Coronavirus Outbreak - page 29. | Bitcointalksearch.org

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: franky1 on June 10, 2021, 05:54:17 PM

even a so called useless study can have a use,
but like i said . it needs context. and something to compare it to. to help validate it

yes in feb/march Us/UK was not good at testing people.
but thats not to say testing was useless

it was purposefully limited to the sickest people with symptoms to identify what they had to then suggest how to treat them and what to expect as possible symptom progression

yes useless as a stat for community spread as it wasnt used for community testing of pre-symp. asymp or mild symptomatic people in the community.

but by testying those entering hospital atleast had some use to know what was causing their ailments and symptoms that then progressed and in some cases caused death which then allowed them to know the cause of death from entering thte hospital until last breath.

as long as you can understand the contest and limitation of a study you can still find useful info from it.

however yes there are other studies.. where idiots like tvbcof dont understand the context. heck they dont even read half of the study. they just take abstracts of exerts from a study that fills their biased view and fits their narrative.

they call it their science. when its funny how they dont even understand the science to actually know the context of what they read.

take tvbcof the other day he found some leaflet talking about vaccines with saRNA. but he didnt read it or check it in detail to realise the vaccine that went through the trials and then publicly used had a name with b2. yet he was adement that people were being injected with c2.
simply because he didnt ready the studies properly.. and now he is trying to blame science for his dyslexia

Have you ever noticed that tvbcof does a reasonably good job of following what you say? Reading medical test reports is nothing compared with trying to understand you. Do you think, maybe, that it might be you who doesn't understand the medical test reports? I mean, isn't that part of why you were escorted out of the medical in the first place?

Cool

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

even a so called useless study can have a use,
but like i said . it needs context. and something to compare it to. to help validate it

yes in feb/march Us/UK was not good at testing people.
but thats not to say testing was useless

it was purposefully limited to the sickest people with symptoms to identify what they had to then suggest how to treat them and what to expect as possible symptom progression

yes useless as a stat for community spread as it wasnt used for community testing of pre-symp. asymp or mild symptomatic people in the community.

but by testying those entering hospital atleast had some use to know what was causing their ailments and symptoms that then progressed and in some cases caused death which then allowed them to know the cause of death from entering thte hospital until last breath.

as long as you can understand the contest and limitation of a study you can still find useful info from it.

however yes there are other studies.. where idiots like tvbcof dont understand the context. heck they dont even read half of the study. they just take abstracts of exerts from a study that fills their biased view and fits their narrative.

they call it their science. when its funny how they dont even understand the science to actually know the context of what they read.

take tvbcof the other day he found some leaflet talking about vaccines with saRNA. but he didnt read it or check it in detail to realise the vaccine that went through the trials and then publicly used had a name with b2. yet he was adement that people were being injected with c2.
simply because he didnt ready the studies properly.. and now he is trying to blame science for his dyslexia

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Gyfts on June 10, 2021, 02:52:24 PM

Quote from: franky1 on June 10, 2021, 02:11:18 PM

well if people are talking about the covid death numbers.

its simple
take the number of people dying within reasonable time of testing positive for covid. WHO HAD THE SYMPTOMS

then look at all mortality death.
and separately look at the 2 separate data points

what you will find is if the all mortality rate went up. and the only common denominator change to the environment was covid

and then when you look at the covid death numbers and realise their spikes and dips fit into the EXCESS death numbers neatly.

you start to see that covid did cause more deaths than normal

..
if covid cause zero deaths and it was just a error of reporting cause of normal deaths.. there would not be excess deaths. .. nor would there be a pattern between the excess deaths and the new event

but reality shows that there was excess deaths and that coincided with covid deaths being the cause of the uptick rise in deaths.. thus covid does cause deaths.

and once you have analysed the data..
then you can go ask the doctors on ICU wards.
then will give you witness testimony that people were dying due to infections in their lungs and not something else.. like excess gun shootings.
yep ICU were not filled with excess gun shooting victims. they were filled with lung infection patients
who subsequently died.

thus adding to the proof that covid causes deaths

No one is doubting that Covid causes deaths (except for the crazies, but no one takes them seriously anyways). The point I was making was when the early studies came out on the Covid fatality rate, there was no sense in taking them seriously because their data wasn't even accurate to begin with.

If you take any experimental procedure for any study and start with a false premise (for example, like working with data that isn't accurate), the study's worthless from the start.

So it's easy to pull out whatever study you want, no matter what the topic is. Not all studies are created equal.

Stop taking vitamin C and you will get scurvy, which will kill you in later stages. Stop getting your vitamin B1, and you will get beriberi, which will kill you in its later stages.

Start taking, daily, 3 grams of vitamin C + 60 mg of zinc + 50,000 units of vitamin D, and you will probably never get sick from Covid.

Covid is just like scurvy and beriberi. It's a form of malnutrition. Get your nutrition up, thereby making yourself healthy, and Covid won't bother you, maybe to not even get sick from it.

Forget all this blab about a silly disease that is based in malnutrition.

Cool

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

Quote from: franky1 on June 10, 2021, 02:11:18 PM

well if people are talking about the covid death numbers.

its simple
take the number of people dying within reasonable time of testing positive for covid. WHO HAD THE SYMPTOMS

then look at all mortality death.
and separately look at the 2 separate data points

what you will find is if the all mortality rate went up. and the only common denominator change to the environment was covid

and then when you look at the covid death numbers and realise their spikes and dips fit into the EXCESS death numbers neatly.

you start to see that covid did cause more deaths than normal

..
if covid cause zero deaths and it was just a error of reporting cause of normal deaths.. there would not be excess deaths. .. nor would there be a pattern between the excess deaths and the new event

but reality shows that there was excess deaths and that coincided with covid deaths being the cause of the uptick rise in deaths.. thus covid does cause deaths.

and once you have analysed the data..
then you can go ask the doctors on ICU wards.
then will give you witness testimony that people were dying due to infections in their lungs and not something else.. like excess gun shootings.
yep ICU were not filled with excess gun shooting victims. they were filled with lung infection patients
who subsequently died.

thus adding to the proof that covid causes deaths

No one is doubting that Covid causes deaths (except for the crazies, but no one takes them seriously anyways). The point I was making was when the early studies came out on the Covid fatality rate, there was no sense in taking them seriously because their data wasn't even accurate to begin with.

If you take any experimental procedure for any study and start with a false premise (for example, like working with data that isn't accurate), the study's worthless from the start.

So it's easy to pull out whatever study you want, no matter what the topic is. Not all studies are created equal.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

well if people are talking about the covid death numbers.

its simple
take the number of people dying within reasonable time of testing positive for covid. WHO HAD THE SYMPTOMS

then look at all mortality death.
and separately look at the 2 separate data points

what you will find is if the all mortality rate went up. and the only common denominator change to the environment was covid

and then when you look at the covid death numbers and realise their spikes and dips fit into the EXCESS death numbers neatly.

you start to see that covid did cause more deaths than normal

..
if covid cause zero deaths and it was just a error of reporting cause of normal deaths.. there would not be excess deaths. .. nor would there be a pattern between the excess deaths and the new event

but reality shows that there was excess deaths and that coincided with covid deaths being the cause of the uptick rise in deaths.. thus covid does cause deaths.

and once you have analysed the data..
then you can go ask the doctors on ICU wards.
then will give you witness testimony that people were dying due to infections in their lungs and not something else.. like excess gun shootings.
yep ICU were not filled with excess gun shooting victims. they were filled with lung infection patients
who subsequently died.

thus adding to the proof that covid causes deaths

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

Quote from: tvbcof on June 09, 2021, 11:20:23 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 04, 2021, 05:23:38 PM

No no, you're right I absolutely did not read that one article you linked because I figured it'd be a waste of time, and in fact it was! I've already tried to see if there was any decent research about there on masks, there isn't any. There are laboratory replications and then "meta analysis" case type studies.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 04, 2021, 04:14:32 PM

These weren't laboratory studies. They were real world studies. If you read the article, I don't think you would have said what you did.

They are *case* studies. All that means is that they take data that is already produced and then try to make sense of it. This is different from a scientific experiment where you conduct an experimental assay, record the data, and then analyze the data.
...

You are leaving out one critical part of a rigorous study; the protocols.

It should be the case that a study is designed around a hypothesis. The details of how the study is to be performed are known as the study protocols. They should be agreed upon ahead of time. The agreement should be between interested parties ('stakeholders' is the current buzzword). The protocols should define exactly how the study is to be performed and what the observations lead to what understandings. aka 'interpenetration.'

If the protocols are changed after the study begins it should be terminated and started over from scratch.

Science is like a chain being only as strong as it's weakest link. That's what the whole 'citations' things is all about. Any paper predicated on citations from a study which was not performed correctly and honestly is subject to itself become damaged. That's why it is so important that 'scientists' be neutral and honest. Unfortunatly that car crashed into the weeds a long time ago and we entered the new dark ages of 'scientism'.

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/

See, the protocols of some of these studies aren't even that useful in the real world. Even if they change them for whatever reason, it's not like we learn anything from the start.

What do we learn from a meta analysis where they examine COVID confirmed fatality rate? Do we actually learn what the fatality rate of COVID is? No, not unless you take into account the general age of the population, other confounding variables, and then take the data and cross reference it to other data. I remember when researchers tried to use China's numbers to try and determine the fatality rate of Covid. No matter what the protocols (aka experimental basis), the results don't mean anything.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: Gyfts on June 04, 2021, 05:23:38 PM

No no, you're right I absolutely did not read that one article you linked because I figured it'd be a waste of time, and in fact it was! I've already tried to see if there was any decent research about there on masks, there isn't any. There are laboratory replications and then "meta analysis" case type studies.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 04, 2021, 04:14:32 PM

These weren't laboratory studies. They were real world studies. If you read the article, I don't think you would have said what you did.

They are *case* studies. All that means is that they take data that is already produced and then try to make sense of it. This is different from a scientific experiment where you conduct an experimental assay, record the data, and then analyze the data.
...

You are leaving out one critical part of a rigorous study; the protocols.

It should be the case that a study is designed around a hypothesis. The details of how the study is to be performed are known as the study protocols. They should be agreed upon ahead of time. The agreement should be between interested parties ('stakeholders' is the current buzzword). The protocols should define exactly how the study is to be performed and what the observations lead to what understandings. aka 'interpenetration.'

If the protocols are changed after the study begins it should be terminated and started over from scratch.

Science is like a chain being only as strong as it's weakest link. That's what the whole 'citations' things is all about. Any paper predicated on citations from a study which was not performed correctly and honestly is subject to itself become damaged. That's why it is so important that 'scientists' be neutral and honest. Unfortunatly that car crashed into the weeds a long time ago and we entered the new dark ages of 'scientism'.

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/

dupeddonk

member

Activity: 189

Merit: 30

This mask argument reminds me of when twitchyseal tried to convince that flat earth guy that the moon wasnt a hologram projected into the sky

doesnt matter what the experts say, crazy guy did his own research

PIR

member

Activity: 322

Merit: 10

CRYPTOBLADES Octoblades 10.10

This coronavirus outbreak literally break everyone's heart, kills everyone's body and paralyze every countries' economy and it shock the world pandemic, without being aware that this really is a serious one, that in a first place they did not permit it to anyone's country to permit those who are responsible for the spread of these virus. Its like a domino effect...everyone is affected obviously.

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

No no, you're right I absolutely did not read that one article you linked because I figured it'd be a waste of time, and in fact it was! I've already tried to see if there was any decent research about there on masks, there isn't any. There are laboratory replications and then "meta analysis" case type studies.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 04, 2021, 04:14:32 PM

These weren't laboratory studies. They were real world studies. If you read the article, I don't think you would have said what you did.

They are *case* studies. All that means is that they take data that is already produced and then try to make sense of it. This is different from a scientific experiment where you conduct an experimental assay, record the data, and then analyze the data.

What's wrong with meta analysis type case studies? They aren't scientific assays, they don't have a control group, most importantly they don't account for confounding variables. Go look into this, the most crucial part of a scientific experiment is controlling the confounding variables. So when I saw apply critical thinking skills, this isn't some petty shot at your intelligence, all this is saying is that because you can find a case study that saw a reduction in Covid cases because of masks, it's not right to immediately attribute that reduction in Covid cases due to masks alone, and not some other variable.

And secondly, I'd argue that the data is cherry picked because looking at the Italian or US Covid case chart, there isn't any correlation to mask usage and a reduction in Covid cases. When the experts talk about using masks, they usually talk about it within the context of stopping aerosol particles from spreading. And again, I'm not disputing this. I agree with the experts. I'm talking about asymptomatic spread where someone isn't going into a restaurant and then spitting on everyone, then leaving. If you have Covid, it's beneficial for you to mask up. If you are asymptomatic and mask up, which is what a mask mandate accomplishes, it doesn't make much sense.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Gyfts on June 04, 2021, 08:58:08 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 03, 2021, 10:42:03 PM

...

Good, we have the case studies -- now let's apply some critical thinking skills.

I've been applying critical thinking skills all along. I think it's pretty clear that you've made up your mind about what 'the truth' is (which is a flawed way of thinking in itself) a long time ago, and the basis for your belief is grounded in politics, not science. Let's back up and look at your response each of the four times I posted the same article.

I initially responded to you saying this:

Quote

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect.

Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy.

I responded with a list of studies and articles, and you responded:

Quote

Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either.

And I responded...

Quote

Cool, click on another one then, try this one? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Read the abstract, check out the table with all the different studies and results...and don't just bring up one study that you think is easiest to discredit and then use it to discredit all of them. Look at the results of all the studies as a whole. I'm not going to keep holding your hand and do all the research for you. It's obvious the evidence clearly points to masks being effective. We're still learning new stuff and we don't know precisely how effective, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective.

And then, without reading the article, you said:

Quote

I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population.

This is an important point. You had clearly come to a conclusion, And it's now clear you didn't even bother reading the article (as I'm about to show).

In my response I linked the article again, and this time I copy pasted part of the abstract and explained that there were about a dozen studies included in the article.

And your reply included:

Quote

You're linking me to laboratory studies which refer to aerosol particle spread when people are "loud speaking", was one of the phrases your links used. Find me a single study that take into account real world factors of the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, etc. It doesn't exist.

These weren't laboratory studies. They were real world studies. If you read the article, I don't think you would have said what you did.

So then I literally took a screen shot of the table for you, from the article I posted 4 times for you, basically forcing you to look at it, and you come back with:

Quote

Good, we have the case studies -- now let's apply some critical thinking skills.

Now, instead of coming back with accusations of me taking things out of context since I didn't parse every word either of us wrote, how about you go read what the most qualified experts in the field think about masks and how they interpret the data. Don't look for the one off anti-masker with a phd, or pull a tvbcof act like you're more educated on the subject than they are. Forget all your preconceived notions about masks and just read what the scientists behind these studies with current leading rolls in their field think. Then you'll have applied critical thinking skills.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Dr. Fausti is, as we used to say, 'up Shit Creek without a paddle.' He's about to be fed to he wolves. That should be fun because he was the feature of such a 'cult of personality' operation that it would have made Joe Stalin blush. I doubt that most of these idiots (a lot of my friends and family shamefully enough) will be able to let go their savior figure very easily such was the magnitude of the corp/gov sponsored mind-fuckage. The cognitive dissonance will only add to their vaccine damage mental woes. Probably 'Orange Man Bad' will help them through their grief for another year or two though.

I would urge the people who matter to not let the Dr. Fausti thing draw away attention from the real issues. He was a minor cog in the wheels of what's going on here. Don't let him become an effective scapegoat and let the big fish get away. If we do so, they WILL be circling around to bite off another limb.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/0faTJx5l9pbR/

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 03, 2021, 10:42:03 PM

...

Good, we have the case studies -- now let's apply some critical thinking skills.

In these meta analysis type studies, we don't have a control base line nor do we have any way to separate confounding variables. The data of mask usage is also self reported which is already going to be skewed.

In circumstances where people wear masks, is it also true that a person that wears a mask would also engage in other precautions like handwashing, self isolating when exhibiting symptoms or when in close contact with infected people, and most importantly, follows social distancing guidelines? The answer is yes.

Remember, all these mask mandates were in conjunction with social distancing, and we all know social distancing absolutely works without a doubt. It's also probably true that someone who is willing to wear a mask is probably more willing to engage in social distancing too. So how are we able to separate masks as the differential here? We can't. These case studies just that, case studies that cherry pick data without having a control group, without taking into account confounding variables.

Goes without saying, correlation is not causation.

If you look at the mask mandate in April for the entire US, you can selectively take the data and indicate that the mask mandate clearly worked because there was a *momentarily* decrease in caseload. But that's only if you take the data and refuse to look at the entire timeline.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Gyfts on June 03, 2021, 08:52:31 PM

You're linking me to laboratory studies which refer to aerosol particle spread when people are "loud speaking", was one of the phrases your links used.

This is now the fourth time I've linked this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

I said I wouldn't hold your hand, but I'll make an exception just this one time and post a screen shot from the article:

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 03, 2021, 05:41:48 PM

Cool, click on another one then, try this one? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Read the abstract, check out the table with all the different studies and results...and don't just bring up one study that you think is easiest to discredit and then use it to discredit all of them. Look at the results of all the studies as a whole. I'm not going to keep holding your hand and do all the research for you. It's obvious the evidence clearly points to masks being effective. We're still learning new stuff and we don't know precisely how effective, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 03, 2021, 03:24:42 PM

here's a more recent study (it's really based on about 12 separate studies, that I've already posted for you) from Feb 2021 (this is the third time I've linked it for you): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 02, 2021, 06:17:27 PM

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 03, 2021, 05:41:48 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 03, 2021, 05:07:13 PM

Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population.

And the experts are saying you're wrong. Studies show that masks stop the spread of the virus, whether the spreader is symptomatic or not. The fact that so many are asymptomatic is why before the vaccine they recommended everyone where a mask.

This article explains it better than I could: Face masks essential in combating asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets Here's the study it's based on: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422

But wait, that one's oveer a year old, ok, here's a more recent study (it's really based on about 12 separate studies, that I've already posted for you) from Feb 2021 (this is the third time I've linked it for you): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Quote

Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways. First, masks prevent infected persons from exposing others to SARS-CoV-2 by blocking exhalation of virus-containing droplets into the air (termed source control). This aspect of mask wearing is especially important because it is estimated that at least 50% or more of transmissions are from persons who never develop symptoms or those who are in the presymptomatic phase of COVID-19 illness.1

There's plenty more, open your eyes.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

April 2020 is when the CDC changed their guidelines and no more than a month late nearly every state in America mandated masks.

Show me the correlation between mask usage and the reduction in case load. Point me to where the masks worked. In fact, I'll make it easier for you -- show me states that lifted their mask mandates, or states that were loose with their mask mandates, like Florida, and show me the association between a lack of a mask mandate. The data does lie.

You're linking me to laboratory studies which refer to aerosol particle spread when people are "loud speaking", was one of the phrases your links used. Find me a single study that take into account real world factors of the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, etc. It doesn't exist. Turns out, Covid spread doesn't just happen by a single person going into a store, screaming at the top of their lungs, and then leaving. Masks are marginally effective at best, and there is *zero* conclusive evidence that they are effective at stopping spread within the general public, especially when community spread already exists. Again, show me the data that they work, not a test of aerosol spread, I'm not disputing that mask can help stop aerosol spread. Do you know the exact extent that an asymptomatic individual will produce aerosol particles? Nope, and neither do the "experts."

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 03, 2021, 05:41:48 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 03, 2021, 05:07:13 PM

Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population.

And the experts are saying you're wrong. Studies show that masks stop the spread of the virus, whether the spreader is symptomatic or not. The fact that so many are asymptomatic is why before the vaccine they recommended everyone where a mask.

This article explains it better than I could: Face masks essential in combating asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets Here's the study it's based on: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422

But wait, that one's oveer a year old, ok, here's a more recent study (it's really based on about 12 separate studies, that I've already posted for you) from Feb 2021 (this is the third time I've linked it for you): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Quote

Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways. First, masks prevent infected persons from exposing others to SARS-CoV-2 by blocking exhalation of virus-containing droplets into the air (termed source control). This aspect of mask wearing is especially important because it is estimated that at least 50% or more of transmissions are from persons who never develop symptoms or those who are in the presymptomatic phase of COVID-19 illness.1

There's plenty more, open your eyes.

The only way masks work is placebo effect... mind over matter. But placebo effect is rarely taken into account for anything, even though it is a major contributor... like 3% that is known. Could be close to 100%.

Sometimes PE works in reverse, like for Deborah Birx - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57144067.

Cool

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Gyfts on June 03, 2021, 05:07:13 PM

Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population.

And the experts are saying you're wrong. Studies show that masks stop the spread of the virus, whether the spreader is symptomatic or not. The fact that so many are asymptomatic is why before the vaccine they recommended everyone where a mask.

This article explains it better than I could: Face masks essential in combating asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets Here's the study it's based on: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422

But wait, that one's oveer a year old, ok, here's a more recent study (it's really based on about 12 separate studies, that I've already posted for you) from Feb 2021 (this is the third time I've linked it for you): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Quote

Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways. First, masks prevent infected persons from exposing others to SARS-CoV-2 by blocking exhalation of virus-containing droplets into the air (termed source control). This aspect of mask wearing is especially important because it is estimated that at least 50% or more of transmissions are from persons who never develop symptoms or those who are in the presymptomatic phase of COVID-19 illness.1

There's plenty more, open your eyes.

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 03, 2021, 03:24:42 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 11:56:59 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 02, 2021, 06:17:27 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 05:23:46 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 02, 2021, 02:11:40 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 01:21:51 PM

he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?

From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context:

Quote

Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective.

He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face.

NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything.

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect.

Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy.

You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific.

It's really not that complicated. Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns. We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading. We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them.

You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew. In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time. More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did. I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation.

Quote

NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything.

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/open
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either.

Cool, click on another one then, try this one? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Read the abstract, check out the table with all the different studies and results...and don't just bring up one study that you think is easiest to discredit and then use it to discredit all of them. Look at the results of all the studies as a whole. I'm not going to keep holding your hand and do all the research for you. It's obvious the evidence clearly points to masks being effective. We're still learning new stuff and we don't know precisely how effective, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective.

Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population. If you are symptomatic and sneeze into a mask, it captures some of the droplets and then a mask is effective, no one is disputing that, I said that earlier very clearly. My point is masking up the general population, vast majority being asymptomatic, has shown no evidence to stop the spread when you consider that asymptomatic people don't transmit the virus to a great extent to begin with, when you consider the masks people use are reused, very porous, do not create a proper seal with the face, and people keep touching the damn thing (in fact, in medical settings, you are to discard your mask if you touch it with your hands and then wash your hands)...So when you keep linking these studies, they aren't looking at normal people breathing in a room using a mask they pulled out of their glove compartment. They aren't taking someone that's Covid positive, putting a mask on them, and then putting them in a room with non infected people to see whether the virus is actually stopped by the mask.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 11:56:59 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 02, 2021, 06:17:27 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 05:23:46 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 02, 2021, 02:11:40 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 01:21:51 PM

he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?

From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context:

Quote

Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective.

He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face.

NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything.

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect.

Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy.

You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific.

It's really not that complicated. Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns. We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading. We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them.

You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew. In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time. More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did. I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation.

Quote

NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything.

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/open
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either.

Cool, click on another one then, try this one? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Read the abstract, check out the table with all the different studies and results...and don't just bring up one study that you think is easiest to discredit and then use it to discredit all of them. Look at the results of all the studies as a whole. I'm not going to keep holding your hand and do all the research for you. It's obvious the evidence clearly points to masks being effective. We're still learning new stuff and we don't know precisely how effective, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective.

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 02, 2021, 06:17:27 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 05:23:46 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on June 02, 2021, 02:11:40 PM

Quote from: Gyfts on June 02, 2021, 01:21:51 PM

he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?

From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context:

Quote

Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective.

He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face.

NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything.

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect.

Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy.

You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific.

It's really not that complicated. Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns. We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading. We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them.

You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew. In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time. More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did. I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation.

Quote

NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything.

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/open
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either.

Topic: Coronavirus Outbreak - page 29. (Read 29937 times)