Covid-19 miscellany

[TSwizzle]

Evidence suggests that you do not know what evidence is.

I know that what was presented is not evidence. Two and a half years in and still nothing. Pathetic.,

Evidence suggests that you stop reading whenever a study associates brown people with data or evidence.

I am not going to waste much of my time on a silly conspiracy theory level rubbish study. The Bangladesh study is laughable.

Evidence suggests you feel comfortable telling women to shut up if you don't like what they have to say.

Here's actual evidence; I feel comfortable challenging anyone to present evidence or to otherwise pipe down.

 

[Elixir]

Evidence suggests that you do not know what evidence is.
Evidence suggests that you stop reading whenever a study associates brown people with data or evidence.
Evidence suggests you feel comfortable telling women to shut up if you don't like what they have to say.

Well hell. No wonder these RW extremists have such antipathy toward evidence.

Here's actual evidence; I feel comfortable challenging anyone to present evidence or to otherwise pipe down.

Thank you for providing the above evidence, supporting the hypothesis that you, like most of your RW extremist ilk,
have no idea what evidence is.

(Hint: statements about how YOU feel, while unarguable, do not constitute evidence of ANYTHING.)

 

[TSwizzle]

Great news!!!;

Several new studies published this month support wearing masks to curb the transmission of the novel coronavirus. The broadest, a review funded by the World Health Organization and published in the journal Lancet, concluded that data from 172 observational studies indicate wearing face masks reduces the risk of coronavirus infection.

WaPo

Oh wait;

But that conclusion came with an important caveat: “We have low certainty in that,” Schünemann said, meaning the authors cannot be strongly confident in the result.

 

[Elixir]

Great news!!!;

Several new studies published this month support wearing masks to curb the transmission of the novel coronavirus. The broadest, a review funded by the World Health Organization and published in the journal Lancet, concluded that data from 172 observational studies indicate wearing face masks reduces the risk of coronavirus infection.

WaPo

Oh wait;

But that conclusion came with an important caveat: “We have low certainty in that,” Schünemann said, meaning the authors cannot be strongly confident in the result.

What exactly do you think THAT is "evidence" of?
I am going to guess that the lack of certitude demanded by conservotards confirms your suspicion that science is full of shit.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Great news!!!;

Several new studies published this month support wearing masks to curb the transmission of the novel coronavirus. The broadest, a review funded by the World Health Organization and published in the journal Lancet, concluded that data from 172 observational studies indicate wearing face masks reduces the risk of coronavirus infection.

WaPo

Oh wait;

But that conclusion came with an important caveat: “We have low certainty in that,” Schünemann said, meaning the authors cannot be strongly confident in the result.

Article date: June 13, 2020

A two year old article is your only comeback? Pretty weak.

Ruth

 

[TSwizzle]

Great news!!!;

Several new studies published this month support wearing masks to curb the transmission of the novel coronavirus. The broadest, a review funded by the World Health Organization and published in the journal Lancet, concluded that data from 172 observational studies indicate wearing face masks reduces the risk of coronavirus infection.

WaPo

Oh wait;

But that conclusion came with an important caveat: “We have low certainty in that,” Schünemann said, meaning the authors cannot be strongly confident in the result.

Article date: June 13, 2020

A two year old article is your only comeback? Pretty weak.

Ruth

Did you check the date of some of the articles Rhea posted?

 

[Ruth Harris]

Did you check the date of some of the articles Rhea posted?

Why should I? I am not the one saying that there are no valid mask studies at all.

You would be more convincing if you could show a current valid study supporting your position.

Ruth

 

[Toni]

Evidence suggests that you do not know what evidence is.

I know that what was presented is not evidence. Two and a half years in and still nothing. Pathetic.,

Evidence suggests that you stop reading whenever a study associates brown people with data or evidence.

I am not going to waste much of my time on a silly conspiracy theory level rubbish study. The Bangladesh study is laughable.

Evidence suggests you feel comfortable telling women to shut up if you don't like what they have to say.

Here's actual evidence; I feel comfortable challenging anyone to present evidence or to otherwise pipe down.

The only thing you do believe is conspiracy level rubbish.

 

[TSwizzle]

Did you check the date of some of the articles Rhea posted?

Why should I? I am not the one saying that there are no valid mask studies at all.

No but you checked the date on the WaPo article for some reason.

You would be more convincing if you could show a current valid study supporting your position.

Ruth

Hilarious.

 

[TSwizzle]

Evidence suggests that you do not know what evidence is.

I know that what was presented is not evidence. Two and a half years in and still nothing. Pathetic.,

Evidence suggests that you stop reading whenever a study associates brown people with data or evidence.

I am not going to waste much of my time on a silly conspiracy theory level rubbish study. The Bangladesh study is laughable.

Evidence suggests you feel comfortable telling women to shut up if you don't like what they have to say.

Here's actual evidence; I feel comfortable challenging anyone to present evidence or to otherwise pipe down.

The only thing you do believe is conspiracy level rubbish.

I don't believe masks are effective at stopping/slowing the spread of covid. I have no reason to believe they do because I have seen no evidence to prove that. How is that a conspiracy theory?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Evidence suggests that you do not know what evidence is.

I know that what was presented is not evidence. Two and a half years in and still nothing. Pathetic.,

Evidence suggests that you stop reading whenever a study associates brown people with data or evidence.

I am not going to waste much of my time on a silly conspiracy theory level rubbish study. The Bangladesh study is laughable.

Evidence suggests you feel comfortable telling women to shut up if you don't like what they have to say.

Here's actual evidence; I feel comfortable challenging anyone to present evidence or to otherwise pipe down.

The only thing you do believe is conspiracy level rubbish.

I don't believe masks are effective at stopping/slowing the spread of covid. I have no reason to believe they do because I have seen no evidence to prove that. How is that a conspiracy theory?

You posted a study ages ago that had to admit they were somewhat effective, like 22% or something reduction, don't remember exactly, but you posted, a bunch of people commented, and you ignored the issue.

 

[Toni]

Evidence suggests that you do not know what evidence is.

I know that what was presented is not evidence. Two and a half years in and still nothing. Pathetic.,

Evidence suggests that you stop reading whenever a study associates brown people with data or evidence.

I am not going to waste much of my time on a silly conspiracy theory level rubbish study. The Bangladesh study is laughable.

Evidence suggests you feel comfortable telling women to shut up if you don't like what they have to say.

Here's actual evidence; I feel comfortable challenging anyone to present evidence or to otherwise pipe down.

The only thing you do believe is conspiracy level rubbish.

I don't believe masks are effective at stopping/slowing the spread of covid. I have no reason to believe they do because I have seen no evidence to prove that. How is that a conspiracy theory?

You HAVE seen evidence. You choose to disbelieve it and instead believe whatever tabloids have to say about it.

 

[TSwizzle]

You HAVE seen evidence. You choose to disbelieve it and instead believe whatever tabloids have to say about it.

Nope. You and others have presented the same flawed studies that "suggest" masks work. That is not strong enough evidence to support mask mandates. You can go along with it if you like. but it does not convince me that I need to go along with it.

 

[Toni]

You HAVE seen evidence. You choose to disbelieve it and instead believe whatever tabloids have to say about it.

Nope. You and others have presented the same flawed studies that "suggest" masks work. That is not strong enough evidence to support mask mandates. You can go along with it if you like. but it does not convince me that I need to go along with it.

You clearly do not understand science. Scientists say evidence suggests. JOURNALISTS say something proves.

You still have not written anything that suggests you know what evidence is.

 

[TSwizzle]

You HAVE seen evidence. You choose to disbelieve it and instead believe whatever tabloids have to say about it.

Nope. You and others have presented the same flawed studies that "suggest" masks work. That is not strong enough evidence to support mask mandates. You can go along with it if you like. but it does not convince me that I need to go along with it.

You clearly do not understand science. Scientists say evidence suggests. JOURNALISTS say something proves.

I understand science well enough to see the flaws in studies. You may take the "hair salon" anecdote as evidence but I do not. The Bangladesh study is flawed and was breathlessly reported by the media as evidence that masks worked. It wasn't.

You still have not written anything that suggests you know what evidence is.

You still haven't presented any evidence.

 

[Toni]

You HAVE seen evidence. You choose to disbelieve it and instead believe whatever tabloids have to say about it.

Nope. You and others have presented the same flawed studies that "suggest" masks work. That is not strong enough evidence to support mask mandates. You can go along with it if you like. but it does not convince me that I need to go along with it.

You clearly do not understand science. Scientists say evidence suggests. JOURNALISTS say something proves.

I understand science well enough to see the flaws in studies. You may take the "hair salon" anecdote as evidence but I do not. The Bangladesh study is flawed and was breathlessly reported by the media as evidence that masks worked. It wasn't.

You still have not written anything that suggests you know what evidence is.

You still haven't presented any evidence.

How do you know?
You haven't presented any evidence that you know what evidence is, despite me asking a couple of times.

 

[TSwizzle]

You haven't presented any evidence that you know what evidence is, despite me asking a couple of times.

I know you haven't provided any. And until you do, we are done.

Pipe down.

 

[Jarhyn]

Happy Mondays bassist Paul Ryder dies suddenly;

Shaun Ryder has spoken out about the moment his mother found her son - his brother Paul Ryder - dead last week. Paul was found dead at the age of 58 in bed by his mother Linda last week having died unexpectedly, with Shaun saying his brother complained of a headache before his death after arriving back in the UK from Los Angeles, where he lived. He said, according to The Sun: 'When the ambulance came they said it looked like it had been a blood clot or a brain tumour, but it’s just weird that he’d had that Covid booster the day before.

Daily Mail

I am increasingly skeptical of these "vaccines" and boosters;

If the vaccine was responsible and it were dangerous, there would be a fuck ton (SI Unit) more Covid Vaccine related health problems.

The rule of large numbers dictates that if you can specify something people die of a lot (strokes), and something that a lot of people do that you don't like, you can always find people who do things that you don't like prior to someone dying of the thing you wish to draw a false connection to.

Thus I can almost certainly find an instance of some dumbshit posting something dumb online and then having a stroke, but there's no political motive to tie shit posting to having a stroke, while the motive to watch a disease cause chaos while spinning the wheel on it yourself has a fairly large base of political support apparently.

The only reason it doesn't happen, TBH, this linking of shit posting to strokes, is because the people with a motive to end shit posting won't shitpost to accomplish it, nor should they have to.

 

[Toni]

You haven't presented any evidence that you know what evidence is, despite me asking a couple of times.

I know you haven't provided any. And until you do, we are done.

Pipe down.

I’ll be as loud as I like.

You obviously have no criteria for what you would believe as evidence. Only that if it co traduces your prejudices, it can’t be evidence.

 

[TSwizzle]

You haven't presented any evidence that you know what evidence is, despite me asking a couple of times.

I know you haven't provided any. And until you do, we are done.

Pipe down.

I’ll be as loud as I like.

No doubt.

You obviously have no criteria for what you would believe as evidence. Only that if it co traduces your prejudices, it can’t be evidence.

I am not going to accept flawed studies as evidence. I don't know why anyone would.