Merged Covid Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,387
11,176
113
That isn't what this study was designed to look for. It did not make that claim. It did state that 70% with COVID in this study reported always wearing masks, along with 74% w/o covid reported always wearing masks. I did not make conclusions about an individual wearing a mask, in fact it made recommendations to wear masks if there is an exposure at home.

No it was certainly not the main point of the study. But that was a pretty biased discussion and you know darn well they would have touted it if the data was anywhere close to possible. It's not like 6 people with the virus and 5 not getting it while never wearing masks means much. They can make whatever recommendations they want but it wasn't based on their data, just previous bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonesrule91

Cyientist

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 18, 2013
3,241
3,719
113
Ankeny
No it was certainly not the main point of the study. But that was a pretty biased discussion and you know darn well they would have touted it if the data was anywhere close to possible. It's not like 6 people with the virus and 5 not getting it while never wearing masks means much. They can make whatever recommendations they want but it wasn't based on their data, just previous bias.

Not only was it not a main point, it wasn’t a point at all. The recommendations weren’t based off of previous bias, they were made from cited references. I’m guessing you are getting your line that this study showed no effectiveness of masks from the Federalist article that “discussed” the report. That was more likely based on previous bias.
 

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,387
11,176
113
Not only was it not a main point, it wasn’t a point at all. The recommendations weren’t based off of previous bias, they were made from cited references. I’m guessing you are getting your line that this study showed no effectiveness of masks from the Federalist article that “discussed” the report. That was more likely based on previous bias.

Read the data. A p-value of 0.86 says the data may likely just be by chance. Really only a low p-value tells you the the test was unlikely to be attributed to random chance. A high value tells you nothing.
 

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,387
11,176
113
So can I assume that links from the fourth largest newspaper are also not valid here anymore? I like going right to the data anyway.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mynameisjonas

flycy

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2008
2,035
2,136
113
Crescent, IA
Not only was it not a main point, it wasn’t a point at all. The recommendations weren’t based off of previous bias, they were made from cited references. I’m guessing you are getting your line that this study showed no effectiveness of masks from the Federalist article that “discussed” the report. That was more likely based on previous bias.


Both sides are using previous bias. I read the study and found it to be relatively meaningless either way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ArgentCy

flycy

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2008
2,035
2,136
113
Crescent, IA

This article takes very specific time periods to make misleading data. "The rate of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. since June 7th is 27.2 per 100,000 people. In contrast in Italy the death rate is down to 3.1 per 100,000. "
Pretty convenient to pick June 7th as the Italian timeline led the US by several months, take out the early surge on the east coast and the US numbers look a lot better too. By my math overall Italy 36,166 deaths population 60 million. 60.27 deaths/100,000. US 215,194/330,000,000 = 65.2 deaths/100,000. You can do the same with the entire European union as a whole which has a population just above the US and come up with a number insignificantly different than the US rate. These dishonest misleading "studies" published by Universities and researchers are part of why no one listens.

An example of an absolutely false statement, ("It's not like Italy has some secret medicine that we don't," Emmanuel says. "They've got the same public health measures we've got. They just implemented them effectively and we implemented them poorly." If the U.S. had managed to keep its per capita death rate at the level of Italy's, 79,120 fewer Americans would have died.") The difference in true rates is really about 800 not 80,000 which is statistically insignificant.

Of course this tidbit in the article won't be addressed by "scientists" or reporters. Deaths in the U.S. are 29% higher than even in Sweden, "which ignored everything for so long," Emanuel says. Sweden made a point of refusing to order strict social restrictions and never went in to a full lockdown. "We have 29% more mortality than we should have if we'd followed Sweden's path and Sweden virtually did nothing."
My math from numbers today, 5899/10.1 million=58.4/100,000 which is about 12% lower than the US.
 

kcbob79clone

Well-Known Member

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,387
11,176
113
Former professional baseball player has written a book about his struggle with Covid-19


Really? A book about "surviving" Covid. Lol. I mean I could write a book about surviving my 18th birthday but nobody would or should read the thing.
 

Angie

Tugboats and arson.
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
28,206
12,927
113
IA
I mean if you want to limit where and and how buttons are used it’s pretty simple.

I mean, if people could just stop acting like petulant children, that would also be pretty simple. I don't feel like it's the responsibility of the site to pay someone to set up the site constantly so that people stop acting like butthurt babies. I guess I thought that the premium memberships were supposed to pay for content rather than micromanaging a bunch of people who consistently are acting purposely difficult. And if you'll notice, it's both political sides here.

Hmm, who uses the button the most? Hint, I am the King of the dumb ratings. It's all fun and games until the "wrong" side gets the power. The censors are out in full force today, I wonder what has them so scared?

Well, as someone who sees the actual statistics on this, I don't think you'd probably want to play this card, Argent - it's not the side you are trying to indicate. Just maybe the reason you receive a lot of "dumb" ratings might be different than you think. For example, the very post of yours to which I'm responding is inherently foolish if you think that you're making any kind of point.

For example. I like how you think anyone is "scared" of anything. IDGAF if everyone keeps using the "dumb" rating - the solution is that we'll just also move this COVID thread to the Cave and not allow a new one in OT. I'm trying to work to help keep this one in the Off-Topic because I'm trying to help out the people who PMed me asking why we can't have it in the Off-Topic. (If you'll remember, you've been one who has tried to claim that this is non-political.) Responses like the two quoted in my response here are pretty indicative of why the mods have consistently had to babysit this and no longer have the time.
 

simply1

Rec Center HOF
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 10, 2009
36,829
24,715
113
Pdx

kcbob79clone

Well-Known Member
So many tests, not sure if this is a duplicate, a 5 minute test

 
  • Informative
Reactions: isutrevman
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron