Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2020, 05:39 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,560 posts, read 23,870,140 times
Reputation: 14892

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Let me guess-that's not on CNN or BSNBC? Thanks for the link, it's educational.
Well, I can’t say they’ve never mentioned it, as I don’t watch cable news at all, but I’d put down some good money on it anyway, just based on reputation & expectations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2020, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,560 posts, read 23,870,140 times
Reputation: 14892
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
LOL....."follow the science" says the left. Up to the point wherre the science doesn't agree with them.
Because it’s not about science, the process. It’s about Science, the religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 05:53 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,272,383 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
So I read through the methodology. Basically, healthy adults wear masks and go on about their normal routines, and another group of healthy adults don't wear masks and go about their daily routines. In a month we'll see who has more covid. In a nutshell.

First, that methodology DOESN'T test for what science is currently telling us - that mask wearers protect OTHERS, not the wearer. So that component - the most interesting and most widely recommended procedure - doesn't even enter this study at all.

Secondly, there is no double blind or placebo components to this study as the original post indicated.

I don't now whether wearing a mask around a bunch of non mask wearers will help the mask wearer avoid COVID, but that's what this study seeks to determine, and it does seem early on that we were told masks don't protect the wearer.
Bingo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 06:51 AM
 
21,382 posts, read 7,870,335 times
Reputation: 18148
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
Do you have a link and a date for that info? I do remember, back in April, that was thought to be true.

In recent information, the benefit of a mask to the wearer was thought to be much less than the benefit to the others.
Yes, I do.

In fact -- it's the very same link that the OP posted. And I said it was from clinical trials.gov.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337541


Are you actually looking at anything the OP has posted? Or just dismissing everything outright?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 06:54 AM
 
21,382 posts, read 7,870,335 times
Reputation: 18148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
LOL....."follow the science" says the left. Up to the point wherre the science doesn't agree with them.
Yep.

If the left were in charge of science years ago, smoking would still be considered good for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 06:56 AM
 
26,646 posts, read 13,622,925 times
Reputation: 19104
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellopity View Post
That’s disgusting. I’m glad I refrained from clicking on the link.

He said that he didn’t click on it because I have questioned vaccines in the past and he doesn’t trust me. It’s not accurate at all that the researchers are “anti-mask” if you and mathguy actually read the links you would see that they expected to find that masks work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 06:59 AM
 
21,382 posts, read 7,870,335 times
Reputation: 18148
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
No I don't, but it would still be by far a better solution to keep pee off of things than not wearing underwear at all, which catches and holds the pee.

(before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't pee in my pants It's the visual - that if you DO, and you're wearing underwear, that will keep the liquid contained and it won't hit the floor as it would if you weren't wearing covering).
Well, no.

Because if you pee yourself, you immediately clean it up and put on new underwear.

So it doesn't get passed on. You don't walk around in it all day long in pee-riddled underwear, touching stuff. [At last I hope not.] Like people do in disgusting and useless masks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 06:59 AM
 
26,646 posts, read 13,622,925 times
Reputation: 19104
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
It's not.



The rejections imply the methodology was poor, and it is. The biggest problem is the mask wearers only having to use them a minimum of three hours per day while outside the home, presumably at work. That leaves the option of socializing without a mask the rest of the day.

They are pretty much guaranteeing that masks will be shown not to work.
That’s a misrepresentation. They had to wear a mask anytime they left their home and had to leave their home for a minimum of three hours a day. Not just wear it a minimum of three hours a day.

The researchers are saying the results are controversial and are also saying that the results will be published when the publisher are brave enough to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 07:01 AM
 
26,646 posts, read 13,622,925 times
Reputation: 19104
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellopity View Post
So in a sense, this is like a research study getting rejected when they find that parachutes don’t save lives of skydivers. Wow so “controversial”!!

But wait! It turns out the investigators were studying people jumping off airplanes while the planes are on the ground. And the journals said, “Well, you should really test the parachutes when people jump from an altitude of at least 10,000ft. You’re setting up the study to show no benefit with a parachute. And they have to use it all the time if they are randomized to use parachutes.”

Always look at the question asked and the methodology. Got it!
The study was approved to go forward, the results are what are being withheld form being published.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2020, 07:02 AM
 
26,646 posts, read 13,622,925 times
Reputation: 19104
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
LOL....."follow the science" says the left. Up to the point wherre the science doesn't agree with them.

I know. It’s incredibly frustrating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top