3 ms·

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350666/americans-getting-cautiously.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350666/americans-getting-cautio... Look at the table "Americ

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350666/americans-getting-cautiously.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350666/americans-getting-cautio... Look at the table "Americans' Use of Face Masks, by Vaccination Status". 90% of the vaccinated still wear masks. 49% of the unvaxxed do. The study hinges on a magical group of vax recipients that act as if covid doesn't exist now and behaved the same before the vax . There is little reason to believe this group exists in large numbers.

robocat 5y ago
That was the only figure in the whole article which split out vax recipients, versus no-vax. The implication is that all the other figures didn’t have such a spectacular difference. So why is mask wearing so correlated with taking a vaccine? I think you are suggesting one causation, yet the actual reason is probably the “hidden” correlate of partisanship. Lots of people use mask wearing to show party affiliation, and I would guess that party affiliation in the US is highly correlated with taking the vaccine or not. Also you didn’t answer at all your original point “It means nothing as these studies rarely take into account confounding variables. For example the vaxxed are more likely to distance and stay at home”. Instead your link has nothing to do with correlation of distancing or staying at home. Changing the topic is a classic technique.
- iammisc 5y ago
  You don't think masking works? You don't think masking is correlated with distancing? You accuse me of not taking into account obvious correlations, while doing the exact same thing. Not changing the topic. I have little evidence. One of the pitfalls of empiricism is that when the only ones with the ability to publish data are also liable to narrative pushing (see the numerous retracted studies on COVID treatments due to fake data), it's difficult for laypeople to disprove it. I'm just pointing out that the vaxxed are more likely to follow other safeguards, like wearing masks, which I imagine is also correlated with distancing. This seems obvious to me, and informs my a priori assumptions. If you have data that shows that those who wear masks are also more likely to ignore social distancing (a counterintuitive result indeed), I'd be happy to change my assessment.
  - robocat 5y ago
    You state that the 5X figure ”means nothing” but don’t follow up with anything relating the the CDC papers to back your opinion. We can argue all you like about correlations, but when you say “means nothing” you need a bit more data than handwaving at a single measurement. Everyone understands correlations exist, but you can’t just dismiss their headline “5X” figure without something more substantive. And please don’t jump to your inference that I was trying to say masks don’t work. HN guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”. Edit: And to be clear, one minor point I was making was to agree with you that confounding variables exist. I don’t care about correlations. I do care that you seemed to make a glib dismissal of the original article, and then you are failing to defend your dismissal and simply introducing a range of irrelevancies. Edit: perhaps justify why your opinion means anything compared with the data presented in original paper: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm

robocat 5y ago

That was the only figure in the whole article which split out vax recipients, versus no-vax. The implication is that all the other figures didn’t have such a spectacular difference. So why is mask wearing so correlated with taking a vaccine? I think you are suggesting one causation, yet the actual reason is probably the “hidden” correlate of partisanship. Lots of people use mask wearing to show party affiliation, and I would guess that party affiliation in the US is highly correlated with taking the vaccine or not. Also you didn’t answer at all your original point “It means nothing as these studies rarely take into account confounding variables. For example the vaxxed are more likely to distance and stay at home”. Instead your link has nothing to do with correlation of distancing or staying at home. Changing the topic is a classic technique.

iammisc 5y ago
You don't think masking works? You don't think masking is correlated with distancing? You accuse me of not taking into account obvious correlations, while doing the exact same thing. Not changing the topic. I have little evidence. One of the pitfalls of empiricism is that when the only ones with the ability to publish data are also liable to narrative pushing (see the numerous retracted studies on COVID treatments due to fake data), it's difficult for laypeople to disprove it. I'm just pointing out that the vaxxed are more likely to follow other safeguards, like wearing masks, which I imagine is also correlated with distancing. This seems obvious to me, and informs my a priori assumptions. If you have data that shows that those who wear masks are also more likely to ignore social distancing (a counterintuitive result indeed), I'd be happy to change my assessment.
- robocat 5y ago
  You state that the 5X figure ”means nothing” but don’t follow up with anything relating the the CDC papers to back your opinion. We can argue all you like about correlations, but when you say “means nothing” you need a bit more data than handwaving at a single measurement. Everyone understands correlations exist, but you can’t just dismiss their headline “5X” figure without something more substantive. And please don’t jump to your inference that I was trying to say masks don’t work. HN guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”. Edit: And to be clear, one minor point I was making was to agree with you that confounding variables exist. I don’t care about correlations. I do care that you seemed to make a glib dismissal of the original article, and then you are failing to defend your dismissal and simply introducing a range of irrelevancies. Edit: perhaps justify why your opinion means anything compared with the data presented in original paper: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm