Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
Ok aside the misleading use of "Horse Drug", what the hell? Judges can force hospitals/doctors to give certain treatments?!
Tricky.

The drug has been prescribed by a physician, and agreed with the patient (or whoever has legal power for the patient if they are unable to consent). It can therefore be argued that as the patient has autonomy and a licenced medical practitioner has prescribed the drug, that should be honoured.

I think the key to this is the grounds to refuse the drug. If the hospital is refusing because they don't think it works, their case would be very weak - people can agree to take useless drugs, after all, even if it is not best practice. However, had the hospital made a good case that the drug would have a sufficiently high potential for harm, I suspect they'd have won.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
And incidentally, mask RCT has arrived! Slightly unusual source though, might not be peer reviewed, and no idea how rigorous, but has some serious and reputable institutions attached.

 

umatbro

Regular Member
Feb 18, 2021
29
3
13
Country
Australia (Not Yahtzee's homeland)
Did somebody say "down with the sickness"?
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,066
642
118

Page for the schadenfreude enthiousiast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,402
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
People are literally doing that to you now, you're just illiterate.
Nope, literally no one is saying "well, we have proof masks already worked long ago, you're wrong." You better tell Michael Osterholm how wrong he is then, surely he knows of and studied the Spanish Flu.


This is the point of the Dunning-Kruger experiment, though, isn't it? False confidence of the incompetent in how competent they are, because they are incapable of meaningfully assessing their competence. You might not need to be an expert to understand something, but not being an expert means it is vastly more likely that you won't understand something - and not even realise. As you have been demonstrating for, ooh, 12+ months now and going.
[/qoute]
So I guess everyone needs to learn like astrophysics to know the earth is round and orbits the sun and why we don't float away is because gravity? All you gotta do is show me data that proves me wrong...

Since you ignore my request for a mask study that is on par with just a single drug study that would be required to get a drug recommended, I'll just put it here. Where's my really solid looking mask study (JUST ONE) that says they work and isn't filled with bullshit methods?

That's three times the deficiency level: the evidence suggest this is right at the upper levels of what is likely in the general public - including people with active outdoors lives in sunny areas. It is far, far above the point anyone can recognise a health benefit.
FOR BONE HEALTH. We now know vitamin d does a lot more than just help the bones. 30 ng/ml is not far, far above the point any can recognize a health benefit.

It's like you've instantly wiped from your brain whole pages of commentary.
What science has ever said masks are needed outdoors?

This is essentially a lie, by removing whole swathes of context from what he said. Never mind it's just you continuing the same dumb-as-fucking-rocks argumentation with random, selected references to individual people's opinion that everyone's so fed up with.
So Michael Osterholm thinks masks work?

He's pretty clear right here (from this August), it's about the tiny tiniest endorsement you could give masks, vitamin d data is far stronger.

lol. You okay, bub?
I keep getting bullshit studies reference for why masks work that make no sense like look how much of a cough a mask stops when people don't cough on each other anyway so what's the point?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,402
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Single bolus 300,000 IUs. Notice that the 1 day measurement is vastly increased.
View attachment 4380

SIngle bolus 24,000 IUs (A, adjusted to baseline). This, handily, measures on a much finer scale. Notice the very rapid effect (hours).
View attachment 4381

So, you see, it works like I said it would. Because I know my shit, and you're just floundering around like a fish out of water claiming "you don't need to be an expert to understand" whilst demonstrating you do not understand.
Source?

Alright, let’s get a few things straight. I am not going out of my way to infect people by not wearing a mask while being vaccinated. In fact, a lot of what I am saying is theory-testing ruthless. I have not gone to Walmart or Home Depot in weeks, and this week was when I created this theory anyway.
  • But if I am going to a Home Depot, I am only going to go maskless if it’s legal, and the store policy doesn’t say you need a mask. So unethical but not illegal, or rule-breaking.
Chances are very very very very slim, you'd infect anyone in a store without a mask. If you got sick so easy, we'd all be constantly sick in the winter and going to Walmart would get you a head cold/flu all the time. You have greater chance hurting someone driving to Walmart.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,439
2,239
118
Nope, literally no one is saying "well, we have proof masks already worked long ago, you're wrong." You better tell Michael Osterholm how wrong he is then, surely he knows of and studied the Spanish Flu.
They have actually, you just refuse to read.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
FOR BONE HEALTH. We now know vitamin d does a lot more than just help the bones. 30 ng/ml is not far, far above the point any can recognize a health benefit.
That's kind of a funny claim off that source, because that source ultimately suggests 12.5 ng/ml. I reiterate what I pointed out so many time for months: there is no clear evidence higher levels of vitamin D are needed for better non-bone health than they are for bone health.

What science has ever said masks are needed outdoors?
I repeat: it's like you've forgotten huge quantities of commentary.

So Michael Osterholm thinks masks work?
Implicitly, yes he sort of does. His argument would be better stated that the public might over-rate their efficacy. He says that in a room with a certain concentration of virus, 15 minutes is likely to get a person infected, and a simple cloth mask will give another 5 minutes. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that masks reduce infection risk. And of course what's not clearly discussed by Osterholm is the fact that the masks are likely to reduce the build-up of virus in the room as they will catch at least some of the virus breathed out by infected people.

vitamin d data is far stronger
Except there isn't even remotely an adequate scientific basis to make such a claim.

Why, so you can mine the papers to make up bullshit like usual?
 

umatbro

Regular Member
Feb 18, 2021
29
3
13
Country
Australia (Not Yahtzee's homeland)

The citizens of the world's strongest superpower everyone.
>Horse dewormer overdoses

Bruh just get the human version, It's already on the WHO list of essential medicines.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,439
2,239
118
The human version or the horse version? Hey, it works for Joe Rogan, maybe it can work for us!
The human version, which is why people are taking the horse version, which is also now going into short supply.

So far all it's confirmed to do is make you shit yourself in public.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
9,554
4,860
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
The human version, which is why people are taking the horse version, which is also now going into short supply.

So far all it's confirmed to do is make you shit yourself in public.
Laxatives are cheaper.

Oh god, they're gonna start chugging laxatives to purge the Covid out, aren't they?
 

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
2,375
2,322
118
Britannialand

Think it's time to start lurking back on telegram, as this is not a good sign for the direction these movements are being ushered towards.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,439
2,239
118
Laxatives are cheaper.

Oh god, they're gonna start chugging laxatives to purge the Covid out, aren't they?
Maybe. But diarrhea is one of the not-side effects IVM doesn't have, since IVM is better than that dirty vaccine in all of it's myriad of side effects.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,402
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
They have actually, you just refuse to read.
Nope, and that's why one of the top experts on pandemics doesn't even know about masks working during the Spanish flu, because they didn't.

That's kind of a funny claim off that source, because that source ultimately suggests 12.5 ng/ml. I reiterate what I pointed out so many time for months: there is no clear evidence higher levels of vitamin D are needed for better non-bone health than they are for bone health.
The point of the article was that nobody knows what the ideal levels for vitamin d are. And vitamin d hasn't even been studied for things outside of bone health until very recently. WE DON'T KNOW. You act like we do know when we don't. We know that you need higher than 12.5 ng/ml for better covid outcomes. Where's the studies that are saying taking 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 IUs a day is dangerous? Nowhere to be found. It really makes no sense that you're for something (masks) that have even less data for working than vitamin d that has more data for it working when both things have basically no adverse effects whatsoever. Both are basically "better safe than sorry" yet you're against one but for the other, and vitamin d is even cheaper than masks.

I repeat: it's like you've forgotten huge quantities of commentary.
Where's the science saying covid spreads outside yet alone that masking outside reduces the almost nil amount of outside transmission? Nowhere to be found.

Implicitly, yes he sort of does. His argument would be better stated that the public might over-rate their efficacy. He says that in a room with a certain concentration of virus, 15 minutes is likely to get a person infected, and a simple cloth mask will give another 5 minutes. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that masks reduce infection risk. And of course what's not clearly discussed by Osterholm is the fact that the masks are likely to reduce the build-up of virus in the room as they will catch at least some of the virus breathed out by infected people.
People aren't in rooms with other people for 15-20 mins. If you live with someone, that's obviously more than 15-20 minutes in a room. If you work with someone, that's more than 15-20 minutes in a room. If you're at the store, you're with someone less that 15-20 minutes anyway. Masks, if they even give you 5 more minutes, are only working in very situational and very rare circumstances. To think that masks are going to slow the spread of the virus with everyone masking is just not something that's gonna happen more than a few percentage points at best. The public has very very very very much overrated their efficacy, people think they actually work at least decently. There's Facebook posts of "mask it or casket", that's not remotely true. I'd also love to see some data showing masking helps for those with prior immunity.

Except there isn't even remotely an adequate scientific basis to make such a claim.
Far more basis and data than masks that just have that Dannish study and Bangladesh study? While past mask studies have also never showed any results against airborne pathogens while vitamin d has stronger data for the flu than masks have for the flu.

Why, so you can mine the papers to make up bullshit like usual?
If you didn't post BS papers before I'd be more trusting. You told me not to look for papers to confirm an answer but you just did that with that mask study that really didn't show much. It showed cloth masks do nothing. It showed if you're under 50, cloth or surgical masks did nothing. In some age brackets, the people that masked got more covid than those that didn't. Really only old people showed benefits and that could just be due to more distancing. It used a really poor way of determining if people got covid during the study using seroprevalence which they could test positive for if they got covid months before the study. It's a good way to determine how much of a population was infected overall but it's a poor way of finding out how many got infected during a specific period unless you have prior data, which they didn't. Lastly, it's not peer reviewed. If this was a study for a drug, you'd say the data isn't close to strong enough.

The problem is how believable it is.
It wasn't believable at all.