Covid-19 miscellany

[ZiprHead]

"Arlington Public Schools will continue to require all staff and students to wear masks inside on school grounds and on buses, as part of our layered approach to safety. Universal mask use has proven effective in keeping COVID-19 transmission rates low in our schools and ensuring schools remain safe and open."

How have they made that determination? Was there a quasi-experimental field study?

First hit on first google search. Do you ever even try?

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Association Between K–12 School Mask...

This report describes Arizona school associated COVID-19 outbreaks higher in schools without mask requirements than in schools with mask requirements.

www.cdc.gov

It is the person making a positive assertion that is required to furnish evidence, not the audience.

I think it's more someone ridiculously questioning the obvious as a stupid make'work exercise for others.

It is not 'obvious'. The advice on masking has changed throughout the pandemic, from 'security theatre' to 'a good idea' to 'absolutely essential' back to 'security theatre' (for cloth masks).

I suppose you are the arbiter of what statements are 'obvious' and what questions around them are 'ridiculous'.

That's just stupid. Masks are better than no masks. Better masks are better than crappy masks. Just because Omicron if forcing better masks is no reason to question that schools that require masking would do better than those that don't or can't require masks in similar environmental situations

I didn't question the study. I haven't read it properly to critique it. I asked for the source of evidence.

Really, this level of hostility to a polite question isn't useful.

Response to your body of work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not 'obvious'. The advice on masking has changed throughout the pandemic, from 'security theatre' to 'a good idea' to 'absolutely essential' back to 'security theatre' (for cloth masks).

I suppose you are the arbiter of what statements are 'obvious' and what questions around them are 'ridiculous'.

No. Originally it was not understood that it was contagious before symptoms, thus the recommendation to save masks for those with symptoms. Note the underlying issue--there weren't enough masks to go around, using them on the sick and the medical people was the best use of the limited supply.

By now we have addressed the supply issue, masks have continually been recommended since then. Cloth masks were a workaround for a lack of supply of the proper ones, they were never recommended.

You're trying to reduce a complex thing to a sound bite and thus you think the message has changed. It never has, it's just been more complex than a yes/no. And note that the government mandates generally have been designed very poorly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't question the study. I haven't read it properly to critique it. I asked for the source of evidence.

Really, this level of hostility to a polite question isn't useful.

This has been a standard distortion by the death cultists--asking for evidence to a standard that clearly can't exist. It's been explained over and over.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Arlington Public Schools will continue to require all staff and students to wear masks inside on school grounds and on buses, as part of our layered approach to safety. Universal mask use has proven effective in keeping COVID-19 transmission rates low in our schools and ensuring schools remain safe and open."

How have they made that determination? Was there a quasi-experimental field study?

Your side is asking for evidence that can't be ethically obtained. Thus all you're going to see are those "quasi-experimental" studies. There are a lot of things in medicine that can't be proven to rigorous standards.

Texas and Florida did that study and it resulted in a massive spike several magnitudes higher than in most the rest of the US, as per the American Pediatrics group that has followed stats for under 18s.

 

[Metaphor]

"Arlington Public Schools will continue to require all staff and students to wear masks inside on school grounds and on buses, as part of our layered approach to safety. Universal mask use has proven effective in keeping COVID-19 transmission rates low in our schools and ensuring schools remain safe and open."

How have they made that determination? Was there a quasi-experimental field study?

Your side is asking for evidence that can't be ethically obtained. Thus all you're going to see are those "quasi-experimental" studies. There are a lot of things in medicine that can't be proven to rigorous standards.

No. I recognise that experiments of the sort cannot be run. That's why I suggested suitable evidence such as a 'quasi-experimental field study'.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't question the study. I haven't read it properly to critique it. I asked for the source of evidence.

Really, this level of hostility to a polite question isn't useful.

This has been a standard distortion by the death cultists--asking for evidence to a standard that clearly can't exist. It's been explained over and over.

Twice wrong in two minutes.

I am not a 'death cultist', nor did I ask for evidence to a standard that cannot exist. I asked for evidence, and I suggested the kind of evidence that could justify the conclusion quoted.

Your instant hostility to a polite question is noted.

 

[Metaphor]

It is not 'obvious'. The advice on masking has changed throughout the pandemic, from 'security theatre' to 'a good idea' to 'absolutely essential' back to 'security theatre' (for cloth masks).

I suppose you are the arbiter of what statements are 'obvious' and what questions around them are 'ridiculous'.

No. Originally it was not understood that it was contagious before symptoms, thus the recommendation to save masks for those with symptoms. Note the underlying issue--there weren't enough masks to go around, using them on the sick and the medical people was the best use of the limited supply.

No. Originally nothing was understood, including people who were saying it was not airborne.

By now we have addressed the supply issue, masks have continually been recommended since then. Cloth masks were a workaround for a lack of supply of the proper ones, they were never recommended.

You're trying to reduce a complex thing to a sound bite and thus you think the message has changed. It never has, it's just been more complex than a yes/no. And note that the government mandates generally have been designed very poorly.

The messaging has changed several times. That you have distorted it into a message with a consistent through-line is an artifact of your memory, not a property of reality.

 

[Metaphor]

"Arlington Public Schools will continue to require all staff and students to wear masks inside on school grounds and on buses, as part of our layered approach to safety. Universal mask use has proven effective in keeping COVID-19 transmission rates low in our schools and ensuring schools remain safe and open."

How have they made that determination? Was there a quasi-experimental field study?

First hit on first google search. Do you ever even try?

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Association Between K–12 School Mask...

This report describes Arizona school associated COVID-19 outbreaks higher in schools without mask requirements than in schools with mask requirements.

www.cdc.gov

It is the person making a positive assertion that is required to furnish evidence, not the audience.

I think it's more someone ridiculously questioning the obvious as a stupid make'work exercise for others.

It is not 'obvious'. The advice on masking has changed throughout the pandemic, from 'security theatre' to 'a good idea' to 'absolutely essential' back to 'security theatre' (for cloth masks).

I suppose you are the arbiter of what statements are 'obvious' and what questions around them are 'ridiculous'.

That's just stupid. Masks are better than no masks. Better masks are better than crappy masks. Just because Omicron if forcing better masks is no reason to question that schools that require masking would do better than those that don't or can't require masks in similar environmental situations

I didn't question the study. I haven't read it properly to critique it. I asked for the source of evidence.

Really, this level of hostility to a polite question isn't useful.

Response to your body of work.

I suggest you respond to my actual questions (if you want to respond), not your opinion on my 'body of work'.

 

[lpetrich]

Metaphor, what would *you* consider acceptable evidence of the efficacy of lower-face masks in slowing the spread of COVID-19?

I ask that because you are objecting that a lot of the claimed evidence does not seem to meet your standards of evidence. What are those standards?

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, what would *you* consider acceptable evidence of the efficacy of lower-face masks in slowing the spread of COVID-19?

I ask that because you are objecting that a lot of the claimed evidence does not seem to meet your standards of evidence. What are those standards?

I have to ask myself: does anybody on this board actually read what I write?

At what point in this thread did I say the claimed evidence did not meet my standards of evidence?

I asked for the evidence for a claim. After that happened, I got abuse for asking for the evidence and false accusations from Loren of being a 'death cultist' and false accusations that I asked for evidence of a standard that could not be ethically met. crazyfingers linked some evidence but snarkily asked me if I 'even try', as if I had made a claim that I needed to evidence.

For fuck's sake: I already indicated what evidence would be convincing--a quasi-experimental field study, properly conducted.

I have to ask you, lpetrich. Where have I 'objected' to the claimed evidence not meeting my standard? I haven't even read the full study from crazyfingers to critique it, let alone posted a critique.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Metaphor, what would *you* consider acceptable evidence of the efficacy of lower-face masks in slowing the spread of COVID-19?

I ask that because you are objecting that a lot of the claimed evidence does not seem to meet your standards of evidence. What are those standards?

I have to ask myself: does anybody on this board actually read what I write?

At what point in this thread did I say the claimed evidence did not meet my standards of evidence?

I asked for the evidence for a claim. After that happened, I got abuse for asking for the evidence and false accusations from Loren of being a 'death cultist' and false accusations that I asked for evidence of a standard that could not be ethically met. crazyfingers linked some evidence but snarkily asked me if I 'even try', as if I had made a claim that I needed to evidence.

For fuck's sake: I already indicated what evidence would be convincing--a quasi-experimental field study, properly conducted.

I have to ask you, lpetrich. Where have I 'objected' to the claimed evidence not meeting my standard? I haven't even read the full study from crazyfingers to critique it, let alone posted a critique.

You make a good point. If someone makes a positive claim, it's up to the claimer to back it up with evidence. It's just that at some point, hopefully the evidence will be so commonly accepted that we won't have to continue showing it's proof.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You make a good point. If someone makes a positive claim, it's up to the claimer to back it up with evidence. It's just that at some point, hopefully the evidence will be so commonly accepted that we won't have to continue showing it's proof.

Isn't it a common sense extension of germ theory? That's how I see the issue. Is Metaphor arguing against hand washing too or any form of sanitizing? Do we need a study proving that parachutes save lives if people jump from airplanes?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The percentage of people dying while wearing a parachute is greater than the percentage of people dying while NOT wearing a parachute. Therefore, next time you jump from a plane, don't wear a parachute.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The percentage of people dying while wearing a parachute is greater than the percentage of people dying while NOT wearing a parachute. Therefore, next time you jump from a plane, don't wear a parachute.

I think what metaphor is claiming is that the percentage of airplane travelers who jump from airplanes while wearing a parachute and are injured is higher than the percentage of airplane travelers who don't jump from airplanes and don't wear a parachute and do not suffer injury. But he wants a controlled study to demonstrate that performed by someone credible like Alex Jones, Rudy Guliani, Mike Lindell, Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lindsey Graham.

 

[ZiprHead]

US inmates sue jail over ivermectin treatment for Covid as ‘medical experimentation’

The lawsuit alleges that the jail physician told the four men that the prescribed drugs were ‘mere vitamins, antibiotics and/or steroids’

www.theguardian.com

Four inmates at an Arkansas jail have filed a lawsuit against the facility and its doctor after they said they were unknowingly prescribed ivermectin to treat Covid-19 as a form of “medical experimentation” despite US health officials warning that the anti-parasitic drug should not be used for that purpose.

The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of the men last week against Washington county jail, the Washington county sheriff, Tim Helder, and jail physician Dr Robert Karas. Last August, Helder revealed that the drug had been prescribed to patients with Covid-19.

“The lawsuit charges the defendants for administering ivermectin to incarcerated individuals without prior informed consent as to the nature, contents, or potential side effects of the drug,” the ACLU said in a statement last week.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's umm... wow! If that is true, licenses will evaporate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Metaphor, what would *you* consider acceptable evidence of the efficacy of lower-face masks in slowing the spread of COVID-19?

I ask that because you are objecting that a lot of the claimed evidence does not seem to meet your standards of evidence. What are those standards?

I have to ask myself: does anybody on this board actually read what I write?

At what point in this thread did I say the claimed evidence did not meet my standards of evidence?

I asked for the evidence for a claim. After that happened, I got abuse for asking for the evidence and false accusations from Loren of being a 'death cultist' and false accusations that I asked for evidence of a standard that could not be ethically met. crazyfingers linked some evidence but snarkily asked me if I 'even try', as if I had made a claim that I needed to evidence.

For fuck's sake: I already indicated what evidence would be convincing--a quasi-experimental field study, properly conducted.

I have to ask you, lpetrich. Where have I 'objected' to the claimed evidence not meeting my standard? I haven't even read the full study from crazyfingers to critique it, let alone posted a critique.

You make a good point. If someone makes a positive claim, it's up to the claimer to back it up with evidence. It's just that at some point, hopefully the evidence will be so commonly accepted that we won't have to continue showing it's proof.

The question is, how many times are people supposed to back up said claims?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The question is, how many times are people supposed to back up said claims?

Every single time. Because if you don't....
"What's 2+2?"
"Four, and here's how i know it."
"What's 2+2?"
"Four, and here's how i know it."
"What's 2+2?"
"Four, and here's how i know it."
"What's 2+2?"
"Four, and here's how i know it."
"What's 2+2?"
"Four."
"Ah, i see you have an answer, but you can't explain it."

 

[TSwizzle]

The question is, how many times are people supposed to back up said claims?

Just the once would suffice.

Anyway, throughout this pandemic, statisticians and politicians have been playing fast and loose with the numbers.;

Covid was not the underlying cause of death in nearly a quarter of virus-related fatalities last week, official figures suggest. The most up-to-date Office for National Statistics figures showed there were 922 deaths registered in England and Wales mentioned coronavirus on the death certificate in the week to January 7. Of them, Covid was not ruled to be the primary reason for the death in 210 cases, or 23 per cent — although it may have been a contributing factor.

Daily Mail

It is all but over as the UK gets ready to lift restrictions;

The UK's daily Covid cases dropped for the 13th day in a row today and hospital admissions have now started to trend downwards as it emerged Boris Johnson is drawing up plans to ditch all coronavirus laws from as early as March.

Daily Mail

"Professor lockdown" comes in for criticism;

Furious MPs today slammed 'Professor Lockdown' Neil Ferguson for 'hysterical forecasts' that have created a 'national scandal'.
Conservative Bob Seely called for a debate on scientific modelling during the pandemic in which he accused forecasters of wildly inaccurate predictions. Echoing Winston Churchill, Mr Seely said of the modelling: 'Never before has so much harm been done to so many by so few.'

Daily Mail

 

[Harry Bosch]

The question is, how many times are people supposed to back up said claims?

Just the once would suffice.

Anyway, throughout this pandemic, statisticians and politicians have been playing fast and loose with the numbers.;

Covid was not the underlying cause of death in nearly a quarter of virus-related fatalities last week, official figures suggest. The most up-to-date Office for National Statistics figures showed there were 922 deaths registered in England and Wales mentioned coronavirus on the death certificate in the week to January 7. Of them, Covid was not ruled to be the primary reason for the death in 210 cases, or 23 per cent — although it may have been a contributing factor.

Daily Mail

It is all but over as the UK gets ready to lift restrictions;

The UK's daily Covid cases dropped for the 13th day in a row today and hospital admissions have now started to trend downwards as it emerged Boris Johnson is drawing up plans to ditch all coronavirus laws from as early as March.

Daily Mail

"Professor lockdown" comes in for criticism;

Furious MPs today slammed 'Professor Lockdown' Neil Ferguson for 'hysterical forecasts' that have created a 'national scandal'.
Conservative Bob Seely called for a debate on scientific modelling during the pandemic in which he accused forecasters of wildly inaccurate predictions. Echoing Winston Churchill, Mr Seely said of the modelling: 'Never before has so much harm been done to so many by so few.'

Daily Mail

I've actually witnessed the tests. I witnessed a volunteer breathing normal in a chamber. Then an engineer used a laser-based particle analysis to show how far his air particles were being ejected. And then different forms of a mask (they were testing various masks for effectiveness); some masks were more effective than others at "bottling up the particles". This report is not open to the public as it was paid for by a private mask manufacturing company.

But to me, the far more curious question is why are you so suspicious? You have some information regarding the Mask Manufacturers or something? Is this some kind of conspiracy belief? Why else would medical professionals personally wear masks? They are all duped by the Mask Manufacturing Union?