3 ms·

You assume those restrictions work. This has not been proven at all. The reality is all these restrictions could very well be taking a bad situation and making

You assume those restrictions work. This has not been proven at all. The reality is all these restrictions could very well be taking a bad situation and making it 100x worse. I highly encourage comparing public data between regions and across policy changes. There is very little correlation between restrictions and impact to key metrics. See for yourself: https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/ https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/

mywittyname 5y ago
I aced that test by reading only the last sentence in the question and answering using this simple rule: If the question asking which state was most restrictive, select the worst looking charge, otherwise select the best looking one. Kind of indicates that the graphs are cherry-picked.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  Okay, do this with other charts. They all look the same. Nobody's ever done this before. Nobody knows if it works. And it really isn't the critics job to prove that restrictions don't work. It's upon all these people enacting to them to prove they actually work, and do so in a level that justifies their immense social cost. To date, people who point this out are harassed, bullied, mocked and gaslit. Society is participating in a huge uncontrolled experiment... and nobody even consented to it. Neat, ain't it?
specialist 5y ago
What measure of proof do you require? Infections? Mortality? Hospitalizations? Economic? To save others the bother, the quiz is OC from someone named Tom Wood, an apparent liberatarian, contrarian, freq guest on Fox News, and COVID concern troll of some sort.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > To save others the bother, the quiz is OC from someone named Tom Wood, an apparent liberatarian, contrarian, freq guest on Fox News, and COVID concern troll of some sort. That is pretty weak sauce. Does it really matter who published it? It's freaking charts based on public data! It's not like they made any of it up! You can go right to the state websites and the CDC and create the same set of charts on your own!! Why do so many people get so upset when people present publicly available data that goes against the narrative? Seriously. Do you have any idea how many times I've been called "dangerous" just for simply posting a screenshot of a state covid dashboard? Seriously, what gives?
  - specialist 5y ago
    Ok, fine, I looked at Wood's charts. Current thru 2021/04. Before delta variant. Per the principle of charity, I'll say this rhetoric contains errors of omission. Please update this thesis with current data, inclusive of all jurisdictions. Then update again once positivity dips below 1%, which is hopefully sooner than later. If that doesn't demonstrate to you the benefit of masks, vax, mandates, testing, and whatever else you object to, I ask again: What measure of proof do you require?
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      It's not my job to prove anything. I am not the one making the claim masks work or lockdowns work. People who want to force society to comply with all this are the ones who need to offer substantial and overwhelming evidence that any of this works to a degree that justifies the immense social costs. That means way more than a few of cherry picked papers that say "masks work" (while ignoring ones that don't like the danish mask study). I don't have to prove anything. It bothers me immensely that people think its the skeptics job to somehow prove that what we are doing doesn't work. That isn't how science works. Extraordinary claims (eg: lockdowns work to a degree that justifies their costs) require extraordinary evidence.
      - specialist 5y ago
        Ok. Let's try again. > You assume those restrictions work. This has not been proven at all. What evidence do you require to prove that mask mandates are effective? You are the judge here, neither plaintiff nor defendant. I do not ask you to prove anything.
- syshum 5y ago
  Dr. Tom Woods hold degree's from Harvard and Columbia in history. He is libertarian and likely has appeared on Fox news but to use that to discredit him is ridiculous. He has many many books, and a popular show (not on Fox news) talking about how history can give of insights into how the government has in the past, and will in the future abuse is citizens. He also talks on economics, and public policy from a libertarian angle. In the age of COVID and the MASSIVE amounts us government abuse that has been since under the guise of "emergency" I feel that is important message to be getting out there
  - specialist 5y ago
    I'm sad you think being called a libertarian is an insult. Both Wood and myself freely and proudly self identify as such, though he of the right and me apon the left.
    - syshum 5y ago
      ohh please it is clear from the context of your post you were attempting to use the fact that he is libertarian and appeared on fox news as a reason one should not look at the link or consider any of the data. I have bigly doubts that you are any kind of libertarian, left right or center. Hell you could not even spell the man's name correctly
      - specialist 5y ago
        Oh crap, I cross-eyed the apostrophe for Woods' name. Regrets!
tunesmith 5y ago
As for restrictions, I can point out two things we know. Let's start with masks. First, we know that masks help to reduce spread. There have been large-scale studies that show conclusive results along these lines. Like https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask... . Second, we know that to some degree, mandates affect compliance levels. Here I think the data is less clear. One study (can't find link) showed that a mask mandate was something that just lagged a population increasing mask usage on their own. And it's imaginable that for some populations, a mandate might decrease compliance, when they might have otherwise masked up voluntarily. But for other populations, mandates increase compliance. But the point is separate from mandates: "mitigation" works. Meaning, social practices like mask use and distancing, whether mandated or not. Those practices drive down disease prevalence. So does vaccination. And people are Really bad at visualize exponential growth. Here's an example: Given the current understanding of mRNA effectiveness against Delta infection, you can even estimate counterfactual Rt. For instance, right now in Portland OR, regional Rt is around 0.91. So there's a halving rate of a few weeks. But given Portland's vaccination rate, if we had the exact same mitigation levels other than the vaccination rate, but if no one in this region were vaccinated, regional Rt would be around 2, meaning a doubling rate of 1-2 weeks. That is a huge difference in amount of suffering. And estimates of R0 for Delta (absent any mitigation) range from 5-9, so by that measure, current mitigation levels are saving a lot of suffering and a lot of lives.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > current mitigation levels are saving a lot of suffering and a lot of lives. Explain Florida. Explain Sweden. When we jumped into this hot mess back in March of 2020 there was not a shred of evidence that any of these mitigations worked. To date, there still isn't--I wouldn't trust any research conducted in the heat of the moment. People don't have a level head right now. It will take decades to fully determine what worked and what didn't. I bothers me greatly that we are all unconsenting participants in an uncontrolled experiment. When you call all this it for what is, people gaslight you and bully you. All these "experts" are no better than witch doctors or rain dancers. They are making all these mandates with zero clue as to their efficiency. It's highly immoral and unethical.
mikestew 5y ago
See for yourself: https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/ https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/ Did you mean to say "take a fucking quiz"? Because I was expecting to "see for <myself>" some useful information from that page.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  Did you actually take the quiz? All it is it charts pulled from public data sources. You know.... data.
tunesmith 5y ago
That quiz is really bad. Sure, let's compare Iowa and Michigan (spoiler, those are the two states in the first question) when they have different demographics, different population densities, just completely different situations. You don't compare a death line from Iowa with a death line from Michigan, and conclude Iowa is "better" than Michigan just because it has a lower death rate at one point in time. You compare a single state to what it might have been had the restrictions been better or worse. You look at counterfactuals. And you can do that with science and data. So yes, you can take a region like, say, NYC, which had horrible lines in the beginning of the pandemic, and still conclude that it would have been far worse if not for the mitigation efforts it put in place. And you can look at other regions with lower population density, or populations that weren't well-tracked, regions with better death numbers than someplace like NY, and still conclude that they completely mismanaged the situation compared to what the numbers could have been. To just take two death lines from two different areas with completely different on-the-ground realities is just cherry-picking - at best motivated reasoning and at worst dishonest intent. Besides all that, even examining the numbers in the way the quiz wants to - but with current numbers, numbers that extend past the arbitrary cutoff point in those graphs - they show that Iowa currently has a worse Rt than Michigan, worse test positivity, disease prevalence that is almost twice as bad as Michigan, and checking today's data, Iowa's deaths per million are actually worse than Michigan's. (https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-state-july-1.html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coron...) In a state with less than 1/3 the population density. Throughout this thread you're also using absolutist language and exaggeration in ways that are literally untrue. You're demanding proof and then rejecting proof when it's presented. Really straining the boundaries of the "assume good faith" rule we follow on this site.

mywittyname 5y ago

I aced that test by reading only the last sentence in the question and answering using this simple rule: If the question asking which state was most restrictive, select the worst looking charge, otherwise select the best looking one. Kind of indicates that the graphs are cherry-picked.

spookthesunset 5y ago
Okay, do this with other charts. They all look the same. Nobody's ever done this before. Nobody knows if it works. And it really isn't the critics job to prove that restrictions don't work. It's upon all these people enacting to them to prove they actually work, and do so in a level that justifies their immense social cost. To date, people who point this out are harassed, bullied, mocked and gaslit. Society is participating in a huge uncontrolled experiment... and nobody even consented to it. Neat, ain't it?

specialist 5y ago

What measure of proof do you require? Infections? Mortality? Hospitalizations? Economic? To save others the bother, the quiz is OC from someone named Tom Wood, an apparent liberatarian, contrarian, freq guest on Fox News, and COVID concern troll of some sort.

spookthesunset 5y ago
> To save others the bother, the quiz is OC from someone named Tom Wood, an apparent liberatarian, contrarian, freq guest on Fox News, and COVID concern troll of some sort. That is pretty weak sauce. Does it really matter who published it? It's freaking charts based on public data! It's not like they made any of it up! You can go right to the state websites and the CDC and create the same set of charts on your own!! Why do so many people get so upset when people present publicly available data that goes against the narrative? Seriously. Do you have any idea how many times I've been called "dangerous" just for simply posting a screenshot of a state covid dashboard? Seriously, what gives?
- specialist 5y ago
  Ok, fine, I looked at Wood's charts. Current thru 2021/04. Before delta variant. Per the principle of charity, I'll say this rhetoric contains errors of omission. Please update this thesis with current data, inclusive of all jurisdictions. Then update again once positivity dips below 1%, which is hopefully sooner than later. If that doesn't demonstrate to you the benefit of masks, vax, mandates, testing, and whatever else you object to, I ask again: What measure of proof do you require?
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    It's not my job to prove anything. I am not the one making the claim masks work or lockdowns work. People who want to force society to comply with all this are the ones who need to offer substantial and overwhelming evidence that any of this works to a degree that justifies the immense social costs. That means way more than a few of cherry picked papers that say "masks work" (while ignoring ones that don't like the danish mask study). I don't have to prove anything. It bothers me immensely that people think its the skeptics job to somehow prove that what we are doing doesn't work. That isn't how science works. Extraordinary claims (eg: lockdowns work to a degree that justifies their costs) require extraordinary evidence.
    - specialist 5y ago
      Ok. Let's try again. > You assume those restrictions work. This has not been proven at all. What evidence do you require to prove that mask mandates are effective? You are the judge here, neither plaintiff nor defendant. I do not ask you to prove anything.
syshum 5y ago
Dr. Tom Woods hold degree's from Harvard and Columbia in history. He is libertarian and likely has appeared on Fox news but to use that to discredit him is ridiculous. He has many many books, and a popular show (not on Fox news) talking about how history can give of insights into how the government has in the past, and will in the future abuse is citizens. He also talks on economics, and public policy from a libertarian angle. In the age of COVID and the MASSIVE amounts us government abuse that has been since under the guise of "emergency" I feel that is important message to be getting out there
- specialist 5y ago
  I'm sad you think being called a libertarian is an insult. Both Wood and myself freely and proudly self identify as such, though he of the right and me apon the left.
  - syshum 5y ago
    ohh please it is clear from the context of your post you were attempting to use the fact that he is libertarian and appeared on fox news as a reason one should not look at the link or consider any of the data. I have bigly doubts that you are any kind of libertarian, left right or center. Hell you could not even spell the man's name correctly
    - specialist 5y ago
      Oh crap, I cross-eyed the apostrophe for Woods' name. Regrets!

tunesmith 5y ago

As for restrictions, I can point out two things we know. Let's start with masks. First, we know that masks help to reduce spread. There have been large-scale studies that show conclusive results along these lines. Like https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask... . Second, we know that to some degree, mandates affect compliance levels. Here I think the data is less clear. One study (can't find link) showed that a mask mandate was something that just lagged a population increasing mask usage on their own. And it's imaginable that for some populations, a mandate might decrease compliance, when they might have otherwise masked up voluntarily. But for other populations, mandates increase compliance. But the point is separate from mandates: "mitigation" works. Meaning, social practices like mask use and distancing, whether mandated or not. Those practices drive down disease prevalence. So does vaccination. And people are Really bad at visualize exponential growth. Here's an example: Given the current understanding of mRNA effectiveness against Delta infection, you can even estimate counterfactual Rt. For instance, right now in Portland OR, regional Rt is around 0.91. So there's a halving rate of a few weeks. But given Portland's vaccination rate, if we had the exact same mitigation levels other than the vaccination rate, but if no one in this region were vaccinated, regional Rt would be around 2, meaning a doubling rate of 1-2 weeks. That is a huge difference in amount of suffering. And estimates of R0 for Delta (absent any mitigation) range from 5-9, so by that measure, current mitigation levels are saving a lot of suffering and a lot of lives.

spookthesunset 5y ago
> current mitigation levels are saving a lot of suffering and a lot of lives. Explain Florida. Explain Sweden. When we jumped into this hot mess back in March of 2020 there was not a shred of evidence that any of these mitigations worked. To date, there still isn't--I wouldn't trust any research conducted in the heat of the moment. People don't have a level head right now. It will take decades to fully determine what worked and what didn't. I bothers me greatly that we are all unconsenting participants in an uncontrolled experiment. When you call all this it for what is, people gaslight you and bully you. All these "experts" are no better than witch doctors or rain dancers. They are making all these mandates with zero clue as to their efficiency. It's highly immoral and unethical.

mikestew 5y ago

See for yourself: https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/ https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/ Did you mean to say "take a fucking quiz"? Because I was expecting to "see for <myself>" some useful information from that page.

spookthesunset 5y ago
Did you actually take the quiz? All it is it charts pulled from public data sources. You know.... data.

tunesmith 5y ago

That quiz is really bad. Sure, let's compare Iowa and Michigan (spoiler, those are the two states in the first question) when they have different demographics, different population densities, just completely different situations. You don't compare a death line from Iowa with a death line from Michigan, and conclude Iowa is "better" than Michigan just because it has a lower death rate at one point in time. You compare a single state to what it might have been had the restrictions been better or worse. You look at counterfactuals. And you can do that with science and data. So yes, you can take a region like, say, NYC, which had horrible lines in the beginning of the pandemic, and still conclude that it would have been far worse if not for the mitigation efforts it put in place. And you can look at other regions with lower population density, or populations that weren't well-tracked, regions with better death numbers than someplace like NY, and still conclude that they completely mismanaged the situation compared to what the numbers could have been. To just take two death lines from two different areas with completely different on-the-ground realities is just cherry-picking - at best motivated reasoning and at worst dishonest intent. Besides all that, even examining the numbers in the way the quiz wants to - but with current numbers, numbers that extend past the arbitrary cutoff point in those graphs - they show that Iowa currently has a worse Rt than Michigan, worse test positivity, disease prevalence that is almost twice as bad as Michigan, and checking today's data, Iowa's deaths per million are actually worse than Michigan's. (https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-state-july-1.html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coron...) In a state with less than 1/3 the population density. Throughout this thread you're also using absolutist language and exaggeration in ways that are literally untrue. You're demanding proof and then rejecting proof when it's presented. Really straining the boundaries of the "assume good faith" rule we follow on this site.