|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 19:18:30 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. When 70% of the time they are "helping," they aren't actually helping. Which pretty much fits in with everything Dems do anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 19:23:35 GMT
I'd rather wear the mask and have a 30% chance of contracting Covid-19 vs a 100% chance if I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 19:29:25 GMT
I'd rather wear the mask and have a 30% chance of contracting Covid-19 vs a 100% chance if I don't. Except that's not how they math works it's 30% of some other percentage of some other percentage after that. Psub0 = factor 1 x factor 2 x ... factor n |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 12, 2020 19:50:47 GMT
Seriously. You don't know what you're talking about. You just don't want to wear a mask. Get over your selfish, sociopathic self.
First you say that a 70% success rate isn't any good. When I turn it around and note that a 30% failure rate is better than a 100% failure rate, you try to move the goal posts and say oh, it's some other percentage of another percentage. Bullshit of a percentage of a cowflop.
You have no argument. Wear a god-damned mask, practice social distancing and all the other common-sense recommendations you selfish prick.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 13, 2020 0:50:20 GMT
Seriously. You don't know what you're talking about. You just don't want to wear a mask. Get over your selfish, sociopathic self.
First you say that a 70% success rate isn't any good. When I turn it around and note that a 30% failure rate is better than a 100% failure rate, you try to move the goal posts and say oh, it's some other percentage of another percentage. Bullshit of a percentage of a cowflop.
You have no argument. Wear a god-damned mask, practice social distancing and all the other common-sense recommendations you selfish prick.
Do I have to explain how probabilistic risk assessment works? Or should I go back to first principles and explain how math works? |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 13, 2020 0:53:02 GMT
Should I explain how all of your arguments are stupid and or wrong? Ahh, but you're convinced the Mango bunker boi is right. So go ahead. Attend the rallies maskless, don't wash or social distance or any of the sort.
Personally, I'm going to follow common sense. You know, wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, proper sanitation, etc. By the by, where do you want the flowers sent when you die of Covid-19? |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 13, 2020 1:22:41 GMT
Seriously. You don't know what you're talking about. You just don't want to wear a mask. Get over your selfish, sociopathic self.
First you say that a 70% success rate isn't any good. When I turn it around and note that a 30% failure rate is better than a 100% failure rate, you try to move the goal posts and say oh, it's some other percentage of another percentage. Bullshit of a percentage of a cowflop.
You have no argument. Wear a god-damned mask, practice social distancing and all the other common-sense recommendations you selfish prick.
Do I have to explain how probabilistic risk assessment works? Or should I go back to first principles and explain how math works? We all get the math. It's not the math that's the problem here. It's your ridiculously incorrect interpretation of what the math means that's the problem here. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 13, 2020 11:04:14 GMT
In other words, put on your big boy shorts and wear a mask and follow health directions. It's not rocket science.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 13, 2020 12:08:25 GMT
Do I have to explain how probabilistic risk assessment works? Or should I go back to first principles and explain how math works? We all get the math. It's not the math that's the problem here. It's your ridiculously incorrect interpretation of what the math means that's the problem here. How are you interpreting the data? Three data points: 1. Prior contact with a known infected person. 2. Relationships to those who have been infected. 3. Wearing of masks. The data does the following: 1. For the case patients, a little over half of them did not come in contact with a known infected person, most of them had a familial relationship to someone infected, and the vast majority of them always wore marks in the 2 weeks prior to being infected. 2. For the control participants, the vast majority had no contact with a known infected person and the vast majority always wore masks. Conclusions: 1. For case patients in close contact, the car majority of the time it was contact with family members, implying the likelihood of contact came from being in lockdowns because of the very close proximity in close quarters. 2. Always wearing masks had no bearing on getting infected. 3. The P-value for mask wearing is 0.86, which implies that people may have lied as to their mask-wearing, *or* that they weren't lying and whoever did the analyses specifically did it in such a manner as to result in a P-value with specific intent to try and disprove the data. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 13, 2020 13:29:33 GMT
We all get the math. It's not the math that's the problem here. It's your ridiculously incorrect interpretation of what the math means that's the problem here. How are you interpreting the data? Three data points: 1. Prior contact with a known infected person. 2. Relationships to those who have been infected. 3. Wearing of masks. The data does the following: 1. For the case patients, a little over half of them did not come in contact with a known infected person, most of them had a familial relationship to someone infected, and the vast majority of them always wore marks in the 2 weeks prior to being infected. 2. For the control participants, the vast majority had no contact with a known infected person and the vast majority always wore masks. Conclusions: 1. For case patients in close contact, the car majority of the time it was contact with family members, implying the likelihood of contact came from being in lockdowns because of the very close proximity in close quarters. 2. Always wearing masks had no bearing on getting infected. 3. The P-value for mask wearing is 0.86, which implies that people may have lied as to their mask-wearing, *or* that they weren't lying and whoever did the analyses specifically did it in such a manner as to result in a P-value with specific intent to try and disprove the data. Your conclusions are faulty. All it takes is 15 minutes in close proximity to someone who is infected to spike your chances of getting it. The reason family members have larger chances of passing it to each other is that they live with each other. With no lockdown they still spend hours and hours together on a daily basis. You're numbers 2 and 3 are fatally flawed as well. People don't wear masks at home, so pretty much no one is wearing masks all the time. They aren't lying. They are talking about wearing them while out and about. We know from the Asian countries that have a handle on this due to EVERYONE wearing masks, that masks help tremendously. Sweden which chose not to wear masks got wrecked, with numbers almost as bad as the U.S., even though they have far lower population density. Seoul with 30% greater population density than Stockholm, but where everyone is wearing a mask, is doing just dandy. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 13, 2020 14:33:02 GMT
How are you interpreting the data? Three data points: 1. Prior contact with a known infected person. 2. Relationships to those who have been infected. 3. Wearing of masks. The data does the following: 1. For the case patients, a little over half of them did not come in contact with a known infected person, most of them had a familial relationship to someone infected, and the vast majority of them always wore marks in the 2 weeks prior to being infected. 2. For the control participants, the vast majority had no contact with a known infected person and the vast majority always wore masks. Conclusions: 1. For case patients in close contact, the car majority of the time it was contact with family members, implying the likelihood of contact came from being in lockdowns because of the very close proximity in close quarters. 2. Always wearing masks had no bearing on getting infected. 3. The P-value for mask wearing is 0.86, which implies that people may have lied as to their mask-wearing, *or* that they weren't lying and whoever did the analyses specifically did it in such a manner as to result in a P-value with specific intent to try and disprove the data. Your conclusions are faulty. All it takes is 15 minutes in close proximity to someone who is infected to spike your chances of getting it. The reason family members have larger chances of passing it to each other is that they live with each other. With no lockdown they still spend hours and hours together on a daily basis. You're numbers 2 and 3 are fatally flawed as well. People don't wear masks at home, so pretty much no one is wearing masks all the time. They aren't lying. They are talking about wearing them while out and about. We know from the Asian countries that have a handle on this due to EVERYONE wearing masks, that masks help tremendously. Sweden which chose not to wear masks got wrecked, with numbers almost as bad as the U.S., even though they have far lower population density. Seoul with 30% greater population density than Stockholm, but where everyone is wearing a mask, is doing just dandy. Those are your conclusions. Those conclusions don't match what epidemiologists have concluded from this data, when taken in the context of a larger overall set of datasets which shows that even as "cases" continue to accumulate, hospitalizations and deaths have drastically decreased. A lot of it has to do with extremely poor reporting of data where "cases" don't always mean the same thing because of reporting multiple tests of the same individual as separate cases; where CDC guidance led to over-reporting based solely on proximity without a conclusive test result; where PCR results are being used to define someone as positive even if cycle times are ridiculously large or where the results are amplification of viral debris rather than intact viral particles; where there is a perverse financial incentive to report deaths as having been caused by covid even if they haven't; where alleged superspreader events aren't. The reality is that the gloom and doom scenarios that lockdowns and masks were predicated on have not been borne out. The latest report of a woman in Europe dying after getting a second covid infection requires you to go to the bottom of the article to discover she was 89 and undergoing chemo for cancer. None of the people infected along with Trump have died and those that have been hospitalized have been out after a few days. The bark is worse than the bite. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 13, 2020 15:13:50 GMT
You really are stupid aren't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 13, 2020 15:48:43 GMT
You really are stupid aren't you? Wait and see. This annihilation-level pandemic is going away within a few weeks. WHO position that lockdowns are harmful. Information that mask use outside the clinical setting makes no difference (which had already been proven out from every other mask study over the last 100 years). Large peak (which came and went already) followed by slow decline followed by precipitous decline - just like every other pandemic ever. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 13, 2020 16:07:47 GMT
The pandemic isn't going away. Trump is lying The article you referred to, merely states that some in the WHO think lockdowns are bad. Masks do help prevent the spread of covid-19 via aerosols. Your information is flawed. We're still in a pandemic state. Acting foolishly isn't going to help matters. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.htmlWear a god-damned mask you moron. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 14, 2020 1:07:41 GMT
You really are stupid aren't you? Wait and see. This annihilation-level pandemic is going away within a few weeks. WHO position that lockdowns are harmful. Information that mask use outside the clinical setting makes no difference (which had already been proven out from every other mask study over the last 100 years). Large peak (which came and went already) followed by slow decline followed by precipitous decline - just like every other pandemic ever. Do you even understand that WHO took the ultraliberal stance for deciding lockdowns were harmful? You are agreeing with them that it's hard on minorities and it will take them and the poor a long time to recover financially, and that's the reason to avoid a lockdown, not that lockdowns don't help with the pandemic. You've turned into a liberal in order to be right!  |
|
