Bad News Thread

Grace T. said:
Your math is great but your reasoning skills are always in short supply.

Again, that's because you misunderstand what I'm all about just as I misunderstood you were preaching instead of advocating for a particular policy. I'm not a supporter of masks. I'm not an opponent of masks. I'm a truth seeker that wants to get to the truth of what it is masks can and can't do (I'm more scientific that way than you are because science cares about getting to the truth, not about being right or moral). But what I do have a problem with is when the ministry of truth lies to the public by saying things like "masks are better than vaccines" or "masks can control the spread". I care about truth, not the stupid mask policy so long as no one (whether anti masker or pro masker) is lying about it. Had Desert Hound come out and said masks do absolutely nothing, he and I would have tangled, and like I've told espola before, whether masks "work" depends in part on what your definition of "work" is. Your definition has consistently oversold it, which doesn't negate the policy, but does make you just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

You're a seeker of truth, but the mask policy is stupid.
 
watfly said:
Can't we all just stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable, convincing and consensus evidence either way that masks work, or don't work, in preventing the spread of the disease? It seems to me if both sides are being intellectually honest that we would agree to that fact. I'll stipulate... Dad4 can you stipulate without a "yeah, but" argument? I'm pretty sure I know Grace's answer.

Not saying that we can't debate how we develop policy based on that fact, but it seems fair that we acknowledge that we don't know either way whether masks are effective, or not.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone "stipulate" to an obvious falsehood?
 
watfly said:
Can't we all just stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable, convincing and consensus evidence either way that masks work, or don't work, in preventing the spread of the disease? It seems to me if both sides are being intellectually honest that we would agree to that fact. I'll stipulate... Dad4 can you stipulate without a "yeah, but" argument? I'm pretty sure I know Grace's answer.

Not saying that we can't debate how we develop policy based on that fact, but it seems fair that we acknowledge that we don't know either way whether masks are effective, or not.
Click to expand...
No such agreement from me. I find the lab tests and cdc data very convincing- especially if you are asking about direct person to person transmission. The mask redirects my breath up, and away from you. The direct risk from me to you has been significantly reduced.

If you are asking about whether wearing a mask helps with long term indirect indoor exposure, that one is less convincing. Also less effective, at least for the kinds of mask most people wear. Less effective also means harder to measure. You get things like the Dutch study- expected reduction is 10-15%, but the number of participants is too small to be sure.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Like our long on going wars that have basically gone on since the Korean War (see: Eisenhower speech on the military industrial complex, another conversation) where only a small percentage of people are directly effected, we are in a war against a virus. And like with a military war there are protests, conspiracy theories and people living and dying amongst the horror. Those fighting the war (in this case doctors and nurses) need all the help they can get. And just like with a military war there are many that choose to ignore the battle, the horror, the suffering of others as they simply wish to not have their lives disturbed. There are also those that empathize and try to do what they can to help the effort. Which are you?
Click to expand...
Virus's have served us well. Without a virus, no placenta. No Husker Du.
 
dad4 said:
No such agreement from me. I find the lab tests and cdc data very convincing- especially if you are asking about direct person to person transmission. The mask redirects my breath up, and away from you. The direct risk from me to you has been significantly reduced.

If you are asking about whether wearing a mask helps with long term indirect indoor exposure, that one is less convincing. Also less effective, at least for the kinds of mask most people wear. Less effective also means harder to measure. You get things like the Dutch study- expected reduction is 10-15%, but the number of participants is too small to be sure.
Click to expand...
watfly said:
Can't we all just stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable, convincing and consensus evidence either way that masks work, or don't work, in preventing the spread of the disease? It seems to me if both sides are being intellectually honest that we would agree to that fact. I'll stipulate... Dad4 can you stipulate without a "yeah, but" argument? I'm pretty sure I know Grace's answer.

Not saying that we can't debate how we develop policy based on that fact, but it seems fair that we acknowledge that we don't know either way whether masks are effective, or not.
Click to expand...

We actually have moved him on the issue. Long term indoor exposure, the type of mask people wear, transmission in the home, maybe even kids and outdoors. While he likes to suck on that blue pill, unlike others he doesn't swallow it whole.
 
dad4 said:
No such agreement from me. I find the lab tests and cdc data very convincing- especially if you are asking about direct person to person transmission. The mask redirects my breath up, and away from you. The direct risk from me to you has been significantly reduced.

If you are asking about whether wearing a mask helps with long term indirect indoor exposure, that one is less convincing. Also less effective, at least for the kinds of mask most people wear. Less effective also means harder to measure. You get things like the Dutch study- expected reduction is 10-15%, but the number of participants is too small to be sure.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't understand the difference between cherry picking and scientific consensus. I'm glad you find those particular studies convincing; however, its hardly a consensus that masks are effective against the spread of Covid. Even the CDC only says "studies show that masks reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth." They make no conclusions about whether it is effective against spreading the virus although they cite some anecdotal studies that they may work. These are correlation studies and not causation studies. Keep in mind two things, 1) prior to Covid, the consensus was that masks didn't work for the general public against viruses and 2) the studies don't show that masks are 100% effective against "spray". Even the FDA says "Masks may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others."

That having been said, I believe that masks may have some level of effectiveness against Covid and my suspicion is that its likely in the area of viral load. So we have a dilemma. Which is more dangerous? My openly questioning mask effectiveness, or you openly drinking the mask kool-aid. My attitude could undermine the use of masks, your attitude could make masks falsely look like a panacea (like masks are better than vaccines). I prefer a honest discussion about masks. I also don't want anyone who thinks they may have symptoms or know they are sick going out in public thinking a mask will protect others. They should stay home.
 
Grace T. said:
We actually have moved him on the issue. Long term indoor exposure, the type of mask people wear, transmission in the home, maybe even kids and outdoors. While he likes to suck on that blue pill, unlike others he doesn't swallow it whole.
Click to expand...
When a series of people make a solid point, you're supposed to reconsider your previous position. If you don't, there's no point in talking about these issues.

Same as Grace eventually admitted that masks have a role in reducing transmission.

I'm just willing to give credit. Watfly on outdoor spaces and Grace on the difference between home and non-home exposures.

Duration of exposure goes to no one. Prior knowledge. Credit goes to the old saying, "the poison is in the dose.".

All moot soon, at least locally. Most of the blue pill areas are getting themselves vaccinated, and won't see many more cases. Dropping by 10% or so per week, with vax rates above 50% and rising.

Red pill areas are more reluctant/stubborn. They've got several months to fix it, though they'll lose some people while they figure it out.
 
dad4 said:
When a series of people make a solid point, you're supposed to reconsider your previous position. If you don't, there's no point in talking about these issues.

Same as Grace eventually admitted that masks have a role in reducing transmission.

I'm just willing to give credit. Watfly on outdoor spaces and Grace on the difference between home and non-home exposures.

Duration of exposure goes to no one. Prior knowledge. Credit goes to the old saying, "the poison is in the dose.".

All moot soon, at least locally. Most of the blue pill areas are getting themselves vaccinated, and won't see many more cases. Dropping by 10% or so per week, with vax rates above 50% and rising.

Red pill areas are more reluctant/stubborn. They've got several months to fix it, though they'll lose some people while they figure it out.
Click to expand...

I decline to take any credit whatsoever. I'm just happy you've moved.

As for me, if you look back through my posts, I've (subject to the restrictions previously said) always been in favor of an indoor mask mandate. You might also like to know that because I've gotten so many colds on planes, I wholeheartedly embraced the practice of wearing a mask on a plane and would welcome that practice to continue....that contradicts the idea that I don't think they do anything....I just don't think they do much (particularly on an airplane and particularly if someone sick sits right next to you). I haven't moved on this and have always been in the same place on them from the beginning (even when Fauci was saying no you don't need masks I said BS and bought a carton of N95s).
 
dad4 said:
When a series of people make a solid point, you're supposed to reconsider your previous position. If you don't, there's no point in talking about these issues.

Same as Grace eventually admitted that masks have a role in reducing transmission.

I'm just willing to give credit. Watfly on outdoor spaces and Grace on the difference between home and non-home exposures.

Duration of exposure goes to no one. Prior knowledge. Credit goes to the old saying, "the poison is in the dose.".

All moot soon, at least locally. Most of the blue pill areas are getting themselves vaccinated, and won't see many more cases. Dropping by 10% or so per week, with vax rates above 50% and rising.

Red pill areas are more reluctant/stubborn. They've got several months to fix it, though they'll lose some people while they figure it out.
Click to expand...

I’m not a fan of red vs blue pill analogies as it brings politics front and center. That said, I do believe mask effectiveness is the externality you asked for on masks+distance studies. If one thinks masks are effective they are more likely to participate in risky activities like indoor gatherings (it’s human behavior to dismiss risks that are assumed to be mitigated). Hearing that masks ‘may be effective’ in those settings would cause more hesitation to engage in those activities and is the greatest public failing I see in this debate when it comes to mandates etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top