Re: Face shields on various scenarios (Another thread)
I was asked, in the spirit of the RCTs, whether I have explored the other scenarios concerning face shields.
Well, yes, I did.
The intervention of face shields against sporadic emissions at different angles of attack was simulated and observed, and as it turned out that the ballistic protection only applies for emissions coming from the front. From other angles, risk increases:
The speed of cough simulated was 50 mph. Here, it was illustrated how the momentum of the emission decreases over distance, while also noting the advection also:
Misinformation and falsehoods cascade across three layers:
First is with the perpetrators who spread disorienting misinformation in social media.
Second is with the media on which some are disoriented and pass on the disorientation to the masses.
Third is with the masses.
Indeed, the battleground may be dealing with the source. But the ripples of misinformation still trickled down to its main interest and intended audience: the masses.
Given that the surveys determined that mainstream media are still the main source of information of people, we look at media personalities who package their commentaries, which contained their personal biases, as if those were the news.
I see that some of the scientists from other countries are considering recommending face shields to be worn in public.
I beg to differ, presenting how face shields represented the poorest pandemic response in the world.
December 11, 2020
The Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) against Covid-19 of the Philippine Government, through its Resolution no.88, mandated the use of face shields even in public, outside of hospital settings. pna.gov.ph/articles/11544….
The technical advisory body of the IATF, spearhead by infectious disease experts Dr. Anna Lisa Ong-Lim and Dr. Edsel Salvana claimed that a randomized control trials (RCT) conducted in the public hospitals and another performed in India reported 90% efficacy rate.
Kindly ask those "lolo" and "lola" giving anecdotes that "attest" the Marcos regime the year-by-year state of affairs during that period. Ask them the specifics, what specifically happened in '72, '77, '81, '83, 84', and '86.
That's how historiography establishes veracity.
If they can't provide any to establish the veracity of their narrative, then that points of view that they are presenting, like the other dramatis personae in the past making good light of themselves, will be rebuked, shunned, and reprimanded.
You could also ask your lolos and lolas about their knowledge of how government works, the separation of powers, their knowledge of the constitution.
For the sustained wind criteria in the placement of turbines, one can perform wind spectrum analysis (accurate but hard to interpolate and gather) or generalized extreme value analysis (up to the daily maxima).
Here is the GEV analysis of the weather stations across PH:
μ represents the base wind speed, which is the expected annual maximum. σ and ζ represents the steepness ("slope") of the extreme value function. The steeper the extreme value function, the higher the difference between annual max from historical max.
The goal in selecting optimal locations for wind turbines is to have a significant μ, but a lesser σ. However, even after this analysis, one must still project the wind spectra by the evaluation of the wind exposure, which is related to the topography and atmospheric boundaries.