very dim people.
It is a decidedly exposition of BULLSHIT - there IS NO \"science\" to back up his assertions. You might as well state that God will save you from the Wuhan virus.
Flyguy knows as much about science as he knows about grammar. He has exceeded my expectations by managing to spell \"bullshit\" correctly, but he clearly has no idea of the full enormity of his stupidity. If there was an Olympic event you could win by being exceptionally stupid, Flyguy would be a contender - Monty Python did invent a comparable competition - for \"upper class twit of the year\" - but real contenders would never be able to find their way to the event.
--
SL0W MAN, Sydney
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 5:20:54 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 10:07:28 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 11:28:09 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 3:19:15 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 3:33:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On the matter of masks and COVID19, there has been a lot of obsession
with getting 95% percent rated masks (even if nobody wears them well
enough to achieve that level of performance). Anyway, there is a
back-of-the-envelope analysis that bounds the problem:
Assume that we have a population where the same kind of mask is worn
by all, and that this mask is only 75% effective (this is low).
People spend most of their time talking, not coughing, so we will use
talking for this example. The math is the same.
Person A is talking, generating droplets. A\'s mask stops 75% of the
droplets and passes the remaining 25%.
Person B is listening. B\'s mask blocks 75% of A\'s 25%, and passes 25%
of that 25% along, receiving a net of 6.25%.
The current value of R (number of people who catch COVID per infected
person) is say 5 (this is high). The net value of R is thus
(5)(0.25)(0.25)= 0.3125, well below the unity required for COVID to
even hang on, never mind grow.
You have done nothing more than manufacture numbers with no basis in reality. You have no actual evidence to support what you are saying. This is worse than saying nothing at all because it is total speculation.
Or so Flyguy thinks. In fact it is a decidedly obvious exposition of the obvious, which is worth doing for people who aren\'t bright enough to do it for themselves - which does include Flyguy - but are bright enough to realise that it makes sense when it is done for them - which clearly doesn\'t include Flyguy, who is definitely part of the depressingly extreme tail of the distribution of very dim people.
It is a decidedly exposition of BULLSHIT - there IS NO \"science\" to back up his assertions. You might as well state that God will save you from the Wuhan virus.
Flyguy knows as much about science as he knows about grammar. He has exceeded my expectations by managing to spell \"bullshit\" correctly, but he clearly has no idea of the full enormity of his stupidity. If there was an Olympic event you could win by being exceptionally stupid, Flyguy would be a contender - Monty Python did invent a comparable competition - for \"upper class twit of the year\" - but real contenders would never be able to find their way to the event.
LOL! This coming from an idiot who can\'t spell \"stupid!\" Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. You present a \"science\" argument absent the SCIENCE!! But, of course, Sloman doesn\'t understand the irony of that!!!