irq11

11 ms·

31.
by irq11 6y ago
> Take a look at Japan OK: ” A record 7,841 new coronavirus cases were reported in Japan as of 8 p.m. on Friday. The nationwide daily tally has set a record for a fourth day in a row.” https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld&#x
32.
by irq11 6y ago
I “cherry picked“ no other studies for this thread. The DAMASK study is literally the only RCT ever run for masks and Covid . You may not like it or what it says, but its much higher quality than any of these uncontrolled, correlative, pro
33.
by irq11 6y ago
It’s a “synthetic control” because they didn’t actually have a control group. So they tried to pretend their was such a group by taking data from elsewhere. Yes, I read the paper.
34.
by irq11 6y ago
Yes, we agree on that. Which is, again, why we don’t do “science“ by length of signature list.
35.
by irq11 6y ago
Literally everyone thinks their favorite pseudoscientific theory is a parachute. Calling something a parachute is not science. It’s just a pseudo-intellectual defense of superstition.
36.
by irq11 6y ago
So let me summarize: Cases go down after mask mandate: proof that masks work! Cases go up after mask mandate: masks still work! This isn’t science.
37.
by irq11 6y ago
You’re right, the Danish mask study showed that masks are consistent with every outcome ranging from an increase in infection to a reduction. You spins the wheel, you takes your chances, I guess...
38.
by irq11 6y ago
> A later increase in infections does not invalidate statistical significance for earlier studies. It’s just math, not “an excuse”. So your theory is that masks worked then , but stopped working now ? Convenient! > You’ll never see
39.
by irq11 6y ago
I have “cherry picked“ nothing. That’s the data from the study. The researchers picked the start date, arbitrarily, to produce the outcome they liked. It’s obvious. By the way: there was a randomized controlled trial for masks and covid pub
40.
by irq11 6y ago
It is not. Science is “built on” evidence. I am a professional scientist. Nobody has ever given me a pass on publication simply because they want to believe me. That said, science is a human institution, and all humans have cognitive biases
41.
by irq11 6y ago
You should look more deeply into that Kansas study. They cherry-picked their data in a way that is extremely dubious: https://mobile.twitter.com/ianmsc/status/1332407421151576064... Turns out that if you pick slig
42.
by irq11 6y ago
There’s always an excuse, but there’s never any data backing your claims. Provide even a single shred of evidence that masks affect the R0 of the virus in the real world. Modeling studies and correlations observed in April don’t count: most
43.
by irq11 6y ago
> Mask use is nowhere near what it should have been All available evidence shows that you’re wrong. Self-reported mask usage rates are over 90%, nationwide. Moreover, many of the places with the highest compliance rates (e.g. Los Ange
44.
by irq11 6y ago
The open letter for face masks is a great example for why this kind of thing is dubious. All prior high-quality evidence disputed the claim: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... The subs
45.
by irq11 6y ago
It isn’t free. Among other things, “making people feel safer” can easily have the consequence that they stop doing the things that actually matter . It’s called “risk compensation”. Arguing that this isn’t a significant risk just begs the
46.
by irq11 6y ago
And on the 27th there were 64, and on the 25th, 77. There’s a fairly obvious dip in the 7-day trendline around Christmas: https://covid-19.direct/state/CA It’s likely that some of this is due to reporting delay over th
47.
by irq11 6y ago
Everything you wrote is your opinion , whereas it’s been extensively documented that lockdowns are leading to a huge surge in depression and suicidal ideation. Just one example: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6
48.
by irq11 6y ago
We did not “eradicate SARS”. It disappeared from hospitals on its own, and we simply stopped looking.
49.
by irq11 6y ago
Yes. I have a doctorate in the field. Regardless, you don’t have to take my word for it - I linked directly to the source , and you can read it yourself. It is deeply, deeply ironic that other users on this thread are eager to downvote and
50.
by irq11 6y ago
Yes, I’ve read the original report upon which that claim is based. They make it utterly clear that the evidence is weak, and that genetic variants can achieve high frequency even if selectively neutral: https://khub.net/do
51.
by irq11 6y ago
And nobody has any idea if that variant actually affects the transmission rate , let alone what impact it might have on “Rt”. Speculation about this is irresponsible, at the very least. Moreover, we have eradicated exactly one human dise
52.
by irq11 6y ago
“all-time high“ meaning “all-time high“...and continuing to accelerate. I love the way you keep shifting the goalposts. When you’re shown that they haven’t controlled the virus, you pretend that it matters what the absolute magnitude of t
53.
by irq11 6y ago
> How about South Korea? It isn’t an island, and it’s doing pretty well. Cases are at all-time highs, and have pretty much escalated out of control: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/n
54.
by irq11 6y ago
“Hypothesis with a small prior” is a fancy way of saying “speculation” . There are literally dozens of strains on nextstrain that have rapidly grown to be the predominant strain in a region. That alone is not a strong indication of any
55.
by irq11 6y ago
It’s not remotely clear that this strain is easier to transmit. It’s entirely hypothesis and speculation. We have seen strains quickly accelerate because of founder effect several times in 2020, and particular strains dominate in particular
56.
by irq11 6y ago
I spent a week in a small apartment with someone who had symptomatic Covid. Close contact the whole time. Neither of us wore masks. I never got it. An anecdote means very little, and certainly is not evidence that masks work without control
57.
by irq11 6y ago
The comment I was replying to was doing exactly what you’re doing: responding to cited facts with pettiness. Any information that contradicts your opinions is met with mockery and moralizing judgment.
58.
by irq11 6y ago
what an intellectually compelling rebuttal. when you have no counterargument, you resort to insults and mockery.
59.
by irq11 6y ago
Well, I just showed you, per the CDC’s own numbers , that a third of those had nothing to do with Covid. A reasonable person might then ask your question, but look for answers that involve something a little more intellectually rigorous th
60.
by irq11 6y ago
I’m not arguing that there’s not a “case surge”. If you test everyone who walks in a hospital door (which we are), you’re going to find “cases”. If you did this with influenza, you’d find the same thing. People go in to the ER for a broke

More ›