Considering I never said any of that, you are just being crappy for the sake of it. So if you are going to post sarcastic comments at least have the decency to not put words in other people's mouths.
Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
And quality of life is important too. If people can't make rent or buy food, that is a worse life. Or if people have to choose between food and their prescription drugs, that leads to life lost too. Life lost is not the only metric of harm. Also, we've seen that restrictions haven't done too much in saving life anyway. Florida has been open for a long time and their deaths per capita are better than average so what have these restrictions done besides caused people economic hardship? Unless you caught the virus at the very start, you didn't do too well regardless of the amount of restrictions.
No I don't, the article you posted references studies without even describing them at all. The only non-correlational covid mask data I've seen is the Danish study.
What are you talking about, the surgical mask article that said they didn't do anything was based off decades of studies. The CDC review of studIES with regards to masks and the flu as well
No I'm not, you just didn't look at them. The vitamin d data is far stronger than the mask correlational data. You're ignoring tons of mask data that is contrary to what you want to believe.
Get off your fucking high horse. You've continually given me shit studies to look at from HCQ to ivermectin. You continually reference a bullshit HCQ all-cause mortality number that is full of bias. You told me a ~200 person study is "iffy", then you link me to a 200-person study to try to prove that I'm wrong, that was a shit study by your own criteria and you used it as proof. Then, the fucking study's results show the very thing I said HCQ can do when given early (less hospitalizations) when the study was looking at something nobody that was for HCQ was even claiming it would do (it was literally a pointless study with 200-something young people).
You keep citing that covid immunity being long lasting was a 50/50 chance when there is not a single bit of legit data that even pointed to it being short-lived. There was never any legit bit of science that pointed to variants escaping immunity either. I can look at data better than you it seems and so can very reputable doctors that have been saying the same thing the whole pandemic, it just doesn't get on the news because it's doesn't align with the fear-mongering narrative of the media. Something bad that has less than a 1% chance of happening makes the news and the non-scary thing that has a 99% chance of happening doesn't make the news.
Yeah, you can totally look at data properly yet I don't even recall a single major issue that you were even right about, you're even wrong in hindsight like a 50/50 chance covid immunity could be short-lived, it's not a coin flip.
You don't understand your inconsistency either. 200 people is an iffy study and you provide said iffy studies as proof. Masks and vitamin d have extremely similar amount/kind of data for them, both cause no harm, and vitamin d is even cheaper than masks, yet masks surely work and vitamin d surely doesn't work. Consistency, my fucking ass.
Last edited:
Don't like it? Quit bitching that your convenience is more important than people's lives.
So you're still operating on the assumption that 600k dead is just acceptable losses and a higher death toll would have been fine so long as you were never made slightly uncomfortable. Also, you still assume that YouTube science = best science.
They were cited. Maybe you should read them.
Because you don't read or understand.
I said a 200 person study on mortality [to covid-19] is "iffy": becausethere will be so few deaths it is hard to get meaningful statistical power for analysis. But mortality was not the primary metric of that paper, only a secondary one; it is in fact a well-powered study for its primary metric. It's not just that you didn't read that paper or didn't understand it, it's that even when I explained this to you about what it was actually doing, you just ignored that because you were too happy with yourself that you thought you had a "gotcha" to throw back at me. As you are stil doing.
Contextually here, at the same time, you were arguing for HCQ using studies on mortality that actually had even smaller cohorts: which you were evidently unaware of, because you didn't read or understand. You'd argue a study with 5000 was better, despite the fact some of these didn't really look at 5000 people in the way you thought they did and/or were vastly inferior methodologies, because you don't read or understand. And all you keep coming back at me with is that some study I mentioned with 200 people is shit, which is an opinion based upon the sum total of you not reading or understanding.
You could try learning something. But you're not interested in learning and developing understanding, you want to defend the conclusion you've already decided and don't like it when people present reasons it might be wrong. As far as I am concerned, this is tantamount to gratuitous ignorance, and doesn't deserve respect.
There was "no legitimate" data period. The only way you can truly know whether immunity lasts 6 months, or 1 year, or 5 years, or 10 years, is to wait that long and see whether it does.
The closest we can get before then is to consider what happens to other viruses, and what the immunity is like for them. And we know immunity to some diseases is a matter of months, others years, others lifelong. It may be variable by strength of initial infection, and according to the individual, and so on. So, you were guessing. The fact you can cherry pick the guesses of people who also thought it would be long-lasting doesn't make it any less a guess or you any cleverer.
There was no "legit" data period. The only way you can know whether immunity would also catch variants is to wait until it happens (or not). As it is, we know that people's immunity to variants tends to be lower, whether their immunity comes from infection by earlier variants or with the vaccines: which totally makes sense to anyone who understands how it all works. So you were guessing. And your ability to cherry pick the guesses of people who also thought it would work on variants doesn't make it any less a guess.
Never mind it's a stupid claim for anyone who knows what's going on. The level of immunity is always likely to relate to the similarity of the variant, so the question is really how different is the variant? With ongoing viral evolution, there is a very decent chance we will end up with variants or whole new strains where people's immunity is sufficiently low that we get a new mini-pandemic. (This is a reason we have sporadic flu surges.) Also why people urge a global vaccine rollout ASAP, because the faster we squash it now, the lower the chance of breeding such new variants/strains in the future.
It's a bit like how people say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have very little information, from which you construct a delusion of competence on the odd occasion one of your guesses turns out right.
You see, you're so incompetent at reading and understanding, you don't even have my position right. I disagreed with many of your presumptious assertions on the grounds they were unknowns or generally lacked sufficient evidence. That is not the same as asserting the opposite view to you.
I would be happy if wearing masks became the custom, I'll probably continue wearing mine for a long time (until I bow to societal pressure). I'd love it if people wore them when they were feeling poorly and still had to pop out or go to work.
How can you watch this Errant Signal video and not consider that a loss of life? Loss of life is just not only death.
And no country has been able to keep everyone home until a vaccine because that's just not possible. You can't just stop the economy for a year+. I think the US in comparison to more social countries has given a good deal of money out to people. For example, everyone kept saying that Canadians were getting $2,000 (Canadian dollars) a month for the pandemic but when you include the unemployment bonus and whatnot, people in the US were getting more. Also, printing money has it's own downsides that come along with it too.
Are Canada’s $2,000 Stimulus Payments More Generous Than The United States’ $1,200 Stimulus Checks?
Answering the question of whether Canada’s $2,000 payments are more generous than the United States’ $1,200 payment is more complicated than at face value.
www.forbes.com
Just look at Florida vs other highly populated states. Look at Illinois vs Indiana (since I live on the border and know both states restrictions well), Illinois was always very restrictive and Indiana wasn't and their curves mirror each other and Illinois deaths per 100,000 is 199 and Indiana is 202.
Nah, Agema failed stats class then...
Hey, how are things over in this thr... oh ...
"A study of 20 people for something like this (HCQ effect on mortality) approximates to useless."
So for instance if you take 200 people to examine looking a disease with a baseline mortality rate in the region of 5%, you can expect ten deaths. Or more strictly, 5 in a control group of ~100, and however many deaths in the test group of ~100 depending on what effect the test conditions had. This leaves the results very vulnerable to random chance.
So here's an instructive task. Make a simple model (you can use MS XL, even if there are more sophisticated ways to do it) where you generate 100 integers from 1-20. Count how many 20s there are. Run another ~20 iterations. Now look at the spread of how many 20s you get in each batch of 100 across the ~20 iterations. It'll be quite a large spread. I can assure you this, because I have literally done this sort of modelling as part of my data analysis, and published it in a pretty high impact journal. Now think about what that means in the above scenario, that you pick two groups of 100 people, and the chance of difference in the two groups due to random chance.
Now let's imagine you take a study where you compare the length of time of infection in 200 people between test and control groups (100 per group). This is very likely to give a good result, because you are constructing an average with the full 100 subjects from each group, which evens out a huge amount of the random chance. Now, a lot depends on the variance of the data, but there's a pretty good chance of reliably picking up a decent-size effect from the test conditions, if there is one. And a good scientist has probably looked at the variance and judged the likelihood of getting a result with the sample size (which would be explained in the paper).
So, to conclude, a sample size of 200 may be good or bad depending on what you're doing with it. And I was absolutely right to point out a sample of 200 is iffy in the situation stated, and I am absolutely right to defend 200 as decent-good in others.
There's no non-correlational studies cited unless you're talking about animal studies and animal studies can be way off with regards to how stuff actually works with humans.
And that article has some massive bullshit it in too.
Confidence in masks grew in June with news about two hair stylists in Missouri who tested positive for COVID-19. Both wore a double-layered cotton face covering or surgical mask while working. And although they passed on the infection to members of their households, their clients seem to have been spared (more than half reportedly declined free tests). Other hints of effectiveness emerged from mass gatherings. At Black Lives Matter protests in US cities, most attendees wore masks. The events did not seem to trigger spikes in infections, yet the virus ran rampant in late June at a Georgia summer camp, where children who attended were not required to wear face coverings. Caveats abound: the protests were outdoors, which poses a lower risk of COVID-19 spread, whereas the campers shared cabins at night, for example. And because many non-protesters stayed in their homes during the gatherings, that might have reduced virus transmission in the community. Nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence “builds up the picture”, says Theo Vos, a health-policy researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.
THAT bullshit "builds up the picture". The protests/riots were outdoors where transmission basically doesn't happen and the kids in summer camp basically lived together indoors. Talk about wanting to see what you believe...
That study you cited was not even studying something that was said that HCQ could possibly do. People weren't suggesting it because it's an antiviral. And the study used young people, which is kinda pointless since most of them don't need anything to beat the virus. Even then the HCQ group showed fewer hospitalizations, which is the whole point.
Yeah, there is. Oh, I don't know, look at the virus that is closest to it, which is SARS and immunity is still lasting for it. SARS is so close it even confers immunity to covid. You can look at things other than antibodies like B/T cells. You can look at the fact there are no mass reinfections happening. You can look at incubation period, which I'm almost positive Paul Offit said plays a decent role in length of immunity from the interview I listened to a month or so back.
Firstly, the fact variants are called variants and not strains is big sign. All viruses have variants, it's nothing new. How'd we do previous vaccine rollouts that took years and years to develop and test in the past while the virus was making variants for years? How do people stay immune to say measles for their lifetime when they re-encounter it, it's a different variant? If it was common for variants to escape immunity, we wouldn't even have discovered vaccinations because the whole point of them is giving you long immunity. Secondly, OG SARS is a different virus that confers immunity to covid so a variant of covid that far more similar to covid is gonna escape immunity? Thirdly, you form CD8 cells across 52 different pieces of the spike protein so if you have a couple mutations, you're plenty good still. It's basically an impossibility that enough of those 52 different pieces are gonna mutate. Again, Paul Offit, top vaccine expert, said it's extremely unlikely a variant will escape immunity. I guess he's just guessing too...
I guess Paul Offit is delusional and doesn't have the competence to be the US top vaccine expert...
Basically all my guess have turned out right. The more things I get right, the less likely it's luck.
They weren't complete unknowns but a very high likelihood of happening. Masking is an unknown and more unknown than the things you say I "guessed" at, yet you clearly have camped out on the side of masks and not the other things.
And if you did a 200 person study and all the people were very high-risk and have a high mortality rate, the results would be more significant. However, when you have say 10 of those studies that you can meta-analyze, then you got much better data.
I'm fully aware of how much of a spread there is in getting a 1 out of 20 result, I play DnD.
Just look at all the US states and all the different measures each state employed and there's no consistency in the results. Whatever the number is is acceptable if there really was nothing that could be done (once you failed hard at the start and the virus was too widespread to be controlled). If the restrictions worked, wouldn't you see the results? The one place that was successful in stopping the virus after it greatly spread was China, but are you willing to martyr the currently sick and do real lockdowns to save more total lives in the end? That's what China did and it worked but ethically it's obviously grey territory.
humans have a cognitive bias that results in them coming to more strongly believe things for which they argue in favor.
it is evidently incredibly strong.
It is the song that doesn’t end, Lambchop.Hey, how are things over in this thr... oh ...
You do realize I believe masks work, there's just no proof of them working.
Nobody can cite non-correlational data that masks do anything...
Again, that shows it actually works in real-world scenarios where transmission likely occurs? And they used a cell phone camera...Science | AAAS
advances.sciencemag.org
It shows that a vector of transmission is significantly reduced in both range and volume. And of course it is, this is basic fucking physics.
"Showing that it works in a real-world scenario" is necessarily going to involve the measurement of a correlation-- the dreaded
"correlational data". Mask wearing, not mask wearing. Less sick people, more sick people: correlation. If you want to understand the causal link between those two variables, then you need to show the mechanism: and that requires physical experiments like the one I googled in half a second and didn't even bother to read because holy fuck we've known masks work since at least the time where plague doctors wore those beak/proboscis-looking things.