If you can't read plain English as quoted...Are you refering to the study that you referenced that didn't say what you claimed it said?
No, they don't.Damn, i hadn't looked at it from that perspective. Next time i need information on infectious disease I'll ask the barrisdta at Starbucks.
Not all researchers work for Big Pharma.
Here's the passage you quoted. Please explain how this passage shows that the "CDC's own study shows masking orders have not been effective"If you can't read plain English as quoted...
You consider 0.5% decrease effective??? Really??? Even 1.9% effective??? I don't know of anyone who would call that effective.Here's the passage you quoted. Please explain how this passage shows that the "CDC's own study shows masking orders have not been effective"
During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.
According to the study, one hundred days after the implementation of the mandate there was a 1.9% decrease in the death rate. While that seems like a small amount it equates to 1,900 /million lives saved. It seems callous to me to consider that many live to be inconsequential. That's a whole lot of lives saved if the study is correct. The study does not take into account the type of face covering used, it does not take into account if they were worn correctly, and it does not take into account whether or not people always wore them when the should have.You consider 0.5% decrease effective??? Really??? Even 1.9% effective??? I don't know of anyone who would call that effective.
If you were using body armor that only decreased your changes of dying by 0.5%, would you be pleased with it? Or would you prefer something that decreased your chance of dying by a much higher percentage? Nobody in their right mind would call 0.5% effective.
Given the data quality, these magnitudes are not statistically significant and are in the noise level. Thus they are not effective.
Show me 30% reduction and then maybe we can talk about effective.
No use having a conversation with someone who is not being rational. Nothing productive can result. Have a good day.
Re: lack of rationalityAccording to the study, one hundred days after the implementation of the mandate there was a 1.9% decrease in the death rate. While that seems like a small amount it equates to 1,900 /million lives saved. It seems callous to me to consider that many live to be inconsequential. That's a whole lot of lives saved if the study is correct. The study does not take into account the type of face covering used, it does not take into account if they were worn correctly, and it does not take into account whether or not people always wore them when the should have.
Disclaimer: I'm not arguing the validity of the study, just that saying that claiming CDC proved masks are ineffective is false.
At the beginning of this discussion you claimed that masks were unless in helping to prevent the spread of disease and you posted that paragraph claiming that it proved masks are useless. The study does not prove it.
My contention is that a good mask worn correctly can help prevent the transmission of disease and this has been proven in hospitals daily for decades.
Ad hominem attacks (inferring that I'm not rational) is but one step above name calling and does nothing to buttress your opinion or make you right.
OK, that's fine and it was getting repetitious anyway. Thanks for your time. You were a challenge and I enjoyed the hell out of the debate and the mental exercise and I learned some things along the way. That's always rewarding.Re: lack of rationality
You have proved the point in this response. No further discussion would be productive.
I am not saying you are not capable of being rational, but in this case the narrative and fear are so strong that the responses are not rational.
I heard on the radio that someone had die after experiencing reaction to the vaccine shot (not sure which one) and their life insurance company will not pay off the benefit due to the vaccine being an "experimental drug". Y'all check with your life ins. co so this doesn't happen to you.FDA haults JNJ vaccine....
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/13/us-...n-johnson-vaccine-due-to-clotting-issues.html
Thanks for this hat tip... hadn't thought of that and I'm inching closer each day to being 'forced' to decide between keeping my job or getting vaccinated.I he
I heard on the radio that someone had die after experiencing reaction to the vaccine shot (not sure which one) and their life insurance company will not pay off the benefit due to the vaccine being an "experimental drug". Y'all check with your life ins. co so this doesn't happen to you.
I he
I heard on the radio that someone had die after experiencing reaction to the vaccine shot (not sure which one) and their life insurance company will not pay off the benefit due to the vaccine being an "experimental drug". Y'all check with your life ins. co so this doesn't happen to you.
Wasn't it Will Rogers who said "All I know is what I read on the internet."?
Don’t push the panic button...FDA haults JNJ vaccine....
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/13/us-...n-johnson-vaccine-due-to-clotting-issues.html