Biden DOJ Has Begun RAIDING Opposition Journalists, Accused Of Leaking Project Veritas Legal Memos

[Agema]

You know what the study says, you know exactly what Phoenix is saying, and pretending not to is pretty much pure hypocrisy when accusing someone of lying. That study does not say literally the opposite.

Fuck that noise.

I know you've got a self-appointed job baiting libs and perhaps me in particular, but you know perfectly well that if we boil down to our like for like simplicities, I am right and Phoenixmgs is not. The fact you want to then come at me alone for not being sufficiently "useful" stinks to high heaven.

I have gone over this before on this forum, probably twice, and anyone who cares can look it up. I have no duty to repeat myself endlessly at length just because someone overinvested emotionally in a poorly argued position.

 

[tstorm823]

I know you've got a self-appointed job baiting libs and perhaps me in particular,

I'm not self-appointed to bait anyone, but if it was anyone in particular, it's not anyone appropriately described as a "lib". I pick my fights mostly with the communists, and then the libs follow up to pick fights with me.

but you know perfectly well that if we boil down to our like for like simplicities, I am right and Phoenixmgs is not.

You're both not simply right. That study did not indicate that masks do nothing, so that isn't right. But specifically cloth masks helping a statistically insignificant amount is not literally the opposite of "Masks don't do anything". I appreciate the frustration of someone exaggerating their case after you've already dug into it before, but being wrong yourself is not a solution.

 

[Kwak]

Masks don't do anything (Bangladesh study).

Really? How far can YOU spit while wearing one?

 

[Agema]

snip

What a contortion.

The study shows that the right kind of (basic, cheap and mass available) mask works. Therefore, as a simplest basic message, it demonstrates that masks work.

 

[tstorm823]

What a contortion.

The study shows that the right kind of (basic, cheap and mass available) mask works. Therefore, as a simplest basic message, it demonstrates that masks work.

Your simplest, basic message encourages people to do the wrong thing, because those basic, cheap, and mass available masks are not the most convenient, and leaving out the detail of what masks work leads to people pulling neck gaiters over their nose and calling it a day.

You're both making broad statements about the efficacy of a large category of things when only a subset of that category is meaningfully useful. If you two were fighting saying "medicine doesn't work against covid19" and "medicine works against covid19", you wouldn't hesitate to ask "which medicine are you talking about", because obviously some are effective and some aren't, and you would absolutely never tell someone that medicine broadly is effective and that they're better off taking anything than nothing.

So if someone says "masks don't do anything", you should either be asking "what masks don't do anything", or if you know the study being referenced , you can proactively amend it to "some masks definitely do a lot", but just saying "masks work" as a general rule is wrong, and people are smart enough to recognize that. People are also smart enough to understand the more complex message, so public messaging is absolutely better off being precise than sacrificing accuracy for simplicity of messaging.

 

[Seanchaidh]

leaving out the detail of what masks work leads to people pulling neck gaiters over their nose and calling it a day.

that's still better than not doing anything. basic physics.

 

[Dalisclock]

I mean, if it's Canada we're probably trading up

Canada has Universal Health Care. So our quality of life would likely improve, honestly.

I for one, welcome our new Canadian Overlords. I'd be willing to learn passable French, if required.

I'd honestly be fine if the military was a strictly defensive institution, such as basically the National Guard/Coast Guard writ large, with some sort of Universal conscription(and by that, I mean regardless of class or gender) if the US itself is directly threatened for additional manpower around a trained permanent core force. As it stands now, it's pretty much used as a blunt instrument to go fuck around in 3rd world nations because <insert reason here> which never seems to do much of anything productive or useful.

Though mostly I was responding to the idea of "Let's abolish the FBI because reasons" with my own list of angenices I feel could stand to be slimmed down some, considering the DOD spends a fucking ridiculous amount of money($700+ Billion per year) but somehow we can't afford universal health care, a ton more investment in non-fossil fuel energy production, etc.

 

[Trunkage]

Your simplest, basic message encourages people to do the wrong thing, because those basic, cheap, and mass available masks are not the most convenient, and leaving out the detail of what masks work leads to people pulling neck gaiters over their nose and calling it a day.

You're both making broad statements about the efficacy of a large category of things when only a subset of that category is meaningfully useful. If you two were fighting saying "medicine doesn't work against covid19" and "medicine works against covid19", you wouldn't hesitate to ask "which medicine are you talking about", because obviously some are effective and some aren't, and you would absolutely never tell someone that medicine broadly is effective and that they're better off taking anything than nothing.

So if someone says "masks don't do anything", you should either be asking "what masks don't do anything", or if you know the study being referenced , you can proactively amend it to "some masks definitely do a lot", but just saying "masks work" as a general rule is wrong, and people are smart enough to recognize that. People are also smart enough to understand the more complex message, so public messaging is absolutely better off being precise than sacrificing accuracy for simplicity of messaging.

Is 80% not a lot nowadays?

Also, when did what is the cut off for something NOT working. Im assuminy it must be at least 95%, since you didn't critise N95 masks. Well, at least for you. I've definitely heard 95% means it doesn't work from antivaxxers. So their rates is higher

 

[Agema]

That study did not indicate that masks do nothing, so that isn't right.

And yet I'm the only person you deemed it appropriate to correct.

 

[Agema]

Also, when did what is the cut off for something NOT working.

For medical treatments, it might approximate to "better than placebo". Given the placebo effect is sometimes useful, in some cases we might argue "better than nothing".

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And yet I'm the only person you deemed it appropriate to correct.

Karma is a real pain hu?

 

[Trunkage]

For medical treatments, it might approximate to "better than placebo". Given the placebo effect is sometimes useful, in some cases we might argue "better than nothing".

Man, that's what I would have thought

Can you explain to me where the conservative mind goes when someone says 'masks work'? Because it doesn't seem to mean 'mask works better than nothing'. Clearly they just add some words in to make their own sentence

 

[Trunkage]

Karma is a real pain hu?

Pheonxing made a utterly false statement.
Agema made a true one.

That sure is karma

 

[tstorm823]

that's still better than not doing anything. basic physics.

That isn't actually true, and what you think is basic physics is actually just wild assumption. There is a reason these things are studied instead of experts just going "duh, it's basic physics."

Is 80% not a lot nowadays?

Also, when did what is the cut off for something NOT working. Im assuminy it must be at least 95%, since you didn't critise N95 masks. Well, at least for you. I've definitely heard 95% means it doesn't work from antivaxxers. So their rates is higher

It's entirely possible for there to be a situation where 80% is insignificant and 95% is significant. You can have a situation with a certain threshold where probability of something happening spikes, like the probability of an outbreak given levels of immunity in the total population where 95% immunity to measles is solid and 80% is nearly guaranteed outbreaks. Most things in biology are not simple linear relationships, it is entirely possible to have a virus where everyone in 95% effective masks eradicates it while everyone in 80% effective masks still leads to pandemic.

But that's all beside the point, because 80% is not a real number, 20% is more likely. 80% is the best they've managed to make out of cloth, using specific kinds of cloth in multiple layers. That does not apply to all cloth masks, as studies have had all sorts of mixed results. One I saw showed cottom masks being worse than strapping a regular paper towel to your face/ Some studies found masks of certain materials actually disseminate saliva particles further in smaller droplets, potentially leading to more infection. And basically all tests have tested the effectiveness of clean masks that haven't been worn for 8 hours that day and aren't already saturated with spit. Another study I saw measured particles released into the air given several different behaviors, and most of the mask options, especially the cloth one, increased to release of particles when people moved their head around or walked, which is to say those particles that may be blocked when talking or coughing could just be getting spread out over a larger area more slowly. You know, a well regulated flow rate for crop-dusting everywhere you go.

Does any of that mean that masks do or do not work? No. I'm speculating possibilities, with no more real value than seanchaidh saying it's basic physics. That's why we study things to see if they work, and the most significant study on mask usage leads to the conclusion that people should be getting disposable surgical masks, cause the cloth ones we've all be using offer no guarantee of any benefit whatsoever with regards to covid19.

And yet I'm the only person you deemed it appropriate to correct.

Because you were the last statement made, and have the "disagree with Phoenix" part covered pretty well.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That isn't actually true

It is.

and what you think is basic physics is actually just wild assumption.

It's actually just basic physics. It can be disputed how much it helps or whether it helps significantly; quantitative things that we can measure. But it certainly does help. Cloth is going to catch some of the stuff that is breathed out or coughed. That has an effect on likelihood of transmission ceteris paribus.

 

[Kwak]

Karma is a real pain hu?

Karma for what?

 

[tstorm823]

It's actually just basic physics. It can be disputed how much it helps or whether it helps significantly; quantitative things that we can measure. But it certainly does help. Cloth is going to catch some of the stuff that is breathed out or coughed. That has an effect on likelihood of transmission ceteris paribus.

You guess. This is guesswork.

Like, if you put a nozzle on the end of a hose, it will add resistance and slow down the volumetric flow rate from the hose. Basic physics. It will also let you shoot the water twice as far. Whether that means a person will get more or less wet from the hose is going to depend on many more factors yet unstated, but you'd look pretty dumb if you said "a nozzle decreases the volume of water escaping, so this is going to decrease the likelihood of people getting wet ceteris paribus.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You guess. This is guesswork.

Like, if you put a nozzle on the end of a hose, it will add resistance and slow down the volumetric flow rate from the hose. Basic physics. It will also let you shoot the water twice as far. Whether that means a person will get more or less wet from the hose is going to depend on many more factors yet unstated, but you'd look pretty dumb if you said "a nozzle decreases the volume of water escaping, so this is going to decrease the likelihood of people getting wet ceteris paribus.

You're certainly correct in your hypothetical what if scenario that isn't describing the argument you were trying to criticize

 

[tstorm823]

You're certainly correct in your hypothetical what if scenario that isn't describing the argument you were trying to criticize

There are many hypothetical ways for a mask to catch some particles while not diminishing the chance of infection spreading, depending on what happens to the particles that aren't caught, what happens to the particles that are caught, and what concentration of virus in the air is required for significant threat. "It catches some particles, therefore strictly better than nothing" is wildly ignorant.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There are many hypothetical ways for a mask to catch some particles while not diminishing the chance of infection spreading, depending on what happens to the particles that aren't caught, what happens to the particles that are caught, and what concentration of virus in the air is required for significant threat. "It catches some particles, therefore strictly better than nothing" is wildly ignorant.

Masks have been around for as long as we've had plagues. If they did nothing I'm pretty sure we'd've twigged on to the idea before the year of our lord 2020