Phx-Suns.Net

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz ... esearchers

Thanks Supe. This is a great scientific Venn diagram. Hmm, this is coming from a moderator?

Idk if this has merit, but it's an interesting correlation.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:58 am

Thanks Supe. This is a great scientific Venn diagram. Hmm, this is coming from a moderator?

Oh, you took it seriously? FYI, humor is allowed in the general forums. I might have hit a nerve though as you recognize it to be just as scientific as the stuff you've been posting. To be honest, your propaganda doesn't belong in the general forum.

Superbone wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:14 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:58 am

Thanks Supe. This is a great scientific Venn diagram. Hmm, this is coming from a moderator?

Oh, you took it seriously? FYI, humor is allowed in the general forums. I might have hit a nerve though as you recognize it to be just as scientific as the stuff you've been posting.

No, I didn't take it seriously. I knew it was humor, but passive aggressively trying to get a nice little dig in there.

I'm sorry, you can go ahead and debunk what I post. I'm am happy to agree with you if you are right. Bro, I'm not trying to post propaganda. If I was to post everything that was pro-mask, pro-lockdown, pro-whatevertheheckyoubelieve, would you consider that propaganda or truth?

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:20 am

Superbone wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:14 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:58 am

Thanks Supe. This is a great scientific Venn diagram. Hmm, this is coming from a moderator?

Oh, you took it seriously? FYI, humor is allowed in the general forums. I might have hit a nerve though as you recognize it to be just as scientific as the stuff you've been posting.

No, I didn't take it seriously. I knew it was humor, but passive aggressively trying to get a nice little dig in there.

I'm sorry, you can go ahead and debunk what I post. I'm am happy to agree with you if you are right. Bro, I'm not trying to post propaganda. If I was to post everything that was pro-mask, pro-lockdown, pro-whatevertheheckyoubelieve, would you consider that propaganda or truth?

I think that is described as science. Read through the actual studies you posted above, including the analysis. That one study was of less than 100 people, half that were supposed to wear masks and half who weren't. Of the ones with masks, only half said they wore them correctly and some didn't wear them at all. And it didn't even look at transmission. It only looked at whether or not the subject was infected, not the people around them. It wouldn't be accepted by any peer-reviewed medical journal in the world.

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:34 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:20 am

Superbone wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:14 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:58 am

Thanks Supe. This is a great scientific Venn diagram. Hmm, this is coming from a moderator?

Oh, you took it seriously? FYI, humor is allowed in the general forums. I might have hit a nerve though as you recognize it to be just as scientific as the stuff you've been posting.

No, I didn't take it seriously. I knew it was humor, but passive aggressively trying to get a nice little dig in there.

I'm sorry, you can go ahead and debunk what I post. I'm am happy to agree with you if you are right. Bro, I'm not trying to post propaganda. If I was to post everything that was pro-mask, pro-lockdown, pro-whatevertheheckyoubelieve, would you consider that propaganda or truth?

I think that is described as science. Read through the actual studies you posted above, including the analysis. That one study was of less than 100 people, half that were supposed to wear masks and half who weren't. Of the ones with masks, only half said they wore them correctly and some didn't wear them at all. And it didn't even look at transmission. It only looked at whether or not the subject was infected, not the people around them. It wouldn't be accepted by any peer-reviewed medical journal in the world.

I think this is part of the problem in a real world. People are going to wear them incorrectly. People are going to wear ones that don't work correctly. I would love for you to post some real study that is showing how masks work in a mass scale. I can continue to post data after data of when masks were mandated and how the cases went up around the world. I guess those wouldn't pass the mustard test either, but it's not isolated to a pure controlled study incidence either. You could analyze the Marine's data on this too. You won't find a more compliant group of exact procedures and rules followed on the planet of case studies and it's not showing the data that suggests that masks are working like you think.

If your argument is "of course masks don't work when you don't use them" then I am completely in agreement.

Red States with Republican governors apposed to wearing masks have gone off the charts with Covid. Some governors just reversed their positions on mask due to their hospitals overrun with Covid cases. Wyoming, Iowa, ND, Kentucky, West Virginia have just issued mandatory mask mandates knowing full well their base will hate them but, did it anyway.

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:56 am

If your argument is "of course masks don't work when you don't use them" then I am completely in agreement.

That's part of the my argument.

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:34 am

I think that is described as science. Read through the actual studies you posted above, including the analysis. That one study was of less than 100 people, half that were supposed to wear masks and half who weren't. Of the ones with masks, only half said they wore them correctly and some didn't wear them at all. And it didn't even look at transmission. It only looked at whether or not the subject was infected, not the people around them. It wouldn't be accepted by any peer-reviewed medical journal in the world.

Indy, what are your thoughts on this study?
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326 ... f1-M206817

let's start with your thoughts this time... this one is definitely getting around in anti-mask circles, so curious what you took away from it.

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:35 am

let's start with your thoughts this time... this one is definitely getting around in anti-mask circles, so curious what you took away from it.

The reason it's been getting around in those circles I imagine is that it's the first real study on the effectiveness of masks in real world application.

Well, I'm not the expert like you are, but from what I've read, it isn't quite statistically significant of a change either way, so they can't be ruled out. Basically it's inconclusive, so it's very difficult to conclude that it would half the rate of infection. I think it was 1.8% were infected that wore the mask and 2.1% for those without a mask. It can offer more protection to others if the mask wearer is infected. So, if that's the case, should everyone be forced to wear them, or just those infected?

John McCain was shot down, badly injured, captured, tortured and help in a POW camp for five years. He could have come home early because his dad was an admiral but, he refused and only wanted to come home when the rest of his fellow POWs were released. He didn’t complain. He did it for his country because he loved his country and was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

Republicans today under Trump aren’t willing to wear a mask to Home Depot because it is just too great a sacrifice to make for their fellow countrymen and have done nothing but complain. Those same people call McCain a loser, say he was responsible for the Forestal fire and claim he gave secrets to the Vietnamese while being held. “I like my hero’s who weren't shot down” says the draft dodger.

It turns my stomach.

This is more a discussion in the General forum, not a political point. It turns my stomach to see that too.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:03 am

I think it was 1.8% were infected that wore the mask and 2.1% for those without a mask. It can offer more protection to others if the mask wearer is infected. So, if that's the case, should everyone be forced to wear them, or just those infected?

That’s a little bit like asking whether everybody should wear a condom, or just those with STDs. Many people are infected and don’t know it. If you’re having casual sex you should wear a condom, and if you’re exchanging casual air you should wear a mask.

Sure, if you’re hanging at home with your wife and kids, you don’t need to wear masks, and you probably don’t need to wear a condom when you fuck your wife. But with everybody else, you should.

Even if you’ve been tested and just come out of quarantine and know you’re not infected, you should still wear a mask, because the behavior is as contagious as the virus.

I’m not going to get into the argument of whether it should be a legal mandate or legally voluntary. Either way, it’s a moral imperative. Just wear it.

Cap wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:02 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:03 am

I think it was 1.8% were infected that wore the mask and 2.1% for those without a mask. It can offer more protection to others if the mask wearer is infected. So, if that's the case, should everyone be forced to wear them, or just those infected?

That’s a little bit like asking whether everybody should wear a condom, or just those with STDs. Many people are infected and don’t know it. If you’re having casual sex you should wear a condom, and if you’re exchanging casual air you should wear a mask.

Sure, if you’re hanging at home with your wife and kids, you don’t need to wear masks, and you probably don’t need to wear a condom when you fuck your wife. But with everybody else, you should.

Even if you’ve been tested and just come out of quarantine and know you’re not infected, you should still wear a mask, because the behavior is as contagious as the virus.

I’m not going to get into the argument of whether it should be a legal mandate or legally voluntary. Either way, it’s a moral imperative. Just wear it.

Well said.