This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.  (Read 215268 times)

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3765 on: January 21, 2022, 05:04:28 AM »
For the time being at least, in England (not the whole of the UK) the covid charade ends next Thursday. All the "Plan B" restrictions which were never justified in the first place are being dropped. The biggest wailing of all from the covidian cultists is that mask wearing is no longer "mandated". Which means only the virtue-signalling tossers and cowards will still be muzzled in public.

I still retain my perfect record of never having worn a mask and never owning one.
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3766 on: January 21, 2022, 05:10:02 PM »
Remember when medical professionals cared about the Hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm"? I guess these days the oath is, "I think this works even though there's no data to support it, just do what I say or the policeman will break your jaw for your own safety."

I think you misspelled Hypocritic oath
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4551
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3767 on: January 21, 2022, 05:32:10 PM »
If masks help, why do RCTs not (on balance) show they help? Surely if they helped, then the evidence would consistently show this, rather than null/negative effect?

For every legit study showing they don't help there are more legit studies showing they do help. Whenever someone posts one of those studies showing they do help here, people nitpick it in a way they don't nitpick the studies showing it doesn't help. So the answer to your question is confirmation bias.

This is so false as to almost be a direct lie.  There are 26 RCT studies of mask usage cited in various CDC publications (almost none of which deal with SARS-Covid-19 directly, as to be expected considering the timeline that such trials have).  Over 75% show weak or no correlation.  The Bangladesh study and the Danish studies, even if taken at face value, provide little support for either conclusion.  Most medical studies are done at p<0.05, which means that there is only a 1-in-20 chance of the correlation being mechanically wrong (the process or conclusions, however...).  Do enough studies, and your 1-in-20 chances will start popping up.  It's not that surprising, then, that one of the 26 studies cited (the Bangladesh study) goes against the data from the rest.  One, or even a handful, of studies does not prove ANYTHING.  You need consistent, reproducible, results to start drawing any conclusions... which we don't have.  So, until such time as the RCT studies on mask-wearing are clear, reproducible, and overwhelmingly in favor, no efficacy of masks has been proven at all...

When I clicked your link...oh wait. Right. Just more bullshit assertions from some bullshit article you read some time in the past from some bullshit source from your bubble spinning more bullshit.

If you want to prove what you're claiming, provide a link to a non-insane or non-clickbait website. And note I never claimed "cited in various" anything. I said studies show masks help. Not that they "prevent you from getting covid" because most of the studies I am referring to say they reduce the chance you will SPREAD covid to someone else. People love to call out studies claiming masks don't stop you from GETTING covid and pretend that's where the discussion of masks end when they know full well the claim is more typically that they help reduce the spread of covid from you outward.

Like, for example, this evidence review of face masks against COVID-19, stating, "The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts".

My guess is you will ignore all that, and again repeat that masks don't prevent you from receiving covid. Though you will know it's you misrepresenting everything I just said. Because you don't have jack shit on your side of this debate.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2022, 05:39:54 PM by Mistwell »

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3768 on: January 21, 2022, 06:43:24 PM »
How do you maskholes explain mask mandates causing "cases" to go up? And relaxation of restrictions, including masks, causing them to go down?

Not studies or "models", but real world observation.
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 5038
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3769 on: January 21, 2022, 07:57:55 PM »
If masks help, why do RCTs not (on balance) show they help? Surely if they helped, then the evidence would consistently show this, rather than null/negative effect?

For every legit study showing they don't help there are more legit studies showing they do help. Whenever someone posts one of those studies showing they do help here, people nitpick it in a way they don't nitpick the studies showing it doesn't help. So the answer to your question is confirmation bias.

This is so false as to almost be a direct lie.  There are 26 RCT studies of mask usage cited in various CDC publications (almost none of which deal with SARS-Covid-19 directly, as to be expected considering the timeline that such trials have).  Over 75% show weak or no correlation.  The Bangladesh study and the Danish studies, even if taken at face value, provide little support for either conclusion.  Most medical studies are done at p<0.05, which means that there is only a 1-in-20 chance of the correlation being mechanically wrong (the process or conclusions, however...).  Do enough studies, and your 1-in-20 chances will start popping up.  It's not that surprising, then, that one of the 26 studies cited (the Bangladesh study) goes against the data from the rest.  One, or even a handful, of studies does not prove ANYTHING.  You need consistent, reproducible, results to start drawing any conclusions... which we don't have.  So, until such time as the RCT studies on mask-wearing are clear, reproducible, and overwhelmingly in favor, no efficacy of masks has been proven at all...

When I clicked your link...oh wait. Right. Just more bullshit assertions from some bullshit article you read some time in the past from some bullshit source from your bubble spinning more bullshit.

If you want to prove what you're claiming, provide a link to a non-insane or non-clickbait website. And note I never claimed "cited in various" anything. I said studies show masks help. Not that they "prevent you from getting covid" because most of the studies I am referring to say they reduce the chance you will SPREAD covid to someone else. People love to call out studies claiming masks don't stop you from GETTING covid and pretend that's where the discussion of masks end when they know full well the claim is more typically that they help reduce the spread of covid from you outward.

Like, for example, this evidence review of face masks against COVID-19, stating, "The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts".

My guess is you will ignore all that, and again repeat that masks don't prevent you from receiving covid. Though you will know it's you misrepresenting everything I just said. Because you don't have jack shit on your side of this debate.
I've certainly linked to them before, as well as providing thorough summaries. Remember what happened, every time? You went silent, and stopped responding. Then, pages later, when you believed everyone had forgotten how your posts were thoroughly debunked, you popped up again to post the same ignorant nonsense.

And I like the way you attempt to preemptively discredit anyone who disagrees with you with the "non-insane or non-clickbait" claim. If you can't win an argument, I guess it's really important to insinuate anyone who dares to reply to you is insane.

Let's see:

2019 WHO meta-study (of 10 other studies). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/non-pharmaceutical-public-health-measuresfor-mitigating-the-risk-and-impact-of-epidemic-and-pandemic-influenza
2020 CDC meta-study. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
2020 Danmask study (RCT with 6000 participants). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
2020 another large RCT (8000 participants). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287
2020 Oxford review. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
2021 Review by the European CDC. Conclusion: No strong evidence in favor of masks (but we recommend them anyway... because reasons). https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-face-masks-community-first-update.pdf
Another 2020 review. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
2021 survey of mask use in US states. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/
2021 study of the physics of masks. Conclusion: At best, masks indoor reduce aerosolized particles by 12%. At worst, they increase them. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100
2021 study in the NEJM. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

I assume you'll dismiss them all, because clearly the CDC, the European CDC, the WHO, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, and Oxford are insane clickbait sites and nobody should trust anyone who dares to link any of them.

Unlike your source, which we know is good because it's dated 5 day in the future, and anything involving time travel is always 100% legit.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3770 on: January 22, 2022, 01:14:41 AM »
How do you maskholes explain mask mandates causing "cases" to go up? And relaxation of restrictions, including masks, causing them to go down?

Not studies or "models", but real world observation.

Thats easy Kiero, a mask mandate is actually causing a reduction in the rise of cases compared to having no mask mandate.

So cases are going up but at a reduced rate.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4551
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3771 on: January 22, 2022, 07:18:14 PM »
If masks help, why do RCTs not (on balance) show they help? Surely if they helped, then the evidence would consistently show this, rather than null/negative effect?

For every legit study showing they don't help there are more legit studies showing they do help. Whenever someone posts one of those studies showing they do help here, people nitpick it in a way they don't nitpick the studies showing it doesn't help. So the answer to your question is confirmation bias.

This is so false as to almost be a direct lie.  There are 26 RCT studies of mask usage cited in various CDC publications (almost none of which deal with SARS-Covid-19 directly, as to be expected considering the timeline that such trials have).  Over 75% show weak or no correlation.  The Bangladesh study and the Danish studies, even if taken at face value, provide little support for either conclusion.  Most medical studies are done at p<0.05, which means that there is only a 1-in-20 chance of the correlation being mechanically wrong (the process or conclusions, however...).  Do enough studies, and your 1-in-20 chances will start popping up.  It's not that surprising, then, that one of the 26 studies cited (the Bangladesh study) goes against the data from the rest.  One, or even a handful, of studies does not prove ANYTHING.  You need consistent, reproducible, results to start drawing any conclusions... which we don't have.  So, until such time as the RCT studies on mask-wearing are clear, reproducible, and overwhelmingly in favor, no efficacy of masks has been proven at all...

When I clicked your link...oh wait. Right. Just more bullshit assertions from some bullshit article you read some time in the past from some bullshit source from your bubble spinning more bullshit.

If you want to prove what you're claiming, provide a link to a non-insane or non-clickbait website. And note I never claimed "cited in various" anything. I said studies show masks help. Not that they "prevent you from getting covid" because most of the studies I am referring to say they reduce the chance you will SPREAD covid to someone else. People love to call out studies claiming masks don't stop you from GETTING covid and pretend that's where the discussion of masks end when they know full well the claim is more typically that they help reduce the spread of covid from you outward.

Like, for example, this evidence review of face masks against COVID-19, stating, "The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts".

My guess is you will ignore all that, and again repeat that masks don't prevent you from receiving covid. Though you will know it's you misrepresenting everything I just said. Because you don't have jack shit on your side of this debate.
I've certainly linked to them before, as well as providing thorough summaries. Remember what happened, every time? You went silent, and stopped responding. Then, pages later, when you believed everyone had forgotten how your posts were thoroughly debunked, you popped up again to post the same ignorant nonsense.

And I like the way you attempt to preemptively discredit anyone who disagrees with you with the "non-insane or non-clickbait" claim. If you can't win an argument, I guess it's really important to insinuate anyone who dares to reply to you is insane.

Let's see:

2019 WHO meta-study (of 10 other studies). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/non-pharmaceutical-public-health-measuresfor-mitigating-the-risk-and-impact-of-epidemic-and-pandemic-influenza
2020 CDC meta-study. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
2020 Danmask study (RCT with 6000 participants). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
2020 another large RCT (8000 participants). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287
2020 Oxford review. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
2021 Review by the European CDC. Conclusion: No strong evidence in favor of masks (but we recommend them anyway... because reasons). https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-face-masks-community-first-update.pdf
Another 2020 review. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
2021 survey of mask use in US states. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/
2021 study of the physics of masks. Conclusion: At best, masks indoor reduce aerosolized particles by 12%. At worst, they increase them. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100
2021 study in the NEJM. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

I assume you'll dismiss them all, because clearly the CDC, the European CDC, the WHO, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, and Oxford are insane clickbait sites and nobody should trust anyone who dares to link any of them.

Unlike your source, which we know is good because it's dated 5 day in the future, and anything involving time travel is always 100% legit.

I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?

As for "dated five days in the future" I want everyone to look at my link, look at Pat's claim, and answer the question as to if Pat is that fucking sloppy with something as simple as that why do you trust him with anything else?

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 5038
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3772 on: January 22, 2022, 08:09:50 PM »
I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards? The only way is something like the hamster study, which like the physics study above, provides some context and rationale for the results of the other studies, but isn't a real world study and doesn't measure transmission under real world conditions. And it literally doesn't matter. What matters is whether wearing masks reduces infection in the observed population. Whether it works on input or output is irrelevant.
As for "dated five days in the future" I want everyone to look at my link, look at Pat's claim...
At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4551
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3773 on: January 22, 2022, 09:50:04 PM »
I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards?

Oh I don't know, TEST THE MASKS AGAINST A SPRAY BOTTLE? OR ANYTHING ELSE PROJECTING DROPLETS? For fucks sake, didn't you watch any of the mask demos I and others posted before? THEY TEST MASKS. You know, using scientific equipment, like you do when you certify safety equipment! Fuck dude, how did you not catch up to that basic level of knowledge two years ago?

Some studies measure how well masks prevent the spread from someone who is infected, others test if masks prevent you from receiving a virus, and some test for both. So which of the studies you cited test to see if masks help reduce the spread away from someone infected? If your answer is you don't know, just fucking say that instead of all this bullshit. Because if a study only tests if it's effective for preventing you receiving a virus, and isn't even looking to see if it reduces the risk you spread a virus, it's a not responsive to the question of "do masks help?"

Quote
At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

Naw man you dug this hole now you eat the shit you found at the bottom. Nobody made you make a point of the date of the article. You chose to do that and so when it turns out you made a bad choice you don't get to then play the victim like I am picking on you for you choosing to bash me in what was a fuckup of your own. Just be responsible and say whoops sorry about that, like a mature fucking adult instead of the child you continue to behave like.

dkabq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3774 on: January 22, 2022, 10:26:48 PM »
I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards?

Oh I don't know, TEST THE MASKS AGAINST A SPRAY BOTTLE? OR ANYTHING ELSE PROJECTING DROPLETS? For fucks sake, didn't you watch any of the mask demos I and others posted before? THEY TEST MASKS. You know, using scientific equipment, like you do when you certify safety equipment! Fuck dude, how did you not catch up to that basic level of knowledge two years ago?

Some studies measure how well masks prevent the spread from someone who is infected, others test if masks prevent you from receiving a virus, and some test for both. So which of the studies you cited test to see if masks help reduce the spread away from someone infected? If your answer is you don't know, just fucking say that instead of all this bullshit. Because if a study only tests if it's effective for preventing you receiving a virus, and isn't even looking to see if it reduces the risk you spread a virus, it's a not responsive to the question of "do masks help?"

Quote
At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

Naw man you dug this hole now you eat the shit you found at the bottom. Nobody made you make a point of the date of the article. You chose to do that and so when it turns out you made a bad choice you don't get to then play the victim like I am picking on you for you choosing to bash me in what was a fuckup of your own. Just be responsible and say whoops sorry about that, like a mature fucking adult instead of the child you continue to behave like.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-face-masks-and-barrier-face-coverings#s2
"If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain germs (viruses and bacteria), keeping it from reaching your mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of your saliva and respiratory secretions to others."

Yep, yep. Absolutely. Exactly what surgical masks are designed to do. Of course, your hand, a tissue, or a vampire cough likely does just as well, but given that a surgeon notionally has their hands full, a mask makes sense. However...

"While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, it does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the mask and your face."

So the surgical mask keeps the surgeon from coughing, sneezing, or spitting on you, it isn't going to protect you from the "very small particles in the air", hence the surgeon (wearing a surgical mask) could give you the flu.

And yes, I have seen any number of videos or CFD simulations of masks. And yes, droplets are caught and flow is diverted. All well and good, if, for you, that scenario has a probability not approaching zero. That is why health-care workers wear surgical masks. But as for others, or at least for me, I cannot remember a time when someone sneezed or coughed in my face. I have met juicy talkers in my time, but I have an American sensibility when I comes to personal space so I have never been in the splash zone -- YMMV. I am going to get covid one of there ways:

(1): Long-term exposure in an enclosed space. A mask isn't going to do anything to reduce the aerosol (viral) source term from others into the space or the viral concentration I am exposed to.

(2): Close proximity and/or kissing wife. Or as I like to call it, "the best way to get covid".  :)

(3): I go lick the keyboard and mouse of the guy in the cubicle catty-cornered from mine that came down with covid last week.

That said, perhaps your life looks more like a health care environment (up close and personal with people). In which case I can see why you would consider wearing a mask and asking those getting up close to you to also wear one. So knock yourself out, maybe even wear two, St. Fauci style. But stop stepping on my dick about it.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 5038
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3775 on: January 22, 2022, 10:52:07 PM »
I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards?

Oh I don't know, TEST THE MASKS AGAINST A SPRAY BOTTLE? OR ANYTHING ELSE PROJECTING DROPLETS? For fucks sake, didn't you watch any of the mask demos I and others posted before? THEY TEST MASKS. You know, using scientific equipment, like you do when you certify safety equipment! Fuck dude, how did you not catch up to that basic level of knowledge two years ago?

Some studies measure how well masks prevent the spread from someone who is infected, others test if masks prevent you from receiving a virus, and some test for both. So which of the studies you cited test to see if masks help reduce the spread away from someone infected? If your answer is you don't know, just fucking say that instead of all this bullshit. Because if a study only tests if it's effective for preventing you receiving a virus, and isn't even looking to see if it reduces the risk you spread a virus, it's a not responsive to the question of "do masks help?"

Quote
At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

Naw man you dug this hole now you eat the shit you found at the bottom. Nobody made you make a point of the date of the article. You chose to do that and so when it turns out you made a bad choice you don't get to then play the victim like I am picking on you for you choosing to bash me in what was a fuckup of your own. Just be responsible and say whoops sorry about that, like a mature fucking adult instead of the child you continue to behave like.
Go look up the hamster study.

Then come back and apologize.

(Not that you ever will, you little baby.)

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 5038
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3776 on: January 22, 2022, 11:01:00 PM »
I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards?

Oh I don't know, TEST THE MASKS AGAINST A SPRAY BOTTLE? OR ANYTHING ELSE PROJECTING DROPLETS? For fucks sake, didn't you watch any of the mask demos I and others posted before? THEY TEST MASKS. You know, using scientific equipment, like you do when you certify safety equipment! Fuck dude, how did you not catch up to that basic level of knowledge two years ago?

Some studies measure how well masks prevent the spread from someone who is infected, others test if masks prevent you from receiving a virus, and some test for both. So which of the studies you cited test to see if masks help reduce the spread away from someone infected? If your answer is you don't know, just fucking say that instead of all this bullshit. Because if a study only tests if it's effective for preventing you receiving a virus, and isn't even looking to see if it reduces the risk you spread a virus, it's a not responsive to the question of "do masks help?"

Quote
At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

Naw man you dug this hole now you eat the shit you found at the bottom. Nobody made you make a point of the date of the article. You chose to do that and so when it turns out you made a bad choice you don't get to then play the victim like I am picking on you for you choosing to bash me in what was a fuckup of your own. Just be responsible and say whoops sorry about that, like a mature fucking adult instead of the child you continue to behave like.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-face-masks-and-barrier-face-coverings#s2
"If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain germs (viruses and bacteria), keeping it from reaching your mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of your saliva and respiratory secretions to others."

Yep, yep. Absolutely. Exactly what surgical masks are designed to do. Of course, your hand, a tissue, or a vampire cough likely does just as well, but given that a surgeon notionally has their hands full, a mask makes sense. However...

"While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, it does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the mask and your face."

So the surgical mask keeps the surgeon from coughing, sneezing, or spitting on you, it isn't going to protect you from the "very small particles in the air", hence the surgeon (wearing a surgical mask) could give you the flu.

And yes, I have seen any number of videos or CFD simulations of masks. And yes, droplets are caught and flow is diverted. All well and good, if, for you, that scenario has a probability not approaching zero. That is why health-care workers wear surgical masks. But as for others, or at least for me, I cannot remember a time when someone sneezed or coughed in my face. I have met juicy talkers in my time, but I have an American sensibility when I comes to personal space so I have never been in the splash zone -- YMMV. I am going to get covid one of there ways:

(1): Long-term exposure in an enclosed space. A mask isn't going to do anything to reduce the aerosol (viral) source term from others into the space or the viral concentration I am exposed to.

(2): Close proximity and/or kissing wife. Or as I like to call it, "the best way to get covid".  :)

(3): I go lick the keyboard and mouse of the guy in the cubicle catty-cornered from mine that came down with covid last week.

That said, perhaps your life looks more like a health care environment (up close and personal with people). In which case I can see why you would consider wearing a mask and asking those getting up close to you to also wear one. So knock yourself out, maybe even wear two, St. Fauci style. But stop stepping on my dick about it.
Mistwell didn't even catch my reference to one of the first studies of masks after covid-19 came out, where masks in front of hamster cages were used to measure how many were affected when the infected cage was covered a mask, when the cage downwind was covered by a mask, and when both were. This is not somebody with any real knowledge about the subject, or any desire to learn. Concepts like highly artificial lab trials not translating into real world results, and that's why real world studies of the effectiveness of mask are more important than theoretical models; or everything we now know about aerosolization and how the vast majority of the particles pass through masks as if they weren't even there; just go swoosh.

3catcircus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • ?
  • Posts: 390
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3777 on: January 23, 2022, 10:24:30 AM »
I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards?

Oh I don't know, TEST THE MASKS AGAINST A SPRAY BOTTLE? OR ANYTHING ELSE PROJECTING DROPLETS? For fucks sake, didn't you watch any of the mask demos I and others posted before? THEY TEST MASKS. You know, using scientific equipment, like you do when you certify safety equipment! Fuck dude, how did you not catch up to that basic level of knowledge two years ago?

Some studies measure how well masks prevent the spread from someone who is infected, others test if masks prevent you from receiving a virus, and some test for both. So which of the studies you cited test to see if masks help reduce the spread away from someone infected? If your answer is you don't know, just fucking say that instead of all this bullshit. Because if a study only tests if it's effective for preventing you receiving a virus, and isn't even looking to see if it reduces the risk you spread a virus, it's a not responsive to the question of "do masks help?"

Quote
At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

Naw man you dug this hole now you eat the shit you found at the bottom. Nobody made you make a point of the date of the article. You chose to do that and so when it turns out you made a bad choice you don't get to then play the victim like I am picking on you for you choosing to bash me in what was a fuckup of your own. Just be responsible and say whoops sorry about that, like a mature fucking adult instead of the child you continue to behave like.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-face-masks-and-barrier-face-coverings#s2
"If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain germs (viruses and bacteria), keeping it from reaching your mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of your saliva and respiratory secretions to others."

Yep, yep. Absolutely. Exactly what surgical masks are designed to do. Of course, your hand, a tissue, or a vampire cough likely does just as well, but given that a surgeon notionally has their hands full, a mask makes sense. However...

"While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, it does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the mask and your face."

So the surgical mask keeps the surgeon from coughing, sneezing, or spitting on you, it isn't going to protect you from the "very small particles in the air", hence the surgeon (wearing a surgical mask) could give you the flu.

And yes, I have seen any number of videos or CFD simulations of masks. And yes, droplets are caught and flow is diverted. All well and good, if, for you, that scenario has a probability not approaching zero. That is why health-care workers wear surgical masks. But as for others, or at least for me, I cannot remember a time when someone sneezed or coughed in my face. I have met juicy talkers in my time, but I have an American sensibility when I comes to personal space so I have never been in the splash zone -- YMMV. I am going to get covid one of there ways:

(1): Long-term exposure in an enclosed space. A mask isn't going to do anything to reduce the aerosol (viral) source term from others into the space or the viral concentration I am exposed to.

(2): Close proximity and/or kissing wife. Or as I like to call it, "the best way to get covid".  :)

(3): I go lick the keyboard and mouse of the guy in the cubicle catty-cornered from mine that came down with covid last week.

That said, perhaps your life looks more like a health care environment (up close and personal with people). In which case I can see why you would consider wearing a mask and asking those getting up close to you to also wear one. So knock yourself out, maybe even wear two, St. Fauci style. But stop stepping on my dick about it.

C'mon, man...  Everyone knows that lawyers are qualified to render judgement on science and engineering and medicine.  The rest of us are uneducated hacks just reading off the list of ingredients in the quantum cookbook...

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3778 on: January 23, 2022, 12:33:51 PM »
I'm old enough to remember when the notion that the vaccine passport would be used as the stepping stone to digital ID was a "conspiracy theory": https://twitter.com/SikhForTruth/status/1484849526133374976

See also:



I mean no one ever predicted they'd be abolishing cash next (see Central Bank Digital Currencies)...
« Last Edit: January 23, 2022, 12:36:13 PM by Kiero »
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #3779 on: January 24, 2022, 07:01:49 AM »
The very first lockdown was in Wuhan on 23rd January 2020. Why would they be doing that unless the infection had been raging for months without any of the previous measures doing anything? I'd note they didn't suspend travel out of Wuhan in any of the preceding time.
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.