I refuse to wear a mask

[wiscoaster]

Good ... now we're getting somewhere. What value does the y-axis represent? Is that a year-over-year fractional of total population? Could you redo the graph and normalize the y-axis to 2020 - 2019 YoY?

edit: Never mind normalizing ... not necessary if each data point is a fractional.

Now average your YoY data points and plot the average plus two standard deviations. I'd like to see the result.

 

[roscoe]

Good ... now we're getting somewhere. What value does the y-axis represent? Is that a year-over-year fractional of total population? Could you redo the graph and normalize the y-axis to 2020 - 2019 YoY?

edit: Never mind normalizing ... not necessary if each data point is a fractional.

Now average your YoY data points and plot the average plus two standard deviations. I'd like to see the result.

Here is a 40-year spread (same data):

The distribution is slightly skewed, but note that 2020 exceeds even the 99% confidence interval (mean + 2 standard deviations). Using a median, the average is .00852, not .00848, but that would obviously have no effect on the final result.

 

[wiscoaster]

OK, that's outside of two standard deviations, and congratulations, you convinced me that the 2020 mortality rate in the U.S. is statistically significant. You have my permission to celebrate!!

Now ... what is the meaning of "statistically significant" wrt to mortality rate causation?

Heh heh.

 

[roscoe]

It is actually well outside 4 standard deviations (<.0001 significance). Causality is, of course, not for the mathematicians. This is where hypothesis testing comes in. So science takes over!

But, holding things all constant, COVID is really the only viable candidate.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Remember these?

For COVID it's these and they are just as effective as a ribbon is against cancer.

 

[roscoe]

Remember these?
View attachment 1193

For COVID it's these and they are just as effective as a ribbon is against cancer.

View attachment 1194

Incorrect.

 

[wiscoaster]

But, holding things all constant, COVID is really the only viable candidate.

Close, principle correct, but wrong candidate. The only variable is the pandemic.

Mortalities due to the pandemic can be multiple causes, as posted previously in this thread. When the authorities counting those deaths don't discriminate deaths WITH Covid from deaths FROM Covid then we'll never really know what the mortality rate actually due to the Covid virus itself alone is. So, as also previously posted in this thread, the much higher mortality in this country may be due to this country's counting methodology. Or might it be due to something else? If something else, could the count have been much lower? As it is in other countries? What have they done differently that should have been done here? Where was the science here? Is there some egregious level of sheer incompetence here? Or is there some egregious level of criminality? In between? Both? There certainly wasn't much real science. More like weaponized self-interest. Or at the very least, the blind leading the blind. That's about as kind as I can get.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Incorrect.

You think the ribbons were more effective? Where is the science?

 

[roscoe]

Close, principle correct, but wrong candidate. The only variable is the pandemic.

Mortalities due to the pandemic can be multiple causes, as posted previously in this thread. When the authorities counting those deaths don't discriminate deaths WITH Covid from deaths FROM Covid then we'll never really know what the mortality rate actually due to the Covid virus itself alone is. So, as also previously posted in this thread, the much higher mortality in this country may be due to this country's counting methodology. Or might it be due to something else? If something else, could the count have been much lower? As it is in other countries? What have they done differently that should have been done here? Where was the science here? Is there some egregious level of sheer incompetence here? Or is there some egregious level of criminality? In between? Both? There certainly wasn't much real science. More like weaponized self-interest. Or at the very least, the blind leading the blind. That's about as kind as I can get.

You still have to explain the ~330,000 more deaths in 2020. The point of this type of analysis is that it isn't necessary to sift out the people who were killed by COVID from those that had COVID but also had underlying conditions, and the combination killed them. As long as the raw numbers are correct, you need to explain them. My position is that the only major sudden health factor that changed in 2020 was COVID. Hence, those are COVID deaths. We didn't have a war or anything - 330,000 is a big spike to explain away without invoking COVID.

I mean, if you want to take a strict position that you can never explain causality, in a philosophy-of-science kind of way, fine, but that leaves you walking to the end of the plank from which you can never return, philosophically.

 

[roscoe]

You think the ribbons were more effective? Where is the science?

You do have google, I assume?

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Face masks: what the data say

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?

www.nature.com

Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus

We talked to UCSF epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.

www.ucsf.edu

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission...

www.pnas.org

Mask-wearing and control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the USA: a cross-sectional study

The widespread reported use of face masks combined with physical distancing increases the odds of SARS-CoV-2 transmission control. Self-reported mask-wearing increased separately from government mask mandates, suggesting that supplemental public health interventions are needed to maximise...

www.thelancet.com

Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2

This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...

jamanetwork.com

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Wear a mask if it makes you feel safer.

Masks DON'T stop the spread of Covid, top experts say

Oxford University's Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson said there had been 'a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

New Danish Study Finds Masks Don’t Protect Wearers From COVID Infection

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” the New York Times reports. The study is perhaps the best scientific evidence to date on the efficacy of masks.

fee.org

 

[roscoe]

Wear a mask if it makes you feel safer.

Masks DON'T stop the spread of Covid, top experts say

Oxford University's Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson said there had been 'a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

New Danish Study Finds Masks Don’t Protect Wearers From COVID Infection

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” the New York Times reports. The study is perhaps the best scientific evidence to date on the efficacy of masks.

fee.org

That is what you don't get. It's not for you. It is for other people. You think a thoracic surgeon wears a mask to keep from catching a cold?

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

It's not for you. It is for other people.

I get it and I don't force anyone to be anywhere near me.

 

[roscoe]

I get it and I don't force anyone to be anywhere near me.

Right. Which is why we are saying that it is selfish not to wear a mask if you are near people, whether you force them to be near you or not. Living in a society is about making sacrifices in exchange for the benefits. But some folks always want the benefits without the sacrifices. Or to be able to pick and choose their sacrifices.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Which is why we are saying that it is selfish not to wear a mask if you are near people, whether you force them to be near you or not.

I find it selfish to demand that others perform a ritual just to appease you. There are choices, grow a pair and venture out or quarantine yourself until you feel it is safe to rejoin society.

 

[roscoe]

I find it selfish to demand that others perform a ritual just to appease you. There are choices, grow a pair and venture out or quarantine yourself until you feel it is safe to rejoin society.

Man, get it straight. If I were worried about myself, it would be about my manhood. But it is not - it is done to make the world safer for others. It is about choices that have implications for others, not yourself.

But please, tell us how manly you are for going to the grocery store.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Man, get it straight. If I were worried about myself, it would be about my manhood. But it is not - it is done to make the world safer for others. It is about choices that have implications for others, not yourself.

But please, tell us how manly you are for going to the grocery store.

I've noticed you really have a thing about manliness.

Make all the great choices you want. Rejoice in your virtue while making the world safer for all. It won't be but you have every right to pretend.

 

[roscoe]

I've noticed you really have a thing about manliness.

Make all the great choices you want. Rejoice in your virtue while making the world safer for all. It won't be but you have every right to pretend.

You notice incorrectly - you are the one who brought 'a pair' into this.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

You notice incorrectly - you are the one who brought 'a pair' into this.

Ovaries come in pairs.

 

[wiscoaster]

I mean, if you want to take a strict position that you can never explain causality, in a philosophy-of-science kind of way, fine, but that leaves you walking to the end of the plank from which you can never return, philosophically.

Right. And that's exactly the position our country is now in, by mucking up the causality due to mixing science with politics.

And the leaders want to double down on being in a bad position? Incredible.

Masks don't work well enough, so now the CDC wants to recommend wearing two masks. Typical government bureacratise /authoritarian incompetence: If it didn't work, do it twice as hard!!

("It can't possibly be because I'm wrong -- I know everything that's best for the people!!")