Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness

[Phoenixmgs]

Or to translate, "I don't really know what all of that means, so I'm calling it correlational as a way of pretending I can ignore it".

They refer to several studies that they don't cite, thus I can't look at them.

Correlational:
More-rigorous analyses added direct evidence. A preprint study4 posted in early August (and not yet peer reviewed), found that weekly increases in per-capita mortality were four times lower in places where masks were the norm or recommended by the government, compared with other regions. Researchers looked at 200 countries, including Mongolia, which adopted mask use in January and, as of May, had recorded no deaths related to COVID-19. Another study5looked at the effects of US state-government mandates for mask use in April and May. Researchers estimated that those reduced the growth of COVID-19 cases by up to 2 percentage points per day. They cautiously suggest that mandates might have averted as many as 450,000 cases, after controlling for other mitigation measures, such as physical distancing.

Remember when I said the cases went down in ivermectin countries and you said that isn't proof of anything and didn't even want to look into it?

STAY CONSISTENT IN WHAT YOU DEEM AS PROOF.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And instead of quarantining Grandma, we instead locked the entire world down. Ruining scholarships, education of our kids, people's careers, small businesses, etc etc, because people refused to not just take care of the elderly folks.

Whatever you wanna say about that, there is a rule in contact sports MMA, boxing, martial arts, etc. That rule is, "Protect yourself at all times." Meaning that the ref cannot always save you, and you must be protective of yourself as much as possible to avoid injury as much as possible even if you lose.

Basically saying, when the messaging and the danger of this virus was clear. Why could the people who know they are at risk, take the steps to protect themselves, while everyone else lived their lives? Would Covid have bled through the younger population? Yes, which it did anyway, to fairly minor overall effect with a few exceptions here and there. At the same time, there would not have been such a massive drop off of employment, a drop in small businesses, the shutdown of children's education, basically all the other effects of pisspoor management of this whole fucking thing that will have ripple effects long after the virus is a non-factor.

You can look at charts for many places that are restrictive and weren't very restrictive and the numbers aren't very different except for economically of course (Florida vs other high population states, Illinois vs Indiana, US vs UK who was more restrictive and did worse). Governor DeSantis actually listened to the experts and his roundtable discussion got removed off YouTube because the experts said kids don't need masks.

 

[Buyetyen]

And instead of quarantining Grandma, we instead locked the entire world down. Ruining scholarships, education of our kids, people's careers, small businesses, etc etc, because people refused to not just take care of the elderly folks.

Yeah, how dare you be inconvenienced for public health and safety. What has the public ever done for you?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Yeah, how dare you be inconvenienced for public health and safety. What has the public ever done for you?

The economic health of the public is just as important. And considering that the vast majority of the public would have been and was fine entirely throughout the covid period. What was really gained by the shutdowns?

As opposed to what partial lockdowns and extra preparations for those at higher risk of serious issues if they got sick could have done. The many did not have to crash for the few. With a little adapting we could have taken steps to protect those that would need it, without everyone having to give up their lives.

 

[CaitSeith]

All we needed was a three week lockdown of everything, and it would have been fine.

I kinda agree actually. But to realistically do that was nigh impossible (3 weeks of complete economic paralysis alone is too much of a sacrifice for several influential entities and a lot of day-to-day workers)

 

[Agema]

They refer to several studies that they don't cite, thus I can't look at them.

I see you are determined to tax my ability to be polite.

They refer to enough to make the point, and it's a nicely nuanced article. But you didn't really read it and take it all in, did you? You were too busy just scanning through for some quote to uphold your asinine spouting. You certainly didn't read the other study either, which methodically goes through and discusses various forms of evidence on mask wearing from many different directions, but instead of taking any of that in, you just pointed to a small chunk of it where it does modelling and went "WAH WAH WAH MODELLING".

Because that's how much of a useless fraud you are in terms of scientific analysis. You're happy to take "eminent" doctor Pierre Kory on his word from a YouTube vid, but when presented with an actual paper full of citations discussing the pros and cons in detail, suddenly skip over it all and find a spurious reason not to pay any attention.

STAY CONSISTENT IN WHAT YOU DEEM AS PROOF.

I am consistent. Unfortunately, you are too incompetent to understand the whats and whys, and you don't listen to explanations because you're too incompetent to realise you need to do a lot more shutting the fuck up and listening.

In terms of masks, there is a suprisingly large amount of data. We know from indirect studies that the balance of evidence shows masks can be effective at reducing infection from respiratory diseases similar covid-19. Then we can add to that covid-19 specific studies: epidemiological studies, some experimental work (as that article notes, one nifty little study done via animals), and even just the basic physics of understanding the spread of aerosols. There's more detail, such as studies that indicate the importance of compliance: mask mandates with poor compliance show little effect, which also explains the often modest impacts in some cases. These multiple interlinking strands of evidence are what the article and the paper are trying to discuss and synthesise, and which you have literally no interest in at all, because you're not genuinely interested in truth or understanding anything.

"Proof" is the sort of thing non-scientists are hung up on in ways that show they don't understand science very well. Science is more about the balance of probabilities in practice - statistical likelihood. The case for masks, all in all, is strong, because there is a lot of consistent data across multiple areas. For all that there are limitations in a lot of the studies, the mass of data and consistent interlinked strands to it is good. In other words, when we add all this together, we should come to a conclusion such as "strong likelihood", and barking otherwise is merely perversity or ignorance.

Not all correlations are equal. You want to claim correlation that a drug is useful despite modest evidence it is beneficial from a biological perspective; with observational and trial data that is not just wholly insufficient to demonstrate efficacy but not even promising, and in this void of adequate supporting context you then argued mere approval by a country resulted in decreases in infection. This is exceptionally feeble. It was pointed out to you that approval is not the same as the drug actually being taken by people, which is the key metric. Furthermore zero studies, consideration or analysis even trying to take into account other potential measures that may have had an impact. The studies you want to criticise for "correlation" actually do consider these confounding features, and take them into account, within a much stronger theoretical framework. You're just one guy pointing at two things with no methodology worth the name and demanding we accept they are connected. You can get knotted, frankly. If you cannot comprehend why these are different, you shouldn't even be opining.

 

[Seanchaidh]

STAY CONSISTENT IN WHAT YOU DEEM AS PROOF.

BECOME consistent in what you deem as proof.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Still pending.
And it wouldn't really have done what Trump claimed anyway.

Rescission of Trump-Era Insulin, Epinephrine Rule Moves Forward

The HHS is proposing to a rescind a Trump administration drug rule that required community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients.

news.bloomberglaw.com

The HHS under President Joe Biden had delayed the effective date of the rule (RIN 0906-AB25) until July 20 to give agency officials more opportunity to review the rule and ensure it wouldn’t impede the agency’s and health centers’ “immediate priority work” of responding to the pandemic.

Former HHS leaders argued the drug rule would benefit patients who struggle to pay for expensive insulin and allergy medication. However, the health centers said they already pass on those savings, and this rule was merely an administrative burden that paints them as entities that price-gouge patients.

It’s not clear how many facilities would have had to follow the rule or face funding restrictions.

....

Fact check: Biden administration delays implementation of Trump rule on insulin, EpiPens

The Trump executive order on the cost of insulin and EpiPens at community health centers isn't being reversed, as some claim. The rule is on hold.

www.usatoday.com

The National Association of Community Health Centers, among others, expressed support for the new administration's move, saying the Trump rule would not have lowered the cost of insulin and EpiPens for most Americans who use them, as advertised.

In a Jan. 25 statement, it also said the Trump rule reflected "a fundamental misunderstanding" of federally qualified health centers and the 340B drug program, placing extensive administrative burdens on them.

“The stated aim was to cut drug prices. However, it triggered alarm among safety net providers and bipartisan lawmakers because it would accomplish the opposite of what the Trump Administration intended — ultimately making it harder for health centers to provide affordable life-saving services and prescription drugs — especially during the pandemic,” the association said.

It pointed out that the only patients affected would be those using the health centers.

I mean it's a for profit heal system so I'd consider some lying going on there.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Snip

I'm yet to see actual non-correlational proof that masks have done anything. Link me to a study that includes no correlational data, how hard is that (assuming they exist)?

You mean there's other studies from previous respiratory diseases that show masks do things when I was going against people posting flu mask studies like this CDC one that showed no benefit? The big reason why people said masks were bullshit when this all started is because the wasn't anything that showed they worked beforehand. Again, I'm for masks because why not? In theory they should help at least somewhat. There's studies that show surgical masks do nothing too.

I've posted my correlational studies about say vitamin d where they adjusted for several other things like age and you just wave them away. Why is the thing you want to be true OK to post such things for proof when and things you don't want to be true are not allowed to use the same exact things as proof?

And please stop using ad hominem attacks like calling me a useless fraud when you do the same damn shit you're accusing me of. Why would you post shit science studies to me of HCQ and ivermectin if you're some expert of scientific analysis? You still keep referencing the same bullshit all-cause mortality statistic of HCQ that is full of bias.

BECOME consistent in what you deem as proof.

I have always been, please point out a single instance where I haven't been consistent.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I have always been, please point out a single instance where I haven't been consistent.

The way you treat masks is wholly inconsistent with the way you treat things you like. You want something that isn't correlational? It's a fucking barrier that stops germs from spreading very far. That's the mechanism that explains the correlations between the use of masks and less disease spread.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The way you treat masks is wholly inconsistent with the way you treat things you like. You want something that isn't correlational? It's a fucking barrier that stops germs from spreading very far. That's the mechanism that explains the correlations between the use of masks and less disease spread.

Again, I said I'm FOR masks just like I'm for vitamin d. There isn't concrete proof for either of them but I'm still for them, it's enough proof for me (especially in a pandemic where time is of the essence). However, I can't tell someone else that they for sure work because they don't for sure work. I understand why masks should work but that doesn't mean they will work. For example, you have these stupid lab tests showing how far cough/sneeze particles travel but who the fuck coughs or sneezes straight into the open like that? And also where do you normally get sick via cold/flu most of the time? You don't get it passing people by in a grocery store (if you did, you'd be like constantly sick then), you get by being with people that are sick for prolonged periods at home/work/hanging with friends. In those environments that are high risk, the air inside is still going get built up with viral particles mask or no mask on just from people normally breathing. Air still escapes and flows outside of the mask on every breath you take. Masks probably delay the inevitable (too much virus in the air) but they don't stop it obviously. And there's the mechanism on why they might not work. The CDC study I linked just above this went over several flu mask studies that showed masks did nothing for the flu.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The economic health of the public is just as important. And considering that the vast majority of the public would have been and was fine entirely throughout the covid period. What was really gained by the shutdowns?

As opposed to what partial lockdowns and extra preparations for those at higher risk of serious issues if they got sick could have done. The many did not have to crash for the few. With a little adapting we could have taken steps to protect those that would need it, without everyone having to give up their lives.

Okay, but I live in the United States and I am lucky to have three (3) sick days.

At risk people by and large *cannot* just take care of themselves for the duration.

As evidenced by fucking Line Cooking being the most dangerous job to have during the pandemic.

Also, again, we never had a fucking lockdown in the United States. Not any where. For any length of time. Again, in a year of supposed lockdowns, Line Cooks bore the brunt of the covid fatalities for people who had a job.

Line Cooks. For restaurants people shouldn't've been going to.

People are awfully blaśe about 600,000 dead people. 1.5 out of every 1000 people in the United States.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Second, and I feel like I've written this a dozen times on this forums: It was always about protecting the healthcare system. If the healthcare system had broken down (as it did early on in Italy and very recently in India) we'd have faced a much higher mortality rate. Not just from Covid-19 but from other preventable deaths from other diseases that would have went untreated when healthcare staff could no longer cope with demand and hospitals start running out of things like PPE, oxygen and basic medications like corticosteroids. Just look at how utterly fucked up the situation was in India just two weeks ago and you'll realize why the lockdowns happened and why even the harshest of them is far preferable to the alternative.

Already got a taste of that in the US in some fairly isolated regions with limited services. No beds, stay home, try not to die.

 

[Agema]

Link me to a study that includes no correlational data, how hard is that (assuming they exist)?

You already have some, via the article and paper I gave you. And anyway, correlational data is not necessarily bad data.

You mean there's other studies from previous respiratory diseases that show masks do things when I was going against people posting flu mask studies like this CDC one that showed no benefit? The big reason why people said masks were bullshit when this all started is because the wasn't anything that showed they worked beforehand. Again, I'm for masks because why not? In theory they should help at least somewhat. There's studies that show surgical masks do nothing too.

This is being slippery about the state of science and language. Again, pulling individual papers is not necessarily useful, one needs a wider grasp of literature. I would describe the overall picture from things like 'flu with terms like "probable" or "weakly supportive". Given the additional information spurred via covid-19 and other relevant studies, that can be upgraded to "strongly supportive".

I've posted my correlational studies about say vitamin d where they adjusted for several other things like age and you just wave them away. Why is the thing you want to be true OK to post such things for proof when and things you don't want to be true are not allowed to use the same exact things as proof?

Because the problem is you have no grasp of the wider literature. You are using individually weak studies to make claims they can't sustain, never mind that they are selective by ignoring all contrary data. This is exacerbated by the fact they are often particularly poor studies, because you lack the skills to understand why they are poor and to select better ones.

And please stop using ad hominem attacks like calling me a useless fraud when you do the same damn shit you're accusing me of. Why would you post shit science studies to me of HCQ and ivermectin if you're some expert of scientific analysis? You still keep referencing the same bullshit all-cause mortality statistic of HCQ that is full of bias.

In the course of the last year or so, I've had to explain to you basic concepts of science like what a p value is, null hypothesis, how a histogram works, the value of n numbers and statistical power, the relative merits of randomised controlled trials, and much more. I've had to point out you've been relying on dishonest websites and dubious social media for information, much of which is flagrantly bogus to any half-competent scientist. It's been up to me to point out you're citing papers of extremely low quality from dubious quality journals, because you don't recognise that they'd be better off not cited in the first place.

This is the problem: you can't even tell a shit study when you see one. A blind man telling me what a picture looks like doesn't mean a great deal other than that the blind man is unaware of his lack of eyesight.

In terms of ivermectin, one might note I've already said approaching all the studies are bad. But they are nevertheless the only data available, so we have to work with what we have. In terms of HCQ, the sort of thing you have called a "bad" study isn't really a bad study, it's a decent-good study that you've tried to misrepresent as bad quality, or looking at the "wrong" thing, or quibbling on any other number of levels which aren't very meritorious. You have quibbled not because they are real problems, but because you decided the conclusion in advance and don't like it when real data suggests otherwise. And then just to top it off, you boast about how much you got right.

I have always been, please point out a single instance where I haven't been consistent.

Already done. What you mean is that you cannot or will not understand your inconsistency. Prizes for obstinacy are, however, both few and of limited value.

 

[Buyetyen]

The economic health of the public is just as important. And considering that the vast majority of the public would have been and was fine entirely throughout the covid period. What was really gained by the shutdowns?

As opposed to what partial lockdowns and extra preparations for those at higher risk of serious issues if they got sick could have done. The many did not have to crash for the few. With a little adapting we could have taken steps to protect those that would need it, without everyone having to give up their lives.

Again, how dare you be inconvenienced.

People are awfully blaśe about 600,000 dead people. 1.5 out of every 1000 people in the United States.

I think the logic on display here is, "Fuck 'em."

 

[CriticalGaming]

Again, how dare you be inconvenienced.

Why do you bother to reply when you're just going to throw out the text equivalent of eyerolls.

Maybe if you bother to read the whole point people are trying to make you could actually offer something to the conversation. But you do you B.

 

[happyninja42]

Honestly I'd be more than happy to keep wearing masks, if it meant we could burn every fucking TIE in existence, and burn them from the collective unconscious. Masks are fucking nothing when it comes to wardrobe inconvenience, compared to the other shit I'm forced to wear for work, that are nothing but presentation.

Masks at least serve a useful function. Ties do nothing but give me neck pain, and get tangled up in shit

 

[Buyetyen]

Why do you bother to reply when you're just going to throw out the text equivalent of eyerolls.

Maybe if you bother to read the whole point people are trying to make you could actually offer something to the conversation. But you do you B.

Because it amuses me to call out people who think 600k dead is much less of a problem than the fact they couldn't get a haircut. If you don't want to get ripped on, don't say stupid shit. It's easy.

 

[tstorm823]

Because it amuses me to call out people who think 600k dead is much less of a problem than the fact they couldn't get a haircut. If you don't want to get ripped on, don't say stupid shit. It's easy.

You have never successfully ripped on anyone.