Bruddah IZ
DA
The modern day 'unclean' eh?
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Oh the irony.
Good news, it has about 95% natural immunity.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Yawn. Let us know when it hits 99%. (no mask, pre-vax, post-Toby Keith and Alabama Concert.)
Sure feels like it, which is saying a lot… I had always hoped mankind had grown in the last few thousand years.
Guess the fear of social isolation is an age old tool wielded to protect the general populace.
You said what you wanted to be true, and then pretended that it was in the study. The study specifically disavows your chosen misrepresentation:
”Our results should not be taken to imply that masks can prevent only 10% of COVID-19 cases, let alone 10% of COVID-19 mortality.”
It is the first sentence of the bottom paragraph on page 30.
Go ahead and make your “masks = religion” rhetoric. Whatever. Toss in a few ad hominem attacks while you’re at it.
The study itself is worth reading,
I know there are treatments today for Hansen's. Is there a vaccine?
I believe it is a bacterial pathogen, so.. hand sanitizer. But still, there is value to the parable that doesn’t conform to either side (who’s taking sides) of the policy discussion.
You’ve already done that for me Magoo….you just don’t realize it.
I specifically noted there’s a potential upside there (note also it’s not as easy as multiplying the 10% by 4). I also noted there was probably a discount there since the study measured both masks and distancing effects instead of isolating the distancing effects out. And I’m the one that’s hearing only what they want to be true????
Circle.
Your summary was the one specifically disavowed by the study authors.
Why should I treat it as anything other than deliberate misrepresentation?
There is plenty to discuss with the right way to isolate the mask effect from the distance effect, as well as whether and how you can extrapolate from 28% to higher percentages.
But if you're going to flat out lie about what is and is not in the study, then there is no point in having that discussion with you.
In one of Grace's multiple universes, she is telling the truth,
Again, man, you are hearing what you want to hear. I said there was potential upside. But you are taking a mixed study and trying to use it to say "yeah masking!" And then saying I'm the one that sees what she wants to.
What's truly funny is despite all the data being presented and the fact that much of Europe and several industries have disavowed it, you are still willing to die on the cloth mask hill. That reminds me of conversations back at the Div School with the Catholics debating the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary and when presented with evidence that Jesus's brother was the first leader of the church, they will go to any steps to rewrite the record to save that one hill. Faith man...funny thing.
I post the below not just for the initial antimask take by Martin Kulldorff but there's some really good back and forth there from the pro maskers and antimaskers about the limitations of the study and what it shows and doesn't show. Good read on both side.
Looks like free rein for loons to post nonsense.
Kinda like here, huh? Present company included.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Plus this one has already been linked, again just on our little site, at least once already. It's remarkable how many people are independently and closely following biostaticians' Twitter feeds.......
It’s pretty shoddy work for a statistician. The p value is clearly below 0.05, so he uses rounded confidence intervals to get the result he wants.
That’s the kind of thing you get marked off for as an undergrad.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Where do they get you tyrants from? The bible? He goaded you clowns all the way back to grad school. Lmao!
Bruddah IZ
DA
Heilspola!!