The readers of this thread will note that TSwizzle has provided no discussion for why *he* thinks any of the studies are flawed.
(I address other readers of this thread because I know a lot of people read and enjoy the discussions, and many of us learn from discussions that we read. TSwizzle is not among thse who read to learn, and that I why I do not waste my time addressing him as if to change his opinion; his opinion is cemented and is not based on any scientific analysis of data whatsoever, as evidenced by his choice to quote sleazy tabloids for every point he makes. Hence I know the people I’m in conversation with are other readers, including those who do not post at all.)
The studies are published and peer reviewed by people who understand how to use - or not use - data to draw useful and predictive conclusions.
No scientist, of course, intends to claim anything with 100% certainty. But they know, and we know, that if something is 50% effective or 80% oeffective at reducing disease or severe outcome, it is worth doing. Scientists know that it would be monstrously unethical to do a designed study or double blind, when people’s lives are on the line.
But they can look to places that create the conditions that a designed experiment would recommend, and then look at outcomes there as a test. When they do enough of these, and the results all point in the same direction, that adds to the certainty of the predictive conclusion And its usefulness in public policy.
Masks work.
They work when worn widely.
They are worn more widely when they are easy to get.
The have become easier to get as this pandemic has worn on.
Prior to the pandemic, it was well known with a lot of supporting data that certain professions and certain cultures wearing masks helped reduce the spread of disease. There is not a lack of data. And it all points in one direction.
It is not guaranteed. But it improves outcomes.
It is not the only thing. But it improves outcomes.
Along comes TSwizzle who claims masks have NO effect. Who dismisses studies as “flawed” without discussing any flaw or presenting contradicting studies. Who looks at evidence and decides to claim it is not evidence.
Evidence is the data that relates to a hypothesis. It might be supporting evidence, and it might be refuting evidence, it might even be inconclusive evidence.
Yet TSwizzle does not appear to understand this and seems to confuse “evidence” with “proof.” It sounds like he’s trying to say, “that’s not proof,” even though he mistakenly uses the word “evidence.”
But the evidence piles up, and in one direction. Masks help.
We will never have “proof” that “guarantees” stopping transmission; but doing the right thing has never asked for “proof” or “guarantees” of “100% efficacy.” Consilient evidence for improved outcome is sufficient.
He looks for excuses to justify defiant behavior. He thinks he has found it when he can say, “no 100% guarantee - no cooperation!” But lack of 100% single-mechanism guaranteed-outcome proof does not equal, and it never has equalled, a reasonable refusal of the application of the evidence.
(I address other readers of this thread because I know a lot of people read and enjoy the discussions, and many of us learn from discussions that we read. TSwizzle is not among thse who read to learn, and that I why I do not waste my time addressing him as if to change his opinion; his opinion is cemented and is not based on any scientific analysis of data whatsoever, as evidenced by his choice to quote sleazy tabloids for every point he makes. Hence I know the people I’m in conversation with are other readers, including those who do not post at all.)
The studies are published and peer reviewed by people who understand how to use - or not use - data to draw useful and predictive conclusions.
No scientist, of course, intends to claim anything with 100% certainty. But they know, and we know, that if something is 50% effective or 80% oeffective at reducing disease or severe outcome, it is worth doing. Scientists know that it would be monstrously unethical to do a designed study or double blind, when people’s lives are on the line.
But they can look to places that create the conditions that a designed experiment would recommend, and then look at outcomes there as a test. When they do enough of these, and the results all point in the same direction, that adds to the certainty of the predictive conclusion And its usefulness in public policy.
Masks work.
They work when worn widely.
They are worn more widely when they are easy to get.
The have become easier to get as this pandemic has worn on.
Prior to the pandemic, it was well known with a lot of supporting data that certain professions and certain cultures wearing masks helped reduce the spread of disease. There is not a lack of data. And it all points in one direction.
It is not guaranteed. But it improves outcomes.
It is not the only thing. But it improves outcomes.
Along comes TSwizzle who claims masks have NO effect. Who dismisses studies as “flawed” without discussing any flaw or presenting contradicting studies. Who looks at evidence and decides to claim it is not evidence.
Evidence is the data that relates to a hypothesis. It might be supporting evidence, and it might be refuting evidence, it might even be inconclusive evidence.
Yet TSwizzle does not appear to understand this and seems to confuse “evidence” with “proof.” It sounds like he’s trying to say, “that’s not proof,” even though he mistakenly uses the word “evidence.”
But the evidence piles up, and in one direction. Masks help.
We will never have “proof” that “guarantees” stopping transmission; but doing the right thing has never asked for “proof” or “guarantees” of “100% efficacy.” Consilient evidence for improved outcome is sufficient.
He looks for excuses to justify defiant behavior. He thinks he has found it when he can say, “no 100% guarantee - no cooperation!” But lack of 100% single-mechanism guaranteed-outcome proof does not equal, and it never has equalled, a reasonable refusal of the application of the evidence.
