Bring the restrictions back or let it rip? (stores, eat)

[Carpenter858]

Originally Posted by Finper

I said we were average. We have no mandates or rules. Life is just normal here we don’t even talk about Covid. You should come visit maybe it’ll clear your head

Not to mention Idaho's unemployment rate ranking at #4, compared to Ca's at 51. Great job, Newsolini. Ca also had the highest business closure rate last I saw back in Aug 2021. All the Dem states rank at the bottom with the exception of Alaska. Interesting, how all the Dem governors are lifting mask mandates now. Even provinces in Canada are beginning to remove the Dictator's covid restrictions, but idiot school boards continue to mask kids.

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

I already knew the answer. You were referring to mediabiasfactcheck which is about the only source out there which calls politifact "left-center". The problem with your source is they themselves are left biased.

We agree the others do get higher marks but not politifact which is why thats the one I called out.

No, I wasn’t. There are several media bias surveyors to sample. Here’s another reputable review:

PolitiFact

Bias: Middle

Reliability: Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting

https://adfontesmedia.com/politifact...d-reliability/



Don’t like it? Look up a good rebuttal.

Meanwhile, you identified one of four sources in question as being biased. One … of four. And the one you identified has mixed, contradicting reviews from multiple sources. Other sources were: Neutral (Newsweek), ‘Lean-right’ (Forbes), ‘Strictly Pro-Science, no political influences’ (Science journal).

All considered, a nicely balanced set of links from CA4Now.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

This article is from a YEAR ago.

Yes it takes a while for things to be peer reviewed.

It doesn't stop news sources like the Washington Post to publish articles in August of 2020 stating the mortality rate of covid was 6%, despite scientists (including the WHO citing peer reviewed studies) knowing for months this was off by at least a factor of 10 (this is pre-vaccine of course) and present it as fact. But they'll be the first to immediately discount a new study from members associated with Johns Hopkins and screech about how the study's methodology is all wrong and how it's not peer reviewed even though it's brand new etc because that doesn't fit a certain fear narrative they've been selling.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Yes it takes a while for things to be peer reviewed.

Those are two different studies. The study from your Newsweek link was peer reviewed....it analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020. (Early 2020!)

[wac_432]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ctions/621627/

This is what I've been saying since everyone had access to two vaxxes. It was time to drop all mandatory restrictions back in June.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by wac_432

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ctions/621627/

This is what I've been saying since everyone had access to two vaxxes. It was time to drop all mandatory restrictions back in June.

Yup and San Diego did until you know who needed more attention.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Not cherry picking. Look, the published peer-reviewed data is clear, if you mask, vax and boost your survival is far, far better than not. There is some correlation with pro-mandate states having better outcomes. It's not perfect because no state has a 100% compliant population.

No disrespect but it seems you're the one poking holes in data to fit your bias.

You're definitely cherry picking and just throwing masks in there. You're not even quantifying it but rather making assumptions based on vaccination rates and voting.

Even with the death rates, how many of those counties are rural and have bad or inadequate healthcare systems?

[1AngryTaxPayer]

What are the maskers gonna do on wed? Back to the bunker.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

What are the maskers gonna do on wed? Back to the bunker.

Wear the government-provided free N-95's that never showed up in the drug stores.

I mean that seriously. If I feel like I'm going into a high-risk environment, like a flight or public transit, I'll wear an N-95. That's for colds and the flu. I'm triple-vaxxed (and will continue to take free boosters as they are provided), so COVID isn't an issue for me. I wish what was promised would actually show up, so I could avoid the misery of these other viruses better (for free).

If I have the sniffles, I'll wear a surgical mask to protect others.

Everyone ought to be on-board with these common-sense practices. Of course they're not in line with hard-right or hard-left politics, so they won't.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Wear the government-provided free N-95's that never showed up in the drug stores.

I mean that seriously. If I feel like I'm going into a high-risk environment, like a flight or public transit, I'll wear an N-95. That's for colds and the flu. I'm triple-vaxxed (and will continue to take free boosters as they are provided), so COVID isn't an issue for me. I wish what was promised would actually show up, so I could avoid the misery of these other viruses better (for free).

If I have the sniffles, I'll wear a surgical mask to protect others.

Everyone ought to be on-board with these common-sense practices. Of course they're not in line with hard-right or hard-left politics, so they won't.

People didn't do that before so I don't see why we need to now. I don't think a plane or public transit is any worse than a crowded bar/club, sporting events, etc...