Food in Cameron

[SMAX]

Not sure to whom you are referring, but if you are defending a person who posted extremely dangerous, dramatically-misleading, anti-science information on DBR when we are in the middle of a global pandemic that has killed almost six million people (and possibly millions more) and given millions of others possibly permanent negative health effects then I don’t know what to say.

Dude, I’m telling you to stay home because the vaccine and a cloth rag on your face doesn’t protect you. I’m telling you to be safe. omicron is less deadly and more contagious than Delta variant. Who is putting more people at risk me or the people saying it’s OK to wear a cloth mask and sit on top each other at Cameron. You all get your data form the same source. Open your minds- look at what has and is happening in Israel. Their data is more transparent than ours. Politics and medicine should not be mixed as it has been in our country. We need more transparency from the CDC, FDA, etc. We don’t have a reliable database for vaccine complications. The COVID hospitalization data has admittedly(by the government) incorrect as to hospitalization for COVID vs with COVID. Accepting a vaccine should be a risk vs benefit decision for each individual. I’m asking all to think, research, and be tolerant of others.

[duke043]

I think most of the responses are appropriate given that someone is saying things that are factually incorrect, and on a matter as important as public health.

Hey MtnDevil,

Are you obese? Or over 70? Major co-morbidity? If so, you should not go to Cameron. A mask is not going to save you there.

If you're none of those things, then you are more likely (statistically) to be murdered in Durham than you are to die of covid. Should Cameron require bullet proof vests?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Hey MtnDevil,

Are you obese? Or over 70? Major co-morbidity? If so, you should not go to Cameron. A mask is not going to save you there.

If you're none of those things, then you are more likely (statistically) to be murdered in Durham than you are to die of covid. Should Cameron require bullet proof vests?

I acknowledged that having a conversation about whether people should or should not be in Cameron makes sense. Having a conversation about whether those that do go ahead take every possible precaution to keep one another safe ought to be a given.

[duke043]

I would concur with Indoor66's implied opinion. You can certainly disagree with or contradict someone's opinions without attacking the person.

And for the record, I think vaccines and masks are valuable tools in fighting diseases such as Covid.

Finally, I think SMAX's opinions are far out of the mainstream of scientific thought from my reading and so I would ask SMAX to provide some scientific justification for the stated conclusions that masks and vaccines don't work in this context.

Camion, while we are waiting for SMAX to provide scientific justification for why masks don't work "in this context," how about you provide some that they do.

[CDu]

Hey MtnDevil,

Are you obese? Or over 70? Major co-morbidity? If so, you should not go to Cameron. A mask is not going to save you there.

If you're none of those things, then you are more likely (statistically) to be murdered in Durham than you are to die of covid. Should Cameron require bullet proof vests?

Add: do you know anyone who is obese, over 70, or has a major comorbidity? Because it isn't just your own personal risk that matters. It is the risk you present to those you interact with should you get infected.

Masks reduce the spread. They don't eliminate it, but they do reduce it. Vaccines reduce the risk (and likely the severity) of infection and risk of spread.

I agree that fans probably shouldn't be in Cameron right now. The university made a financial decision over a safety decision. But wearing a mask (which is an incredibly minor inconvenience) in a crowded public place is helpful to both you and (probably moreso) to those around you. Is it a panacea? No. But it helps. And it takes a certain kind of person to put his VERY mild inconvenience as more important than reducing the risk of infection to others.

[CDu]

Camion, while we are waiting for SMAX to provide scientific justification for why masks don't work "in this context," how about you provide some that they do.

I would suggest you go read through the thousand+ pages of the COVID thread on the Off-Topic board. It's all in there. Or, you know, go to pretty much any scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

The science suggesting that masks and vaccines reduce the spread of COVID is quite vast and readily available.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Add: do you know anyone who is obese, over 70, or has a major comorbidity? Because it isn't just your own personal risk that matters. It is the risk you present to those you interact with should you get infected.

Masks reduce the spread. They don't eliminate it, but they do reduce it. Vaccines reduce the risk (and likely the severity) of infection and risk of spread.

I agree that fans probably shouldn't be in Cameron right now. But wearing a mask (which is an incredibly minor inconvenience) in a crowded public place is helpful to both you and (probably moreso) to those around you. Is it a panacea? No. But it helps. And it takes a certain kind of person to put his VERY mild inconvenience as more important than reducing the risk of infection to others.

We've proven as a population to be incredibly averse to "mild inconveniences."

[CDu]

We've proven as a population to be incredibly averse to "mild inconveniences."

This is very accurate. And, in my opinion, unfortunate.

[clinresga]

I think most of the responses are appropriate given that someone is saying things that are factually incorrect, and on a matter as important as public health.

I love hanging out on this Forum and do not want to risk being kicked out! But, one of the things that I have always loved about DBR is that it encourages civil discourse, even when emotions run high. Kind of the anti-Inside Carolina. Even the UVa post-game thread settled down to civility over time. But I think the mask issue is highly emotionally laden, but also far from clear-cut if you indeed "follow the science." Let me point out that I'm a rule follower, will certainly wear my (N95) mask throughout the FSU game which I'll be fortunate enough to attend, and agree that the guy who inspired this thread is a jackweed.

But I'm also a practicing physician and I'm trained to recognize ambiguity when I see it. I think there is much uncertainty when it comes to the effectiveness of masking. Rather than make the argument myself, here's a link to a recent post by a legit doc--an MD-MPH on faculty at the prestigious UCSF. It's a dense statistical discussion and you have to work through it, but I think he raises very legitimate questions as to the validity of scientific data supporting masking:
Vinay Prasad mask studies reach a new scientific low point

I am a pro-vaxer, and think that anti-maskers who ignore or sidestep rules that private institutions like Duke have the right to make and do their best to annoy maskers are jerks. But I'm also a contrarian who always wants to look hard at both sides of an issue, and I'd hope that the highly reasonable DBR community can handle intellectually challenging discussion without invoking ad hominem attacks. Thanks!

[budwom]

The conditions of permitted entry are that one be vaccinated and wear a mask. That shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

[uh_no]

The conditions of permitted entry are that one be vaccinated and wear a mask. That shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

Right. Abiding by whatever rules the university sets out is a condition of being on campus. Whether those rules make sense or have any merit is irrelevant. If someone asks you remove your shoes in their house, you don't get to argue whether it actually materially reduces dirt on their floors, you remove your shoes.

Speaking of rules with no merit: no coats on the railing anymore. Oddly enough, nobody argues about their freedom when I tell them that one.

[JasonEvans]

Folks, we are not going to have this debate. One poster has already been put on holiday for comments over the past few hours. As several folks have noted, the Duke administration has made a policy. Ignoring that policy is not appropriate in this matter. You go to a game in Cameron, you wear a mask. Period, end of story.

Here is my suggestion, rather than hurl anger and insults at each other, when you see a post that you think contains misinformation or lies, report it to the moderators and we can quickly take care of it. Then we won't have to wade through 20 back and forth posts where neither side acts properly.

Thanks.

[Wahoo2000]

I love hanging out on this Forum and do not want to risk being kicked out! But, one of the things that I have always loved about DBR is that it encourages civil discourse, even when emotions run high. Kind of the anti-Inside Carolina. Even the UVa post-game thread settled down to civility over time. But I think the mask issue is highly emotionally laden, but also far from clear-cut if you indeed "follow the science." Let me point out that I'm a rule follower, will certainly wear my (N95) mask throughout the FSU game which I'll be fortunate enough to attend, and agree that the guy who inspired this thread is a jackweed.

But I'm also a practicing physician and I'm trained to recognize ambiguity when I see it. I think there is much uncertainty when it comes to the effectiveness of masking. Rather than make the argument myself, here's a link to a recent post by a legit doc--an MD-MPH on faculty at the prestigious UCSF. It's a dense statistical discussion and you have to work through it, but I think he raises very legitimate questions as to the validity of scientific data supporting masking:
Vinay Prasad mask studies reach a new scientific low point

I am a pro-vaxer, and think that anti-maskers who ignore or sidestep rules that private institutions like Duke have the right to make and do their best to annoy maskers are jerks. But I'm also a contrarian who always wants to look hard at both sides of an issue, and I'd hope that the highly reasonable DBR community can handle intellectually challenging discussion without invoking ad hominem attacks. Thanks!

Sporks given. I've been double vaxxed since early April, boosted in Oct, and always, ALWAYS comply with mask mandates, so I've consistently followed the advice of the majority of the medical/scientific community here in the US, and will almost DEFINITELY continue to do so. That said, I want to thank you publicly for the attitude and tone of this post. If more people could discuss these issues in this manner, I'd have a little more hope for the direction we're headed in as a nation. Wish there were more like you... on BOTH sides of the fence. Cheers!

[Steven43]

Dude, I’m telling you to stay home because the vaccine and a cloth rag on your face doesn’t protect you. I’m telling you to be safe. omicron is less deadly and more contagious than Delta variant. Who is putting more people at risk me or the people saying it’s OK to wear a cloth mask and sit on top each other at Cameron. You all get your data form the same source. Open your minds- look at what has and is happening in Israel. Their data is more transparent than ours. Politics and medicine should not be mixed as it has been in our country. We need more transparency from the CDC, FDA, etc. We don’t have a reliable database for vaccine complications. The COVID hospitalization data has admittedly(by the government) incorrect as to hospitalization for COVID vs with COVID. Accepting a vaccine should be a risk vs benefit decision for each individual. I’m asking all to think, research, and be tolerant of others.

Look, I’m not arguing in favor of attending sporting events surrounded by thousands of people. I’m simply saying that there is mountains of evidence to support the fact that being vaccinated and wearing a mask offers you dramatically more protection against Covid than doing neither of those things.

Additionally, the Israel study, that anti-vaxxers love to point to, has been wildly misused by people who don’t understand how to properly interpret the data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...n-some-reason/

[Stray Gator]

Since when did intolerance and condescension become acceptable on the board?

I would say that if it qualifies as an injurious or misleading falsehood, then it does not constitute protected speech, much less comply with the posting guidelines of this forum. So let's examine the premises more carefully.

All great arguments if masks actually worked. If you are sitting there with a cloth mask on you are just virtue signaling. You are not safe! Maybe an N 95 mask might help but every scientific study on masks and viruses (Pre-COVID and Pre-political) has shown that masks don’t work. Wear your mask if it makes you feel better but respect other citizens having a choice. If you believed your mask and vaccine actually worked you wouldn’t really care what anyone else was doing. Think about it before following what politicians are telling you is science !

No, NOT a dude.
yes, a physician
If it was too risky to host games without confirming vaccination status( for a vaccine that does not prevent spread of disease) and requiring a face cloth to demonstrate compliance than fans should not have been present in the arena. We stopped going because of all the unpleasant behavior around us.
The university thought it was too unsafe for 18-22 year old students to attend class the first 2 weeks of the semester yet they were safe with a face cloth clustered in section 17. Hypocrisy! Face cloths don’t work, the vaccine does not prevent the spread of disease. Please attend the games if you feel safe with the science. It is your choice, but stop acting like you are backed by science or data of any kind.

SMAX asserts: "Maybe an N 95 mask might help but every scientific study on masks and viruses (Pre-COVID and Pre-political) has shown that masks don’t work." First, that statement is inherently self-contradictory. Once you acknowledge that N95 masks might help, then you've conceded the falsity of your categorical contention that "masks don't work." Second, your reliance solely on scientific studies conducted pre-COVID as support for the premise that "masks don't work" is a clever qualification that is transparently flawed, because studies conducted before COVID-19 existed could not possibly have evaluated whether and to what extent masks of any kind are effective against COVID-19. So SMAX's contention that "masks don't work" is baseless.

Next, SMAX asserts that the vaccine "does not prevent the spread of disease." (Emphasis added.) I don't know anyone who would dispute that this statement is literally true. But it is also dangerously misleading. Because reliable scientific studies and demographic surveys comparing geographical areas of with differing vaccination rates have established that the vaccines are substantially effective at inhibiting the transmission of COVID. And of course, the evidence is conclusive that the vaccines dramatically reduce the severity of COVID, resulting in far fewer hospitalizations and deaths among those who have suffered breakthrough infections. Notably, SMAX has not even attempted to refute the fact that vaccination provides that significant benefit.

Aside from the injurious and misleading falsehoods on which SMAX's claims are founded, a couple of other statements merit rebuttal. The suggestion that "[i]f you are sitting there with a cloth mask on you are just virtue signaling" ignores the fact that many if not most people attending games wear masks not only to comply with safety protocols, but to respect the desire of others to reduce their potential exposure to COVID or other viruses that might be circulating. The suggestion that those complaining about the Refuseniks should "respect other citizens having a choice," and that "[i]f you believed your mask and vaccine actually worked you wouldn’t really care what anyone else was doing," ignores the reality that (a) if you attend a game in Cameron, you necessarily agree to comply with the duly adopted safety protocols, and thereby make your own choice to wear a face covering as required; and (b) the choice of Refuseniks to endanger themselves and others is no more deserving of respect than the choice of those around them to protect themselves and their loved ones, some of whom may be among the most vulnerable.

Should we respect the choice of smokers to light up indoors just because they argue that secondhand smoke doesn't really pose a significant health hazard to most people and suggest with a disdainful shrug that those who don't like it can just stay outside? Should we respect the choice of people who drink and drive just because they argue that most people who get behind the wheel impaired don't cause serious accidents and suggest with a disdainful shrug that those who don't like it can stay off the roads? Should we respect the choice of those who feel no obligation to care about the well-being of others to piss in the pool, or dump their toxic waste in the local stream, or burn their leaves in the dumpster beneath the apartment house? Whatever happened to the concepts of mutual respect and neighborly concern?

[killerleft]

It's a privilege to be on duke's campus, and I wish that gentleman would treat it as such.

I bet it wouldn't take much to get the Crazies to humiliate this guy. As much as an ignoramus can be humiliated, at least.

[jimsumner]

I would say that if it qualifies as an injurious or misleading falsehood, then it does not constitute protected speech, much less comply with the posting guidelines of this forum. So let's examine the premises more carefully.





SMAX asserts: "Maybe an N 95 mask might help but every scientific study on masks and viruses (Pre-COVID and Pre-political) has shown that masks don’t work." First, that statement is inherently self-contradictory. Once you acknowledge that N95 masks might help, then you've conceded the falsity of your categorical contention that "masks don't work." Second, your reliance solely on scientific studies conducted pre-COVID as support for the premise that "masks don't work" is a clever qualification that is transparently flawed, because studies conducted before COVID-19 existed could not possibly have evaluated whether and to what extent masks of any kind are effective against COVID-19. So SMAX's contention that "masks don't work" is baseless.

Next, SMAX asserts that the vaccine "does not prevent the spread of disease." (Emphasis added.) I don't know anyone who would dispute that this statement is literally true. But it is also dangerously misleading. Because reliable scientific studies and demographic surveys comparing geographical areas of with differing vaccination rates have established that the vaccines are substantially effective at inhibiting the transmission of COVID. And of course, the evidence is conclusive that the vaccines dramatically reduce the severity of COVID, resulting in far fewer hospitalizations and deaths among those who have suffered breakthrough infections. Notably, SMAX has not even attempted to refute the fact that vaccination provides that significant benefit.

Aside from the injurious and misleading falsehoods on which SMAX's claims are founded, a couple of other statements merit rebuttal. The suggestion that "[i]f you are sitting there with a cloth mask on you are just virtue signaling" ignores the fact that many if not most people attending games wear masks not only to comply with safety protocols, but to respect the desire of others to reduce their potential exposure to COVID or other viruses that might be circulating. The suggestion that those complaining about the Refuseniks should "respect other citizens having a choice," and that "[i]f you believed your mask and vaccine actually worked you wouldn’t really care what anyone else was doing," ignores the reality that (a) if you attend a game in Cameron, you necessarily agree to comply with the duly adopted safety protocols, and thereby make your own choice to wear a face covering as required; and (b) the choice of Refuseniks to endanger themselves and others is no more deserving of respect than the choice of those around them to protect themselves and their loved ones, some of whom may be among the most vulnerable.

Should we respect the choice of smokers to light up indoors just because they argue that secondhand smoke doesn't really pose a significant health hazard to most people and suggest with a disdainful shrug that those who don't like it can just stay outside? Should we respect the choice of people who drink and drive just because they argue that most people who get behind the wheel impaired don't cause serious accidents and suggest with a disdainful shrug that those who don't like it can stay off the roads? Should we respect the choice of those who feel no obligation to care about the well-being of others to piss in the pool, or dump their toxic waste in the local stream, or burn their leaves in the dumpster beneath the apartment house? Whatever happened to the concepts of mutual respect and neighborly concern?

Two thumbs up.

[duke043]

Camion, while we are waiting for SMAX to provide scientific justification for why masks don't work "in this context," how about you provide some that they do.

I'm still waiting . . .

In response to this simple question, I was referred to another thread in this forum with "thousands of pages" of evidence, and to a Washington Post article. Ha!

If there are indeed thousands of pages of evidence, then certainly it should be easy for any of you to provide just one single convincing study. Just one.

I'll check back.

[CameronBornAndBred]

If you're none of those things, then you are more likely (statistically) to be murdered in Durham than you are to die of covid. Should Cameron require bullet proof vests?

Where on Earth did you get that whacked out and extremely false stat from?

[burnspbesq]

Since when did intolerance and condescension become acceptable on the board?

About the time that a relative handful of people started posting demonstrably false statements about matters of utmost public importance.