Vaccine

[watfly]

Stephen Colbert’s masked-up audience mocked: ‘Their brains are broken’

Colbert mocked the Biden administration’s announcement that it was planning to end the federal state of emergency.

nypost.com

This is such disturbing behavior, Colbert is gloating about making his audience wear masks and his minions gleefully obey. I don't know what this is... Mental illness? A cult of virtue signaling? A generation that gets it's news from the Daily Show and other late night programs? Mind blowing stupidity? Celebrity self importance with Leftist celebrity worship?

Have you read the Cochrane study yet? Or still just saying “look, the headline agrees with me, so I must be right”?

Did you? or are you afraid of an opposing evidence which also allows you to claim plausible deniability?

 

[watfly]

@dad4 will still complain. @dad4

He and other cling to the belief that the masks they have been wearing now for years actually made a difference.

This despite decades of studies showing masks dont work vs respiratory viruses.

Further you would think by now that if masks actually worked there would be an abundance of massive studies showing this. Problem is there isn't.

More telling is his response above that he says "we always knew masks were weakly effective". I almost spat out my coffee reading that the first time. This from a guy who constantly and consistently touted the benefits of the masks and was sure that locations that had loose restrictions on masks would a disaster. Claiming now that we always knew masks were weakly effective is a way to try to whitewash his completely contrary position that stood up until just recently.

And back to the study. Cochrane is a highly regarded institution that works with a number of governments, ngo, supranational orgs, academic institutions, etc. This is not some dude on twitter that dad and others can write off as some guy who doesn't know what he is talking about.

The sad thing? If one looked around during the height of the pandemic and saw the spread went through places highly masked and not highly masked it was easy to conclude they (masks) don't help. There were also many scientists and doctors who pointed out masks are not designed to stop a respiratory virus. We now know that gov/tech worked hard to make these people sound crazy.

It's interesting to see how some fear mongers, social experimenters and Covid myopics are hiding behind hindsight and claimed mischaracterizations of prior statements to rationalize their change in opinion.

I've said it before, if an adult wants to wear a security blanket on their face, go for it, but to mask kids is disgraceful.

 

[dad4]

Stephen Colbert’s masked-up audience mocked: ‘Their brains are broken’

Colbert mocked the Biden administration’s announcement that it was planning to end the federal state of emergency.

nypost.com

This is such disturbing behavior, Colbert is gloating about making his audience wear masks and his minions gleefully obey. I don't know what this is... Mental illness? A cult of virtue signaling? A generation that gets it's news from the Daily Show and other late night programs? Mind blowing stupidity? Celebrity self importance with Leftist celebrity worship?


Did you? or are you afraid of an opposing evidence which also allows you to claim plausible deniability?

I did. The study collects a variety of other studies, and does metaanalysis.

The Cochrane study does not attempt to distinguish between studies measuring PPI and source control. It just tosses the apples and oranges in a blender and looks at the mix.

As a result, you get very wide confidence intervals for risk ratio and everything comes back “can’t tell”.

I’d be more interested in a meta-analysis that looks only at source control studies. That may not exist, since there are not many real world source control studies. Not anyone’s fault. Source control studies are are very difficult to do. Just Bangladesh, to my knowledge.

For vaccines, the information is better. We have prison cellmate studies, and those are pretty solid.

 

[watfly]

I did. The study collects a variety of other studies, and does metaanalysis.

The Cochrane study does not attempt to distinguish between studies measuring PPI and source control. It just tosses the apples and oranges in a blender and looks at the mix.

As a result, you get very wide confidence intervals for risk ratio and everything comes back “can’t tell”.

I’d be more interested in a meta-analysis that looks only at source control studies. That may not exist, since there are not many real world source control studies. Not anyone’s fault. Source control studies are are very difficult to do. Just Bangladesh, to my knowledge.

For vaccines, the information is better. We have prison cellmate studies, and those are pretty solid.

So your position is that we don't have studies that show that masks don't work (at least with what you believe to be any level of confidence). On the other hand, we don't have any studies that say masks do work with any more confidence than if they don't work. (I'd actually say less confidence that they do work if we put both on a scale of studies).

It seems you are OK implementing health policy without any evidence of effectiveness as long there is not what you believe to be compelling evidence that it's not effective. I don't think that is the standard that should apply, common sense tells me that is backwards.

So even if conceivably you're right about the studies, that doesn't justify use, particularly mandated use.

 

[dad4]

So your position is that we don't have studies that show (at least with what you believe to be any level of confidence) that masks don't work? On the other hand, we don't have any studies that say masks do work with any more confidence than if they don't work. (I'd actually say less confidence if we put both on a scale of studies).

It seems you are OK implementing health policy without any evidence of effectiveness as long there is not what you believe to be compelling evidence that it's not effective. I don't think that is the standard that should apply, common sense tells me that is backwards.

So even if conceivably you're right about the studies, that doesn't justify mandated use.

My position is that masks work pretty well as source control, but rather poorly as long term PPI.

The Bangladesh study is pretty solid evidence that masks work as source control. Do you know of a second study which tries to measure it?

Policy is a second question. But you need a common set of facts before you discuss policy, and we don’t have one.

 

[Happened again]

I did. The study collects a variety of other studies, and does metaanalysis.

The Cochrane study does not attempt to distinguish between studies measuring PPI and source control. It just tosses the apples and oranges in a blender and looks at the mix.

As a result, you get very wide confidence intervals for risk ratio and everything comes back “can’t tell”.

I’d be more interested in a meta-analysis that looks only at source control studies. That may not exist, since there are not many real world source control studies. Not anyone’s fault. Source control studies are are very difficult to do. Just Bangladesh, to my knowledge.

For vaccines, the information is better. We have prison cellmate studies, and those are pretty solid.

Tell me exactly what you get from this? What secret proof are you looking for? Was masking an effective tool when dealing with the pandemic? What were the measurable mitigation effects of masking against a respiratory virus? Was there significant reduction in death/transmission? What were the socio-economic implications of forced masking?

Anyway, horse is dead,

 

[watfly]

Policy is a second question. But you need a common set of facts before you discuss implement policy, and we didn't, and still don’t, have one.

Fixed it for you.

 

[dad4]

Broke it for you.

Likewise.

 

[baldref]

When people are lied to and fooled, and they believe the sources that are doing the lying and fooling, then ego takes over, and refusal to admit is very difficult and sometimes, obviously, impossible.

 

[watfly]

My position is that masks work pretty well as source control, but rather poorly as long term PPI.

Well masks were sold, or more appropriately, oversold, by public health officials as both protection and source control. The problem with the source control angle is that it encouraged people who were Covid positive to go out in public in the misguided belief that it was OK since the mask would protect others, when in reality (unless they perfectly wore an N95) it would have been exponentially better to stay home. This problem was compounded by public health lockdown policies that didn't differentiate between those that were not sick and those that had Covid.

Our legal system requires that you are considered innocent until proven guilty, whereas with our Covid policy, you were considered infected until proven uninfected. Apples and oranges, maybe, but that's how I look at it. Plus it was how we previously handled pandemics by quarantining the sick, not the healthy.

 

[whatithink]

Most of the info/entertainment we see/hear/read comes through today a few big tech companies. And these tech companies are already manipulating what we get to be exposed to.

If you are referring to Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like, then they are not tech companies. They are advertising platforms/companies that use sophisticated tech to serve their product (you & me) and their in depth knowledge of their product (our data that we have freely given up) to anyone who will pay them for the product. They manipulate the content their product sees to maximize their revenue and the revenue of those that pay them by extension. So if you follow or click on a lot of similar content, then that's what you will see more of etc. and so on.

In short, everything is manipulated, based on their bottom line. They are capitalist companies whose goal is to maximize profit. If you don't like them, don't use them. If you don't trust their content, then don't use them.

Manipulating data is their business plan, as its always been.

 

[watfly]

If you are referring to Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like, then they are not tech companies. They are advertising platforms/companies that use sophisticated tech to serve their product (you & me) and their in depth knowledge of their product (our data that we have freely given up) to anyone who will pay them for the product. They manipulate the content their product sees to maximize their revenue and the revenue of those that pay them by extension. So if you follow or click on a lot of similar content, then that's what you will see more of etc. and so on.

In short, everything is manipulated, based on their bottom line. They are capitalist companies whose goal is to maximize profit. If you don't like them, don't use them. If you don't trust their content, then don't use them.

Manipulating data is their business plan, as its always been.

Fair analysis, but you missed one significant point in that the government influenced the manipulation of the information presented by the tech companies in one direction.

 

[watfly]

If you are referring to Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like, then they are not tech companies. They are advertising platforms/companies that use sophisticated tech to serve their product (you & me) and their in depth knowledge of their product (our data that we have freely given up) to anyone who will pay them for the product. They manipulate the content their product sees to maximize their revenue and the revenue of those that pay them by extension. So if you follow or click on a lot of similar content, then that's what you will see more of etc. and so on.

In short, everything is manipulated, based on their bottom line. They are capitalist companies whose goal is to maximize profit. If you don't like them, don't use them. If you don't trust their content, then don't use them.

Manipulating data is their business plan, as its always been.

Even your capitalism angle isn't completely correct in today's business environment. ESG is the hottest trend in the corporate world. You can argue that its just a marketing gimmick to improve bottom line but companies are taking it very seriously and investing heavily in their ESG platforms. Despite the fact that companies, at this point, are seeing very little if any return on that investment. In fact, companies like Disney have incurred losses in part from their positions on ESG (and I'm not talking about DeSantis questionable interference with them in Florida).

 

[whatithink]

Fair analysis, but you missed one significant point in that the government influenced the manipulation of the information presented by the tech companies in one direction.

I don't disagree, but I see that as a commercial decision by the mega-advertising () companies to avoid any additional government imposed regulations on their business. They are currently pretty much self-regulating and indemnified, which means they will play lip service to whatever to remain so, as long as it allows them to maximize profit.

Even your capitalism angle isn't completely correct in today's business environment. ESG is the hottest trend in the corporate world. You can argue that its just a marketing gimmick to improve bottom line but companies are taking it very seriously and investing heavily in their ESG platforms. Despite the fact that companies, at this point, are seeing very little if any return on that investment. In fact, companies like Disney have incurred losses in part from their positions on ESG (and I'm not talking about DeSantis questionable interference with them in Florida).

I'm pretty "meh" on the ESG trend from corporates. It plays well from a marketing perspective. Not sure how many are or will follow through.

That said, the premise of ESG seems perfectly reasonable to me
- E: Don't F up the environment
- S: pay people their worth and treat people with respect & dignity in your company and extended through your supply chains and interactions
- G: don't be a dick and don't condone dickish things.
Nothing in it says they can't be capitalist or profit motivated, just don't be dicks about it.

That's just my view mind.

 

[watfly]

I don't disagree, but I see that as a commercial decision by the mega-advertising () companies to avoid any additional government imposed regulations on their business. They are currently pretty much self-regulating and indemnified, which means they will play lip service to whatever to remain so, as long as it allows them to maximize profit.


I'm pretty "meh" on the ESG trend from corporates. It plays well from a marketing perspective. Not sure how many are or will follow through.

That said, the premise of ESG seems perfectly reasonable to me
- E: Don't F up the environment
- S: pay people their worth and treat people with respect & dignity in your company and extended through your supply chains and interactions
- G: don't be a dick and don't condone dickish things.
Nothing in it says they can't be capitalist or profit motivated, just don't be dicks about it.

That's just my view mind.

I agree with your moderate view, companies should be good stewards of their community. Unfortunately ESG goes way beyond that. If it works for a company more power to them, but I think it will be a short-lived fad.

 

[crush]

 

[crush]

 

[crush]

They have to show you. It's how the Law of Nature works. Wake up sheep!

Satan Performance At The Grammys Was Sponsored By This Company....

Wait till the end...

rumble.com

 

[crush]

 

[Desert Hound]

Fair analysis, but you missed one significant point in that the government influenced the manipulation of the information presented by the tech companies in one direction.

That is the problem. Their info only goes in one direction.

And while I can choose not to use their services...the fact remains that just about everyone gets their info from these few companies. As such what they do influences the debate on everything. And as gov has started to push them, that influence is being used to manipulate info readily found.