Bring the restrictions back or let it rip? (San Diego, August: unemployment rate, move)

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Kinda hard to catch Covid when you're out in the tractor tending potatoes in the north 40. Despite the isolation, Idaho's death rate is 25% higher than urban California's -- that's nothing to crow about.

Ha ha very funny. Keep it up……. I have no idea what any states stats are and don’t care. Just enjoying life and eating potatoes with fry sauce here

[njbiodude]

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.

For some reason city data won't let me paste links:

Check out the new study from Johns Hopkins showing lockdowns didnt work in western Europe or the US, The British study showing masks had no significant effect on school infections (later used to justify the removal of masks from British schools) or the Bangladesh mask study that showed that masks only worked slightly with people over 50. All but the last one are a lot more recent than many of the 2020 studies used to "justify" lockdowns/masks.

The study you pasted was a correlational study comparing per capita death rates essentially in rural Trump country to mostly liberal cities. It's no secret rural counties suffer from higher rates of chronic illness, obesity, smoking, and a larger uninsured population simply because they're rural and theres fewer high paying jobs with good benefits. They do indeed have lower vaccination rates as well likely because the populations trust the government less than cities where the benefits of your tax dollars are clearly present.

When you include wealthier conservative suburbs with minimal mask wearing/less restrictions and compare them to Democratic cities with strong mask mandates and more business and school closures though its often a lot less obvious. I pointed out OC (where I know many public schools outright defied Newsom and were open in 2020 and mask wearing was almost nonexistant in many areas after last spring) and LA before but theres plenty more similar examples.

Correlational studies over regions can work but they also can have massive biases and the one you gave me had gaping holes in it. I once saw a "peer reviewed" study stating that graduating high school leads to longer life expectancy. The study cited Equatorial Guinea and claimed that despite being a overall wealthy country by African standards it had a really low educational attainment and low life expectancy. What it didn't mention was that EG had the highest wealth inequality on Earth and a ridiculously high incidence of HIV.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Check out the new study from Johns Hopkins showing lockdowns didnt work in western Europe or the US...

After the study was published, it hit the headlines and started trending on social media. But some members of the scientific community soon began voicing their skepticism about the methodology, integrity and credibility of the research.

Among their primary concerns was the fact that the paper had not been peer-reviewed, that it had picked a very limited time frame to focus on, and that the vast majority of literature was dismissed by the authors, who chose to focus on just 24 papers.

"This study is flawed in numerous ways, and its conclusions are wrong," Seth Flaxman, associate professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, who recently worked with the London Imperial College Department of Mathematics and School of Public Health to model the spread of COVID-19, told Newsweek.

https://www.newsweek.com/did-johns-h...so-far-1676724

Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=39b0b22a1225

The study is not definitive. The research represents a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" by three economists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University. The institution did not endorse the study.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...ovid-19-death/

Originally Posted by njbiodude

... the Bangladesh mask study that showed that masks only worked slightly with people over 50.

I can't find anything more recent than this study done there from November 2020 to April 2021: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

[ThinkingOutsideTheBox]

While many counties will do away with the mask mandate, my bet is on San Francisco to keep and enforce them. The SFPD will continue to be more likely to show up more quickly for a report of a maskless person in a store or someone without a vaccine passport in a restaurant than for calls about robberies in process.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

After the study was published, it hit the headlines and started trending on social media. But some members of the scientific community soon began voicing their skepticism about the methodology, integrity and credibility of the research.

Among their primary concerns was the fact that the paper had not been peer-reviewed, that it had picked a very limited time frame to focus on, and that the vast majority of literature was dismissed by the authors, who chose to focus on just 24 papers.

"This study is flawed in numerous ways, and its conclusions are wrong," Seth Flaxman, associate professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, who recently worked with the London Imperial College Department of Mathematics and School of Public Health to model the spread of COVID-19, told Newsweek.

https://www.newsweek.com/did-johns-h...so-far-1676724

Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=39b0b22a1225

The study is not definitive. The research represents a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" by three economists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University. The institution did not endorse the study.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...ovid-19-death/



I can't find anything more recent than this study done there from November 2020 to April 2021: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

If you look at your sources it's all liberal media sources that promoted lockdowns (barring Newsweek which generally tries to be pretty fair and presenting both sides). It hasn't had time to be peer reviewed because it's new.

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockd...-shows-1561656

There's an earlier one linked to Stanford that said the same thing.

You still haven't mentioned reading the (fully peer reviewed) mask study on School children either. The Bay Area's bizarre obsession of masking young children at all costs (the repeal of the mask mandate does not apply to schools) while letting people enter crowded nightclubs is the epitome of absurd pointless rules.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

If you look at your sources it's all liberal media sources that promoted lockdowns (barring Newsweek which generally tries to be pretty fair and presenting both sides). It hasn't had time to be peer reviewed because it's new.

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockd...-shows-1561656

There's an earlier one linked to Stanford that said the same thing.

You still haven't mentioned reading the (fully peer reviewed) mask study on School children either. The Bay Area's bizarre obsession of masking young children at all costs (the repeal of the mask mandate does not apply to schools) while letting people enter crowded nightclubs is the epitome of absurd pointless rules.

No they’re not. Forbes is consistently rated ‘Center’ to ‘Right-leaning’. PolitiFact is rated very high as ‘Center’ but somewhat ‘Left-leaning’. Science journal has a completely, 100%, outstanding rating as ‘Pro-Science’ only, as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal with absolutely no political leanings.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No they’re not. Forbes is consistently rated ‘Center’ to ‘Right-leaning’. PolitiFact is rated very high as ‘Center’ but somewhat ‘Left-leaning’. Science journal has a completely, 100%, outstanding rating as ‘Pro-Science’ only, as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal with absolutely no political leanings.

Rated by who? Another biased political site? Anyone can look at politifact's stories and "fact checking " to see they are clearltly left. They are not center or just "left-leaning". Putting fact in their name confused people to think they are mostly neutral. The way they even rate what is mostly true, mostly false, etc., is downright hilarious.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Rated by who? Another biased political site? Anyone can look at politifact's stories and "fact checking " to see they are clearltly left. They are not center or just "left-leaning". Putting fact in their name confused people to think they are mostly neutral. The way they even rate what is mostly true, mostly false, etc., is downright hilarious.

You started your little protest rant above with some questions. Why don’t you do the two minutes of research necessary to answer them yourself before you fire off your post?

You have cited one of four media, referred to in the previous post, as “liberal.” (Which I identified as ‘Left-leaning’ as well.) The accusation from the previous poster I was responding to was that all four media linked were “liberal media sources that promoted lockdowns.” Of the four, You will find only the one you detailed, PolitiFact, to be rated by some reviewers as “left leaning” … but still citing very high accuracy and truthful reporting.

The others have very clear standing as ‘Center’ and ‘Right-leaning’ and ‘Strictly Pro-Science’ and all get highest reviews for truthful accuracy in reporting.

As to who rates these media? Well, you can look that up in a minute. If you can prove the raters are full of doo-doo … you are free to publish your findings on that as well.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

If you look at your sources it's all liberal media sources that promoted lockdowns (barring Newsweek which generally tries to be pretty fair and presenting both sides). It hasn't had time to be peer reviewed because it's new.

The information shouldn't be considered until it's peer reviewed. Google the study yourself and you'll see several articles questioning its validity.

Originally Posted by njbiodude

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockd...-shows-1561656

This article is from a YEAR ago.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You started your little protest rant above with some questions. Why don’t you do the two minutes of research necessary to answer them yourself before you fire off your post?

You have cited one of four media, referred to in the previous post, as “liberal.” (Which I identified as ‘Left-leaning’ as well.) The accusation from the previous poster I was responding to was that all four media linked were “liberal media sources that promoted lockdowns.” Of the four, You will find only the one you detailed, PolitiFact, to be rated by some reviewers as “left leaning” … but still citing very high accuracy and truthful reporting.

The others have very clear standing as ‘Center’ and ‘Right-leaning’ and ‘Strictly Pro-Science’ and all get highest reviews for truthful accuracy in reporting.

As to who rates these media? Well, you can look that up in a minute. If you can prove the raters are full of doo-doo … you are free to publish your findings on that as well.

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.