980 replies to this topic

[Florin]

Well first of all, a respirator shortage might have ensued if everyone in the US suddenly went online to buy them. Most people were buying surgical masks, which are easier to manufacture, and about 50 times cheaper than respirators. So demand for respirators was low. But if demand rocketed, there might have been a shortage.

 

Secondly, respirators are far less comfortable to wear on an all-day basis than surgical masks. Have you tried to wear a respirator for even a couple of hours? It gets rather claustrophobic and irritating after a few hours. So perhaps it was a calculated policy to suggest the public wear surgical masks rather than respirators, on the assumption that the public might accept surgical masks for all day use, but would not accept respirators.

 

Respirators are cheap; anyone can afford them. And if the gov can send out free covid tests and thousand-dollar checks, it can send out free respirators.

 

If there really was still some concern about supply, health officials should have quietly encouraged politicians to incentivize manufacturers to produce respirators just like they did with vaccines. Politicians could have also helped reserve a supply of respirators for health workers (IIRC, this already happened back in 2020 to some extent).

 

Any kind of mask can cause discomfort but health officials recommended them anyway; so, why the double standard? If comfort was really a big problem, why is the CDC now recommending respirator use, and why didn't health officials call for respirators to be made more comfortable? If someone has a high risk of death or hospitalization from poison gas, would it be appropriate to advise them to wear a water-soaked rag instead of a gas mask because health officials assume (without evidence) that every high-risk person would prefer death over comfort?

 

I have no comfort issues with elastomerics, but I do have to admit that some disposable respirators can be very uncomfortable, while others are only tolerable. According to a few studies I posted earlier, most seem to prefer elastomerics over disposable respirators, yet the health officials recommend only disposables. Any kind of mask (or activity such as work) can become uncomfortable after hours of use, and that's why breaks are useful.

 

The best explanation remains the same: respirators weren't recommended because health officials ignored the evidence of aerosol transmission.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, what brand respirator(s) do you own? Can they be used for filtering out:

 

• PM10 : inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller; and
• PM2.5 : fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller.

Any problems with some air bypassing the filtration parts and taking the path of least resistance into the mask?

 

Are they usable (can you get adequate air) when doing fast breathing--for example when running on a treadmill?

 

Thanks

[Florin]

Florin, what brand respirator(s) do you own? Can they be used for filtering out:

• PM10 : inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller; and
• PM2.5 : fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller.

Any problems with some air bypassing the filtration parts and taking the path of least resistance into the mask?
 
Are they usable (can you get adequate air) when doing fast breathing--for example when running on a treadmill?
 
Thanks

 

 

I've usually used the 3M 7502 elastomeric with 3M 2291 (P100) filters, and I've also used the 3M 8210 Plus (N95) disposable if I needed to talk to people which have hearing problems.
 
The 2291 filter is close to 100% effective for particles of any size, and the disposable ranges from 95% to 99% effective. But that's only the theoretical efficiency of the filter material and doesn't taken into account leaks. N95s are often hard to fit and a lot of them (depending on the model) only reach the effectiveness of surgical masks. Elastomerics have far better face seals, and that's a major reason I usually avoid disposables. But even elastomerics aren't perfect (even if you pass a fit test) and that's why I'd like to try the PAPR I mentioned earlier.
 
I've never ran using a respirator, but climbing stairs doesn't work for me. However, I can do chores around the house without much trouble. Any kind of strenuous activity can be done using a PAPR, however.

Edited by Florin, 26 August 2023 - 01:34 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, thanks for the info. 

[Mind]

Very incompetent people are apparently in control of the public "health" establishment in the US. A recent study of "COVID misinformation" is completely full of misinformation. They couldn't even bother to review all of the data and make sure what is and isn't misinformation. The "health" bureaucrats in the US are essentially a danger to the public at this point.

[Hip]

Very incompetent people are apparently in control of the public "health" establishment in the US. A recent study of "COVID misinformation" is completely full of misinformation. They couldn't even bother to review all of the data and make sure what is and isn't misinformation. The "health" bureaucrats in the US are essentially a danger to the public at this point.

 

That article is written under the pen name Tyler Durden — a name which refers to a movie character who had schizophrenia (in the film Fight Club).

 

Tyler Durden's real name is s Daniel Ivandjiiski. But he names himself after a schizo — a mental health condition whose principle feature is a total loss of touch with reality and an inability to interpret events, is very appropriate.

 

Daniel Ivandjiiski's blog Zero Hedge has been described as one of conspiracy theories, fringe rhetoric, radical right and alt-right philosophies, as well as pro-Russia propaganda.

 

Not surprising it is pro-Russian, given Daniel's surname ending in -iski. 

 

I wonder if Daniel is getting funding from the Russians? Some commentators have pointed out the stylistic similarities to the Russia Today (RT) TV propaganda channel owned by Putin's government.  

 

 

 

CNN Money described Zero Hedge as having a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world". Ref: here. 

 

This description I would say fits all the politically-motivated non-scientists on these Longecity COVID threads too. Thus not surprising Zero Hedge has been quoted many times here. 

 

Anyone who is taken in by Russian propaganda from sources like RT or Zero Hedge is themselves a proper goose. 

 

If I were working for Russia and wanted to destabilise the West, I would do exactly what many people on these COVID threads are doing, namely trying to brainwash readers with an anti-establishment sentiment with respect to all official government pandemic policy. I would brainwash Western people so that they turned against the vaccines, masks, lockdowns, social distancing, etc, in order to create social strife and destabilisation of Western society. This is exactly how Russian propaganda operates: it tries to seed doubt about the establishment in the minds of gullible Westerners. 

 

If people here are not already working for the Russkies, they could easily contact the Kremlin, and ask for payment for all the work they have done on Longecity behalf of Putin's Russia. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 29 August 2023 - 08:08 PM.

[Florin]

In times of war — and a pandemic is like a war — all media tend to become a mouthpiece for the government, as part of a concerted war effort. Absolutely nothing unusual about that. 

 

So you example of the pandemic is not a very good one, because it is an unusual circumstance akin to a wartime situation. 

 

 

I am fully in agreement with that approach. 

 

The way to totally paralyse a nation's decision making process and to paralyse any call to action is to allow everyone to voice their contradictory opinions, so that in the end, everyone is in disagreement about what course of action to take, and nothing actually gets done. The government just sits there in a paralysed state not being able to do anything. 

 

Your approach of allowing all voices and opinions to be publicly discussed would have led to total paralysis of the chain of command, and thus a collapse of all courses of action.

 

Do you know what happens in the military (an institution where a functioning chain of command is viral)? Subordinates are allowed to voice their opinions and misgivings to their commanding officers, and these commanders will listen. But once the commander makes a decision, all subordinates have to obey that decision, irrespective of whether they agree with it or not. That's how military discipline works. 

 

If it were any other way, the military chain of command would become paralysed, and that military force would be destroyed by their enemy.

 

 

I am sure that different ideas were presented in private to our scientific and political leaders during the pandemic, and they listened to these different ideas fro different experts. But once our commanders make a decision on the course of action they wanted to take, that's when everyone needs to toe the line. Otherwise you would have a breakdown of governance, or even mutiny, if people rebel from the commander. 

 

We vote in our leaders to make decisions on our behalf, and that's exactly what they did in the pandemic.

 

Are you suggesting that the otherwise, legally-allowable speech of civilians is (or should be) curtailed by the government or tech/media companies in wartime situation?

[Florin]

If I were working for Russia and wanted to destabilise the West, I would do exactly what many people on these COVID threads are doing, namely trying to brainwash readers with an anti-establishment sentiment with respect to all official government pandemic policy. I would brainwash Western people so that they turned against the vaccines, masks, lockdowns, social distancing, etc, in order to create social strife and destabilisation of Western society. This is exactly how Russian propaganda operates: it tries to seed doubt about the establishment in the minds of gullible Westerners.

 

That accusation can be leveled against any opinion you don't like; it's a recipe to shutdown every discussion in which more than a single opinion is expressed.

[Hip]

Are you suggesting that the otherwise, legally-allowable speech of civilians is (or should be) curtailed by the government or tech/media companies in wartime situation?

 
Yes, free speech is curtailed by law during wartime:
 
The Sedition Act of 1918 curtailed the free speech rights of U.S. citizens during time of war.

 

Under the sedition act, it was illegal to:

• incite disloyalty within the military;
• use in speech or written form any language that was disloyal to the government, the Constitution, the military, or the flag;
• advocate strikes on labor production; promote principles that were in violation of the act; or
• support countries at war with the United States.

Edited by Hip, 29 August 2023 - 09:07 PM.

[Hip]

That accusation can be leveled against any opinion you don't like; it's a recipe to shutdown every discussion in which more than a single opinion is expressed.

 

No, not really.

 

One or two negative opinions would not trigger a red flag regarding promoting systematic anti-establishment propaganda. If someone criticises just one or two aspects of the pandemic, that would not raise a red flag. 

 

It's normal for people to criticise certain policies of their government, and perhaps be in support of other policies. So one might expect some criticism and some praise of the government. 

 

But when we see individuals here criticising EVERY single government policy or action during the pandemic — whether that might be COVID vaccines, the vaccine mandates, lockdowns, masks, ventilators, social distancing, antiviral drugs governments did or did not advocate, official government pandemic statistics, and so forth, then clearly when EVERYTHING is condemned, there is obviously a total anti-establishment stance.

 

Some people here have heavily criticised and condemned EVERY stance or action taken by government organisations, and criticised in a way which aims to sow doubt, distrust and disrespect of those US or Western government organisations. 

 

This is different to merely making critical comments on one or two aspects of the pandemic. It's this across-the-board condemnation of EVERY aspect of the government response to the pandemic which is exactly the sort of thing you get on Russian propaganda media outlets like the RT TV channel.

 

Thus if I did not know better, I might assume that some people here were working for the Russian media. 

Edited by Hip, 29 August 2023 - 09:24 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post 670. 

 

Fixed it for you,Hip:

 

"But when we see individuals here accepting EVERY single government policy or action during the pandemic — whether that might be COVID vaccines, the vaccine mandates, lockdowns, masks, ventilators, social distancing, antiviral drugs governments did or did not advocate, official government pandemic statistics, and so forth, then clearly when EVERYTHING is accepted, there is obviously a total hypnotized-sheeple, pro-establishment, nanny-state stance."

 

"Some people here have heavily lauded and embraced EVERY stance or action taken by government organisations, and accepted in a way which aims to sow doubt, distrust and disrespect of those US or Western peoples who can think for themselves and draw conclusions from uncensored opinion presented by those on both sides of an issue."

 

"This is different to merely making critical comments on one or two aspects of the pandemic. It's this across-the-board acceptance of EVERY aspect of the government response to the pandemic which is exactly the sort of thing you get from sheeple following the dictates of would-be totalitarian bureaucrats."

 

"Thus if I did not know better, I might assume that some people here were independrnt thinkers." 

 

 

Ya see, Hip, I happen to think that people can have differing opinions on various matters, which they believe to be reasonable, and which may be opposite to my own. Whereas you seem to believe that if people don't hold the same opinion that you do, then they are Russian propagandists.

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 29 August 2023 - 10:17 PM.

[Florin]

 
Yes, free speech is curtailed by law during wartime:
 
The Sedition Act of 1918 curtailed the free speech rights of U.S. citizens during time of war.

 

No, the otherwise, legally-allowable speech of civilians has not been curtailed in wartime since it was last attempted during WWI. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed a long time ago. Nothing like it has been passed since, and I highly doubt that anything like it will be passed in the foreseeable future or survive Supreme Court challenge.

 

No, not really.

 

One or two negative opinions would not trigger a red flag regarding promoting systematic anti-establishment propaganda. If someone criticises just one or two aspects of the pandemic, that would not raise a red flag. 

 

It's normal for people to criticise certain policies of their government, and perhaps be in support of other policies. So one might expect some criticism and some praise of the government. 

 

But when we see individuals here criticising EVERY single government policy or action during the pandemic — whether that might be COVID vaccines, the vaccine mandates, lockdowns, masks, ventilators, social distancing, antiviral drugs governments did or did not advocate, official government pandemic statistics, and so forth, then clearly when EVERYTHING is condemned, there is obviously a total anti-establishment stance.

 

Some people here have heavily criticised and condemned EVERY stance or action taken by government organisations, and criticised in a way which aims to sow doubt, distrust and disrespect of those US or Western government organisations. 

 

This is different to merely making critical comments on one or two aspects of the pandemic. It's this across-the-board condemnation of EVERY aspect of the government response to the pandemic which is exactly the sort of thing you get on Russian propaganda media outlets like the RT TV channel.

 

Thus if I did not know better, I might assume that some people here were working for the Russian media. 

 

I understand your frustration, but it's pushing you to think about limiting speech which you perceive to be extreme, something I still don't think is a good idea. How would it even work? Ban any opinion that's too pro or anti government? That seems arbitrary and counter-productive.

 

The Russian propaganda thing is a red-herring. Some people (especially around places like this) tend to be contrarian, and since the pandemic response was botched and politicized, you shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people are going to become skeptical of that response. One extreme is to claim that the authorities did everything right and the other is to claim that they got everything wrong. Supposedly, Russian propaganda likes to amplify any extremes. And in aggregate, opinions will support and attack every single government pandemic policy, even if a single opinion is expressed per person. If your real concern is bad faith disagreement, you might want to think about banning bots and trolls rather than a more general suppression of speech.

 

The best way to have better opinions is to let all opinions fight it out.

[Hip]

The Russian propaganda thing is a red-herring. Some people (especially around places like this) tend to be contrarian

 

You hit the nail on the head with the term "contrarian". 

 

There are a lot of people on these COVID threads with no interest in truth, and every interest in being contrarian.

 

If the government says "up", then these contrarians will go with "down". If the government says "left", then the contrarians will select "right". If the government pushes "white", then the contrarians will opt for "black".

 

The Longecity contrarians have no interest in making the effort to arrive at truth. Truth is usually painstakingly arrived at via nuanced, carefully-balanced considerations this process of arriving at the truth is too much like hard work for the contrarians. So they abandon truth, and take up the contrarian stance. The contrarians kid themselves that they are being intelligent by adopting an opinion different to the consensus view of government scientific institutions.

 

But in fact to be a contrarian is easy and requires no brains: you can do it with your brain turned off; it is intellectually vacuous. You don't need to think to be a contrarian, you just simply always take the opposite view to the authorities. A four year old could do it.

Edited by Hip, 30 August 2023 - 03:21 AM.

[Hip]

No, the otherwise, legally-allowable speech of civilians has not been curtailed in wartime since it was last attempted during WWI. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed a long time ago. Nothing like it has been passed since, and I highly doubt that anything like it will be passed in the foreseeable future or survive Supreme Court challenge. 

 

What about the Patriot Act passed after 9/11? 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in a case that pits an individual's right of free speech and association against a federal law aimed at combating terrorism. At issue is part of the Patriot Act that makes it a crime for an American citizen to engage in peaceful, lawful activity on behalf of any group designated as a terrorist organization.

 

Source: here. 

 

So the Patriot Act prevents US citizens from doing anything (including making comments or speeches) related to any terrorist organisation. And we all know that one man's freedom fighter group is another man's terrorist organisation. 

 

 

Whereas you seem to believe that if people don't hold the same opinion that you do, then they are Russian propagandists.

 

No, completely wrong, that does not represent my view. Try reading my posts to find out what my views actually are.

Edited by Hip, 30 August 2023 - 03:31 AM.

[joesixpack]

You seem to be talking. to yourself here. I suggest you consult a US attorney before lecturing on US law.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

In post #674 Hip quotes me:

 

"Whereas you seem to believe that if people don't hold the same opinion that you do, then they are Russian propagandists."

 

And then responds to my statement:

 

"No, completely wrong, that does not represent my view. Try reading my posts to find out what my views actually are."

 

Looking at his post #666 we find that Hip asserts:

 

"If I were working for Russia and wanted to destabilise the West, I would do exactly what many people on these COVID threads are doing, namely trying to brainwash readers with an anti-establishment sentiment with respect to all official government pandemic policy. I would brainwash Western people so that they turned against the vaccines, masks, lockdowns, social distancing, etc, in order to create social strife and destabilisation of Western society. This is exactly how Russian propaganda operates: it tries to seed doubt about the establishment in the minds of gullible Westerners." (My emphasis)

 

"If people here are not already working for the Russkies, they could easily contact the Kremlin, and ask for payment for all the work they have done on Longecity behalf of Putin's Russia." (My emphasis)

 

Ego requiem meam causa. (I rest my case)

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 30 August 2023 - 05:57 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

There are a lot of people on these COVID threads with no interest in truth, and every interest in dictating what others should be allowed to say.

 

If the government says "up", then these authority toadies will criticize anyone who goes with "down". If the government says "left", then the toadies will insist that no one has the right to say "right". If the government pushes "white", then the toadies will opt for trying to censor anyone who would dare to say "black".

 

The Longecity toadies have no interest in making the effort to arrive at truth. Truth is usually painstakingly arrived at via nuanced, carefully-balanced considerations this process of arriving at the truth is apparently beyond the abilities of the toadies. So they abandon truth, and continue with their blind alligiance to the government stance. The toadies kid themselves that they are being intelligent by conforming to the consensus view of government scientific institutions. The toadies are like the Church and the Aristotelians whose response to Galileo was to suppress science, thought, and opinion under the threat of being brought before the Inquisition.

 

But in fact to be a toadie is easy and requires no brains: you can do it with your brain turned off; it is intellectually vacuous. You don't need to think to be a toadie you just simply always take the view of the authorities. As can be seen on this thread, grown men do it.

[Daniel Cooper]

I don't consider myself to be a contrarian.

 

I do consider myself to be a skeptic of government power and think the people should be eternally vigilant with respect to it's use and abuse.

 

Hip, I think your Lord Acton got it right:

 

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority."

 

"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that."

 

To assume that the government is always benevolent and acting in the interests of the people flies in the face of the entirety of human history. Even when they are merely acting to hide the evidence of their own screw-ups it's their interest, not ours, that is foremost in their minds.

 

 

 

 

[Florin]

I used the word "contrarian" to refer to the libertarian-leaning or otherwise eccentric people that seem to be disproportionately attracted to the subject matter of this forum (radical life extension and related non-mainstream subjects). Both kinds of people would either be very suspicious of government intervention or question official health-related info.

[Florin]

What about the Patriot Act passed after 9/11? 

 

Source: here. 

 

So the Patriot Act prevents US citizens from doing anything (including making comments or speeches) related to any terrorist organisation. And we all know that one man's freedom fighter group is another man's terrorist organisation. 

 

You can say anything about any terrorist org, but you just can't directly engage with (and thus help) it (by, for instance, talking to them).

 

You can say anything about any pandemic policy measure, but you just can't directly undermine it (by, for instance, not wearing a mask during a mask mandate). And that's how it should be.

 

And yes, we all know that one man's good pandemic policy measure is another man's bad pandemic policy measure.

[Hip]

I don't consider myself to be a contrarian.

 

I do consider myself to be a skeptic of government power and think the people should be eternally vigilant with respect to it's use and abuse. 

 

Criticism is fine, and yes I agree necessary in order to keep power in check. But it's when people have a hidden political or ideological axe to grind that unbridled criticism becomes a problem. 

 

As I pointed out above, politically balanced people do not have an across-the-board condemnation for every single thing their government does, or that the health authorities do. 

 

Regular balanced people may praise some things their government does, and criticise others.

 

But when you come across someone who criticises every single aspect of their government or health authority (or alternatively who only praises their government), you should be suspicious of them, as the likelihood of a regular person finding everything wrong or everything perfect with their government is vanishingly small.

 

 

For example, if you draw attention to negative aspects of the COVID vaccines, such as the fact these vaccines can sometimes trigger long COVID, that is a fair criticism. But at other times, a balanced person might also praise the fact that these vaccines have been highly effective in greatly reducing COVID deaths. So a regular person will draw attention to the negatives where appropriate, but also give praise where praise is due.

 

Whereas someone with a political or ideological agenda might only mention the negatives during the pandemic. We have seen that here: those who are against the vaccine are also often against masks, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, social distancing, ventilators, etc, even against scientific conventional medicine as a whole! The chances that a balanced person would be against everything the government did during the pandemic is vanishingly small. Thus the only explanation for their stance is that they have a political or ideological agenda. 

 

 

So this is how you identify the political or ideological propagandists who are not interested in the balanced scientific and medical truth, but are only interested in furthering their political agenda. 

 

If you are someone like me who just wants balanced, down-to-Earth information about the pros and cons of taking the COVID vaccination, and advice on navigating the COVID pandemic, you would want to hear from people who have no political axe to grind.

 

You would want to hear from people who diligently weigh up all the information and come to a balanced conclusion.  

 

You don't want to become a gullible sucker taken in by someone else's hidden political agenda. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 31 August 2023 - 11:25 PM.

[Mind]

You can say anything about any terrorist org, but you just can't directly engage with (and thus help) it (by, for instance, talking to them).

 

You can say anything about any pandemic policy measure, but you just can't directly undermine it (by, for instance, not wearing a mask during a mask mandate). And that's how it should be.

 

And yes, we all know that one man's good pandemic policy measure is another man's bad pandemic policy measure.

 

Masking has been proven by multiple peer-reviewed studies, conducted over the course of the past CENTURY to be an ineffective pandemic response. This was proven once again during the COVID panic. No matter the masking guidelines, or the quality of masks, there was zero discernable effect on the spread of COVID. Nearly everyone got it. Every country.

 

As such, it is incumbent upon rational people of the world to resist unscientific mandates....not just blindly follow authority. "Health" authority figures and their policies performed disastrously during the COVID panic. I distrust all of their guidance.

 

Let us recall how awful is was:

1. Just 15 days to slow the spread: Total failure.

2. Social distancing will slow the spread: Total failure.

3. Lockdown the country and it will all be over quick: Total failure.

4. Just wear a mask and it will all be over real quick: Total failure.

5. Get the COVID injections and "the virus will be stopped dead in its tracks". Total failure.

6. Get a booster and you won't get COVID again. Total Failure.

 

The COVID response was the biggest failure of public health policy I have ever seen - an unmitigated disaster. I can't imagine why anyone would argue for these policies to be instituted again.

[Dorian Grey]

Anyone up for a little blast from the past?  

 

https://youtu.be/rG3...YLQ59f_d3M8NJ0h

 

Modern Medicine’s Great Controversy | Dr. Peter McCullough

 

No major bombshells or revelations, but an interesting 30 minutes if you've got some time on this long holiday weekend.  

 

Dr McCullough literally sacrificed his professional life for this cause, & for this sir, we thank you!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 01 September 2023 - 11:23 PM.

[Florin]

Masking has been proven by multiple peer-reviewed studies, conducted over the course of the past CENTURY to be an ineffective pandemic response. This was proven once again during the COVID panic. No matter the masking guidelines, or the quality of masks, there was zero discernable effect on the spread of COVID. Nearly everyone got it. Every country.

 

As such, it is incumbent upon rational people of the world to resist unscientific mandates....not just blindly follow authority. "Health" authority figures and their policies performed disastrously during the COVID panic. I distrust all of their guidance.

 

Let us recall how awful is was:

1. Just 15 days to slow the spread: Total failure.

2. Social distancing will slow the spread: Total failure.

3. Lockdown the country and it will all be over quick: Total failure.

4. Just wear a mask and it will all be over real quick: Total failure.

5. Get the COVID injections and "the virus will be stopped dead in its tracks". Total failure.

6. Get a booster and you won't get COVID again. Total Failure.

 

The COVID response was the biggest failure of public health policy I have ever seen - an unmitigated disaster. I can't imagine why anyone would argue for these policies to be instituted again.

 

To be clear, I was referring to speech versus the law. For instance, you should be able to voice your disagreement about masks mandates, but if a mandate is legally implemented, you can't legally ignore it. That's the difference I was trying to highlight, not whether or not mask mandates work.

[Mind]

Lawsuits are flying. Maine professor who was fired after speaking out about the pandemic policies (pointing out the unmitigated disaster) will get a day in court.

 

Just think about how terrible this period of time has been. Just think about how awful those in positions of authority have acted. A professor couldn't even question aspects of the COVID panic response without getting fired.

 

Hopefully there will be criminal proceedings soon.

[Hip]

2. Social distancing will slow the spread: Total failure.
3. Lockdown the country and it will all be over quick: Total failure.
4. Just wear a mask and it will all be over real quick: Total failure.

In fact a new review study from the Royal Society concludes that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as lockdowns and social distancing work, especially when deployed in combination (rather than singularly), though tend to work better for less transmissible variants of the virus (such as the original strain of COVID). 
 
Once highly transmissible variants of the virus emerge (like delta, omicron), then NPIs become less effective, the study found.
 
 
 
See: Lockdowns and face masks ‘unequivocally’ cut spread of Covid, report finds
 

When assessed individually, there was positive – if limited – evidence of transmission reduction from many of the NPIs used in the pandemic, the review found. However, evidence of a positive effect was clear when countries used combinations of NPIs.
 
Additionally, evidence showed NPIs were most effective when the intensity of transmission was low, supporting their use early in a pandemic and at first sign of resurgence.

 

The review found social distancing and lockdowns were the most effective category of NPIs.

 

Stay-at-home orders, physical distancing and restrictions on gathering size were repeatedly found to be associated with significant reduction in Sars-CoV-2 transmission. The more stringent the measures were the greater the effect they had, the experts found.

Edited by Hip, 02 September 2023 - 08:42 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

From post # 686:

 

"When assessed individually, there was positive – if limited – evidence of transmission reduction from many of the NPIs used in the pandemic, the review found. However, evidence of a positive effect was clear when countries used combinations of NPIs."

 

I suspect that Simpson's paradox has bitten those researchers in the ass. And, they're totally clueless about that fact.

 

"...there was positive – if limited – evidence..." is the clue that all of the studies used for the analysis should be rigorously looked at. What does "positive - if limited" mean, I wonder. Getting a seemingly significant net "positive" effect using "limited" positive evidence, and not mentioning exactly what combinations of NPIs were used, is trash science.  (I'm assuming "positive - if limited"to "net positive" constitutes a quasi reversal. And hence my suspicion about Simpson's paradox being operant.)

 

"Simpson's paradox is a phenomenon in probability and statistics in which a trend appears in several groups of data but disappears or reverses when the groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics,^[1][2][3] and is particularly problematic when frequency data are unduly given causal interpretations.^[4] The paradox can be resolved when confounding variables and causal relations are appropriately addressed in the statistical modeling^[4][5] (e.g., through cluster analysis^[6])."

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 02 September 2023 - 09:37 PM.

[Hip]

I suspect that Simpson's paradox has bitten those researchers in the ass. And, they're totally clueless about that fact. 

Interesting that you conclude that without even looking at the data or methodology of the study. Are you in the habit of making such baseless speculations in the absence of any evidence?  

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

I suspect that Simpson's paradox has bitten those researchers in the ass. And, they're totally clueless about that fact. 

(my emphasis)

 

Hip writes: "Interesting that you conclude that without even looking at the data or methodology of the study. Are you in the habit of making such baseless speculations in the absence of any evidence?" (my emphasis)

 

Since when does "suspect" equal "conclude", Hip?  (Was that intentional? Is he suffering from inveterate mendacity and obtuseness, I wonder.)

 

And yes, I read your link, and the article (executive summary) to which it refers.

 

You appear to be given to certain "embellishments" of fact.

 

As Ron Weasley asked Harry in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 2010": "Are you mental?"

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 02 September 2023 - 10:33 PM.

[Hip]

Since when does "suspect" equal "conclude"

 

Is such pedantry a ruse to avoid my question on how you leap to conclusions, or even suspicions, without seeing any of the methodology and data of the study? In order to criticise or find flaws in the statistical analysis of a study, it would be necessary to inspect that analysis.

Edited by Hip, 03 September 2023 - 12:48 AM.