• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Anniversary of "15 days to Stop the spread"

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by Pavel Mosko, Mar 16, 2021.

  1. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +3,715
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    Steve Crowder covers all the lies in his show today going back to day 1.

    editing in lies as I watch...

    Lies
    1) 15 days to stop the spread / beat the virus


    2) Dr. Fauci on whether or not a quarantine could really work in the US. Dr. Fauci said earlier concerning the Great Influenza of 1918 "But if the overwhelming majority of army bases in war time could not enforce a quarantine rigidly enough to benefit, a civilian community in peacetime certainly could not."


    3) 2.2 Million people will be dead in the US by October (without these measurers). Figure came from the Imperial College of London.


    4) Covid Mortality rate is 3.4% ( 1.8% per Capita in US because of the elderly etc. is like flu for younger people). (Comorbity overlooked in early lockdown, virus blamed for all the deaths. To the point of videos talking about comorbidity was banned).


    5) You can't make sanitizer from Vodka etc. (Yes you can from very high proof liquor).


    6) Virus can survive in air, and certain surfaces for days....
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +3,715
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    6) "No clear evidence of human to human transmission", World health organization in January. They ignored Chinese whistle blowers and a study from Taiwan that said otherwise.


    7) We need lockdowns... (even the WHO had to admit that they don't advocate lockdowns as a primary method of disease control).


    8) We need to stop, church, schools, various super spreader events. States that opened early were blamed for Covid surge. Yet during the summer with all the BLM protesting Fauci etc. says that these things were not linked to Covid resurgences even though it was obvious many times people are not wearing masks, social distancing etc. When asked about limiting protests he was against it....


    9) You don't need a mask, unless you work in healthcare... Masks may do more harm than good, so please don't buy them!


    10) Children will die!


    11) Operation warp speed is never going work! We won't have a vaccine till next Summer, or next spring. Trump actually managed to get it a few weeks after the Nov 6 election, and the first vaccines went out last December.


    12) Democrats say to not take vaccine, don't trust it (Trump in office). Now that Trump is out of office Biden say's he needs people to take it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  3. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +19,166
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Sadly, EX President Trump could've been a hero, had an 80% approval rating, won the election with 400 electoral votes and his face chiseled on Stone Mountain had he done even a mediocre job looking like a leader.
     
  4. probinson

    probinson Legend

    +1,652
    United States
    Word of Faith
    Married
    US-Others
    Here's a chart showing all 50 states and Washington DC's mortality rate (as of this morning, March 16, 2021) along with whether or not they had a mask mandate. See any correlations? Because I sure don't. Interestingly enough, 7 of the top 10 states in mortality have all had strict mask mandates and other mitigation measures throughout this entire pandemic. The rest is just a hodgepodge of data that demonstrates no clear and obvious real-world benefit of masks as a way to achieve lower mortality.

    Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 5.17.25 PM.png
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +3,715
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    Cool!

    And I'm not surprised. The need for masking was very tenuous. The openings in them were too big to stop the virus. The most they can do is reduce the range of transmission spread from when the virus is attached to droplets that you exhale, sneeze, or cough.
     
  6. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Yep. But he was intellectually and tempermentally incapable of handling the crisis.
     
  7. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    That's not how they work. It's not like a net catching fish. Would you like to learn how they entrap small particles?
     
  8. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Yep. The states that were hit early and those without mask mandates had the highest death rates for the reason I showed you. Death rates for infected people dropped greatly after the first few weeks, as doctors learned how to deal with the disease. And of course, since states without mask mandates tended to have higher infection rates, they would also have higher death rates than states with mask mandates.

    In-hospital COVID-19 death rate fell significantly last year, study finds

    Mackenzie Bean - Tuesday, March 9th, 2021

    In-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients fell 15 percentage points from March to August 2020, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

    Researchers analyzed data on 192,550 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 555 hospitals from March to August 2020. Data came from the Vizient clinical database, which includes information on more than 650 academic medical centers in 47 states.

    Overall, 13.6 percent of patients included in the analysis died during hospitalization.

    In-hospital mortality fell significantly, from 22.1 percent in March, to 6.5 percent in August. The biggest drop occurred from April to May, when mortality fell from 18.1 percent to 12 percent.
    In-hospital COVID-19 death rate fell significantly last year, study finds


    It's not hard to figure out. And now you know why that graph looks that way. It actually reflects 2 factors:
    1. Which states were affected early
    2. Which states did not have mask mandates.
     
  9. probinson

    probinson Legend

    +1,652
    United States
    Word of Faith
    Married
    US-Others
    Even if there were an inkling of truth to this, you're looking at only 18-20 states at the top and bottom. What about the other 30-32 and DC that are all over the place?

    This is why I posted the graph. You continually choose to cherry-pick data to try to make your argument. But there are 50 states, not 10, or 18, or 20. The "top X" and "bottom Y" is just a way to obscure what the graph vividly illustrates to anyone without an agenda; Mask or no mask didn't really make a difference. Death rate was sometimes higher, sometimes lower, with or without a mask.

    You also choose to ignore simple explanations. Why does Hawaii have THE lowest death rate? MASKS!, says you. Or maybe it's because they are a geographically isolated island? That's likely why Alaska has such a low death rate as well, since they are also geographically isolated. But hey, when it fits the narrative, throw it in for good measure!

    Also, one of the main reasons death rates were so much higher at the beginning of the pandemic is because state governors made the grave mistake of sending sick, nursing home patients from the hospital back to the nursing homes at the advice of "health experts". Cuomo even lied about it, covered it up and got caught. But he was not alone in this deadly mistake.

    I live in PA. Our Governor Wolf decided that would be a really smart idea to make room in the hospitals for the flawed, modeled influx of patients that never materialized. The result? As of today, a whopping 52% of deaths in PA are from long-term care facilities.

    Our health experts failed us. Instead of protecting the most vulnerable among us, they sentenced them to death with their ill-advised policy of sending infected people back to the nursing homes.

    So it's no wonder masks and social distancing caught on. Governors would prefer you forget their botched response that resulted in countless nursing home deaths. They found a way to take the focus and the heat off of their mistakes by passing the blame onto us for not masking and distancing. And the plebes dutifully fell in line. Pseudoscience followed to "prove" their recommendation was correct. But reality clearly doesn't show that.

    If you look at the chart I posted, there is no clear correlation between masking and lower death rates. The data is literally all over the place. You cannot ascribe causation where there is not even a clear correlation.
     
  10. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +3,715
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    Yes I moved to PA myself from North Carolina a little more than a year ago December 2019. I'm very unhappy how people have embraced Authoritarianism from blue state governors. Our rights are not privileges given to us by the government, but come from God according to our Constitution.


    Much of our policy on this pandemic seems to try to implement what China did rather than thinking about what we did in the past during times like 1918.



     
  11. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +3,715
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    There is one point that Jonah Goldberg made over 13+ years ago in some of his writings. Progressives in this country have been looking for "A Moral Equivalent for War" since World War I. The liberals back then were delighted by how the World War mobilized society and wanted to find a way to get that for a cause that was not a an actual war. So in later times we have other kinds of wars like "The War on Poverty", talking about how the environment, or education is a war. Conservatives likewise borrowed that language with "The War on Drugs", but nothings seems to have caught on, except maybe FDR doing some things with the New Deal, but by and large people just haven't managed to have their buttons pushed towards mass compliance and sacrifices until Covid came around and the fear of death managed to push those kinds of buttons.


    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & William James -- Statism and One-Nation Politics Are Linked | National Review
     
  12. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    It's not hard to figure out. And now you know why that graph looks that way. It actually reflects 2 factors:
    1. Which states were affected early
    2. Which states did not have mask mandates.

    As you just learned, that's the case. When the pandemic happened in a state has a lot to do with the death rate. No so much for the infection rate, though. That has more to do with whether or not there was a mask mandate, although, as you learned, masks also tended to reduce death rates as well.

    Just showing you the worst and best cases. As you now realize the worst infection rates tended to be in states without mask mandates and those with the lowest rates tended to be in states with mask mandates. Which is exactly what one would expect.

    This is why you chose death rates that varied greatly because doctors got better and better at treating patients. You continually choose to cherry-pick data to try to make your argument.

    The "top X" and "bottom Y" is just a way to highlight what the graph vividly illustrates to anyone without an agenda; when the state was hit by the pandemic and whether or not there was a mask mandate determined the death rate. Because actual infection rates were not affected by improved methods of treating patients, when the pandemic arrived had no effect on infection rates; where there were mask mandates, the infection rates tended to be lower.

    Same reason Alaska has a relatively low death rate. Relatively isolated area. Notice though, that the death rates for isolated states still indicate that masks tend to lower deaths. That's why Hawaii is better than Alaska; it also mandated masks and Alaska did not. But hey, when it doesn't fit the narrative, ignore that factor!

    Now, you're getting it. As time went on, doctors got better at treating patients. And as you seem to have discovered, that is why infection rates are better indicators of the effectiveness of masks. Well done.

    Success does tend to be noticed, yes. That's why, as you now see, masks tend to reduce the infection rate.

    But there is. All you have to do, is factor in the date when the pandemic hit that state, and it quickly shows the same thing infection rates show. Masks are effective in preventing infection.

    As you also seem to have discovered, masks aren't very effective in preventing death, once someone is actually infected. But then, that's not why people wear them. The reduction in deaths in states with mask mandates is mostly just because the infection rates are lower.

    Keep looking. It's not all that hard to figure out.
     
  13. probinson

    probinson Legend

    +1,652
    United States
    Word of Faith
    Married
    US-Others
    Confirmation bias, anyone?

    You start with a conclusion, and then you manipulate the data to fit that conclusion and explain away anything that doesn't conform to your predefined narrative. This is the new "science".

    You ignore all data that runs counter to your narrative because, well, that's what you do. You also play up differences that are insignificant "Hawaii is better than Alaska" is a prime example. Hawaii's death rate is currently 0.0319%. Alaska's is 0.0413%. So even if your assertion is correct, there is a delta of 0.0094%. Pretty insignificant, and certainly nothing that would indicate that is a result of masks.

    As you have now realized, the whole of the data proves your hypothesis is incorrect.
     
  14. Derek1234

    Derek1234 Member

    141
    +36
    United Kingdom
    Protestant
    Married
    You know you should be using the relative delta here, right? Which you know is almost 30% right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Perhaps you don't know what "confirmation bias" means.

    Kinda like your refusal to consider the fact that the states without mask mandates tended to have highest infection rates. Or like your refusal to accept that states that where hit by the pandemic early, tended to have higher death rates.

    This is the new anti-science.

    Someone has already corrected you. The percent difference is about 23%. Hawaii's death rate is about
    77% of Alaska's. Math can be challenging, but if you thought about it for a minute, it should be clear to you.

    Most people would think 23% was significant.
     
  16. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You're probably thinking of WWII. WWI didn't have that degree of "we're all in this together, and we'll do what we must to win" that we had in WWII.

    Nixon wasn't a liberal by any definition one might present. But his "war on drugs" was pretty much a mobilization to fight a war.
    https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-...hat-targeted-blacks-and-anti-war-activists-3/

    Earlier, Johnson's "war on poverty" didn't really do that, since it had no identified enemy other than poverty. Nixon's war on the other hand, had real, human targets. The other difference was that Johnson's "war" actually achieved some of its goals. In one way the war on drugs did achieve something. Nixon's war touched of a five-fold increase in prison population, with no reduction in drug usage. Because drug usage wasn't really the target.
     
  17. probinson

    probinson Legend

    +1,652
    United States
    Word of Faith
    Married
    US-Others
    Sure I do. You exemplify it for me almost every day. You are a textbook example of confirmation bias. You want to believe that masks are the cause for all that is good in the world, and so you read it into all of the data. Any decrease is attributed to masks. Any increase is explained away. There really is no consistent methodology. It's whatever makes the masks look the best.

    But it's inconsistent. You use words like "tended to" to obscure the fact that some states had higher infection rates, some didn't, regardless of their masking policy. You can't just pretend like those states don't exist.

    So let's go to the data. Why do Louisiana and Alabama, both of which have mask mandates, have a higher death rate than North Dakota, which does not have a mask mandate? Neither Alabama nor Louisiana was hit early in the pandemic, so why did they have higher death rates?

    Depends on the raw numbers. If one person makes $1/week and they get a 23% increase, they now make $1.23/week. If another person makes $10,000/week and they get a 23% increase, they now make $12,300/week. Both people got the same 23% increase. One nets $0.23 more while the other nets $2,300 more. Hopefully you would not argue that those 2 numbers carry the same significance despite being the same percentage increase.

    Raw numbers matter when talking about percentages. Kind of like when we're talking about hundredths of a percent. A 23% increase when the base number is .0319% is insignificant.

    The old saying is true; Numbers don't lie. Liars use numbers.
     
  18. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Perhaps you don't know what "confirmation bias" means.

    You practice it regularly, so maybe you do. You want to believe that masks don't do any good, and so you ignore all of the data. Even when you see the connection between masks and lower infection rates, you refuse to admit it. Any decrease is explained away. There really is no consistent methodology. It's whatever lets you deny the fact that masks have been effective.

    So let's go to the data. Why do Louisiana and Alabama, both of which have mask mandates, have lower infection rates than North Dakota, which does not have a mask mandate?

    As you learned, it's because masks prevent infections. What masks can't do, is prevent deaths once a person is already infected. I thought you realized this. If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you would realize why.

    Sure. There is some variation. For example, Florida had no statewide mask mandates. But many counties imposed them anyway, and while their infection rate is high, (it's almost exactly the same as New York's, in spite of an initial response of keeping older people in nursing homes where it could spread rapidly) it's nowhere as high as that of North Dakota, which didn't have local or state mask mandates.

    However, as you have seen,the trend is for infections to be lower where masks are mandated. For reasons we all understand.

    Someone has already corrected you. The percent difference is about 23%, not 0.0094%. Hawaii's death rate is about 77% of Alaska's. Math can be challenging, but if you thought about it for a minute, it should be clear to you.

    And 23% is significant.

    No. Percentages are based on ratios. That's the error you made earlier. The old saying is sometimes true; Numbers don't lie. Liars use numbers. In your case, I don't think you're lying; you just have a little trouble seeing why you were so wrong about the percentages.
     
  19. probinson

    probinson Legend

    +1,652
    United States
    Word of Faith
    Married
    US-Others
    I do. Your whole post is full of it.

    Now that's rich. If you look at our conversations over the past few weeks, I have posted countless charts and data points. You cling to your cherry-picked data, reposting it over and over again, as if proof by repeated assertion is convincing.

    That's because there is no such correlation. The data is all over the place. Some places fared better, some fared worse. There is no clear correlation, and there are a myriad of factors. But because you so desperately want to prove that masks work, you draw a correlation where none exists and ignore all data points that illustrate that.

    Masks do not prevent infections. Even you have admitted that you believe masks only reduce your risk. But in your zeal to defend masks, you say things that are flatly untrue. A mask does not prevent infections, and you know this. Yet you say it over and over and over again, overstating the efficacy of masks and giving people a false sense of security.

    But let's go back to your original point. You said that the the reason New York and New Jersey had such high death rates was because they were hit early. But Louisiana and Alabama weren't hit early. Your hypothesis isn't valid in this case. So let's try again; why does North Dakota, which has the HIGHEST infection rate in the country have a LOWER death rate than those 2 states? And we've already established that it's not because they were hit early, because they weren't. They were hit considerably later when doctors had gotten better at saving people's lives.

    Perhaps you've lost the plot. In your zeal to defend masking, you don't seem to realize that masks aren't reducing hospitalizations and/or saving lives. Should our goal be to reduce infections or to save lives?

    Since you are completely and utterly convinced that masks slow the rate of infection (I’ll humor you for a moment), is that actually a good thing?

    You'd think the whole point of wearing mask is to protect people, right? But when you examine death rates, you actually find higher death rates in states with lower infection rates. That's why despite protestations that masking is a good thing because the top 5 infection rates (except for one, that he has never explained, but who are we to question SCIENCE!) are owned by states without mask mandates, those states don't also have the lowest death rates. In fact, the highest hospitalization and death rates are owned by states that have heavily mandated masks. Why is that?

    The Great Barrington Declaration (written by real doctors and scientists, but with not nearly as much celebrity as Dr. Fauci) posits that Focused Protection is the answer. Lower infection rates means delayed herd immunity. So if fewer people are being infected, that means the virus still has many more susceptible hosts. This puts the vulnerable at greater risk, since the virus has many more vectors of transmission to get to them.

    This is why you stay laser focused on "infection rates", because you know darn right well that if you look at what really matters, which is how many people are critically ill and must be hospitalized, and how many people have died, your premise falls apart at the seams. It becomes glaringly obvious that masking does not translate to "lives saved", nor less hospitalizations as we've been told.

    So is lowering infection rates by requiring masks and social distancing and lockdowns prudent, or would it be better to permit (as we always have) people to assess the risks themselves, and live life? Some of these people might get infected, and they'll never know it. Some of these people might fall ill for a few days and be fine. And yes, some of these people may get the virus and die. But each person would be able to assess that risk and decide for themselves. And each infection that occurs regardless of outcome brings you one step closer to the ultimate goal; herd immunity.

    Now I know you've been told that herd immunity can only occur with a vaccine, but that's complete nonsense. Herd immunity can be achieved naturally, and the WHO and CDC know this and even had it on their websites until political pressures required them to change their definition of herd immunity. But EVERY pandemic of the past has concluded NOT with a vaccine, but with natural herd immunity. That's not to suggest that vaccines can't hasten our journey to herd immunity, but it's foolish to toss that historical precedent of natural herd immunity aside.

    One day, long after this pandemic is over, people will look back in hindsight and wonder how in the world our "experts" got it so wrong for so long. But not only that, how they were able to get so many people to believe the gaslighting in the face of mountains of data that proved what we were being told wasn't working.

    I sincerely hope you are being intentionally obtuse as opposed to not actually comprehending that while there is in fact a 23% difference between 0.0319% and 0.0413% (something I've never denied), that absolute difference is not significant. It's 3/100 of a percent vs. 4/100 of a percent.
     
  20. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +7,661
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You want to believe that masks don't do any good, and so you ignore all of the data. You cling to your cherry-picked data, reposting it over and over again, as if proof by repeated assertion is convincing.

    Well, let's take a look again...

    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. Mask mandates are associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and hospitalization growth rates, whereas reopening on-premises dining at restaurants, a known risk factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, is associated with increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, particularly in the absence of mask mandates.

    Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing ...

    Turns out, there are "statistically significant decreases."


    On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 406.9, 879.2 and 62.9 cases; CI = 12.6, 113.1, respectively). Excess cases after 6 weeks could have been reduced by 90% from 576,371 to 63,062 and excess deaths reduced by 80% from 22,851 to 4858 had states implemented mask mandates prior to reopening. Over 50,000 excess deaths were prevented within 6 weeks in 13 states that implemented mask mandates prior to reopening.
    Comparing Associations of State Reopening Strategies with COVID-19 Burden

    Really no point in denying these facts.

    See above to learn why.

    Sorry, your assumption is just wrong. But because you so desperately want to prove that masks don't work, you deny correlations even where repeated research has shown that masks do work, and ignore all data points that illustrate that.

    It seems you have. In your zeal to deny the benefits of wearing masks, you don't seem to realize that masks have been shown to reduce hospitalizations and save lives, as documented above.

    Yes.

    Yes. I didn't think it would be a surprise to anyone that reducing the number of people infected, would reduce number of deaths. But I guess it is to some.

    You know lots of things that aren't true. That's yet another one.

    Someone has already corrected you. The percent difference is about 23%, not 0.0094%.

    Well, let's take a look...

    Your error, of course, was incorrectly calculating the percent difference. As you now understand, the difference is 23%, not 0.0094%.

    And 23% is significant.

    In the case of Alaska about 70 deaths that would have been prevented.

    In the case of Hawaii, about 130 deaths that were prevented. About what you'd expect from the crash of an airliner. Does that matter? I think so.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2021
Loading...