Bad News Thread

dad4 said:
Here, you go, hound.

Real scientists did the county by county statistical regression analysis on 49 states worth of indoor dining and mask mandates.

Mask mandates work to reduce covid. Indoor dining works to increase covid. p<0.01

www.cdc.gov

Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing ...

This report describes changes in COVID-19 case and death growth ...
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

I know. You’re imagining a giant egghead conspiracy to lie to you about masks. Because, an international science conspiracy is more likely than you making a mistake.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong but this appears to be a correlation study, not a causation study (realizing a real world causation study would be very difficult given the lack of reliable contract tracing). I have to believe masks work to some extent, but I'm not sure this is compelling proof. To me there are just too many variables involved even though the study said it used regression analysis to eliminate variables. However, when someone mentions regression analysis my eyes roll back in my head and I blackout, so maybe I'm not the best person to make that assessment.

When I look at things in totality (as opposed to CDC slices) it doesn't appear restrictions made any significant difference in state by state results. Results are all over the place regardless of the level of the restrictions. Masks may have very well improved results, but I believe the mask mandates, or may better said, "mask use" was not as variable from state to state as the "lockdown" restrictions. Give or take mask usage was much more universal relatively speaking.
 
dad4 said:
Here, you go, hound.

Real scientists did the county by county statistical regression analysis on 49 states worth of indoor dining and mask mandates.

Mask mandates work to reduce covid. Indoor dining works to increase covid. p<0.01

www.cdc.gov

Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing ...

This report describes changes in COVID-19 case and death growth ...
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

I know. You’re imagining a giant egghead conspiracy to lie to you about masks. Because, an international science conspiracy is more likely than you making a mistake.
Click to expand...
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the folks who are perfectly fine with forever masking also struggle to pick up on social cues and the finer nuances of human communication?

I'm not saying this is a universal rule, but it does strike me as a trend. And not to be rude, but people who don't understand the importance of facial communication probably shouldn't have a say in how long we go without seeing each other's faces.

Moreover, people who don't understand the value of normal human communication should not be the ones weighing the health risks of COVID against the social harm of lockdowns.
 
dad4 said:
Here, you go, hound.

Real scientists did the county by county statistical regression analysis on 49 states worth of indoor dining and mask mandates.

Mask mandates work to reduce covid. Indoor dining works to increase covid. p<0.01

www.cdc.gov

Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing ...

This report describes changes in COVID-19 case and death growth ...
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

I know. You’re imagining a giant egghead conspiracy to lie to you about masks. Because, an international science conspiracy is more likely than you making a mistake.
Click to expand...
Have been seeing a lot of criticism of this particular study. Here's the most compact summary of the criticism....basically they did a county level study but ignored the county mandates (looking at only the state mandates). It's a very easy question to answer: in those states for those periods that did not adopt a mask mandate, what does the comparison of side by side counties look like...you control for variants and weather that way. They did a few of these early on but stopped doing it because the data didn't look very good. At this point the CDC is desperately trying to justify its policies and is engaging in work which if produced by private institutions would be laughable. Their comprehensive review of observational studies was another because it didn't even mention the usual problems such as the control problem with the Roosevelt study. It's unheard of for the CDC to behave this recklessly (or as with the schools reopening plan which apparently so far only North Carolina is in favor of and only after a governor's veto couldn't be overriden by 1 vote) given the other outstanding work they've done in the past. Sorry dad, but that schools "reopening" plan is all the proof you need to see that they are no longer really an objective participant in all this (and the great irony is that you were the first on these boards to catch them at their shell game when it came to the schools....after discovering that for yourself it's surprising you are giving them this much deference....you know the old fool me once rule).

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367900427023380482
 
Grace T. said:
Have been seeing a lot of criticism of this particular study. Here's the most compact summary of the criticism....basically they did a county level study but ignored the county mandates (looking at only the state mandates). It's a very easy question to answer: in those states for those periods that did not adopt a mask mandate, what does the comparison of side by side counties look like...you control for variants and weather that way. They did a few of these early on but stopped doing it because the data didn't look very good. At this point the CDC is desperately trying to justify its policies and is engaging in work which if produced by private institutions would be laughable. Their comprehensive review of observational studies was another because it didn't even mention the usual problems such as the control problem with the Roosevelt study. It's unheard of for the CDC to behave this recklessly (or as with the schools reopening plan which apparently so far only North Carolina is in favor of and only after a governor's veto couldn't be overriden by 1 vote) given the other outstanding work they've done in the past. Sorry dad, but that schools "reopening" plan is all the proof you need to see that they are no longer really an objective participant in all this (and the great irony is that you were the first on these boards to catch them at their shell game when it came to the schools....after discovering that for yourself it's surprising you are giving them this much deference....you know the old fool me once rule).

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367900427023380482
Click to expand...

For example.....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362829949439074307
 
met61 said:
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the folks who are perfectly fine with forever masking also struggle to pick up on social cues and the finer nuances of human communication?

I'm not saying this is a universal rule, but it does strike me as a trend. And not to be rude, but people who don't understand the importance of facial communication probably shouldn't have a say in how long we go without seeing each other's faces.

Moreover, people who don't understand the value of normal human communication should not be the ones weighing the health risks of COVID against the social harm of lockdowns.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, when someone agrees with you, you assume they are more socially adept. And, when someone disagrees with you, you assume they are naturally disagreeable.

There is a pattern there, but it has nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the listener.
 
met61 said:
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the folks who are perfectly fine with forever masking also struggle to pick up on social cues and the finer nuances of human communication?

I'm not saying this is a universal rule, but it does strike me as a trend. And not to be rude, but people who don't understand the importance of facial communication probably shouldn't have a say in how long we go without seeing each other's faces.

Moreover, people who don't understand the value of normal human communication should not be the ones weighing the health risks of COVID against the social harm of lockdowns.
Click to expand...
One of the great disconnects here I suspect is we have a lot of i (introverted health policy experts who went into their fields because it offered a way to manage data and policy instead of patients and staff) who have very little idea or empathy of what the es (highly extroverted people) are going through. Really think about it....the idea that 20 somethings who aren’t married or cohabitating are going to go a year without dating Or have a fling...does anyone really imagine that’s possible?
 
Grace T. said:
The other criticism I’ve seen is that the study does not fully capture the impact of the winter wave when even places like California went up.
Click to expand...
See your earlier comment on variants. If you grant the importance of correcting for variants, you can’t bring up the socal winter spike without correcting for the variant that made it as large as it was.
 
dad4 said:
You’re trying to refute a regression with a pair of side by side comparisons carefully selected by advocates?

Do you want to explain why that line of reasoning is worthless, or shall I?
Click to expand...

Oh I’m not holding up the slide by slide comparison as the rubric. I’m just saying if the cdc were serious about doing a county by county analysis they would have used the county level mandates and side by side county results as the basis for their study. They did a few early on but then stopped when the charges of date selectivity came up.
 
dad4 said:
See your earlier comment on variants. If you grant the importance of correcting for variants, you can’t bring up the socal winter spike without correcting for the variant that made it as large as it was.
Click to expand...
Again though a comparison of county by county mandates of side by side counties in states without full mandates would have corrected for that. The examples do exist as I’ve pointed out
 
dad4 said:
Perhaps, when someone agrees with you, you assume they are more socially adept. And, when someone disagrees with you, you assume they are naturally disagreeable.

There is a pattern there, but it has nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the listener.
Click to expand...
Or, I'm over the target.
 
met61 said:
Or, I'm over the target.
Click to expand...
I would say you're over the target sir. First, they come up with a Scam. Second, they come up with a Plan to make the Scam work. Third, you need to Demic up the population and then add the following names to it: Epi and or Pan. I personally would use Scam and Plan instead or Epi and Pan to Demic, but that's MOO. The good news today is I'm driving South to watch my dd ball. I hope she can run today. She got a slicer on her foot surfing the other day.
 
dad4 said:
You’re trying to refute a regression with a pair of side by side comparisons carefully selected by advocates?

Do you want to explain why that line of reasoning is worthless, or shall I?
Click to expand...

Ooh! ooh! Pick me Mr kotter!

Is it because it is intellectually dishonest?
 
Grace T. said:
One of the great disconnects here I suspect is we have a lot of i (introverted health policy experts who went into their fields because it offered a way to manage data and policy instead of patients and staff) who have very little idea or empathy of what the es (highly extroverted people) are going through. Really think about it....the idea that 20 somethings who aren’t married or cohabitating are going to go a year without dating Or have a fling...does anyone really imagine that’s possible?
Click to expand...
Amazing who folks blindly bestow power upon, then so willfully bow to them. Listen to the LA teachers union president sometime, a real gem with power.
 
This is from last yr. The science hasn't changed. The politics has.

“It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something—whether it’s a scarf or a mask—in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,” says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. The only problem: that’s not effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, “the CDC would have recommended it years ago,” he says.

The science, according to the CDC, says that surgical masks won’t stop the wearer from inhaling small airborne particles, which can cause infection. Nor do these masks form a snug seal around the face.

The above is what the CDC and other orgs were saying for decades.

web.archive.org

Health Experts Are Telling Healthy People Not to Wear Face Masks for Coronavirus. So Why Are So Many Doing It?

The government and most health experts keep telling the public not to wear face masks for coronavirus. So why are they doing it anyway?
web.archive.org web.archive.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top