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

[Seanchaidh]

The context is a study that had a relatively isolated population protect themselves with cloth masks, and found no statistically significant difference in the spread of the virus relative to the control group. People actually studied the broad effect in action, found some masks aren't better than nothing, and people here are still arguing that all masks are better than nothing.

No one found "some masks aren't better than nothing". That there was no statistically significant difference under particular experimental conditions is a substantially more limited claim. It's also improper to treat a study's failure to reject the null hypothesis as "the null hypothesis is true" just to begin with.

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.

 

[tstorm823]

No one found "some masks aren't better than nothing". That there was no statistically significant difference under particular experimental conditions is a substantially more limited claim. It's also improper to treat a study's failure to reject the null hypothesis as "the null hypothesis is true" just to begin with.

Ok, now apply the scientific standards you suddenly know exist to the claim " that's still better than not doing anything. basic physics." As it turns out "we failed to reject the null hypothesis" does not translate to "the null hypothesis is false" either. You're being completely absurd.

Whether I'm confident of "something is better than nothing" isn't really the issue. In a situation where you are protecting yourself and other people from illness and potential death, part of being a responsible citizen means erring on the side of protection. A mask is surely not going to make things worse (at least not directly).

Erring on the side of protection is great, but you have to be informed on what is protection in order to do so, and it's reasonable to give a fair amount of leniency to people who don't know what's effective, but now we have better data than 2 years ago, and an informed opinion is not "any mask is better than not doing anything". If you walk into a crowd expecting a cotton rag tied to your face to protect the people around you, you are being negligent.

No, I'm upset that you sit there pompously talking about "truth" whilst overtly facilitating bullshit, and even worse reckless bullshit dangerous to people's health.

You know what is reckless bs that's dangerous to people's health? Implying people should just wear any old mask, cause it's better than nothing.

 

[Agema]

You know what is reckless bs that's dangerous to people's health? Implying people should just wear any old mask, cause it's better than nothing.

And do you know what's the most reckless of all? "Masks don't do anything", citing a study as justification despite that study suggesting the opposite is true.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, I respect the commitment, but pointing out masks are useful is almost certainly a wasted effort at this point.