Well it has started

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by chickenpox2, Nov 4, 2020.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    That isn't really realistic. The world is complicated and people are always going to disagree. Even if everyone ends up on "the left" or "the right" relative to now, there'd just be divisions in that group - even now we see this even within the parties now, not to mention having a particular direction being pushed always generates momentum in the other direction similar to Newton's 3rd law.

    Don't get me wrong, it might be nice if we all agreed in theory, but history and experience suggests that's not likely to ever come to pass. And I am not sure what the consequences would be if certain ideas had no countervailing forces.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2021
  2. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    You proved nothing. As I've said elsewhere, droplets are not the primary vector for spreading infection... and would only matter for infected and symptomatic people if they did. The problem is clouds of air-borne particles, not people's spitting. Even then, it doesn't explain why governments are okay with wool scarfs and the like. There's absolutely not quality control they just want you to cover your face.

    Citing Beijing studies is dubious given the nature of China's information on the virus as a whole.

    And as you yourself noted, they don't use control groups. Which means most if not all those studies are almost completely worthless. Is it too much to ask for a proper experiment with controls?

    There will probably be an 80-90% unity on certain topics in the near future, but it won't be going in the direction you seem to hope for.
  3. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    To be fair, and to encourage both of you somewhat... "realistic" was thrown out the window over a year ago. The world is already changed from how it once was, and will and is currently changing even more. "Common sense" and what seems "possible" or "realistic" is changing along with these things. Part of the reason why things have gotten bad (and I don't mean just in my perspective, but yours and @chickenpox2 as well), is because people let themselves be limited by what they thought was feasible or what would or would not be "realistic" to achieve.

    Fifty years ago, the three of us (and everyone else) communicating so easily with each other from the comfort of our homes/offices/wherever would have been inconcievable. 120 years ago, people only dreamed we could fly, let alone go into space and land people on the moon and (soon) other planets as well.

    These changes might seem "slow" given our life-span, but the reality is that "reality" changes in an instant. What was "realistic" one day may not be the next, and vice versa. Even when it comes to people and culture. We are different from one another, so there will surely be some degree of seperation and disagreement, but not necessarily on all the things we seem to see now.

    I've said it before, but the world is changing, and with it, new options are open to all of us and each of us. Let us choose wisely, and look to the future with more optimism for how things can improve, within our lives individually and as a whole. The future is yet an open book.

    What will you choose to write into it?
  4. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    We not doing what Xi is doing by cracking the whip to make everyone fall in line this is through actually deliberation.

    I said before conservatives want to be progressive it our duty to try to convince them to change their hearts that way there will be no opposition.

    Biden has shown that even 10% made a difference. Remember when he was campaigning toward republicans imagine if he didn't trump would have probably win by easily 10-15%. This just proves my point that they can be swayed to not be ****s.
  5. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Ok, one more.


    It's honestly lunacy to me the bars you set for some stuff while thinking statements from people who already believe an election was rigged counts as "hard evidence." And then you are skeptical of one of the studies because "China" but you have no problem believing whatever bullshit your media sources feeds you. Lastly, the moving of the goal posts is not appreciated, but certainly expected.

    Alas, you didn't move them far enough, because... apparently, you missed this ENTIRE POST which was dedicated to new, massive randomized controlled trial:


    Also, here are more that demonstrate the effectiveness of masks against other coronaviruses and things with similar infection vectors:



    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  6. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Subjugation of humans by aristocrats and spitting on the poor, like the olden days right Oldman?
  7. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    someone said this , I can stand firm in this belief. The best way to make someone have the right morals is to make them come to the same conclusion that you have , that eg smoking is bad hence we shouldn't do it otherwise you get cancer.
    Ohmin likes this.
  8. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    No. Though it seems to me your fighting for precisely that. Vociferously.

    It is the aristocrats (or technocrats if you prefer) that determine what is "acceptable" to say or question. And they that set rules for us, but ignore them themselves. How many of these aristocrat politicians have demanded that we wear masks, but when the camera isn't on them (so far as they recognized) they go about without their masks? We even have photos of press conferences where the politicians and VIPs gather, someone takes a pic before the photoshoot... none of them have masks on and they all shake each other's hands with smiles on their faces, then, when it's photo time... all the masks are on.

    Biden clearly doesn't feel the need to wear a mask (nor should he, he's protected by the vaccine right?)

    Pretty much every governor in favor of prolonged mandates has broken them themselves; and none of them pay the price for it.

    The "political elite" tell us to do one thing, but feel free to do another for themselves. Mandate a vaccine for businesses (or at least claim you have) and yet excempt your own from needing to do so. This is standard fair, and hardly a new thing, yet...

    I could say the same about you. It's nice we still have things in common despite our current issues and disagreements!

    It is interesting that we can capture people on video (in Georgia at least) telling people to go home and then taking out hidden stores of ballots and scanning them, sometimes multiple times, and you refuse this to be "hard evidence" of election fraud.

    Then again, I'm trying to convince you, not so I can justify forcibly changing the political scene on you, but so that you would be perhaps willing to help solve the obvious problems that exist in our election systems. And, where conclusive proof is found, correct that election appropriately, and arrest the criminals responsible.

    But I've spoken on this seeming dichotemy of semantics in another post.

    So you assume. And are you seriously saying that we should trust China's official findings on this disease given that they immediately (and continuously) lied about:
    1. It's origin.
    2. It's ability to spread from human to human.
    3. How deadly it is/is not.
    4. The efficacy of their lockdown efforts in saving human lives.
    5. Their ever-shifting narrative of which nation introduced the virus to Wuhan... but I repeat myself.
    6. The data they shared regarding the virus itself.

    And blocked the WHO from accepting relavent data from Taiwan over political issues regarding recognition of Taiwan as anything other than a province of the CCP.


    I don't doubt that there are meny good and honest people in China, and doubtless at least some of them work in the medical field there. Yet it is also without doubt that such personell would not be able to get an official sanctioned report that goes against the narratives of the CCP (whatever they happen to be at the time).

    Likewise, Fauci also repeated many of these lies. And has had a revolving narrative about the efficacy of masks and vaccines both. Whether or not we should be "allowed" to celebrate a given holiday or not, etc.

    Likewise, the media YOU trust has carried on these lies and many others on multiple other subjects. The CDC has lied repeatedly about past incidents including the Tuskegee Experiments and other problems. Yet you seem to trust them. Even when their current narratives contradict themselves.

    I didn't move the goalposts. I've always wanted substantive proof. You failing to undestand that is your own problem.

    As to the meat of what you're posting...

    Actually supports my claims. 5 of the 8 trials found no difference between control groups and groups utilizing masks. While that still leaves 3 trials in favor of mask use, the control is there to help limit unknown variables, it may well be that the minority of trials here had other condistions impacting their test that was unclear from the study. Some of the Trials and observational studies were from China (I did not fully check if these were, or were not among those that found no difference) so it is possible there was political intereference in some of the findings.

    From the NIH (Fauci's outfit, so again, not necessarily trustworthy):
    "A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts." (Bold added.)

    Note that I value hospital studies more for a reason:
    1. It's easier to track and trace activity and monitor adherence.
    2. It's a more confined space, meaning less variables overall.
    3. It means it's measured against relatively continuous and/or repeated exposure.
    4. The protocals in a hospital situation don't necessarily change outside of the mask used. However, social behavior DOES change more in communities when there are people that wear masks like this. In part because it is "something unusual" relative to the environment.

    It is a bit of a mixed bag, as noted, but a mixed back at most shows inclonclusivity. Which means a mandate is not justified. It is true that thos that were inconclusive or showed no difference between control groups might have been the ones that had problems, I do not discount that potential. However, without the problem being identified it remains inconclusive. Which again means that a mandate is not justified.

    "It might be working" is not a good reason to do something, especially when observational efficacy shows a less than 2% correlation between mask mandates and viral spread in the larger data sets available and published by the CDC (which I don't fully trust but you guys seem to so why doesn't that carry more weight with you)?

    "Every little helps" is also not a good justification.

    Note that by no means do I think you should not be allowed to wear a mask if you feel safer for it and/or beleive it to be effective. I respect your choice. Please respect others' in turn.

    Is a study for all ILIs (Influenza-like Disease). Not all of which have the same primary means of transmission as COVID (which did not exist at the time of the study).

    It also acknowledges that it's data set too limited, and general compliance with mask usage not high enough to warrant use. While they extrapolate a 60-80% reduction in transmission, this only applied to one setting of the study (parents looking after a sick child) may have had more to do with not touching one's face as often (they have no method to determine this in the study), etc.

    It's limites scope and findings do not support wide-spread mask mandates. Nor was it able to determine efficacy between masks and respirators (let alone fit ones).

    Of note, subsequent studies, including one of the 2009 H1N1 flu, have found Respirators to be marginally effective in preventing diseases, as mentioned in the above quote of the other NIH study you linked to. However, it was also found that such respirators have a greater chance of causing hypoxia, and reduced adherence due to their uncomfortable nature. Since as noted in the last study, adherence would be a large factor, it doesn't matter if people don't wear them the whole time.

    So that asks the question... why allow people to remove their masks and have in-door dining? Why require them to wear a mask when getting a table only to take it off once they are seated and sipping water?

    Why require students at a school to wear a mask but allow them to take it off in the cafeteria when they eat?

    Why are those with breathing conditions generally ignored by those pushing mask mandates in the public sphere? No reminders that if someone is without one it might be because they need ready access for an inhaler or other device to keep them alive? Yet the same group is (rightly) very careful to admonish people for discrimination against the disabled?

    There are a great deal of inconsistancies with the narrative you have accepted. Often as, if not more, inconsistant as the results in favor of mask usage.

    My goalposts have been the same from the beginning, but the "Left" in this scenario keeps moving them.

  9. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    "Make them"?

    eg "Abortion is bad, hence we shouldn't do it otherwise you murder children."

    Like that?

    It's always good to first make sure your morals are actually "right" in the first place before you try and make others come to the same conclusion you have. Otherwise you're the "wrong" morals.

    People have different thoughts, experiences, and levels of understanding. To say nothing of what people choose to focus on as an act of will. The only overarching force that can truly get people to agree on a given conclusion is "the truth."

    Yet people have such vastly different ideas of what that is, or whether or not it even exists. None-the-less, I beleive that the Truth does exist, and that it prevails in the end. In between now and the end though, there are people like you and I, who could probably get along just fine (at least on my end) but have a number of different conclusions on certain subjects.

    My "words" might not reach you, just as yours might not reach mine, but the Truth, whiver of us is right (if any of us) will. That I firmly believe. In the end, we'll both (all of us really) reach the "same conclusion" about various matters. Even if we die first, we'll still reach that conclusion one way or another.

    For my part, I hope we can get along, even if we disagree on important things, until we do reach that agreement, with the truth of all these things laid bare. And, whether I'm wrong, or you or both of us, I at least am happy to forgive any wrongdoing you've done to me in the process. Whether in the past, present, or future.

    May that future were we both agree on the "conclusion" of things come sooner, rather than later.

Share This Page