|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 11:15:22 GMT
Remind me again why masks are needed? CDCs own numbers show most of the people in that dataset who got COVID always wore masks
Because most people are wearing masks. If people weren't wearing masks, most people getting Covid would not be wearing masks and you'd be seeing 10x the numbers of people getting it. Jesus man! This isn't tough. Regardless of the quantity, the ratio of those who caught covid while always wearing masks vs those who never wear masks is an important comparison which indicates that wearing masks outside the clinical setting actually tends to increase your risk. The only thing that needs to be explored is the p-value for that data to validate it. A larger sample size would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 12, 2020 13:23:36 GMT
Because most people are wearing masks. If people weren't wearing masks, most people getting Covid would not be wearing masks and you'd be seeing 10x the numbers of people getting it. Jesus man! This isn't tough. Regardless of the quantity, the ratio of those who caught covid while always wearing masks vs those who never wear masks is an important comparison which indicates that wearing masks outside the clinical setting actually tends to increase your risk. The only thing that needs to be explored is the p-value for that data to validate it. A larger sample size would be helpful. No, it doesn't indicate that at all. Masks improve your chances of not getting the virus, but are not perfect. If 100% of people wore masks, there would still be a very small percentage of people who get the virus. A MUCH smaller percentage than if no one wore a mask. Under those conditions, despite 100% of people who get the virus wearing the mask, the risk is diminished and not increased. Only a moron would think otherwise. But here's you stupidity increases even more on this subject. The masks largest effectiveness is in preventing the spread of the disease FROM an infected person, and since a huge percentage of people have minor or no symptoms, everyone needs to be wearing the masks. That's why places like South Korea have gotten such a good handle on this. Everyone there is wearing a mask. We could open our economy if everyone here wore masks. It's idiots like you that have kept us shut. You don't get to call out Kirinke for being stupid and then post something this dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 14:03:28 GMT
Yep. Covid-19 spreads through the air as well as from lingering on surfaces. You can go on Youtube easily enough to find scads of videos on how far coughing, talking and breathing spreads particles. Not to mention, how just from touching things, how diseases spread. Mythbusters even did a show on that awhile back if I recall (not that it's hard science, but they are fairly accurate on those sorts of things). By wearing a mask, you reduce your capacity to spread disease through the air and you reduce your capacity to contract it because the mask blocks the aerosols from coming in through your nose and mouth. Along with hand-washing, social distancing and basic sanitation, you reduce your risk of contracting Covid-19. By doing what Trump says, does or endorses, you do the opposite.
This stuff isn't rocket science for goodness sakes. It's basic grade-school health class stuff.
The mask is essentially a filter. It's not going to catch everything, but it will catch most things. I wear my mask whenever I go out as well as practicing social distancing and the rest, both to protect myself and others. Because you know, I'm not a sociopathic, selfish moron.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 14:31:01 GMT
Regardless of the quantity, the ratio of those who caught covid while always wearing masks vs those who never wear masks is an important comparison which indicates that wearing masks outside the clinical setting actually tends to increase your risk. The only thing that needs to be explored is the p-value for that data to validate it. A larger sample size would be helpful. No, it doesn't indicate that at all. Masks improve your chances of not getting the virus, but are not perfect. If 100% of people wore masks, there would still be a very small percentage of people who get the virus. A MUCH smaller percentage than if no one wore a mask. Under those conditions, despite 100% of people who get the virus wearing the mask, the risk is diminished and not increased. Only a moron would think otherwise. But here's you stupidity increases even more on this subject. The masks largest effectiveness is in preventing the spread of the disease FROM an infected person, and since a huge percentage of people have minor or no symptoms, everyone needs to be wearing the masks. That's why places like South Korea have gotten such a good handle on this. Everyone there is wearing a mask. We could open our economy if everyone here wore masks. It's idiots like you that have kept us shut. You don't get to call out Kirinke for being stupid and then post something this dumb. You still don't get it. All other things being equal, those who wore masks, in this dataset, were a larger percentage of those who were symptomatic than those who didn't wear a mask. Regardless of whether or not they were in the control set or the case set where they were 74 and 70 %, respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 14:59:40 GMT
But that doesn't mean the masks aren't effective. The numbers just show who shows symptoms and who doesn't. Masks don't prevent people from showing symptoms.Masks reduce the spread and contraction of aerosols. It's a filter, not a vaccine or a treatment or an experiment that shows who has it and who doesn't.
It also shows why wearing a mask is important, because you don't know who is infected or who isn't. With the numbers so close, it seems it would be impossible to tell at first glance in any case. So, I don't know what your argument is. Because your 'proof' doesn't help you.
Wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, handwashing, basic sanitation and the like helps reduce your capacity to transmit and contract Covid-19. It's not a 100% balm to prevent contracting the disease, but until we have a vaccine and an effective treatment that's available to the masses, it's the best we can really do.
All your arguments aren't convincing at all to any rational mind 3cat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 12, 2020 16:15:41 GMT
No, it doesn't indicate that at all. Masks improve your chances of not getting the virus, but are not perfect. If 100% of people wore masks, there would still be a very small percentage of people who get the virus. A MUCH smaller percentage than if no one wore a mask. Under those conditions, despite 100% of people who get the virus wearing the mask, the risk is diminished and not increased. Only a moron would think otherwise. But here's you stupidity increases even more on this subject. The masks largest effectiveness is in preventing the spread of the disease FROM an infected person, and since a huge percentage of people have minor or no symptoms, everyone needs to be wearing the masks. That's why places like South Korea have gotten such a good handle on this. Everyone there is wearing a mask. We could open our economy if everyone here wore masks. It's idiots like you that have kept us shut. You don't get to call out Kirinke for being stupid and then post something this dumb. You still don't get it. All other things being equal, those who wore masks, in this dataset, were a larger percentage of those who were symptomatic than those who didn't wear a mask. Regardless of whether or not they were in the control set or the case set where they were 74 and 70 %, respectively. No, you don't get it, but I'm tired of arguing with a wall that believes Trump science over real science. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 16:59:54 GMT
You still don't get it. All other things being equal, those who wore masks, in this dataset, were a larger percentage of those who were symptomatic than those who didn't wear a mask. Regardless of whether or not they were in the control set or the case set where they were 74 and 70 %, respectively. No, you don't get it, but I'm tired of arguing with a wall that believes Trump science over real science. The CDC is Trump science? You can't have it both ways - trusting the CDC when they provide data that you like but claiming it's Trump science when the data cites something you don't like. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 17:05:15 GMT
No, but when you misrepresent the numbers to advance your own agenda, that's when we don't believe you. The numbers just show who is symptomatic vs who isn't. It doesn't show mask effectiveness.
That's why we don't believe you.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 17:06:28 GMT
But that doesn't mean the masks aren't effective. The numbers just show who shows symptoms and who doesn't. Masks don't prevent people from showing symptoms.Masks reduce the spread and contraction of aerosols. It's a filter, not a vaccine or a treatment or an experiment that shows who has it and who doesn't.
It also shows why wearing a mask is important, because you don't know who is infected or who isn't. With the numbers so close, it seems it would be impossible to tell at first glance in any case. So, I don't know what your argument is. Because your 'proof' doesn't help you.
Wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, handwashing, basic sanitation and the like helps reduce your capacity to transmit and contract Covid-19. It's not a 100% balm to prevent contracting the disease, but until we have a vaccine and an effective treatment that's available to the masses, it's the best we can really do.
All your arguments aren't convincing at all to any rational mind 3cat.
I'll try to explain this slowly. When 70% of the people who get sick from something that wearing masks is supposed to reduce the spread of are "always" wearing masks and 30% do something other than always wear masks, there is no way you can claim that wearing masks reduces the number of people who get sick. More importantly, I have doubts as to the "always" response bring accurate or if it is more about them claiming they wore them as the "right answer" even if they didn't. Hence the p=0.86 for that data point. So - wearing masks or not had no bearing. Throw out that data and look at the other 2 and you'll see that there single biggest factor is that they caught it from a family member - which comes from being in lockdowns. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 17:09:21 GMT
That's never been the claim. It helps reduce the risk of contracting and spreading Covid-19. It does not completely stop it. It's one tool in an arsenal of tools that helps us keep healthy.
You're the one that doesn't get it and quite frankly, your arguments are idiotic at best. Thusly, nobody believes you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 12, 2020 17:19:42 GMT
But that doesn't mean the masks aren't effective. The numbers just show who shows symptoms and who doesn't. Masks don't prevent people from showing symptoms.Masks reduce the spread and contraction of aerosols. It's a filter, not a vaccine or a treatment or an experiment that shows who has it and who doesn't.
It also shows why wearing a mask is important, because you don't know who is infected or who isn't. With the numbers so close, it seems it would be impossible to tell at first glance in any case. So, I don't know what your argument is. Because your 'proof' doesn't help you.
Wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, handwashing, basic sanitation and the like helps reduce your capacity to transmit and contract Covid-19. It's not a 100% balm to prevent contracting the disease, but until we have a vaccine and an effective treatment that's available to the masses, it's the best we can really do.
All your arguments aren't convincing at all to any rational mind 3cat.
I'll try to explain this slowly. When 70% of the people who get sick from something that wearing masks is supposed to reduce the spread of are "always" wearing masks and 30% do something other than always wear masks, there is no way you can claim that wearing masks reduces the number of people who get sick. More importantly, I have doubts as to the "always" response bring accurate or if it is more about them claiming they wore them as the "right answer" even if they didn't. Hence the p=0.86 for that data point. So - wearing masks or not had no bearing. Throw out that data and look at the other 2 and you'll see that there single biggest factor is that they caught it from a family member - which comes from being in lockdowns. Slowly explaining to us how you are wrong won't change things. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 17:22:52 GMT
That's never been the claim. It helps reduce the risk of contracting and spreading Covid-19. It does not completely stop it. It's one tool in an arsenal of tools that helps us keep healthy. You're the one that doesn't get it and quite frankly, your arguments are idiotic at best. Thusly, nobody believes you. If it is 70% ineffective at doing so, it's not even worth doing other than voluntarily by people who know that they are sick. BTW - where are all the hospitalizations and deaths from the recent Trump event? One guy - who works in the back office issuing security approvals for White House visits - and was sick before the event ever even occurred. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 17:28:14 GMT
3cat, you do realize that Covid-19 spreads both through the air and surfaces right? A mask will protect you to some degree from aerosols. It does jack-shit from surface contagion. Even then, a mask isn't a hundred percent effective, nobody denies that. What it is, is a filter that helps reduce the spread and contraction of the disease through the air.
You're being deliberately obtuse.
The numbers don't show effectiveness. There are other means of contracting Covid-19. Wearing a mask helps reduce the chances of you contracting Covid-19 by aerosols. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 18:25:02 GMT
3cat, you do realize that Covid-19 spreads both through the air and surfaces right? A mask will protect you to some degree from aerosols. It does jack-shit from surface contagion. Even then, a mask isn't a hundred percent effective, nobody denies that. What it is, is a filter that helps reduce the spread and contraction of the disease through the air.
You're being deliberately obtuse.
The numbers don't show effectiveness. There are other means of contracting Covid-19. Wearing a mask helps reduce the chances of you contracting Covid-19 by aerosols. That's all.
Didn't you *just* say they prevent infecting someone rather than being infected? Which is it? As to surfaces? That has nothing to do with whether or not masks are needed for healthy people. Wash your hands, you filthy animals. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 18:31:54 GMT
No, I said they help prevent and similar language. It's never been a 100 percent thing. It's a filter, not a vaccine. Wow, get your eyesight checked.
|
|
