Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

https://www.oann.com/cdc-face-masks-dont-prevent-covid-19-study-finds-masks-have-had-negligible-impact-on-coronavirus-numbers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cdc-face-masks-dont-prevent-covid-19-study-finds-masks-have-had-negligible-impact-on-coronavirus-numbers&fbclid=IwAR1yMK0-M0YrxGFofIYH7-8QEZQY8Y1suFtryXBhtXvAYMG13VO8uRMPOTc

The CDC has admitted face masks do little to prevent the spread of COVID-19 amid mounting pressure to lift mask mandates across the U.S. In a new study, the CDC found face masks had a negligible impact on coronavirus numbers that didn’t exceed statistical margins of error.

The study found that between March and December 2020, face mask orders reduced infection rates by 1.5 percent over the rolling periods of two months each. The masks were 0.5 percent effective in the first 20 days of the mandates and less than 2 percent effective after 100 days.

The CDC added it still recommends wearing face masks, although it admitted such mandates do not make any statistical difference. In the meantime, some states across the nation have slowly returned to normalcy by putting an end to mask mandates.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is going to be a one off post because I don't want to get trolled or banned but if I were American, the context of Canada would be the biggest damning fact of how things have been handled in the

Australia has had months of little to no community spread and even then it was confined to one state. By and large Australians are running around doing the right thing, sport was and is still hap

I am confident we are going to hit >750K deaths.  I think it might be a million.  I don't post a ton but I'm an ER doc in a big city. This is by far the worse I've seen since the pandemic star

10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

https://www.oann.com/cdc-face-masks-dont-prevent-covid-19-study-finds-masks-have-had-negligible-impact-on-coronavirus-numbers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cdc-face-masks-dont-prevent-covid-19-study-finds-masks-have-had-negligible-impact-on-coronavirus-numbers&fbclid=IwAR1yMK0-M0YrxGFofIYH7-8QEZQY8Y1suFtryXBhtXvAYMG13VO8uRMPOTc

The CDC has admitted face masks do little to prevent the spread of COVID-19 amid mounting pressure to lift mask mandates across the U.S. In a new study, the CDC found face masks had a negligible impact on coronavirus numbers that didn’t exceed statistical margins of error.

The study found that between March and December 2020, face mask orders reduced infection rates by 1.5 percent over the rolling periods of two months each. The masks were 0.5 percent effective in the first 20 days of the mandates and less than 2 percent effective after 100 days.

The CDC added it still recommends wearing face masks, although it admitted such mandates do not make any statistical difference. In the meantime, some states across the nation have slowly returned to normalcy by putting an end to mask mandates.

 

 

 

 

Here is the study they link in the article. I’m have absolutely no idea how they came to this conclusion from reading that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Here is the study they link in the article. I’m have absolutely no idea how they came to this conclusion from reading that.

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Universal masking and avoiding nonessential indoor spaces are recommended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

What is added by this report?

Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Mask mandates and restricting any on-premises dining at restaurants can help limit community transmission of COVID-19 and reduce case and death growth rates. These findings can inform public policies to reduce community spread of COVID-19.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Perfect opp for the PETA/anti-vaxxer Venn diagram folks.

You know there are definitely some in California. Heck, throw a stone in Hollywood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Here is the study they link in the article. I’m have absolutely no idea how they came to this conclusion from reading that.

 

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure).

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure).

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

Discussion

Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with increases in county-level case and death growth rates within 41–80 days after reopening. State mask mandates and prohibiting on-premises dining at restaurants help limit potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2, reducing community transmission of COVID-19.

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8). Mask mandates are associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and hospitalization growth rates (6,7), whereas reopening on-premises dining at restaurants, a known risk factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (2), is associated with increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, particularly in the absence of mask mandates (8). The current study builds upon this evidence by accounting for county-level variation in state-issued mitigation measures and highlights the importance of a comprehensive strategy to decrease exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Prohibiting on-premises restaurant dining might assist in limiting potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2; however, such orders might disrupt daily life and have an adverse impact on the economy and the food services industry (9). If on-premises restaurant dining options are not prohibited, CDC offers considerations for operators and customers which can reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 in restaurant settings.*** COVID-19 case and death growth rates might also have increased because of persons engaging in close contact activities other than or in addition to on-premises restaurant dining in response to perceived reduced risk as a result of states allowing restaurants to reopen. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of a multicomponent community mitigation strategy on economic activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure).

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

The conclusions of this study are not consistent with what you are claiming. Read the whole thing, not just parrot OANN.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure).

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

If you’d like to discuss these numbers, after 20 days the numbers went down, as time passed that percentage grew, which would make sense as mask mandates would take time to have an effect on those numbers. In each of those periods they gathered data for the % of spread and death rates both went down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Discussion

Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with increases in county-level case and death growth rates within 41–80 days after reopening. State mask mandates and prohibiting on-premises dining at restaurants help limit potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2, reducing community transmission of COVID-19.

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8). Mask mandates are associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and hospitalization growth rates (6,7), whereas reopening on-premises dining at restaurants, a known risk factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (2), is associated with increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, particularly in the absence of mask mandates (8). The current study builds upon this evidence by accounting for county-level variation in state-issued mitigation measures and highlights the importance of a comprehensive strategy to decrease exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Prohibiting on-premises restaurant dining might assist in limiting potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2; however, such orders might disrupt daily life and have an adverse impact on the economy and the food services industry (9). If on-premises restaurant dining options are not prohibited, CDC offers considerations for operators and customers which can reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 in restaurant settings.*** COVID-19 case and death growth rates might also have increased because of persons engaging in close contact activities other than or in addition to on-premises restaurant dining in response to perceived reduced risk as a result of states allowing restaurants to reopen. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of a multicomponent community mitigation strategy on economic activity.

 

 

I see words and references to OTHER sources - but the stat's are right there on the pages ............. that's a 9 month period of study 

 

 

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure).

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

If you’d like to discuss these numbers, after 20 days the numbers went down, as time passed that percentage grew, which would make sense as mask mandates would take time to have an effect on those numbers. In each of those periods they gathered data for the % of spread and death rates both went down. 

by a max of 1.8 %

 

right ? ( 1.8%   81-100 days )

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

by a max of 1.8 %

 

right ? ( 1.8%   81-100 days )

Sure, and trending up every period studied. Restaurants reopening didn’t result in a change in numbers likely because of limited capacity and continued use of masks. 
1.8% of the 29,000,000 cases in the US would equate to 522,000 fewer cases. That seems significant to me, as 522,000 more carriers would result in much more spread as it is an exponential equation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

 

I see words and references to OTHER sources - but the stat's are right there on the pages ............. that's a 9 month period of study 

 

 

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure).

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

I linked the study OANN links in their article, the CDC study they are basing this on. Their conclusions aren’t what you claim. Read the actual stuff from the cdc please, quit telling me how OANN has interpreted it.

(in the first paragraph where it says “a new study” and it is a different color, that’s the link I’m pulling this information from. It includes your numbers, but the cdc doesn’t “admit” anything, their conclusions are what I posted.)

Edited by Snorkelson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

“I see words and references to other sources” when it’s the damn source material of the article...look at the actual conclusions rather than rely on OANN to interpret it for you. OANN of all places...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when people forego reading the research themselves and rely on the media in this country to "summarize' it for them.  I read this study Friday and wondered when it would hit the PSF and how it would hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Your overall complaint that there is no free speech on private property in California is incorrect. Somebody should tell you that before you go running around making blanket declarations to the contrary. The people in question might have had the right to protest, but might have been arrested for a time, manner, place violation or protesting without a permit. At times, in places of business that are open to invitees in California, especially including privately-owned malls as in the Pruneyard precedent, there is the right of protest and assembly under the state Constitution. And the state can force the landowners to allow protests on its own privately-owned property. 

Actually, your declarative tone made me want to dig. The owners of the racetrack and property claim to be fine with the protestors, only the ones on the track were arrested. They were not blocking access to the vaccine nor in people's way, per their claims, but rather, preventing the horses from running that afternoon.  They were cited, but they had broken into the physical racetrack itself and were laying on it. So, yes, still muddled regarding whether or not the protests could happen on that particular private property, especially if the private property included sidewalks or had other trappings necessary for the public to move around in and get from a Point A to Point B.

If you look back at my first post on the matter that rover replied to i specifically stated four chuckleheads. I was always talking about the people on the track. 

There was no gray area there. It would never be interpreted as public property.  

Edited by parasaurolophus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a poor time to ask the "just a flu" guys why masks/social distancing/washing hands has had such different impacts on the flu compared to covid.  If they were pretty similar, then the results should be similar, no?  Or is it that 500K and counting is similar enough to virtually stopping the flu in it's tracks that they're the "same"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

https://www.oann.com/cdc-face-masks-dont-prevent-covid-19-study-finds-masks-have-had-negligible-impact-on-coronavirus-numbers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cdc-face-masks-dont-prevent-covid-19-study-finds-masks-have-had-negligible-impact-on-coronavirus-numbers&fbclid=IwAR1yMK0-M0YrxGFofIYH7-8QEZQY8Y1suFtryXBhtXvAYMG13VO8uRMPOTc

The CDC has admitted face masks do little to prevent the spread of COVID-19 amid mounting pressure to lift mask mandates across the U.S. In a new study, the CDC found face masks had a negligible impact on coronavirus numbers that didn’t exceed statistical margins of error.

I will not accept that from an OANN article. I have no doubt they've misrepresented the study, and I'm comfortable not even checking to verify that. YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Sure, and trending up every period studied. Restaurants reopening didn’t result in a change in numbers likely because of limited capacity and continued use of masks. 
1.8% of the 29,000,000 cases in the US would equate to 522,000 fewer cases. That seems significant to me, as 522,000 more carriers would result in much more spread as it is an exponential equation. 

+/- the error in their calculations means it would be even less

I guess the point is .......... mask wearing did NOT make a significant difference IMO. Significant would mean 25% or 50% to me

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I will not accept that from an OANN article. I have no doubt they've misrepresented the study, and I'm comfortable not even checking to verify that. YMMV.

if it doesn't go with what CNN tells us, ignore it right ??   smh 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Probably a poor time to ask the "just a flu" guys why masks/social distancing/washing hands has had such different impacts on the flu compared to covid.  If they were pretty similar, then the results should be similar, no?  Or is it that 500K and counting is similar enough to virtually stopping the flu in it's tracks that they're the "same"?

personally I believe the flu is doing pretty well this year just like it always does

its being reported as covid is the difference IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:
4 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I will not accept that from an OANN article. I have no doubt they've misrepresented the study, and I'm comfortable not even checking to verify that. YMMV.

if it doesn't go with what CNN tells us, ignore it right ??   smh 

Most all popular media flubs this stuff -- CNN doesn't get a pass, either. Example: outlets like CNN willfully exaggerate the dangers of "variants!". OANN is just leaning super-hard in the other direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

look at the actual conclusions

actually no

don't read the conclusions - look at the statistics

people/news/media will twist what they read or even ignore it

the statics posted by the CDC are real, are they not ?

1.8% was the biggest difference and that's a +/- scenario even at that

 

i don't think anyone would call that significant 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

The conclusions of this study are not consistent with what you are claiming. Read the whole thing, not just parrot OANN.

Weren't people mostly wearing masks in advance of the mask mandates anyway? If mask mandates just led to a minor bump in mask wearing ... of course the change wouldn't be stark.

Best to look at what happens when COVID approached clinically naive populations (Italy, New York, etc.) before they caught on to masking. Mask mandates never marked the hard beginning of "masking in numbers". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

actually no

don't read the conclusions - look at the statistics

people/news/media will twist what they read or even ignore it

the statics posted by the CDC are real, are they not ?

1.8% was the biggest difference and that's a +/- scenario even at that

 

i don't think anyone would call that significant 

You need a refresher on the power of exponential compounding.

Very small DAILY increases in rates get big over even a medium-length time period.

It would be hard to come to worse conclusion than the one you're pushing.

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

mask wearing did NOT make a significant difference IMO. Significant would mean 25% or 50% to me

 

So if wearing a mask saved 50,000 lives, you wouldn't call that significant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Probably a poor time to ask the "just a flu" guys why masks/social distancing/washing hands has had such different impacts on the flu compared to covid.  If they were pretty similar, then the results should be similar, no?  Or is it that 500K and counting is similar enough to virtually stopping the flu in it's tracks that they're the "same"?

Influenza was obviously a weak-sauce strain this season.  Just dumb luck.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

personally I believe the flu is doing pretty well this year just like it always does

its being reported as covid is the difference IMO

Sorry...there is really no place for "opinion" or "belief" here unless you can substantiate some sort of grand conspiracy that doctors throughout the world are all on the same page and "lying" about their flu numbers.  :shrug: 

This is where things go sideways for people who "feel" they know better than what the evidence is showing them.  "Feeling" and "belief" are not to replace facts and what's known.  They are to fill in the gaps beyond what's known when one chooses to venture further out than what the data requires.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 7:14 PM, parasaurolophus said:

Show me where it says that protesting on private property is protected.

This is what you said. It's still wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

actually no

don't read the conclusions - look at the statistics

people/news/media will twist what they read or even ignore it

the statics posted by the CDC are real, are they not ?

1.8% was the biggest difference and that's a +/- scenario even at that

 

i don't think anyone would call that significant 

I’m reading the conclusions of the study by the cdc, linked from the article you posted. You’re reading OANN, and telling me how news/media will twist what they read or ignore. Are you sure you want this to be your arguement?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is what you said. It's still wrong.

This is like when the kid in school corrects the math teacher, and points out the three angles on a triangle can add up to different than 180 when drawn on a sphere. Or when an activist gets mad when somebody says women give birth and says sometimes men give birth too. 

I clearly was speaking about the 4 people on the track and that eliminates any weird side tangent of yours where sometimes private property could be considered public, or whatever you were arguing which i dont feel like rereading for clarity.

Rovers reply was worthless since clearly that pesky constitution didnt stop them from being arrested(eventually) which should have just happened immediately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This is like when the kid in school corrects the math teacher, and points out the three angles on a triangle can add up to different than 180 when drawn on a sphere. Or when an activist gets mad when somebody says women give birth and says sometimes men give birth too. 

I clearly was speaking about the 4 people on the track and that eliminates any weird side tangent of yours where sometimes private property could be considered public, or whatever you were arguing which i dont feel like rereading for clarity.

Rovers reply was worthless since clearly that pesky constitution didnt stop them from being arrested(eventually) which should have just happened immediately. 

people get arrested asserting their constitutional rights all the time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

I clearly was speaking about the 4 people on the track and that eliminates any weird side tangent of yours where sometimes private property could be considered public, or whatever you were arguing which i dont feel like rereading for clarity.

Actually, this is like teacher gets obdurate because the teacher himself wasn't close to specific enough. Who were you talking about? The 200 protesting? The four on the track? Why are you making blanket statements about protesting on private property when you don't know them? I do not know the answers.

You do you, p.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

So if wearing a mask saved 50,000 lives, you wouldn't call that significant?

if - we can all guess at the costs of shut downs and mask mandates ..... the mental health damages done, driving millions to poverty, the loss of life from not being able to get diagnosis and treatments for other diseases, the long term effects are guesses and unknowns ..... and we can guess the short term as well but NOBODY knows for sure

if banning smoking saved 500,000 would that be significant ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, The Commish said:

Sorry...there is really no place for "opinion" or "belief" here

isn't that EXACTLY what you are doing ?

flu isn't being reported so therefore it MUST be the masks ? the very masks that had no impact really on covid spiking to ultra high numbers ..... that's your opinion and belief - but it is NOT fact

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on,  it is common sense that masks prevents the spread of germs and viruses.   I can't believe anyone could seriously try to argue against it.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

isn't that EXACTLY what you are doing ?

flu isn't being reported so therefore it MUST be the masks ? the very masks that had no impact really on covid spiking to ultra high numbers ..... that's your opinion and belief - but it is NOT fact

I didn't say any of that.  I said that the flu is really struggling in the environment we've created to combat Covid and that Covid isn't struggling as much.  That's a fact and one that the "justtheflu" guys need to be able to explain if the two are pretty much the same thing as they claim :shrug: 

Your rebuttal is that the reason this is true is because all the doctors all over the world are in on some game to label the flu as Covid.  As if they've stopped testing for flu and/or covid and are just labeling everything covid.  One of us has gone beyond what the data/evidence requires which breaches "belief" territory.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I said that the flu is really struggling in the environment we've created to combat Covid and that Covid isn't struggling as much.

what environment ?

masks? 

schools being shut down in many areas are a huge factor in flu not being spread I think ... and I think flu IS around its just not being diagnosed

I have an idea on it, a theory ..... so do you but you are not any more right than I am about it. Do you think you are ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

I’m reading the conclusions of the study by the cdc, linked from the article you posted. You’re reading OANN, and telling me how news/media will twist what they read or ignore. Are you sure you want this to be your arguement?

  

You present the study design, criteria. Abstract. Methods. You present the data.  The data is 99% what you discuss. 

In fact the only times I recall formally including the conclusion of a study would be the times I did not want to focus on the data.  

eta - If that data is real from a study (I dont know where it came from), stealthycat has you hands down here.  The conclusions do not trump the data (for the very fact they are interpretations and can be influenced/spun).

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

Come on,  it is common sense that masks prevents the spread of germs and viruses.   I can't believe anyone could seriously try to argue against it.

 

To a degree.  They would rank third on the list of distancing, washing hands, masks.  Marginal.

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/04/health/obesity-covid-death-rate-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3oQLJrrgyoHo9JGQWayYUhqckwSgJR1Jpel8wpb1mzzrmDjugGQsS1108

""  The risk of death from Covid-19 is about 10 times higher in countries where most of the population is overweight, according to a report released Wednesday by the World Obesity Federation. ""

 

just think if our Fed Govt moved to ban obesity - ban sugars, HFCS, force people to eat healthy, s

ay within a certain BMI, force people to exercise daily ...

could the argument not be made that it'd save lives and therefore it has to be accepted ?

Edited by Stealthycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, matuski said:

  

You present the study design, criteria. Abstract. Methods. You present the data.  The data is 99% what you discuss. 

In fact the only times I recall formally including the conclusion of a study would be the times I did not want to focus on the data.  

eta - If that data is real from a study (I dont know where it came from), stealthycat has you hands down here.  The conclusions do not trump the data (for the very fact they are interpretations and can be influenced/spun).

I linked the actual study, quoted the conclusions by the cdc or that report. It is also linked in the OANN article, it is the source material for their article, which in my view is the biased source here as it draws a completely different conclusion than stated conclusions from the cdc report. Those stats are in the article as well, go read it. Or read the stuff I quoted, it’s cut/paste from the report. I don’t know what else I can do here. Do you accept OANN’s interpretation over the cdc? Please just go read the report. It’s like the first link in the article or it’s linked above where I posted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, matuski said:

  

You present the study design, criteria. Abstract. Methods. You present the data.  The data is 99% what you discuss. 

In fact the only times I recall formally including the conclusion of a study would be the times I did not want to focus on the data.  

eta - If that data is real from a study (I dont know where it came from), stealthycat has you hands down here.  The conclusions do not trump the data (for the very fact they are interpretations and can be influenced/spun).

All the study designs and whatnot are also discussed there, as well as flaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, matuski said:

 eta - If that data is real from a study (I dont know where it came from), stealthycat has you hands down here.  The conclusions do not trump the data (for the very fact they are interpretations and can be influenced/spun).

The study is flawed as it assumes that the start of mask mandates was the start of a sharp increase in community masking. Masking mandates, rather, typically came in late after most communities already started masking in numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what environment ?

masks? 

schools being shut down in many areas are a huge factor in flu not being spread I think ... and I think flu IS around its just not being diagnosed

I have an idea on it, a theory ..... so do you but you are not any more right than I am about it. Do you think you are ?

 

This environment where we are socially distanced, wearing masks and improving basic hygiene.  Those are all having an impact on the flu in a very different way than they are COVID.  There is no theory there.  It is what it is.  I haven't gone beyond that.  I don't need to.  Clearly they are different beasts and not "the same".  If they were, our remediations would impact them in a similar fashion.  They aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Doug B said:

The study is flawed as it assumes that the start of mask mandates was the start of a sharp increase in community masking. Masking mandates, rather, typically came in late after most communities already started masking in numbers.

That is fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

All the study designs and whatnot are also discussed there, as well as flaws.

Could be (didnt really read it), just saying that using the conclusion as a retort to the data is a weird way to go about things... backasswards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...