Are health officals misleading the public? (cars, ticket, drive)

[zerp]

Originally Posted by Arcos

While that may be true to some extent, scientific studies have shown very clearly that wearing masks during the pandemic has saved lives and reduced the rates of Covid spread, thus buying valuable time for our health care work force that has been exposed to the worst of this pandemic from day 1. And they have had to wear masks for much longer than the rest of us.

Which is why health officials were right to mandate masks. You may have a different personal view, but simply put, the scientific results are what they are, and those results don’t change based on personal opinion.

Masks aren’t more effective than they actually are because I’d like them to be, and they aren’t less effective than they actually are because people don’t like masks. They simply are what they are. If those studies didn’t show that masks help, then I wouldn’t say that they help. It’s not like I like wearing a mask. But I can’t lie to you about them.

Or NJ, NYC, MI would have had better outcomes than Florida.

[Arcos]

Originally Posted by zerp

Or NJ, NYC, MI would have had better outcomes than Florida.

Your statement simply shows that you don’t understand how to run a scientific analysis. Leave the issue to those who can run an unbiased analysis without letting their personal fears and preferences tip the scale.

Not only is your question unscientific, the answer you claim is also not factual.

It’s so poorly framed that I don’t know where to begin. You may as well ask why, if Kevlar is so effective, US soldiers had different outcomes in the Iraq war than Nepalese soldiers in Serbia. What the what now?

[Arcos]

Originally Posted by zerp

Or NJ, NYC, MI would have had better outcomes than Florida.

How come you didn’t compare WA to FL? Because FL loses that comparison by a mile. Why did you just pick states that favor your argument? Weak, right?

Why didn’t you compare OR to AZ? CA to LA?

Doesn’t matter. The question itself is so flawed that no answer would be satisfactory.

To know if masks work, simply have a thousand people in a county wear masks and a thousand similar people, also in the same part of the same county, not wear masks. Then simply count the numbers who got sick, hospitalized and died in each group, over a few months, and you have your answer. The ONLY thing substantially different between the groups would be the masking.

No need to cherry pick data. No need to ask impossible questions. No need to lie to yourself. Just simple counting.

That’s all science is. Very simple, really.

[zerp]

Originally Posted by Arcos

How come you didn’t compare WA to FL? Because FL loses that comparison by a mile. Why did you just pick states that favor your argument? Weak, right?

Why didn’t you compare OR to AZ? CA to LA?

Doesn’t matter. The question itself is so flawed that no answer would be satisfactory.

To know if masks work, simply have a thousand people in a county wear masks and a thousand similar people, also in the same part of the same county, not wear masks. Then simply count the numbers who got sick, hospitalized and died in each group, over a few months, and you have your answer. The ONLY thing substantially different between the groups would be the masking.

No need to cherry pick data. No need to ask impossible questions. No need to lie to yourself. Just simple counting.

That’s all science is. Very simple, really.

You kind of just did it for me. MI vs CA, near identical restrictions and requirements as far as face diapers. Drastically different outcomes. Whhhhhhhhhy?

SCIENCE, YA?

[MechAndy]

That’s all politics is, very simple, really.

Fixed it for ya .

[Arcos]

Originally Posted by zerp

You kind of just did it for me. MI vs CA, near identical restrictions and requirements as far as face diapers. Drastically different outcomes. Whhhhhhhhhy?

SCIENCE, YA?

As I said, fatally flawed question, fatally flawed answer. If you actually wanted to test that, you’d need to do modeling with some serious computer power and your answer would only be as good as your coding.

Simply take a population, give half masks at random, give the other half no masks, count how well they do. Easy, direct, gives you your answer every time and you can’t lie to yourself. It’s the most basic science that is so easy to understand, I wonder why you aren’t willing to accept it.

Actually, I don’t wonder. It gives you the answer you don’t want, so you prefer to lie to yourself, so you do.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by Arcos

As I said, fatally flawed question, fatally flawed answer. If you actually wanted to test that, you’d need to do modeling with some serious computer power and your answer would only be as good as your coding.

Simply take a population, give half masks at random, give the other half no masks, count how well they do. Easy, direct, gives you your answer every time and you can’t lie to yourself. It’s the most basic science that is so easy to understand, I wonder why you aren’t willing to accept it.

Actually, I don’t wonder. It gives you the answer you don’t want, so you prefer to lie to yourself, so you do.

Someone (in Denmark, if I remember correctly) tried to do such a study. Unfortunately, too many participants refused to follow their assigned use or non-use of masks.

Of course, masks were never intended to be the sole mitigation measure. Avoiding crowds is another, and the same people who do not want to use masks do not want to do that, either. To top it off, there are those who will go out in public when they are knowingly infected, even getting on airplanes.

The number of people in the US who do not understand basic infection control measures is mind boggling.

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Someone (in Denmark, if I remember correctly) tried to do such a study. Unfortunately, too many participants refused to follow their assigned use or non-use of masks.

Of course, masks were never intended to be the sole mitigation measure. Avoiding crowds is another, and the same people who do not want to use masks do not want to do that, either. To top it off, there are those who will go out in public when they are knowingly infected, even getting on airplanes.

The number of people in the US who do not understand basic infection control measures is mind boggling.

If someone is fully vaccinated why should they wear a mask? Wait.... is it because the vaccine is not effective? Or the mask are worthless in most cases? That the public has been lead down this path by people who haven't a clue? That big tech social media forums have stopped useful information because those in power don't like other opinions or thuths on this BS? Just wondering.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by rantiquity

If someone is fully vaccinated why should they wear a mask? Wait.... is it because the vaccine is not effective? Or the mask are worthless in most cases? That the public has been lead down this path by people who haven't a clue? Just wondering.

Try to stop thinking in terms of absolutes. The vaccines are not 100% effective. That does not mean they are 0% effective. Masks are not 100% effective. That does not mean they are 0% effective.

The fully vaccinated should wear masks because some - not all - of them will get infected. Masks will reduce - not eliminate - transmission. Masks have to be worn correctly and consistently for the best results, and some are more effective than others.

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Try to stop thinking in terms of absolutes. The vaccines are not 100% effective. That does not mean they are 0% effective. Masks are not 100% effective. That does not mean they are 0% effective.

The fully vaccinated should wear masks because some - not all - of them will get infected. Masks will reduce - not eliminate - transmission. Masks have to be worn correctly and consistently for the best results, and some are more effective than others.

Well that response seems to be all over the place...thank anyway....I think.