Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Poe It Up 126]

On 11/17/2020 at 9:05 AM, Poe It Up said:

Welp, my kid's preschool closed Friday because of Covid and my wife and son have a fever with a sore throat. Nice knowing y'all.

 

Just to update this, both my wife and son texted negative even though it was confirmed they came into direct contact with someone who tested positive. This shit makes zero sense. 

[atomheartbevo 89891]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I truly and completely do not fucking understand this strident, religious opposition to wearing masks in public.  It's such a minimal thing.  It's not much different than the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs we've lived with forever.  Yet we fight it as if it was a requirement to lop off your own arm with a chainsaw.  It's a fucking nothing, in terms of impositions...

Could be a higher education gap - many of us here on Surly have no problem wearing a mask, while many on TexAgs, Tiger Droppings, SEC Rant, and other SEC-oriented forums, as well as many Okies,  are opposed to it.

[atomheartbevo 89891]

3 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Just to update this, both my wife and son texted negative even though it was confirmed they came into direct contact with someone who tested positive. This shit makes zero sense. 

Elon Musk supposedly took four rapid tests, same nurse, in the same session, two came back positive, two negative.

[Brisketexan 105482]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Could be a higher education gap - many of us here on Surly have no problem wearing a mask, while many on TexAgs, Tiger Droppings, SEC Rant, and other SEC-oriented forums, as well as many Okies,  are opposed to it.

It's almost entirely tied to a worldview that requires a persecution/little brother complex.   And they end up imbibing too much of a good thing.

Specifically, it is GOOD to question authority, and not follow it blindly (of course, the reason for doing so is to make an at least marginally educated decision -- to actually THINK about the issue, and weigh FACTS).  But they take that to an absurd extreme that is even worse -- they reflexively adopt the OPPOSITE position, with zero critical thinking.  If anyone in authority says something, it is automatically WRONG, and you should do the exact opposite thing.  That's as insane - and maybe even moreso - than being blindly obedient to authority.  Because the crime in thinking here isn't the "obedient" part, or the "authority" party -- it's the "blindly" part.  

If doubting authority is good, then refusing to grant it ANY credibility and refusing to do anything that aligns with authority must be GREAT.  Look how great and patriotic I am!

It's how dumb people try to be smart.

[Hate 20155]

At this point, I want a national mask mandate just to watch all the red governors squirm and file lawsuits.  I'm working from home 99% of the time at this point and don't have to interact with any other people aside from my wife who also works from home. 
The worst thing that's happened with this virus is that it's being politicized.  It's a power struggle between the big government is bad camp (republican politicians) and the listen to doctors camp (democrat politicians).  I'm a republican and vote republican but the people who represent me are just fucking lunatics with this virus.  Just wear a damn mask.

Stop with this bullshit. Your mask mandating poster boy (Gavin Newsome) just got busted hosting a dinner party without masks. You talk about this being politicized and then you politicize it. As long as there are people that try to force people to do as I say and not as I do, then people are not going to comply. You can throw in the SOH Pelosi if you want to make the Federal argument. Newsflash...There are idiots and hypocrites in positions of power from both parties.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They provide a very valuable, and portable, source of food, should things deteriorate.  

Potable too, if we render them.

[Guest Lobo]

I'll take "Portly Portable Potables" for $800.  

The answer is...

[Captainant 27882]

The mindset of "acceptable behavior is the lowest common denominator I can identify" is REAL helpful, gang. No shit Newsome deserves all the criticism for hypocrisy that he's getting - BUT - does that also make his policy and mandate not worth following and not the right thing to do?

Because if your end goal is to get people to "do as I say", then you should really get started on criticizing the "let's solve obesity before mandating masks" argument being foisted by your brothers in arms

Edited November 18, 2020 by Captainant

[Armybrat 40942]

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

15 minutes ago, Hate said:

Stop with this bullshit. Your mask mandating poster boy (Gavin Newsome) just got busted hosting a dinner party without masks. You talk about this being politicized and then you politicize it. As long as there are people that try to force people to do as I say and not as I do, then people are not going to comply. You can throw in the SOH Pelosi if you want to make the Federal argument. Newsflash...There are idiots and hypocrites in positions of power from both parties.

ah yes, Bubba and Cletus would most certainly wear masks except they heard that a couple of politicians in California did not wear a mask at some point. once they learned of this information, they decided against wearing a mask.

what the fuck are you talking about?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

[Message Board User 12396]

4 minutes ago, Hate said:

Stop with this bullshit. Your mask mandating poster boy (Gavin Newsome) just got busted hosting a dinner party without masks. You talk about this being politicized and then you politicize it. As long as there are people that try to force people to do as I say and not as I do, then people are not going to comply. You can throw in the SOH Pelosi if you want to make the Federal argument. Newsflash...There are idiots and hypocrites in positions of power from both parties.

If I could rep this post 1000x I would.

This whole thing was politicized from the Spring as soon as the journos and “experts” and other elected officials said protests were OK but you can’t go to church or a funeral and your kid can’t go to school.  Maybe I missed it, but did a single journo or politician denounce any of those gatherings?  
 

All of those hypocrites like Newsom and Lightfoot and the other public health experts who cheered on the protests and then crowdshamed and tsk-tsked other gatherings can go get fucked and if you are too blind to see the hypocrisy in the message, go fuck your mother.  
 

Mixed messenging is a great way to reduce compliance with any directive.  So if you don’t think people are taking the pandemic seriously enough, maybe look at all the mixed messenging that we’ve been receiving from our betters.

Now excuse me while I kiss the sky...

 

[Trey3216 15380]

1 hour ago, gyroprotagonist said:

mostly agree with the rest, but this thing was fucked up mightily before it even reached our shores with how it was assigned to one political party as a hoax on their part to hurt the other party's re-election chances.  

Or how the shutdown of incoming travelers was assigned as xenophobic because you can't close the borders like that....then say we should've done more...

 

Our country is so fucked because neither side will take an L honestly.   Those of us in the middle, and we're thinning, are fucked.  It's sad because it's pretty fucking apparent that the US is a middle country, just like it's always been.  We're just letting the fuckhead voices of the outside speak too loudly, and it's damn apparent on some of y'alls posting patterns over the years.  

[Trey3216 15380]

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

 

 

Then tell me how/why my wife and I both got Covid in the fucking NICU when we weren't around anyone for 3 weeks other than each other or in an environment preferable to non-spread while we were applying every precaution???   Tell me, science man.  I know how statistics work too.   

[Trey3216 15380]

3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

what does that have to do with requiring people to wear masks when in public spaces?

I got Rona spending time in places that everyone were wearing masks and washing their hands constantly...inside a NICU.  It's a fucking virus that is aerosolized, it's gonna spread regardless  

[Brisketexan 105482]

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Then tell me how/why my wife and I both got Covid in the fucking NICU when we weren't around anyone for 3 weeks other than each other or in an environment preferable to non-spread while we were applying every precaution???   Tell me, science man.  I know how statistics work too.   

 

Just now, Trey3216 said:

I got Rona spending time in places that everyone were wearing masks and washing their hands constantly...inside a NICU.  It's a fucking virus that is aerosolized, it's gonna spread regardless  

Masks, hygiene, and distancing reduce the risk of transmission.  You are right, it's a virus.  NOTHING can ELIMINATE the risk of transmission.  So, even if you knock the risk down from 2% to .01%.....well, one in 10,000 people is STILL going to catch it.

We reduce risks, and RATE, of transmission.  Getting it below a 1.0 factor leads to declining cases.  So, we need to take measures that get it below that.  The concept is called "risk management," not "risk elimination," for a reason.

[Trey3216 15380]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And.....even if the Danish study was spot on, it states the risk reduction in the wrong fucking way.

If you have a 10% chance of getting hit by a bus, and you take a measure that reduces your chance of getting hit to 5%, you didn't take a measure that only "improved your chances by 5%."  You took a measure that improved your chances -- that pre-existing thing -- by 50%.

So, a reduction of your risk from 2.1% to 1.8% reduces your risk by 14%.  That's a real-deal reduction in risk.  

I truly and completely do not fucking understand this strident, religious opposition to wearing masks in public.  It's such a minimal thing.  It's not much different than the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs we've lived with forever.  Yet we fight it as if it was a requirement to lop off your own arm with a chainsaw.  It's a fucking nothing, in terms of impositions....yet there's a movement that resists it as if it was an order to dissolve the republic.  It's fucking nuts.

It's a real risk reduction, but it's puppy nuts in the grand scheme of a virus that spreads as rampant as this one has.  I'm not strident, or religious in not wearing a mask.  I have been the entire time.  We've actually met before.  I'm not someone hiding behind a facade channeling wing-nut shit.  I'm trying to say that masks, while they may help for people that actually have symptoms like coughing and what not, don't do fuck about fuck for people that are asymptomatic.  That's what i'm getting at.   

[Brisketexan 105482]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

It's a real risk reduction, but it's puppy nuts in the grand scheme of a virus that spreads as rampant as this one has.  I'm not strident, or religious in not wearing a mask.  I have been the entire time.  We've actually met before.  I'm not someone hiding behind a facade channeling wing-nut shit.  I'm trying to say that masks, while they may help for people that actually have symptoms like coughing and what not, don't do fuck about fuck for people that are asymptomatic.  That's what i'm getting at.   

But......they do.   You exhale liquid particles, even in normal breathing.  A large number of those are blocked by a mask.  The load of virus that gets through is reduced.  Meaning the risk of someone else catching it is reduced.

It's not puppy nuts.  Even the flawed Danish study showed a 14% reduction in transmission from wearing a mask (and again, a flawed study).  If we're trying to get the transmission factor from 1.1 to below 1.0....a 14% reduction matters.

Social distancing matters.

Reducing the size of gathering matters.

Knock off 14% here, 5% there, 11% there.....and it has a material effect.

[Trey3216 15380]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

So much to joke about, right? 1700 new deaths today, closing in on 250,000 dead so far, and definitely going to be past 300k by Christmas! HAW HAW HAW AINT EVERYTHING SO FUNNY RIGHT NOW???

Fucks sake, wear a face mask. Don't argue that they're ineffective or encourage people not to wear them. COVID isn't going to just "go away, like a miracle". It takes everyone taking it fucking seriously and not snidely saying "BoDiEs In TrEeS" every time someone urges caution because it's going to get worse.

People like the weasel are why America is doing everything the hard way. "Just asking questions" about longstanding and proven medical and epidemiological mitigations for a respiratory viral pandemic. And when push comes to shove and they have to actually defend their shitty position, they disengage and then move the goalposts yet again.

Who the fuck is joking right now Tennille? 

[Trey3216 15380]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

But......they do.   You exhale liquid particles, even in normal breathing.  A large number of those are blocked by a mask.  The load of virus that gets through is reduced.  Meaning the risk of someone else catching it is reduced.

It's not puppy nuts.  Even the flawed Danish study showed a 14% reduction in transmission from wearing a mask (and again, a flawed study).  If we're trying to get the transmission factor from 1.1 to below 1.0....a 14% reduction matters.

Social distancing matters.

Reducing the size of gathering matters.

Knock off 14% here, 5% there, 11% there.....and it has a material effect.

Again, state where I said it didn't matter at all?>  I said that even with everyone wearing them the shit is going to spread.  Read.  Read.. Read...   

[Pato del Muerto 52666]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

They provide a very valuable, and portable, source of food, should things deteriorate.  

There are diminishing returns on mobility 

[Brisketexan 105482]

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Again, state where I said it didn't matter at all?>  I said that even with everyone wearing them the shit is going to spread.  Read.  Read.. Read...   

Kind of, but your statement is incomplete.  If the rate of spread is 1.1, cases GROW.  If the rate is kept below 1.0, cases SHRINK.  So, a really material distinction - it will still transmit, but it will not grow.

[Trey3216 15380]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint: wearing a mask has given me the freedom to silently mutter to myself about the people I see/have to deal with.  They can't see my lips as I say

"Fucking moron"

"move, dumbass"

"Holy crap, look at that ass"

"Holy crap, look at that fucking asshole"

It's quite liberating.  My only concern is that I'm developing a habit that I'll continue when we STOP wearing masks.  And I'll end up in a fight at HEB because someone sees me mouth "move your cart, you fucking jagoff."

A lot of dogs are cooler than a lot of people  

[Pato del Muerto 52666]

7 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Again, state where I said it didn't matter at all?>  I said that even with everyone wearing them the shit is going to spread.  Read.  Read.. Read...   

If you agree that mask wearing slows the spread of the virus, and that slowing the spread of the virus is beneficial, then what are you arguing about?

and to answer another question of yours earlier, I think the 3 weeks in the same place with the same people is the biggest reason you ended up contracting it, since one of the people there with you had it. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

[Trey3216 15380]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Elon Musk supposedly took four rapid tests, same nurse, in the same session, two came back positive, two negative.

30% false neg rate.  Would give him a 1:11 chance of testing negative twice (roughly).  He should know that given how statistics work    

[Trey3216 15380]

55 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The mindset of "acceptable behavior is the lowest common denominator I can identify" is REAL helpful, gang. No shit Newsome deserves all the criticism for hypocrisy that he's getting - BUT - does that also make his policy and mandate not worth following and not the right thing to do?

Because if your end goal is to get people to "do as I say", then you should really get started on criticizing the "let's solve obesity before mandating masks" argument being foisted by your brothers in arms

It absolutely makes anything he says a mandate against him.  He's being a hypocritical piece of shit, which should get anyone in an elected position voted out of their office.  But, alas... 

[Trey3216 15380]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Masks, hygiene, and distancing reduce the risk of transmission.  You are right, it's a virus.  NOTHING can ELIMINATE the risk of transmission.  So, even if you knock the risk down from 2% to .01%.....well, one in 10,000 people is STILL going to catch it.

We reduce risks, and RATE, of transmission.  Getting it below a 1.0 factor leads to declining cases.  So, we need to take measures that get it below that.  The concept is called "risk management," not "risk elimination," for a reason.

I know about risk management v elimination, I work in a multiple businesses that involve that.   I'm just laughing at the Spiderman meme that this keeps creating....  Where your mask to protect the others... Well how the hell did I get it when we were all wearing the masks.  So like I said, the statistics in that study are still fruitful, both ways.  They show that mask usage does cut down the spread some, but it's not a harbinger of defeat of the virus either.  That was the point.  

[Trey3216 15380]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Kind of, but your statement is incomplete.  If the rate of spread is 1.1, cases GROW.  If the rate is kept below 1.0, cases SHRINK.  So, a really material distinction - it will still transmit, but it will not grow.

Yet we've been wearing masks, and so has Europe ( and many of them have endured more stringent applications than here) and it's spreading like the clap in Lubbock 

[Brisketexan 105482]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

I know about risk management v elimination, I work in a multiple businesses that involve that.   I'm just laughing at the Spiderman meme that this keeps creating....  Where your mask to protect the others... Well how the hell did I get it when we were all wearing the masks.  So like I said, the statistics in that study are still fruitful, both ways.  They show that mask usage does cut down the spread some, but it's not a harbinger of defeat of the virus either.  That was the point.  

I don't think that anyone around here has even argued that point.  The mitigation strategies discussed are all about MANAGING the virus, not ending the pandemic.  They buy us time and manage the damage while we are doing so.  That's all we can do.  But we really need to do that.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

It absolutely makes anything he says a mandate against him.  He's being a hypocritical piece of shit, which should get anyone in an elected position voted out of their office.  But, alas... 

Dude. Ignore the troll.

[Brisketexan 105482]

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Yet we've been wearing masks, and so has Europe ( and many of them have endured more stringent applications than here) and it's spreading like the clap in Lubbock 

Correct.  That's why masks are just a part of the picture.  Wearing them correctly matters.  Still avoiding large indoor gatherings matters.  Avoiding small indoor gatherings for extended periods of time matters.

There is no magic bullet till widespread vaccination.  But all the pieces, together, have an effect.  We are buying time.  We are also undisciplined creatures.  Which hurts our efforts.

[Trey3216 15380]

11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If you agree that mask wearing slows the spread of the virus, and that slowing the spread of the virus is beneficial, then what are you arguing about?

and to answer another question of yours earlier, I think the 3 weeks in the same place with the same people is the biggest reason you ended up contracting it, since one of the people there with you had it. 

I'm arguing that it slows it at a rate that it will prove negligible in the grand statistical analysis.  Maybe wouldn't pass the 90th percentile study in a true statistical analysis.  I'm not advocating not wearing masks, I never have been.  I'm saying that the mask worshipers are telling people to "look at science" when 'science' is telling you that it helps but is negligible.  The real factor in all of it is length of interaction.  That's the science  

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

27 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Or how the shutdown of incoming travelers was assigned as xenophobic because you can't close the borders like that....then say we should've done more...

said no one. Here's the quote from Biden.  He said this the same day (at a speech in Iowa) that Trump made the ban. 

Quote

“We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering,”

it was the right call to close borders.  i don't think anyone will dispute that.  I guess the above quote is up for interpretation but it does not seem to say anything regarding a travel ban or being too soon or too late.  Just because Trump kept repeating the assertation that it did at a debate does not make it true, but like Sex Panther, maybe 60% of the time it works every time.

anyway, i agree with the polarization comments in your post, but this 'both sides' argument for initial covid response is ludicrous. 

[atomheartbevo 89891]

Texas is not going to do stay-at-home, and is not going to allow local officials to do stay-at-home, even though things are worse than they were when we got the first round.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-says-no-lockdown-is-coming-as-coronavirus-cases-soar-in-texas/

As to why and all of that, CR is that way, but this is about the fact that it's not going to happen.

The reality is, cities and counties are going to have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, and just hope they don't get sued by the state.

[Trey3216 15380]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think that anyone around here has even argued that point.  The mitigation strategies discussed are all about MANAGING the virus, not ending the pandemic.  They buy us time and manage the damage while we are doing so.  That's all we can do.  But we really need to do that.

Our mitigation strategies have been about buying time from day one.  We've done that.  But goalposts and all.   

 

Again, I'm not advocating anti-mask.  I never have been.  i'm showing stats that the masks are doing little to mitigate it.  

[Trey3216 15380]

2 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

said no one. Here's the quote from Biden.  He said this the same day (at a speech in Iowa) that Trump made the ban. 

it was the right call to close borders.  i don't think anyone will dispute that.  I guess the above quote is up for interpretation but it does not seem to say anything regarding a travel ban or being too soon or too late.  Just because Trump kept repeating the assertation that it did at a debate does not make it true, but like Sex Panther, maybe 60% of the time it works every time.

anyway, i agree with the polarization comments in your post, but this 'both sides' argument for initial covid response is ludicrous. 

The quote above is calling the shutting down of travelers xenophobic, or you just don't know how to read contextually.  

[Trey3216 15380]

I guess the grand point being...

-People hate statistics that don't fully support their ideas

-Statistics are a mostly a representation of how things work, but not fully

-People cannot reason when they are engrained in an idea that shows data they don't agree with.

-It's funny how people say "look at the science" only want to see science they agree with (Damn sure not how statistics work)

-It's sad how fucking introspective everyone has become, because they decide they don't want to reason with reasonable people.  

 

-Yes, some of these were shots at people, but I typed them up talking to myself as well.  Every one of you needs to check how you perceive information right now. We've become an information rich and knowledge poor society...and that's everyone of us.   We call that 'paralysis of analysis' in economic/statistics world.  

Edited November 18, 2020 by Trey3216

[InkaUtexas 26264]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Texas is not going to do stay-at-home, and is not going to allow local officials to do stay-at-home, even though things are worse than they were when we got the first round.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-says-no-lockdown-is-coming-as-coronavirus-cases-soar-in-texas/

As to why and all of that, CR is that way, but this is about the fact that it's not going to happen.

The reality is, cities and counties are going to have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, and just hope they don't get sued by the state.

we deserve what is coming I guess.   

[BradInATX 9208]

10 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I guess the grand point being...

-People hate statistics that don't fully support their ideas

-Statistics are a mostly a representation of how things work, but not fully

-People cannot reason when they are engrained in an idea that shows data they don't agree with.

-It's funny how people say "look at the science" only want to see science they agree with (Damn sure not how statistics work)

-It's sad how fucking introspective everyone has become, because they decide they don't want to reason with reasonable people.  

 

Trey, you don't even understand the statistics behind the article that you yourself posted. All that study said is that being socially distanced outdoors (a _very_ low risk activity already) is only slightly more risky than social distance + mask. 

It's basically saying that helmets only reduced deaths in car accidents that happened at 10 mph by a negligible amount. Of course they do, because it's not risky to begin with. I bet they'd find that masks don't reduce risk of catching Covid on the moon either!!!

Not only that but Brisket had to correct you on the efficacy from the study; he is right, it's 14%, not 0.3% or whatever you said.

 

Every single credible scientific or statistical study done in a non-partisan way in the recent past has shown categorically that masks reduce spread significantly. This is not a "well the truth is somewhere in the middle" situations that people who are on the wrong side of an issue try to foist upon everyone else. This is a "you are wrong" situation. Masks work. The earth is round. Vaccinations don't give you autism. 

You are too smart for this bullshit. Stop with the anti-science.

Edited November 18, 2020 by BradInATX

[sidis 9832]

7 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I guess the grand point being...

-People hate statistics that don't fully support their ideas

-Statistics are a mostly a representation of how things work, but not fully

-People cannot reason when they are engrained in an idea that shows data they don't agree with.

-It's funny how people say "look at the science" only want to see science they agree with (Damn sure not how statistics work)

-It's sad how fucking introspective everyone has become, because they decide they don't want to reason with reasonable people.  

i am trying to figure out who and what you are arguing with.  no one here says that masks will stop the virus in its tracks and eradicate it.  it is a mitigation strategy.

you have said the data demonstrates that the masks help, but do not have 100% effectiveness.  i don't think anyone disagrees.

you say you are not advocating for people to not wear masks.  i think only dipshits would disagree.

so again, i am not sure what the root of the dispute is in this thread.

if it goes back to whether or not newsome was a giant hypocrite, no doubt about it.  however, if you're intent is to create equivalence between that and the politicization and undermining of best practices when it comes to slowing transmission of covid by the president over the last eight months...well, as someone above said, that's simply ludicrous.  that said, i can't tell if that is the point or not.  you just seem to be scattershooting.

[Captainant 27882]

49 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Who the fuck is joking right now Tennille? 

 

4 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Relax man, we are just joking.

 

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

21 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

The quote above is calling the shutting down of travelers xenophobic, or you just don't know how to read contextually.  

as i said it's up for interpretation.  agree to disagree.

[Trey3216 15380]

8 minutes ago, sidis said:

i am trying to figure out who and what you are arguing with.  no one here says that masks will stop the virus in its tracks and eradicate it.  it is a mitigation strategy.

you have said the data demonstrates that the masks help, but do not have 100% effectiveness.  i don't think anyone disagrees.

you say you are not advocating for people to not wear masks.  i think only dipshits would disagree.

so again, i am not sure what the root of the dispute is in this thread.

if it goes back to whether or not newsome was a giant hypocrite, no doubt about it.  however, if you're intent is to create equivalence between that and the politicization and undermining of best practices when it comes to slowing transmission of covid by the president over the last eight months...well, as someone above said, that's simply ludicrous.  that said, i can't tell if that is the point or not.  you just seem to be scattershooting.

Masks help to a point where it's almost statistically insignificant in the study I posted. That was my point.  Brisket was trying to run how more effective they were as a percentage over non-wearers as proof.  I said I agreed they might be more effective, but as this 1000+ page thread has proven, wearing a mask and mandates for them are very imperative to some.  The fact of the matter is, while they are 'more effective', it lies in the statistically insignificant portion of the curve in some studies.  Not in some others.  But science!!!   It shows that only the science that people want to look at is what matters to them.  

aka... we don't even know how effective they are and we don't know fuck all enough about this deal to condemn people like they have been about masks from data presented.  

 

I advocate wearing them around people.  But that's my own choice.  

That's more or less the point.   

Edited November 18, 2020 by Trey3216

[staboner 4988]

9 minutes ago, sidis said:

i am trying to figure out who and what you are arguing with.  no one here says that masks will stop the virus in its tracks and eradicate it.  it is a mitigation strategy.

you have said the data demonstrates that the masks help, but do not have 100% effectiveness.  i don't think anyone disagrees.

you say you are not advocating for people to not wear masks.  i think only dipshits would disagree.

so again, i am not sure what the root of the dispute is in this thread.

if it goes back to whether or not newsome was a giant hypocrite, no doubt about it.  however, if you're intent is to create equivalence between that and the politicization and undermining of best practices when it comes to slowing transmission of covid by the president over the last eight months...well, as someone above said, that's simply ludicrous.  that said, i can't tell if that is the point or not.  you just seem to be scattershooting.

he's having an internet with himself, man

[staboner 4988]

49 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

[Captainant 27882]

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Masks help to a point where it's almost statistically insignificant in the study I posted. That was my point.  Brisket was trying to run how more effective they were as a percentage over non-wearers as proof.  I said I agreed they might be more effective, but as this 1000+ page thread has proven, wearing a mask and mandates for them are very imperative to some.  The fact of the matter is, while they are 'more effective', it lies in the statistically insignificant portion of the curve in some studies.  Not in some others.  But science!!!   It shows that only the science that people want to look at is what matters to them.  

 

That's more or less the point.   

The study is comparing against an already low risk behavior. Which it still demonstrably and measurably improves upon. You are missing the other context and reading only the tiny grain of info you saw repeated on facebook or parler or wherever you first read it. 

So you're "not arguing against mask usage", you're just arguing that they're pointless and it's hypocritical to put a mandate in place. 

Sounds like you should really be just asking questions

[sidis 9832]

5 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Masks help to a point where it's almost statistically insignificant in the study I posted. That was my point.  Brisket was trying to run how more effective they were as a percentage over non-wearers as proof.  I said I agreed they might be more effective, but as this 1000+ page thread has proven, wearing a mask and mandates for them are very imperative to some.  The fact of the matter is, while they are 'more effective', it lies in the statistically insignificant portion of the curve in some studies.  Not in some others.  But science!!!   It shows that only the science that people want to look at is what matters to them.  

aka... we don't even know how effective they are and we don't know fuck all enough about this deal to condemn people like they have been about masks from data presented.  

 

I advocate wearing them around people.  But that's my own choice.  

That's more or less the point.   

and just to be clear, when you bemoan the ignoring of the statistical data and reach your conclusion that the effectiveness is miniscule, are you specifically referring to the danish study?

[Trey3216 15380]

2 minutes ago, staboner said:

he's having an internet with himself, man

I may have had a few beers at lunch, which actually hones my radar for people that don't know shit about statistics and think the scientific method is "whatever the scientists I like say".  

[Captainant 27882]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

I may have had a few beers at lunch, which actually hones my radar for people that don't know shit about statistics and think the scientific method is "whatever the scientists I like say".