3 ms·

> Also...it's an opinion piece from....a university....in San Francisco...the two most notoriously political places in the entire universe and you're saying I'm

> Also...it's an opinion piece from....a university....in San Francisco...the two most notoriously political places in the entire universe and you're saying I'm convinced by MY MEDIA. It's... a medical school. An elite one, no less, doing public outreach. Effectively that link is a review paper written for non-experts, it's certainly not "opinion journalism". I mean, it links to studies throughout the piece. It absolutely represents (and I don't understand why you think this is controversial) virtually uniformly held scientific consensus on this topic. I mean, I don't know what to say. If you don't trust doctors about medical issues, preferring to read pieces from (literal) Swiss conspiracy theory sites and citing isolated single Vietnamese studies, then I guess I can't help you. But yes: SWPRS and sites like that are LYING TO YOU. Very effectively, since now you trust them more than you do one of the best med schools in the country.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
A collection of links to Pubmed, CDC, PlosOne, Oxford and other papers. vs An opinion piece. The absolute state of Covid fanatics.
- newacct583 5y ago
  OK, I'll humor you. I went and clicked on the first two links in that collection, both claimed to show "little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population": Both were studies of mask POLICY (i.e. does TELLING people to wear a mask work?) and not mask USE (do the masks actually work?). The first was just a historical review of previous pandemics with no ability to look at case studies. The second looked only at Denmark, an environment where masks aren't common, and didn't even track whether or not the participants actually wore them. All they checked was if they were "recommended" or not. And the kicker? They ACTUALLY DID find a statistically significant benefit to mask recommendation, just not a large one. The inclusion in your magic "collection" is basically a lie. Now I read two links carefully. Your turn: go back to that UCSF site and read some of the links there.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Mask policy? You mean epidemiological studies on communities? Ok.... Masks may or may not work as a stop for particles but do they stop spread on a community level?
    - FireBeyond 5y ago
      This just shows your ignorance even further. "Mask policy" - what a government organization (DOH, city council, what have you) states as its recommended behavior, action, enforcement practices. And has _absolutely nothing to do with_ epidemiological studies on communities. Nothing. Whatsoever. Policy: 'you should do X' Epidemiological study: a controlled investigation into what happens when people do X, when they don't, including how many do, how many don't, and all the circumstances surrounding it.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Do these meet your criteria? The first three articles: 1. Meta analysis of mask usage 2. "''A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal...."'' 3. """large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants""" You clearly didn't click on the first two articles like you said you did. You're a liar and a fascist. I'm done here.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

nickthemagicman 5y ago

A collection of links to Pubmed, CDC, PlosOne, Oxford and other papers. vs An opinion piece. The absolute state of Covid fanatics.

newacct583 5y ago
OK, I'll humor you. I went and clicked on the first two links in that collection, both claimed to show "little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population": Both were studies of mask POLICY (i.e. does TELLING people to wear a mask work?) and not mask USE (do the masks actually work?). The first was just a historical review of previous pandemics with no ability to look at case studies. The second looked only at Denmark, an environment where masks aren't common, and didn't even track whether or not the participants actually wore them. All they checked was if they were "recommended" or not. And the kicker? They ACTUALLY DID find a statistically significant benefit to mask recommendation, just not a large one. The inclusion in your magic "collection" is basically a lie. Now I read two links carefully. Your turn: go back to that UCSF site and read some of the links there.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Mask policy? You mean epidemiological studies on communities? Ok.... Masks may or may not work as a stop for particles but do they stop spread on a community level?
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    This just shows your ignorance even further. "Mask policy" - what a government organization (DOH, city council, what have you) states as its recommended behavior, action, enforcement practices. And has _absolutely nothing to do with_ epidemiological studies on communities. Nothing. Whatsoever. Policy: 'you should do X' Epidemiological study: a controlled investigation into what happens when people do X, when they don't, including how many do, how many don't, and all the circumstances surrounding it.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      Do these meet your criteria? The first three articles: 1. Meta analysis of mask usage 2. "''A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal...."'' 3. """large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants""" You clearly didn't click on the first two articles like you said you did. You're a liar and a fascist. I'm done here.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]