4 minutes ago, sucit said:

"Bernheim said in an email the work relies on statistical methods to infer causation after an event has occurred." 

 

In other words, "we know nothing, but just decided we'd spew out some nonsense anyway". I wonder if their statistical method was about as good as the one from Fergueson who got us in this mess. 

 

Same as everyone else in the world nowadays, deciding upon your facts based on political affiliations. Again, this is what got us into this mess in the first place. 

Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow. Cholera was raging in London. The theory in those days was that it was due to bad air. Louis Pasteur had yet to discover bacteria. Snow, using statistical methods, figured out that a certain pump was the source. He successfully put a stop to that particular epidemic. And he did that without having a clue about bacteria. It turns out, though, that even though Snow was successful, it wasn't followed up on right away. Apparently there were lots of people who believed of him that he know nothing but decided to spew out a lot of nonsense anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Modern_era

It's clear you have as little appreciation of the importance of statistics in tracking and sourcing outbreaks of disease as those 19th folks did. But given that the existence of bacteria and viruses is common knowledge today,  you have a lot less of an excuse.

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow. Cholera was raging in London. The theory in those days was that it was due to bad air. Louis Pasteur had yet to discover bacteria. Snow, using statistical methods, figured out that a certain pump was the source. He successfully put a stop to that particular epidemic. And he did that without having a clue about bacteria. It turns out, though, that even though Snow was successful, it wasn't followed up on right away. Apparently there were lots of people who believed of him that he know nothing but decided to spew out a lot of nonsense anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Modern_era

It's clear you have as little appreciation of the importance of statistics in tracking and sourcing outbreaks of disease as those 19th folks did. But given that the existence of bacteria and viruses is common knowledge today,  you have a lot less of an excuse.

Snow of course was a very intelligent, well thinking man.

23 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Interesting reply. In both photographs, I see people crowded together. There are people with no masks in the Antifa/BLM shot. There are more people with no masks in the Trump shot. In both photos, people are packed together. Therefore, in order to conclude that the virus spreads in only one type of crowd, one would have to admit that rules on social distancing (which is really PHYSICAL distancing) by six feet are ineffective. If you are ready to admit "social distancing" guidelines are unnecessary and provide no benefit, I think we can move on with debating other aspects.

 

I doubt you really believe this weak deflection. It's not either/or. Social distancing helps, Masks help. Following the rules helps. The rules, by the way, formulated by the Trump administration.

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow. Cholera was raging in London. The theory in those days was that it was due to bad air. Louis Pasteur had yet to discover bacteria. Snow, using statistical methods, figured out that a certain pump was the source. He successfully put a stop to that particular epidemic. And he did that without having a clue about bacteria. It turns out, though, that even though Snow was successful, it wasn't followed up on right away. Apparently there were lots of people who believed of him that he know nothing but decided to spew out a lot of nonsense anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Modern_era

It's clear you have as little appreciation of the importance of statistics in tracking and sourcing outbreaks of disease as those 19th folks did. But given that the existence of bacteria and viruses is common knowledge today,  you have a lot less of an excuse.

 

"Modern epidemiology is reckoned to begin with a fellow named John Snow."

 

Meh....that was just one letter away from a 'know nothing' comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkyy57iMaB0

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt you really believe this weak deflection. It's not either/or. Social distancing helps, Masks help. Following the rules helps. The rules, by the way, formulated by the Trump administration.

So essentially, you are calling me a liar. OK. But let's move beyond that in the hope you will decide personal attacks aren't an effective discussion or debate tactic.

 

Now, specifically, what did I post that qualifies as "a weak deflection"? And more importantly, why do you think that? Now, I'm happy to reword and enhance my position in the hopes we can have a substantive debate rather than engage in the personal attacks you have chosen thus far. If the virus does not spread in crowds packed together closely, does that suggest social distancing is needed or does it indicate social distancing is not needed? The only relevant difference between the Trump rallies and Antifa/BLM protests and riots is face masks appear to be worn more at Antifa/BLM protests and riots. So, it seems logical to me that masks are likely the key issue and social distancing is not.

 

As far as the rules formulated by the Trump administration, that doesn't matter to me. I think things through logically. It is for that reason I disagree with Trump on many substantive issues.

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It would make more sense if observation was employed. The BLM supporters seem to be mostly wearing masks. The Trump supporters mostly are not, following the example of their cured idol. Or is that in remission? It has not occurred to them they won't be getting the same world-class, taxpayer funded treatment he did if they get sick.

If you want to claim masks are ineffective, they seem to work just fine in many Asian countries. The numbers do tell the story.

Yes, I've addressed the issue of masks. Please see previous posts. I am happy to debate the issue with you. Just to stimulate some productive debate on the issue, let's take a look at what America's top expert on the issue, Anthony Fauci, said:

 

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "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."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

 

Fauci saying masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" hardly sounds like he thinks masks are very effective. Am I making a fair assessment of his words? If no, why?

 

Also, Dr. Fauci says people should wear goggles for COVID-19 protection.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/fauci-urges-americans-to-wear-goggles-for-added-covid-19-protection/

 

I'm curious. Are you wearing goggles?

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

And freedom to endanger others. Whether it's by not wearing masks or firing off guns whenever and wherever you please!!!

Most jurisdictions have laws about where and when guns can be fired. For the most part, people obey those laws. Of course, there are criminals who don't, and that's why they're criminals. In addition, there are about 20,000 gun laws. Again, the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. Bottom line: it appears to me your two statements don't really belong together, based on facts.

 

But how far off into the weeds (for lack of a better term) with the "freedom to endanger others" argument do we want to go? Every time you drive a car, you are endangering others. Every time you go to the store while ill with the flu, you endanger others.

 

Let's look at some COVID-19 statistics to put things in perspective. There have been 9.3 million known cases of COVID-19 in the US. 9,300,000 / 340,000,000 = 2.7%. It's more than safe to say these cases didn't happen all at once. So I will use 0.6% as the odds of any given person at any given time having the virus. I know of no way to calculate the actual risk of transmitting the virus, so we'll let that go. If you have a plan on that, I'm all "ears". So there's a 0.5% chance I have a virus with that has the survival rate described below:

 

 

https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-19-fatality-rate-including-asymptomatic-cases

 

The math does not look very scary or risky to me. As we already know, there is an average of 2.6 co-morbidities among people who have died from the virus, with the vast majority of deaths being people 55 or over:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

 

https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/

 

All this is to say let's keep things in perspective. Rational thought is the way to navigate one's way through any difficulty in life. It's even more important to do as a country.

Anyone posting false or misleading information will receive a suspension.   Stay on topic.  

 

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Most jurisdictions have laws about where and when guns can be fired. For the most part, people obey those laws. Of course, there are criminals who don't, and that's why they're criminals. In addition, there are about 20,000 gun laws. Again, the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. Bottom line: it appears to me your two statements don't really belong together, based on facts.

 

But how far off into the weeds (for lack of a better term) with the "freedom to endanger others" argument do we want to go? Every time you drive a car, you are endangering others. Every time you go to the store while ill with the flu, you endanger others.

 

Let's look at some COVID-19 statistics to put things in perspective. There have been 9.3 million known cases of COVID-19 in the US. 9,300,000 / 340,000,000 = 2.7%. It's more than safe to say these cases didn't happen all at once. So I will use 0.6% as the odds of any given person at any given time having the virus. I know of no way to calculate the actual risk of transmitting the virus, so we'll let that go. If you have a plan on that, I'm all "ears". So there's a 0.5% chance I have a virus with that has the survival rate described below:

 

 

https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-19-fatality-rate-including-asymptomatic-cases

 

The math does not look very scary or risky to me. As we already know, there is an average of 2.6 co-morbidities among people who have died from the virus, with the vast majority of deaths being people 55 or over:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

 

https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/

 

All this is to say let's keep things in perspective. Rational thought is the way to navigate one's way through any difficulty in life. It's even more important to do as a country.

What you don't note is that, as before, hospitalizations are surging upwards. Just as happened before when Florida, Texas, and Arizona decided to relax restrictions. So not only are Covid patients affected, but others who need the services of a hospital are as well.

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yes, I've addressed the issue of masks. Please see previous posts. I am happy to debate the issue with you. Just to stimulate some productive debate on the issue, let's take a look at what America's top expert on the issue, Anthony Fauci, said:

 

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "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."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

 

Fauci saying masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" hardly sounds like he thinks masks are very effective. Am I making a fair assessment of his words? If no, why?

 

Also, Dr. Fauci says people should wear goggles for COVID-19 protection.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/fauci-urges-americans-to-wear-goggles-for-added-covid-19-protection/

 

I'm curious. Are you wearing goggles?

What you don't note about the mask question is that scientific consensus changed as research showed that masks are indeed effective.  That's how science works. So Fauci was simply channeling opinion at the time. Also, there was a big shortage of N95 masks that continues to this day (thanks Trump) and Fauci wanted to make sure front line health care professionals had access to what relatively few there were. Subsequent epidemiological research showed that cloth masks work.

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Most jurisdictions have laws about where and when guns can be fired. For the most part, people obey those laws. Of course, there are criminals who don't, and that's why they're criminals. In addition, there are about 20,000 gun laws. Again, the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. Bottom line: it appears to me your two statements don't really belong together, based on facts.

 

But how far off into the weeds (for lack of a better term) with the "freedom to endanger others" argument do we want to go? Every time you drive a car, you are endangering others. Every time you go to the store while ill with the flu, you endanger others.

Don't you see the contradiction in what you just wrote? Yes, there are laws restricting where people can fire guns. Isn't that a limitation on their freedom? And the case is even worse for autos. You actually have to have a license to drive one. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? And if you drive unsafely, you can lose that license or worse. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? As for the flu, particularly if it's a bad one, preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down. If that's the case, it should be made a rule to wear masks. That would also be a limitation on freedom.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't note about the mask question is that scientific consensus changed as research showed that masks are indeed effective.  That's how science works. So Fauci was simply channeling opinion at the time. Also, there was a big shortage of N95 masks that continues to this day (thanks Trump) and Fauci wanted to make sure front line health care professionals had access to what relatively few there were. Subsequent epidemiological research showed that cloth masks work.

 

Honestly, this seems very odd to me. There wasn't enough known about the efficacy of masks in early 2020, but there was enough research to change the opinion of Fauci, the country's top expert on infectious diseases, with many decades of experience, in a span of a few months? I'd love to read any links you have to support your claim.

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Now, specifically, what did I post that qualifies as "a weak deflection"? And more importantly, why do you think that? Now, I'm happy to reword and enhance my position in the hopes we can have a substantive debate rather than engage in the personal attacks you have chosen thus far. If the virus does not spread in crowds packed together closely, does that suggest social distancing is needed or does it indicate social distancing is not needed? The only relevant difference between the Trump rallies and Antifa/BLM protests and riots is face masks appear to be worn more at Antifa/BLM protests and riots. So, it seems logical to me that masks are likely the key issue and social distancing is not.

 

As far as the rules formulated by the Trump administration, that doesn't matter to me. I think things through logically. It is for that reason I disagree with Trump on many substantive issues.

To decide such questions logically, you need to acquire a bit more information. There's plenty of research to show the value of social distancing, particularly out of doors where suspension of aerosols is likely not much of an issue.

 

Another person who claims to have issues with Trump but seems to be absolutely reticent to criticize him.

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't note is that, as before, hospitalizations are surging upwards. Just as happened before when Florida, Texas, and Arizona decided to relax restrictions. So not only are Covid patients affected, but others who need the services of a hospital are as well.

 

The topic is "Are Trump's rallies spreading coronavirus? Why it's hard to know the full impact." I'm sure that your reply is related to the topic. I just don't see how. Please help me understand so we can continue debating the topic.

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Honestly, this seems very odd to me. There wasn't enough known about the efficacy of masks in early 2020, but there was enough research to change the opinion of Fauci, the country's top expert on infectious diseases, with many decades of experience, in a span of a few months? I'd love to read any links you have to support your claim.

I'm really puzzled by what media you read that you don't know about this. So many articles relaying what scientists have found.  A simple search term "new research showing the effectiveness of masks": resulted in this link popping up as #1: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Don't you see the contradiction in what you just wrote? Yes, there are laws restricting where people can fire guns. Isn't that a limitation on their freedom? And the case is even worse for autos. You actually have to have a license to drive one. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? And if you drive unsafely, you can lose that license or worse. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? As for the flu, particularly if it's a bad one, preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down. If that's the case, it should be made a rule to wear masks. That would also be a limitation on freedom.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm

No, I don't see a contradiction. I am all for laws and policies that make sense. I don't see where I posted anything against wearing masks. That said, your statement that (emphasis added by me) "preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down" seems to be a very flaccid endorsement. I would argue that your assessment is not cause to make wearing a mask mandatory. Based on the statistical and demographic data I already posted, it seems obvious to me the solution is different suggestions for different groups with different risk factors.

8 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

The topic is "Are Trump's rallies spreading coronavirus? Why it's hard to know the full impact." I'm sure that your reply is related to the topic. I just don't see how. Please help me understand so we can continue debating the topic.

There's evidence in the article I just linked to that addresses this question.

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

No, I don't see a contradiction. I am all for laws and policies that make sense. I don't see where I posted anything against wearing masks. That said, your statement that (emphasis added by me) "preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down" seems to be a very flaccid endorsement. I would argue that your assessment is not cause to make wearing a mask mandatory. Based on the statistical and demographic data I already posted, it seems obvious to me the solution is different suggestions for different groups with different risk factors.

Again, look at that article. Since you have just pointed out that this is about Trump rallies, tell me what conditions are there at Trump's rallies that are different from other closely packed outdoors events?

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm really puzzled by what media you read that you don't know about this. So many articles relaying what scientists have found.  A simple search term "new research showing the effectiveness of masks": resulted in this link popping up as #1: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

 

From your link:

 

"In hospitals and other health-care facilities, the use of medical-grade masks clearly cuts down transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But for the variety of masks in use by the public, the data are messy, disparate and often hastily assembled."

 

That is in perfect alignment with my thoughts on masks. Masks have generally been used by professionals in a sterile or very clean environment, using masks with specific filtration abilities. So yes, there are going to be positive results that can be documented.

 

The general public is being told to put any piece of cloth over their face. They breathe in and out, grab the masks, get more bacteria on their hands then handle produce and other items with the hands they just touched to the dirty masks.

 

Here is another statement I found interesting (emphasis added by me):

 

"...and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease."

 

I find that to be a very wobbly statement. It certainly doesn't sound very scientific, as "hint" and "might" aren't remotely close to being scientific terms.

 

So I guess I should say I somewhat agree with the information in the link you provided in that there isn't definitive evidence to suggest forcing everyone to wear a mask is either effective or worth restricting people's breathing.

 

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Again, look at that article. Since you have just pointed out that this is about Trump rallies, tell me what conditions are there at Trump's rallies that are different from other closely packed outdoors events?

As previously stated, the primary difference between Trump rallies and BLM/Antifa protests and riots appears to be less masks are worn at Trump rallies. As such, that seems to suggest social distancing is unnecessary. We're told the virus doesn't spread from Antifa/BLM protests and riots. There is no social distancing at these events. Doesn't that at least suggest social distancing is not needed in order to keep the virus from spreading? Or perhaps could the studies showing the virus doesn't spread at these events be wrong? It seems to me you can't have it both ways.

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There's evidence in the article I just linked to that addresses this question.

Specifically, what evidence are you talking about? I read the article and am not sure which parts you are talking about.

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

 

From your link:

 

"In hospitals and other health-care facilities, the use of medical-grade masks clearly cuts down transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But for the variety of masks in use by the public, the data are messy, disparate and often hastily assembled."

 

That is in perfect alignment with my thoughts on masks. Masks have generally been used by professionals in a sterile or very clean environment, using masks with specific filtration abilities. So yes, there are going to be positive results that can be documented.

 

The general public is being told to put any piece of cloth over their face. They breathe in and out, grab the masks, get more bacteria on their hands then handle produce and other items with the hands they just touched to the dirty masks.

 

Here is another statement I found interesting (emphasis added by me):

 

"...and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease."

 

I find that to be a very wobbly statement. It certainly doesn't sound very scientific, as "hint" and "might" aren't remotely close to being scientific terms.

 

So I guess I should say I somewhat agree with the information in the link you provided in that there isn't definitive evidence to suggest forcing everyone to wear a mask is either effective or worth restricting people's breathing.

 

 

Cherry picking much?

I guess, to your way of thinking, it's better to be sorry than safe.

Looks like this debate ran it's course but for what it's worth in Melbourne where I live we have zero cases for days after having 750 a day to months ago. I hate wearing masks but the steps taken here seemed to be effective. Australia and New Zealand are in such a positive position now.

When I hear people at Trump rallies saying no to wearing masks and citing freedom as a reason it can just sound almost like freedom is even above knowledge, common sense and respect for others.

Taken to the extreme you get people believing in QANON 'just because...freedom' while disparaging the likes of Dr Fauci 'just because..freedom'.

A post with false or misleading information has been removed along with reply.  

 

Certainly spreading lies and disinformation if not Covid-19

That's indeed strange to hold rallies in such times' where other countries go on LOCKDOWN. 

 

   

8 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yes, I've addressed the issue of masks. Please see previous posts. I am happy to debate the issue with you. Just to stimulate some productive debate on the issue, let's take a look at what America's top expert on the issue, Anthony Fauci, said:

 

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "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."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

 

Fauci saying masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" hardly sounds like he thinks masks are very effective. Am I making a fair assessment of his words? If no, why?

 

Also, Dr. Fauci says people should wear goggles for COVID-19 protection.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/fauci-urges-americans-to-wear-goggles-for-added-covid-19-protection/

 

I'm curious. Are you wearing goggles?

Your quote is from very early in the pandemic, Fauci now endorses the wearing of masks.

 

Trump has mocked Biden for wearing a mask. That's a matter of record. Then he got world-class treatment for the coronavirus he caught, at taxpayer expense. Attendees at his rallies won't be that fortunate, under his non-existent health plan they'll be lucky to get paracetamol.

I wear goggles when I am swimming. I don't wear blinkers.

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" ( John Maynard Keynes )

15 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

So essentially, you are calling me a liar. OK. But let's move beyond that in the hope you will decide personal attacks aren't an effective discussion or debate tactic.

 

Now, specifically, what did I post that qualifies as "a weak deflection"? And more importantly, why do you think that? Now, I'm happy to reword and enhance my position in the hopes we can have a substantive debate rather than engage in the personal attacks you have chosen thus far. If the virus does not spread in crowds packed together closely, does that suggest social distancing is needed or does it indicate social distancing is not needed? The only relevant difference between the Trump rallies and Antifa/BLM protests and riots is face masks appear to be worn more at Antifa/BLM protests and riots. So, it seems logical to me that masks are likely the key issue and social distancing is not.

 

As far as the rules formulated by the Trump administration, that doesn't matter to me. I think things through logically. It is for that reason I disagree with Trump on many substantive issues.

 

Coming from someone supporting a President spewing lies, insults and misinformation on a regular basis, the faux indignation is disingenuous and pathetic.

 

Nothing in my post about social distancing not being needed. It's not an either/or choice between wearing a mask and practicing social distancing. Both can contribute to lessen the chances of the pandemic spreading.

 

Claiming that the rules formulated by the Trump administration do not matter to you is irrelevant, and again, another weak deflection. I understand why, as a Trump supporter, you'd like to ignore the fact that Trump does not set a good example, nor cares much about 'law and order' when it suits his political goals. How does the President flaunting his own administration regulation fit within the efforts of addressing the Covid-19 crisis?

Trolling meme reported and removed.

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:26 PM, JensenZ said:

This time he'll win the electoral AND the popular vote... and the House AND the Senate.... Can't wait to see the Democrats crying about that.

So sorry you won't be feeling that bout of schadenfreude you were so looking forward to. Maybe next time you should stick to predictions without the nastiness.