Private companies are FREE to decide what they allow in their platform. Change your laws if you don't like that.Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Apparently here were not allowed to post about REDACTED, REDACTED or REDACTED. Because it might negatively effect your image.
It's a good thing we can at least defend your image by calling people n-words and/or faggots.
Oh...
"A YouTube spokesperson confirmed in a statement Thursday that claims that the virus was man-made or originated in a lab accident do not violate the platform's policies because "there has not been consensus" on its origins. So the company's policy remains unchanged."
...apparently this Big Media Group Think Conspiracy to Silence The Truth didn't include YouTube. I guess it's not relevant then.
affect *Private companies are FREE to decide what they allow in their platform. Change your laws if you don't like that.
Apparently here were not allowed to post about REDACTED, REDACTED or REDACTED. Because it might negatively effect your image.
It's a good thing we can at least defend your image by calling people n-words and/or faggots.
You have lost your mind. It's sad
n-word faggot.affect *
Pretty much everything in this thread was talked about in June in the major Covid thread that's mostly AIDS.
Around the page 635.
Team Retard was convinced that Fauci's emails would lock him up.
Druff didn't quite find a single study that supported his rational hatred of masks.
And then we had this post...
https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post979776
...and my reply...
https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post979844
In case someone isn't aware Fauci wasn't locked up. He also wasn't fired.
Of course lockdowns do things. I don't care how many graphs you cough up it is beyond common sense. There is an argument to be had as to whether or not they are worth the cost but clearly lockdowns do something. Same exact thing with masks to a slightly lesser extent.Masks, lockdowns, they do nothing.
Age adjusted mortality - California vs Florida
/thread
Druff said earlier in this thread that COVID is not a respiratory virus so therefore masks don't work the same way. I'm not sure where you guys get this stuff. Is it the censoring of correct info causing it?
Large Study Confirms Masks Work to Limit COVID-19 Spread
ref: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2021...d-spread-study
yet another large study:
Regarding the "bike helmet" theory:A large, real-world test of face masks in Bangladesh shows that masks reduce community spread of COVID-19. It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.
Will it? Or are people going to discount evidence based on their opinions:The study demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn't lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.
Roughly 1 in 10 reduction:"And so, I think people who have been holding out on wearing masks because [they] felt like there wasn't enough evidence for it, we're hoping this will really help bridge that gap for them," she said.
I eagerly await the rigorous scientific study that shows that masks did not, in fact, make a difference.Half of the districts were given cloth or surgical face masks along with continual reminders to wear them properly; the other half were tracked with no intervention. Blood tests of people who developed symptoms during the study verified their infections.
Compared to villages that didn't mask, those where masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.
Once more: based on what we currently know today, masks are not merely performative.
n-word faggot.
That Bangladesh study has been discussed before... I forgot if it was here or on Twitter, but I commented on it somewhere.
First off, it was just a 9% reduction, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the media's portrayal of masking for the past 18 months. If the message was, "Wear your mask and be 9% safer!", do you think the average person would have felt that masking was the difference between responsible and irresponsible behavior?
But I even doubt that 9% figure. One big problem with this study was that it didn't normalize for actual behavioral patterns -- only in-person observations regarding the level of actual mask wearing.
These villagers weren't wearing their masks for fun, nor were they compensated for wearing these masks. Instead, people voluntarily took them to protect their health. This study did not attempt to track movements of mask wearers. Therefore, it is possible that these mask wearers were also the same people who were already engaging in more cautious behavior regarding COVID, and thus they were willing to wear masks to give themselves even greater protection.
Similarly, if they were handing out free ski helmets at Mammoth Mountain, and the conservative skiers primarily took them, while the reckless skiers did not, you could not make any statitstical conclusions from the incidence of major head injuries with or without those helmets. The only way to assess the effectiveness of these helmets would be to put them on skiers with roughly the same ability and risk-taking profile, and then observe over a long period of time the number of head injuries in each group.
I don't know why we are relying upon studies in primitive villages for this, though. After 18 months, why don't we have any real world examples of mask mandates working? Because they don't. That's a fact which you can't dodge, no matter how many biased studies try to claim otherwise.
Oh... and there is already some skepticism of this study.
This guy, who is pro-mask, admits that the Bangladesh study is extremely marginal whether or not it's significant.
But the right way to look at it is: I have some prior assessment of how likely it is that masks help prevent spread. I’d say quite likely, because the virus travels in water droplets, and presumably a mask traps some of them; and also because of earlier evidence. Let’s say I think it’s 80% likely. Then I get some new evidence, and I use it to update my beliefs. A p=0.05 result might make me update to something like 95% sure, depending on how much you trusted the study.
.
.
.
Whether this study is good evidence is up for debate: a stats-savvy friend warns that when you see p-values around, and especially just under, 0.05, it’s a red flag that some dodgy manipulations have gone on.
This professor feels the same way:
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1433117569020465153
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1433117573722292230
There's also a cost to wearing masks, and a greater cost to mask mandtes. The economy suffers under mask mandates, for example. Even you discussed on radio that you might decline to attend a conference because of the inconvenience of having to wear a mask on a long flight, and indeed that was a reasonable thought process.
If we are getting a 9% gain from masking -- which I still doubt -- I don't think that comes close to justifying mask mandates, and it certainly doesn't justify masking up little kids.
Nice putting words in my mouth, but no, I didn't say that.Of course lockdowns do things. I don't care how many graphs you cough up it is beyond common sense. There is an argument to be had as to whether or not they are worth the cost but clearly lockdowns do something. Same exact thing with masks to a slightly lesser extent.Masks, lockdowns, they do nothing.
Age adjusted mortality - California vs Florida
/thread
Druff said earlier in this thread that COVID is not a respiratory virus so therefore masks don't work the same way. I'm not sure where you guys get this stuff. Is it the censoring of correct info causing it?
I said that conclusions from "respiratory viruses" cannot be applied to COVID, because it transmits differently.
The common cold, for example, transmits in several ways COVID does not, such as surfaces and saliva. The common cold does transmit through aerosol like COVID does, but it isn't as contagious as COVID, and it may be transmitting more in droplets than tiny aerosol particles.
This is actually why it's much easier to avoid getting COVID than something like the common cold. The common cold transmits in so many ways that it's extremely difficult to avoid. COVID has fewer methods of transmission, and thus a COVID-positive person touching a doorknob or coughing on your takeout food isn't likely to transmit it to you, whereas the common cold often will transmit that way. Indeed, I've had 3 colds in the past 18 months (including right now), while I have not gotten COVID.
It is also possible that kids barely transmit COVID, whereas we know they transmit colds very well.
My point was that you can throw everything out the window what works to "prevent respiratory virus transmission", because COVID behaves differently.
Yeah, who cares about tiny platforms like Twitter and Facebook? Nobody uses those anymore.
No big deal that they engaged in censorship regarding the lab leak theory. Nothing to see here.
I'm sure it's also a coincidence that the mainstream media refused in 2020 to discuss the possibility of the lab leak theory being valid, and only brought up the topic occasionally to point out how racist Trump and his supporters were.
Nothing to see here, though. Very free and unbiased media and social media companies, doing great journalism.
So Fox News was silent about it? There seems to be some holes in your, nobody was "allowed" to talk about it theory.Yeah, who cares about tiny platforms like Twitter and Facebook? Nobody uses those anymore.
No big deal that they engaged in censorship regarding the lab leak theory. Nothing to see here.
I'm sure it's also a coincidence that the mainstream media refused in 2020 to discuss the possibility of the lab leak theory being valid, and only brought up the topic occasionally to point out how racist Trump and his supporters were.
Nothing to see here, though. Very free and unbiased media and social media companies, doing great journalism.
I guess you would have to understand what exponential means to have any clue how much 9% is.
For the cost per reduction in infections/hospitalizations/deaths it's the single best value you're ever going to get at a certain point in the epidemic.
The 9% is over 8 weeks, so one would assume that if you actually take the compounding effect the reduction is quite a bit higher over the course of a year. It isn't clear and the webmd overview kinda skimmed over this. So many people bad with numbers. The important part to realize is that the 9% is meaningless without a timeframe. Lets see, .91 ^ 6 (thats 6 periods of 8 weeks in a year) is .52 or about half as many people catch it per year. Very simple analysis but I think it is far more accurate than saying "doh gee only 9% that is nothing".
You said they were a "whole different animal" or maybe it was beast. You suggested it wasn't a respiratory virus. The fact that you casually make such proclamations that you later seem to not believe is strong evidence to what degree you are being influenced by groupthink.Nice putting words in my mouth, but no, I didn't say that.
I said that conclusions from "respiratory viruses" cannot be applied to COVID, because it transmits differently.
The common cold, for example, transmits in several ways COVID does not, such as surfaces and saliva. The common cold does transmit through aerosol like COVID does, but it isn't as contagious as COVID, and it may be transmitting more in droplets than tiny aerosol particles.
This is actually why it's much easier to avoid getting COVID than something like the common cold. The common cold transmits in so many ways that it's extremely difficult to avoid. COVID has fewer methods of transmission, and thus a COVID-positive person touching a doorknob or coughing on your takeout food isn't likely to transmit it to you, whereas the common cold often will transmit that way. Indeed, I've had 3 colds in the past 18 months (including right now), while I have not gotten COVID.
It is also possible that kids barely transmit COVID, whereas we know they transmit colds very well.
My point was that you can throw everything out the window what works to "prevent respiratory virus transmission", because COVID behaves differently.
If a cold has more vectors of transmission then evidence should be stronger for covid+masks when extrapolating from cold+mask results, no? What am I missing?
Cuz youtube ain't memeable. You can't go click the shiny button to share with your friends. Who wants to actually make a video and have their own thoughts? With memes your thoughts are directly controlled so of course FB and Twitter are more important.
Wonder what the partisan divide is with FB/Twitter being the main source of news/information?Cuz youtube ain't memeable. You can't go click the shiny button to share with your friends. Who wants to actually make a video and have their own thoughts? With memes your thoughts are directly controlled so of course FB and Twitter are more important.
The exponential growth bit is from this post. In the original Covid thread from around December.
https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post948613
In relation to why it makes sense to vaccine highly mobile/"social" people to slow the spread after taking care of the most vulnerable. Say a 25 year old cashier that is in contact of hundreds of people before a random poker player in his 50s.
gimmick is stuck on semantics regarding "exponential growth" because these are the type of arguments he resorts to when he starts to run into basic inconvenient facts. Such as the fact that 20 months into a pandemic, we aren't seeing mask mandates working anywhere in the real world.The exponential growth bit is from this post. In the original Covid thread from around December.
https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post948613
In relation to why it makes sense to vaccine highly mobile/"social" people to slow the spread after taking care of the most vulnerable. Say a 25 year old cashier that is in contact of hundreds of people before a random poker player in his 50s.
Next he will be arguing that the term gay is inaccurate because all gay people aren't necessarily happy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
