Doesn’t all studies get funded to prove a pre-determined outcome? All of them are biased.
I would think you’d want a clear view of what’s known on the topic if you’re going to make this conclusion about it:
Pretty damning evidence that masks aren’t effective in preventing you from spreading or getting the virus.Basically just a symbol.
In order to arrive at this conclusion, don’t you think you should consider the greater number of studies that support mask effectiveness? Why not read the article I posted and argue against the evidence included within it? Makes your argument pretty weak if you want to pretend the other evidence doesn’t exist.
You’re going to lose any honest debate in which you don’t deal with the majority of evidence available, unless you can hide the other evidence. The Swiss Policy Research article tries to do this, not dealing with any contradicting evidence while claiming it’s an overview of what’s known, hoping to fool its readers (note the title and caption).
No because I wasn’t commenting on evidence that says masks are effective. I was commenting on the evidence that was presented that says masks are ineffective. It was pretty damning evidence. Is there evidence to the contrary? Sure. Is it damning? Sure. But I wasn’t commenting or referring to that.
Again, you are struggling with basic understanding although I have explained it a few times. I think you just want to argue.
No, I think it’s clear enough what you were doing at this point, though I think we may have a different opinion on what the expression “damning evidence” means (not worth hashing out ). Can you agree that the Swiss Policy Institute website’s title and caption are inaccurate or dishonest? It’s pretty clearly not an overview of mask effectiveness.
Wow!! Who are you to lecture someone else on only presenting studies on a preconceived view!?! That’s the very pool you swim in, bathe in and drink from.
There is not one post where you give any credence or acknowledgement or consideration to anything at all that is contrary to what you believe. Not one. You spin it…twist it…deny it…ignore it or find any way you can to discredit it (it’s a report from Germany or Sweden or whatever).
Pot…this is Kettle.
I actually agree with the sentiment you typed but the fact you typed it as a way to lecture someone else is laughable.
If you truly believe what you typed here…maybe take a long look in the mirror and try taking a big ol dose of your own medicine first…respectfully.
In posts just a few above here, I acknowledged NWA’s point about seniors being vaccinated at higher rates than the general population and agreed with MullinsManiac that there are some studies that suggests masks don’t work in some situations even if I disagreed with his overall conclusions and the misleading article he posted.
It’s pretty clear you don’t actually read what I write when you respond and are just upset that someone is questioning your argument. NA really pegged you above.
You are pure comedy…I get the feeling you’re trolling me.
Unbiased means the willingness to listen to both sides equally and to accept the validity of an argument of a contrarian opinion.
Agreeing with NWA’s post about Seniors being vaccinated at a higher rate proves your lack of bias…does that mean you disagreed with that position originally?
Agreeing with Mullins that reports exist counter to your argument is not proving lack of bias. The reports exist. It can’t be disputed. Your willingness to accept that the reports exist is not a sign of a lack of bias…again unless you thought those reports didn’t exist before Mullins pointed it out. Your bias comes from your complete unwillingness to accept anything IN those reports and your insistence that they can’t even be considered valid because they are simply contrary to what you believe.
Every report he posted to prove his counter argument to yours - you ignored, dismissed and said didn’t count and were invalid. Every one.
However, amazingly enough every report you posted to prove your argument is apparently the gold standard of reporting as there was nothing wrong with any of them and they were all perfect reports.
Ultimately just because they supported your position.
THAT’S bias.
When you say I was wrong about NY being a one off issue due to the nursing home policy…and wrong about survival rates under 65yr olds…and wrong about the virus not going away anytime soon without considering anything I posted to support it (which I did)…is BIAS.
When every single thing posted counter to your argument even when backed up with articles and reports and data…you refuse to acknowledge or you dismiss as just wrong…is 100% a BIASED stance.
And be biased…that’s fine…but don’t stand on a soapbox and lecture someone else about their stance being less valid because they have bias (making the assumption you are bias free - because you certainly are not). Your stance drips in it.
1 Like
Every single thing you’re accusing me of above is what you are actually doing in this thread. Just read through your own lengthy posts and you’ll see the very intractability, lack of responsiveness and sanctimony you are complaining about. This behavior is called projection. I did disagree with his sources and explained why. It’s funny that you can’t see this, but it’s just become tiresome, so I’ll move on.
Over the past week, those seven states reported per capita case rates that were about 10% lower on average than those states that haven’t yet vaccinated as many adults, according to JHU data – an average of about 66 new cases per 100,000 people, compared to about 73 cases per 100,000 people.
And the gap in case rates widens along with disparities in vaccination rates.
Ten states have vaccinated less than half of their adult residents with at least one dose, and their average per capita case rate was about 19% higher than those seven states that have already reached the Biden administration’s goal.
The 10 states that have vaccinated less than half of their adult residents – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming – reported an average of more than 78 new cases per 100,000 people over the past week.
New Jersey illustrates the power of vaccination.
Over the course of the pandemic, the Garden State has had one of the highest rates of Covid-19, ranking 12th, with more than 11% of its population infected with the virus at some point. Yet, over the past week, the state had the third lowest rate of new Covid-19 cases, reporting an average of less than 5 cases per 100,000 people per day.
Data shows another troubling trend: There are clusters of unvaccinated people in various parts of the country, and the virus could flourish in those areas.
“Clearly if you have geographic areas that are under-immunized, the virus is going to find them. It will continue to smolder, will continue to make people sick, will continue to send people to the hospital, and will continue to cause deaths,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
As the virus spreads through these areas with low vaccination rates, it has many chances to change and become potentially even more dangerous.
**“Every time this virus finds a new person, it multiplies. Every time it multiplies, it creates mutations that can spring off, and those mutations can create a variant that is so different that our current vaccine protection might not work or might not work as well,” said Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
More likely it illustrates the fallacy that vaccination is the only effective method of preventing further infection and completely ignoring myriad scientific evidence that natural defenses can be as effective, if not more effective than vaccination, particularly after initial antibodies wane and your body must rely on T-cells to provide defenses.
This point is further evidenced by the fact that, despite 57% of the population of Rhode Island having received at least one dose and 48% of the state being fully vaccinated, it is #2 in COVID incidence rate right now.
People might really really really want to believe that masks worked because it made them feel good, but feeling good was mostly the whole point. Vaccinations on the other hand have a much less logical nexus to any evidence that they are the only source of valid protection. There are no studies that evidence that natural immunity is less effective long term. The difference? You can’t make money off of natural immunity. Sure, early on, saying we did not want people to contract COVID to achieve herd immunity or natural immunity because of the potential downside made sense. But now, that millions have already have it and have natural immunity, we are attempting to force or shame people who have potentially just as valid protections as the vaccinated - and the potential to have even better long term protection - into still being vaccinated.
But you don’t get a cool sticker for “I had covid and it was basically a cold and now I’m immune.” You can’t virtue signal with that, and no one makes money off of that. Unfortunately, this has been about narratives from the beginning. And the virtue signaling leftists have tried to pretend that only the anti maskers are the ones pushing a narrative, and that they were just a bunch of hateful, selfish Budweiser drinking trailer park dwellers. When in fact, many good, hardworking Americans lost their livelihoods and some people think that the only solution to that was for our government to spend MORE money than it has, despite the fact that we’ve spent $6.5 trillion dollars in 2020 and are literally sacrificing the future of our next generations of American so people can buy Playstations and flat screen TVs who are gainfully employed.
CNN blasted Rand Paul for asking questions to Dr. Fauci about the fallacy of indoor mask wearing two or three weeks ago… When asking a line of straightforward questions about people who have been vaccinated or infected, and have evidence of statistically insignificant probability of transferring or contracting the virus. Fauci proclaimed that masks are still effective. He would not admit that there was no science behind the continued mask mandate, despite making a complete 180 only weeks later.
This has been about gamesmanship and control from the beginning and if you don’t see a state like RI with a very high percentage of vaccinations and still being a hot spot for an outbreak as evidence that there is not one and one line of rhetoric only “wear a mask, stay at home, get a vaccine, be in this for your fellow man” then you are utterly helpless. And “you” is not just NA, it’s anyone in this thread or this country for that matter that can’t think for themselves, look at both sides of an argument, look at scientific data without already determining what they want it to say or which “side” they will believe and following the popular, virtue signaling, my ‘mask is my superpower’ rhetoric.
1 Like
Oh look…!
Man!
-
That CNN story only has 3 clicks and 2 of them were me, so I’m gonna lay odds that you didn’t actually read it. That didn’t stop you from blasting us with a novel.
-
Before you edited the post, you made it out like I was the source in that article, not learned members of Johns Hopkins and the CDC. I am sorry man, but no amount of your arguing is going to qualify you more than them.
-
You somehow managed to turn an article purely about vaccine data and concerns into a mask rant. That’s sticking to an agenda!!
-
My favorite part of your post and several others like it is when you make statements like
This has been about gamesmanship and control from the beginning
You are implying, rather heavily, that Dr Fauci or anyone at the CDC or Johns Hopkins, or anywhere else like that has an agenda more than simply beating the virus. A nefarious agenda!!!
The idea that anyone thinks that is freaking hysterical. Too damn funny.
You do understand that none of these guys has any skin in the game right? No one likes Big Pharma, but these guys aren’t it.
I already know how you work too, so you can go ahead and take your victory lap as well. There’s no point in continuing.
But before I go, you of all people should know that your partisan rhetoric above doesn’t belong here. You know your way to the P&N chat. Kindly take it there please. Thanks.
Later! 
My personal opinion on Doctors advice is they always try to be very conservative and risk adverse. How many times do all of you follow a Doctor’s advice to the "T’? I know for me, if they tell me to rest for a week, I might for a couple of days and then go back about my business. I feel the same about COVID, I hear the Doctor’s advice, but make my own decision on what to do and follow. To say it is about the Science and we should follow it is bullshit. Science is ever evolving as more is understood. There are plenty of examples beside COVID, where there are conflicting results.
Editing to clarify Fauci’s role.
He is the director The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. It is a part of the NIH. The NIH has a financial stake in the Moderna vaccine and 4 scientists there stand to benefit financially. There is no evidence currently Fauci himself would benefit.
Again, just a note. No insinuation. But the statement that none of these guys has skin in the game is not correct.
Analysis by Axios found that the National Institutes of Health may own intellectual property that is key to the production of the Moderna vaccine. This finding is backed up by comments made by Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, who said during an interview in May that the NIH has a stake in intellectual property being used in the vaccine.
Axios also found that a disclosure in a pending scientific paper revealed four NIH scientists filed a provisional patent application for a “2019-nCoV vaccine.” A statement the NIH sent to Axios said that the scientists’ contribution to the vaccine was “creat[ing] stabilized coronavirus spike proteins for the development of vaccines against coronavirus.” Fauci was not among the four scientists named in the paper: Kizzmekia S. Corbett, Nianshuang Wang, Jason S. McLellan, and Barney S. Graham. While these four NIH scientists may receive royalties from the vaccine, federal law.) prevents their compensation from exceeding $150,000 a year.
Are you still wearing your mask?
- Yes. I’m fully vaccinated. (54%, 1,232 Votes)
- No. I’m fully vaccinated. (33%, 751 Votes)
- No. I’m not fully vaccinated. (9%, 204 Votes)
- Yes. I’m not fully vaccinated. (4%, 96 Votes)
Total Voters: 2,283
From CDC data (not Germany)
This is why I won’t give an experimental vaccine to my kid to protect her from something less severe to her than the flu.
2 Likes
Yup - if a new variant turns out to be more dangerous or something like that I will rethink my position but for now don’t see the need to introduce a vaccine into their system that statistics say they don’t need.
As I said if I was in my early 20s I don’t think I would have gotten the vaccine either.
1 Like
Covid and flu cases have spiked in some Rural areas/ hospitals this week. Myocarditis is being researched on males under 35 and Pfizer shot. Uncertain still on if direct effect . Numbers have been small but evidence is out there.