4 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.

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.