4 ms·

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

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

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