Let's Keep an Eye on Texas and Mississippi

[probinson]

On April 15, an article was published touting a study that declared Taiwan "beat" COVID-19 with masks and distancing. From the article;

Population-based policies like social distancing and face masks, meanwhile, reduced the R number from 2.5 to 1.3.

The authors concluded that it was the combination of case-based and population-based policies, along with widespread adherence, that led to Taiwan’s success in containing COVID.
How Taiwan beat COVID-19 – new study reveals clues to its success​

Today, cases are up 23,780%. Think we'll see a follow-up questioning the study's conclusions? Not likely.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do, because we're talking about 10,000 "infections", almost all of which, data shows, will be asymptomatic or very, very mild.

No. We are, in the United States, speaking of 34,042,859 cases, with 609,541 people dying from COVID-19. That's about one person in 56, who becomes ill, dying. Just under two people in a hundred.

No one really knows how many people have gotten it, and are asymptomatic. But if you assume every person in the US has it, then it would be about one person in 590 dying.

Second leading cause of death in the United States, just behind heart disease, and just ahead of cancer.

Imagine if someone argued that almost everyone who gets cancer will be asymptomatic or have very very mild symptoms. Ironically, that's probably right; almost all of us get cancers which our body successfully fights off. So we shouldn't worry about cancer, right?

I get that this is a hot button for many people politically and that it would be great for them if what you were selling were true. It would be great for all of us, and most of all for over 600,000 Americans and their families.

But it's not true, and denial will make it worse.

 

[probinson]

No.

Yes.

You continually fail to acknowledge different levels of risks for different age groups. Therefore, you overestimate the risk, severely, to most people.

Here is a graph from the CDC that shows just how much more of a risk COVID poses to the elderly;

As you can see, even though people ages 85+ make up the smallest percentage of the US population, they also make up the highest percentage, BY FAR, of COVID deaths.

As long as you fail to consider this in your analysis and try to pretend that the risk is the same across the board, you will continue to overestimate the real risk to people.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do, because we're talking about 10,000 "infections", almost all of which, data shows, will be asymptomatic or very, very mild.

No. We are, in the United States, speaking of 34,042,859 cases, with 609,541 people dying from COVID-19. That's about one person in 56, who becomes ill, dying. Just under two people in a hundred.

Yes.

Sorry, it's true.

No one really knows how many people have gotten it, and are asymptomatic. But if you assume every person in the US has it, then it would be about one person in 590 dying.

Second leading cause of death in the United States, just behind heart disease, and just ahead of cancer.

Imagine if someone argued that almost everyone who gets cancer will be asymptomatic or have very very mild symptoms. Ironically, that's probably right; almost all of us get cancers which our body successfully fights off. So we shouldn't worry about cancer, right?

You continually fail to acknowledge different levels of risks for different age groups.

I've reminded you of that, several times. I'm pleased that you remembered this time; I just don't think that the value of a life depends on the person's age.

Therefore, you overestimate the risk, severely, to most people.

Your fallacy is to assume that age matters in terms of the value of a life. In previous epidemics, younger adults were the most vulnerable group. Were you arguing then that it didn't matter because older people were less likely to become ill?

Here is a graph from the CDC...

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that 609,541 Americans have so far died (and news flash; not all of them were older).

Cancer mostly kills the elderly. Do you think we should no longer take steps to prevent cancer? Measles generally kills young children. Do you think we should stop preventing measles? What age groups do you think we should care about enough to do something to prevent disease?

 

[Derek1234]

Not masking in and of itself, but the overzealous mitigation measures as a whole. Schools had to remain closed (in the US, but not the rest of the world), because "experts" decided that everyone needed to be 6 feet apart (or 1 meter, depending on which "expert" you believe). Schools couldn't abide by these regulations. There simply was not enough physical space in the building.

I just attended my son's high school musical which, thankfully, the school put on in defiance of recommended measures. I watched on their last day as the seniors in the play broke down in tears because they had their senior years robbed from them. You think this hasn't played a major impact on their mental health? Of course it has. Masks. Social distancing. These are the reasons our students have suffered.



And it's all performative nonsense to make people "feel" safer. But they're not.

Now, because of the pandemic, you can carry larger containers of hand sanitizers. But not shampoo. Sure, that makes sense.

And for the low, low price of $75, you can get TSA pre-check, which allows you to be "pre-screened" for 5 years, so that you can skip the full body scans, and shoe removals, and laptop removal from your carry-on. It's actually quite brilliant. They convinced everyone that these measures were needed to keep us "safe", and then charged us to do all these things we used to do for free.



The problem is, any "science" that doesn't come to the same conclusions of the approved narrative that masks work, it is marginalized or censored. Groupthink has taken the place of "science".

Just look at the origins of the coronavirus. It was a "conspiracy theory" last year to suggest that the virus may have leaked from a lab. "Fact-checkers" decided that it came from a bat and originated in a wet market. No other explanation was even allowed to be considered. Facebook would censor your post if you dared to suggest that the virus may have leaked from a lab. But here we are now, just a year later, and it's quite plausible that the virus did leak from a lab after all. So once again, it's acceptable to discuss.

Do you not see a problem with this? Science has been infected with politics and is no longer objective. You don't have to look far to find evidence of this. Remember back in February when Director of the CDC Dr. Walensky said that it was safe for kids to go back to school even before all teachers were vaccinated? Then just a few hours later, Jen Psaki threw her under the bus and said that was not the position of the Biden administration? Then when the school guidance came out, it had little resemblance to anything Walensky had said? Heck, even CNN called her out on it. This isn't "science".



See, if I thought masks did any good. I might actually agree with you. Particularly as a Christian, we do need to be willing to put others above ourselves. But I've seen absolutely no benefit of masking. There are countless examples of masks working, until they don't. And then no one even bothers acknowledging that the masks did not, in fact, reduce infections.

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

First, I'm glad you got to see your son's performance. It's important that we have these things and are - I hope - beginning to see circumstances which enable some semblance of normality. And I mean that sincerely, without knowing the specific details of the recommended measures. I can imagine that some places have overdone precautions.

Second, I share your frustration about groupthink. Conspiracy theories are always dangerous - whether they're about origins of the virus or otherwise - though I reach the opposite conclusion to you here. I think science should trump dogma whatever else happens. If the science beats a trail to the WIV, there should be a reckoning. If it doesn't, we'll have to learn lessons about how the virus came to pass to humans, and how to take steps to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Third, though, I fear you *are* taking an ideological position on masking. We are not yet in a position to run a thorough regression analysis of the factors that contain the virus, or that lead to higher infection, or to greater mortality. The best available evidence suggests that certain demographic groups or those with certain health conditions are more likely to die (or not to suffer long term ill-effects), which seems to be what you are most concerned about. And that same evidence suggests that masking reduces the risk of transmission (which reduces the probability of people getting the virus and dying); and so does social distancing; and so does frequent hand-washing, because the virus is weak.

If your dominant concern is with the disproportionate impact this is having on young people, join the club. My daughter has attended physical school for just two months in the last 14 months. This is not what anyone wants for our kids. But if we strip the emotion out of what I feel, then I must concede that we must all do what we can to prevent transmission for the sake of vulnerable people. Where I currently live, the R-rate is high (>1) and the death rate is low. But people live in high-density and multi-generational households. They're protecting themselves to protect others. I, for one, applaud them - even though it hurts them.

 

[Derek1234]

I'm going to address this point specifically.

You've been conditioned to believe these activities are "unsafe" without a mask. This is why you believe masks are "enablers". But I strongly disagree.

Last year when the pandemic began and we had no data, I advised caution. I stayed home. I wore my mask. I diligently kept my social distance. I said we should listen to the experts. But as the months wore on, and I watched the data myself and the "experts" flip-flopped like pancakes on a griddle, we decided to return to life as normal. Data began to show that this virus was like every other virus before it, in that it is regional and seasonal, which is by far the most reliable predictor of infection rates.

Since last June, we've held regular, unmasked church services. We've gathered with our extended family on multiple occasions, indoors and outdoors. I went to an unmasked weekend retreat with over 40 people. We've had birthday parties and (gasp!) even blown out candles on the cake. We've hugged and shaken hands. We had a super-bowl party at our house. Yes, there were some cases of COVID in our circles in the last year, not the least of which was my 82-year old, diabetic father. He was hospitalized for 2 days and given fluids. But he's fine today. A few of my friends tested positive and quarantined for 2 weeks. I may even have had the infection myself, as I was sick for a few days back in August with an unexplained illness, although I never got tested. And yes, even a few people we knew died after they were infected, although all of them had some serious health issues and multiple co-morbidities.

My dad put it best when we were deciding whether we should get together as a family for Thanksgivng or not. Everyone who decided to forego those family gatherings was simply taking a different kind of risk. The opportunity to make family memories was skipped in favor of "safety", reasoning they could get together next year. But there's no guarantee of that. Not one of us is promised tomorrow.

So this is why I don't associate masks as an "enabler", because I don't need a mask to "enable" me to do what I've always done.

And let me reply on this point specifically, because it was written in the context of you claiming that masking dogmatism was having an effect on people's wider wellbeing. That's simply inaccurate, as you seem to agree in your other post, where you say that it's "Not masking in and of itself, but the overzealous mitigation measures as a whole." You cannot cite selective and anecdotal data - in this case, from your family and friends - and extrapolate from this what is the best, science-led and/or behavioural science-led response for broader populations. Well, you can, but don't expect to be considered credible. The overwhelming majority of reputable scientists believe that masking prevents transmission. You can dismiss that as groupthink, but I suggest it's only groupthink in the same way that most people happen to believe man landed on the moon. Reputable dissenting voices have generally not been marginalised or stigmatised; rather, we have seen a steady stream of scientists working together to synthesise and refine data, and to make testable predictions. Masking has not been debunked. If/when it ever is, we should stop wearing masks. This is so obvious as to be almost not worth saying.

 

[hislegacy]

N

 

[probinson]

The overwhelming majority of reputable scientists believe that masking prevents transmission. You can dismiss that as groupthink, but I suggest it's only groupthink in the same way that most people happen to believe man landed on the moon. Reputable dissenting voices have generally not been marginalised or stigmatised;

Actually, they have. Dr. Martin Kuldorff is a prime example. Dr. Kulldorff is (was?) a widely respected, reputable voice, a Harvard trained epidemiologist. His works have been cited more than 25,000 times. Yet Twitter has decided that Dr. Kuldorff should be banned because, well, he said something that didn't align with the groupthink. And now, a reputable doctor has been effectively silenced because he dares to question the narrative. If that doesn't concern you, it absolutely should. You are completely fooling yourself if you think reputable, dissenting voices have not been stigmatized and marginalized.

rather, we have seen a steady stream of scientists working together to synthesise and refine data, and to make testable predictions. Masking has not been debunked. If/when it ever is, we should stop wearing masks. This is so obvious as to be almost not worth saying.

It's true that masking has not been "debunked". But it's also true that it's not "settled science" as the groupthink would have you to believe. There are too many egos and reputations on the line for them to just say, "Eh, remember when we told you all to wear masks? Yeah, that didn't actually do anything. Our bad." So instead of doing actual scientific studies, they strap two masks to mannequins heads and proclaim that "proves" double masking is effective.

The very credibility of public health is what's at stake. Consider that polls are showing a consistent decrease in people's trust in both the CDC and Dr. Fauci. Newseek just posted an article 4 days ago that said the majority of Americans think that politics influenced Fauci's decision making. Majority of Americans think politics influenced Fauci's decision making

Anyone who tries to pretend that the mitigation measures, recommendations and guidance offered by public health throughout this pandemic wasn't greatly influenced by politics is deluding themselves. In an ideal world, our public health measures would be strictly based on science. That has not been the case in the pandemic, and nowhere is that more evident than in recommendations concerning masks. The "guidance" about masks has changed so very drastically and with no science to inform those changed recommendations. But don't say that out loud if you're a medical expert, or Facebook and Twitter will ban you.

Scientific rigor has been replaced with politicized groupthink, and that should concern everyone.

 

[hedrick]

Your data shows that there isn't a non-mandate state in the lowest ten infection rate states, and eight of the ten states with the highest rates of infection are states without mask mandates. Even eyeballing the graph, you clearly see that red is shifted to the high side and blue to the low side.

The second graph shows that mask only prevent infection; they don't reduce mortality of those who do get infected. Which is pretty much what you'd expect.

Last time I ran the numbers, the mean infection rate for states with mask mandates was about 70,000/million, and for those without mask mandates, it was about 103,000/million. A very significant difference. Would you like me to show you what it is currently?

There's a problem. Non-mandate states tend to be Republican, and they tend to be less dense, in warmer climate, and away from international travel. US states differ a lot, and those differences aren't random with respect to mask mandates. To compare on a state level you'd need to control for other factors that would be likely to affect Covid. There are ways to do that, but I'm not sure that you can really do this with just 50 data points.

 

[hislegacy]

There's a problem. Non-mandate states tend to be Republican, and they tend to be less dense, in warmer climate, and away from international travel. US states differ a lot, and those differences aren't random with respect to mask mandates. To compare on a state level you'd need to control for other factors that would be likely to affect Covid. There are ways to do that, but I'm not sure that you can really do this with just 50 data points.

Like Florida and Texas?

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientific rigor has been replaced with politicized groupthink,

Fortunately, we've had a change in administration, and the pandemic is now being handled more rationally.

and that should concern everyone.

It's a major reason why we had a change in administration.

 

[probinson]

Fortunately, we've had a change in administration, and the pandemic is now being handled more rationally.

This would be absolutely hilarious if it weren't so concerning that you actually believe this is true.

 

[probinson]

Third, though, I fear you *are* taking an ideological position on masking.

I try very hard to be as objective as possible. However, all of us are subject to confirmation bias, and I'm no exception. And I understand that completely as I discuss this topic.

And that same evidence suggests that masking reduces the risk of transmission (which reduces the probability of people getting the virus and dying); and so does social distancing; and so does frequent hand-washing, because the virus is weak.

What "evidence" are you referring to? I'm going to have to disagree unless you have compelling evidence that shows at least a casual correlation with masking reducing infections. Most of the "evidence" I've seen does not support that hypothesis.

For example, the CDC did a "study" on masking in Kansas that concluded masking helped reduce infections in counties that had mask mandates vs counties that did not. (You can read it here: Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With ...) But look at the time period the CDC chose to study;

Isn't it convenient that the "study" cherry-picked a time period where the data supported their desired conclusion while COMPLETELY ignoring the data that shows the exact opposite? And it was no accident. The study was published well after the state had seen a major spike in infections. Yet there is nary a mention of that in the "study".

How is someone supposed to take this "study" seriously? You can't just pick and choose data that supports your hypothesis.

So again I ask, what "evidence" do you believe exists that shows masking reduces the risk of transmission? I have tons of "evidence" that I believe shows masking has made no difference whatsoever, and I can post it if you'd like. You may think that my position on the uselessness of masks is ideological, and I will freely admit that I am biased to believe masking is ineffective, but I am prepared to discuss, with data, why I believe that is the case.

 

[The Barbarian]

So again I ask, what "evidence" do you believe exists that shows masking reduces the risk of transmission?

The fact that infection rates are significantly lower for states with mask mandates than for states without them. Last time I ran those numbers, (for the entire pandemic, not just for a limited time), states with mask mandates averaged rates of about 70,000/million while states without averaged about 103,000/million.

Lab studies showing that masks significantly reduce virus particles emitted into the air.

Stuff like that.

 

[probinson]

Lab studies showing that masks significantly reduce virus particles emitted into the air.

Where do you suppose the virus particles go? Do you really believe that ill-fitted, porous cloth masks are preventing virus particles from being emitted into the air? Do you really believe the porous cloth masks can hold an indefinite number of virus particles?

Do any of these "lab studies" take into account the human factor, or are they, as the CDC double-masking study, done with mannequin heads? Heck, even the CDC's double masking "study" included the disclaimer that "The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness of all medical procedure masks or cloths masks nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings." What good is a study that isn't representative of real-world results?

These are the kinds of "lab studies" you're talking about, in a controlled lab environment with a mask fitted to a mannequin head perfectly, transmission is reduced. Whoopity-doo. We're not mannequin heads in a controlled laboratory environment. We're human beings in real-world situations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Where do you suppose the virus particles go?

Many of them adhere to fibers in the mask by electrostatic attraction. Some go out around the mask. Some are breathed back in on inhalation. And almost none of them are projected many feet outward, as would happen without a mask.

Do you really believe that ill-fitted, porous cloth masks are preventing virus particles from being emitted into the air?

So lab tests indicate. Many people wrongly think it's like a net catching fish. That's not how the particles are trapped.

Do you really believe the porous cloth masks can hold an indefinite number of virus particles?

Depends on what you think an "indefinite number" is. What do you think it is? Even in the absence of washing or warming, the virus becomes inactivated completely on fabric in two days or less, so while it's important to wash cloth masks out after each use, even for those who don't, there's not a build-up day after day.

researchers examined the filtration ability of a variety of medical procedure masks, cloth masks and coverings recommended for the public. They tested masks made from cotton, nylon, and other materials and in different styles, including masks with ear loops and ties.

They found that the effectiveness of the masks varied widely: a three-layer knitted cotton mask blocked an average of 26.5 percent of particles in the chamber, while a washed, two-layer woven nylon mask with a filter insert and metal nose bridge blocked 79 percent of particles on average. Other masks scored somewhere in between.
EPA Researchers Test Effectiveness of Face Masks, Disinfection Methods Against COVID-19 | US EPA

And tell us what you suppose an "indefinite number" is. And then how that applies to a mask filtering out virus particles.

Minimum infectious dose being a reality, all of those alternatives would provide a greater margin of safety than not wearing a mask.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do any of these "lab studies" take into account the human factor,

Yep. The one I cited, for example.

These are the kinds of "lab studies" you're talking about, in a controlled lab environment with a mask fitted to a mannequin head perfectly, transmission is reduced.

Nope. Turns out, research results with real people show that even if they aren't perfectly fitted, masks still filter out a significant number of virus particles.

Whoopity-doo.

Yep. That's why states where many people wore masks, average significantly lower infection rates than states where fewer people were wearing them.

We're human beings in real-world situations.

Yep. That's why it worked so well with real human beings.

 

[Derek1234]

Actually, they have. Dr. Martin Kuldorff is a prime example. Dr. Kulldorff is (was?) a widely respected, reputable voice, a Harvard trained epidemiologist. His works have been cited more than 25,000 times. Yet Twitter has decided that Dr. Kuldorff should be banned because, well, he said something that didn't align with the groupthink. And now, a reputable doctor has been effectively silenced because he dares to question the narrative. If that doesn't concern you, it absolutely should. You are completely fooling yourself if you think reputable, dissenting voices have not been stigmatized and marginalized.



It's true that masking has not been "debunked". But it's also true that it's not "settled science" as the groupthink would have you to believe. There are too many egos and reputations on the line for them to just say, "Eh, remember when we told you all to wear masks? Yeah, that didn't actually do anything. Our bad." So instead of doing actual scientific studies, they strap two masks to mannequins heads and proclaim that "proves" double masking is effective.

The very credibility of public health is what's at stake. Consider that polls are showing a consistent decrease in people's trust in both the CDC and Dr. Fauci. Newseek just posted an article 4 days ago that said the majority of Americans think that politics influenced Fauci's decision making. Majority of Americans think politics influenced Fauci's decision making

Anyone who tries to pretend that the mitigation measures, recommendations and guidance offered by public health throughout this pandemic wasn't greatly influenced by politics is deluding themselves. In an ideal world, our public health measures would be strictly based on science. That has not been the case in the pandemic, and nowhere is that more evident than in recommendations concerning masks. The "guidance" about masks has changed so very drastically and with no science to inform those changed recommendations. But don't say that out loud if you're a medical expert, or Facebook and Twitter will ban you.

Scientific rigor has been replaced with politicized groupthink, and that should concern everyone.

I don't know how many studies you would need to see to accept the science. Here's one: EPA Researchers Test Effectiveness of Face Masks, Disinfection Methods Against COVID-19 | US EPA. There are many others, including some that are more meta. I'm not a clinician so I don't have direct access to firewall-protected academic or clinical journals, but if you're interested, I can try to find some.

Prof Kulldorff wasn't banned from Twitter, BTW. He wrote a Tweet that others weren't allowed to RT or comment on; he may even have been suspended. However, I do note that he RTs content that suggests conspiracy, including use of political affiliation ("The Left’s acceptance of lockdowns has been a serious miscalculation"); and that the CDC wrote to him saying "recent public statements you’ve made regarding policy opinions that appear to be pre-determined prior to complete review of data" before adding "We understand and appreciate that VaST members have personal opinions and we do not object to the expression of those opinions. However, we expect members to be objective and devoid of any appearance of bias… Therefore, CDC is respectfully ending your membership on VaST effective today." Is that censorship? To me, it sounds like the opposite. It sounds like they're actively saying "feel free to have your own views, and to express them, but we must not let them cloud our assessment of the science." To me, this is hardly the nightmare you paint it as.

 

[probinson]

I don't know how many studies you would need to see to accept the science.

Let's be clear; "The Science™" has become infected with politics and confirmation bias, and that is incredibly important to keep in mind as you read any "study".

Here's one: EPA Researchers Test Effectiveness of Face Masks, Disinfection Methods Against COVID-19 | US EPA. There are many others, including some that are more meta. I'm not a clinician so I don't have direct access to firewall-protected academic or clinical journals, but if you're interested, I can try to find some.

I've not seen the "study" you posted, but let's examine it. The very first statement in the "study" says;

"Face masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) are important tools to protect the wearer and others against COVID-19."​

This isn't even pretending to be a hypothesis that needs to be tested. It's a conclusion in search of data to support it. Of course what follows is, unsurprisingly, data that supports it. They've already decided that masks ARE important. Now they're just doing THE SCIENCE™ that proves it. That's not how science works.

Prof Kulldorff wasn't banned from Twitter, BTW. He wrote a Tweet that others weren't allowed to RT or comment on; he may even have been suspended.

Semantics. The end result is that Dr Kuldorff is and has been prohibited from posting on Twitter for well over a month. It may be temporary, and they may allow him back on, but he is currently banned from Twitter.

Why did this happen? Because he tweeted this;

Keep in mind that Dr. Kulldorff is a well-respected, Harvard trained epidemiologist. He is not a "conspiracy theorist" by any definition of the term. But Twitter decided that they knew better than this reputable doctor, because Dr. Kulldorff dared to say that public health oversold the effectiveness of masks which resulted in unnecessary deaths, a quite plausible explanation if you've ever watched older people who have been propagandized to believe that masks are a magical talisman and an impenetrable barrier that keeps them perfectly safe.

However, I do note that he RTs content that suggests conspiracy, including use of political affiliation ("The Left’s acceptance of lockdowns has been a serious miscalculation");

Huh? I've followed Dr. Kulldorff on Twitter for quite a while, and I'd be interested to see anything you think suggests conspiracy.

The example you give is simply a verifiable fact. It is the left that accepts lockdowns... BY FAR. This doesn't suggest "conspiracy". It is a veritable fact that left-leaning people are more accepting of lockdowns. It's equally true that left-leaning people severely overestimate the risks of COVID-19 compared to their right-leaning counterparts.

and that the CDC wrote to him saying "recent public statements you’ve made regarding policy opinions that appear to be pre-determined prior to complete review of data"

I almost spit out my drink when I read this. I mean you just cited a "study" by the EPA that has a pre-determined conclusion before ANY data was reviewed. The irony.

before adding "We understand and appreciate that VaST members have personal opinions and we do not object to the expression of those opinions. However, we expect members to be objective and devoid of any appearance of bias… Therefore, CDC is respectfully ending your membership on VaST effective today." Is that censorship? To me, it sounds like the opposite. It sounds like they're actively saying "feel free to have your own views, and to express them, but we must not let them cloud our assessment of the science."

There it is again! "THE SCIENCE™" IS NOT groupthink. The CDC dismally failed to explain how Dr. Kulldorff made any pre-determination without examining the data. They just say his assessment is not objective without providing any explanation at all. Convenient way to effectively dismiss a dissenting view.

To me, this is hardly the nightmare you paint it as.

I think that actually concerns me more. You don't seem to have any problem with well-respected doctors being silenced, "fact-checked" and reprimanded for posting "misinformation". That should concern everyone. What we are seeing with the COVID response is much more in line with propaganda than it is with science. THE SCIENCE™ has become a meaningless term in this regard.

Way back in April of last year, this opinion piece on Stat was published explaining the need to hear different views and opinions. Sadly, that has not happened;
Let's hear scientists with different Covid-19 views, not attack them - STAT

 

[Derek1234]

Let's be clear; "The Science™" has become infected with politics and confirmation bias, and that is incredibly important to keep in mind as you read any "study".



I've not seen the "study" you posted, but let's examine it. The very first statement in the "study" says;

"Face masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) are important tools to protect the wearer and others against COVID-19."​

This isn't even pretending to be a hypothesis that needs to be tested. It's a conclusion in search of data to support it. Of course what follows is, unsurprisingly, data that supports it. They've already decided that masks ARE important. Now they're just doing THE SCIENCE™ that proves it. That's not how science works.



Semantics. The end result is that Dr Kuldorff is and has been prohibited from posting on Twitter for well over a month. It may be temporary, and they may allow him back on, but he is currently banned from Twitter.

Why did this happen? Because he tweeted this;
View attachment 300026
Keep in mind that Dr. Kulldorff is a well-respected, Harvard trained epidemiologist. He is not a "conspiracy theorist" by any definition of the term. But Twitter decided that they knew better than this reputable doctor, because Dr. Kulldorff dared to say that public health oversold the effectiveness of masks which resulted in unnecessary deaths, a quite plausible explanation if you've ever watched older people who have been propagandized to believe that masks are a magical talisman and an impenetrable barrier that keeps them perfectly safe.


Huh? I've followed Dr. Kulldorff on Twitter for quite a while, and I'd be interested to see anything you think suggests conspiracy.

The example you give is simply a verifiable fact. It is the left that accepts lockdowns... BY FAR. This doesn't suggest "conspiracy". It is a veritable fact that left-leaning people are more accepting of lockdowns. It's equally true that left-leaning people severely overestimate the risks of COVID-19 compared to their right-leaning counterparts.


I almost spit out my drink when I read this. I mean you just cited a "study" by the EPA that has a pre-determined conclusion before ANY data was reviewed. The irony.


There it is again! "THE SCIENCE™" IS NOT groupthink. The CDC dismally failed to explain how Dr. Kulldorff made any pre-determination without examining the data. They just say his assessment is not objective without providing any explanation at all. Convenient way to effectively dismiss a dissenting view.



I think that actually concerns me more. You don't seem to have any problem with well-respected doctors being silenced, "fact-checked" and reprimanded for posting "misinformation". That should concern everyone. What we are seeing with the COVID response is much more in line with propaganda than it is with science. THE SCIENCE™ has become a meaningless term in this regard.

Way back in April of last year, this opinion piece on Stat was published explaining the need to hear different views and opinions. Sadly, that has not happened;
Let's hear scientists with different Covid-19 views, not attack them - STAT

I can't do the inline quotes. So I'll have to deal with these one by one.

1. Scientific papers tend to start off with their findings. That's how they work. This isn't a conclusion in search of evidence. It's the opposite. I might have more time for your opinion if you presented a scientific paper that showed masks' ineffectiveness.

2. Kulldorff hasn't been off Twitter for a month. His last Tweet was barely three weeks ago. Facts matter. Take up with Twitter why they banned him, but their house, their rules. The rest of your paragraph is hyperbolic, insisting that he "dared to say". No. He asserted something that was - if he was wrong - potentially dangerous. We're currently discussing whether he was right or wrong, but you and I should both avoid appeals to authority in that pursuit.

3. I could equally say that "the Right" is xxx. It's politicising science. I suppose those well-known communists in Singapore are good examples of your point, huh?

4. See (1)

5. Did you expect a letter from the CDC to Kulldorff to explain in detail what he shuld have done? You must write odd letters. It set out the behaviors it expects its members to uphold, and says that he didn't uphold them. Too bad. They could have benefited from a critical voice, and even said they welcomed people who had different opinions. You see conspiracy, I see integrity.

6. See (2)

7. Yes. Let's hear them And then, as required by conventional science, let's synthesise and refine hypotheses and coalesce around the best ones.

You seem to have a problem with science flip-flopping. But this is all science is. The pursuit of falsifiable hypotheses. When one hypothesis is disproven, or can be improved, a new hypothesis emerges. You seem to be going down a cul-de-sac because you believe science is being weaponised. That's sad.