|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On March 05 2023 17:52 Elroi wrote:Lots of interesting Covid news coming out lately. I saw this big meta study indicating that there were no measurable gains from forcing people to wear face masks. I also note that, according to Eurostat, Sweden had the lowest excess mortality in Europe during the pandemic, which is ironic because we didn't have any forcing measures at all throughout the pandemic and no lockdowns. The conclusion that I can draw from that is that the "media thing" that you are referring to, Jimmi - I would call it irrational moral panic and cancel culture - has lead a lot of policy makers to make catastrophic decisions.
Sweden had a massive amount of people working from home for near a year. Also plenty of people respecting the guidelines even if they were not enforced. It did not have the most extreme lockdowns or enforcement but a lot of things were done.
Especially in elderly care where the workers were using masks + face masks, washing hands between visits etc etc.
|
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. But an observational study that comes to the conclusion we want - now that's really strong evidence!
If we actually followed the science we wouldn't have done things like requiring universal masking in schools. There's no good evidence to support such a practice. Again, if people actually practiced what they preached and "trusted the experts" they would have realized that the World Health Organization and Unicef both recommend against requiring masks for children under 5 and don't recommend routine masking of children aged 6-11 due to the potential impact of learning and psychosocial development and instead should be considered only when community spread is high and there is sufficient access to masks among other things. Of course the "trust the experts" crowd is usually more interested in their own sanctimonious virtue signaling than actually listening to what someone like the WHO and Unicef say on an issue.
Take the case of the San Francisco Bay Area principal that called the police on a 4-year old with sensory issues to have them removed from school for not wearing a mask. To reiterate, the WHO recommends against masking children under 5, they also recommend against masking children with any disabilities that can't tolerate a mask. There's also no evidence that this 4 year old throwing a piece of cloth over his face is going to do anything to protect anyone. It's like a triple whammy of anti-science idiocy.
|
|
|
On March 06 2023 09:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2023 02:00 Falling wrote:
Edit: in canada those were not very popular because not only did it really hurt small business but it was happening when all the restrictions were lifted or scheduled to be lifted, in some cases it slowed them. There is a small percentage of people who think it was really cool though, many in my area, few of them would be considered deep thinkers. They just think they were standing up to the man, not caring that they were greatly damagingvthe people they claimed to be standing up for.
It began when Trudeau was increasing restrictions at a point when the rest of the world was starting to back off. (The trucker vaccine mandate... which as far as viral spread made little sense. Pretty isolated job.) And if we are to measure a protest by finding a selection of its worst elements, then nearly every protest would fail this test. There certainly were some bad apples in the mix, but as the protest at the capital continued, I saw a fair amount of coalescing around a leadership that was interested in ejecting the extreme elements and to keep the protest along peaceful lines. Had the protest continued, I think you would see that effort consolidating. (This was a protest that didn't really start with much leadership, but unlike some protests I can think of, we actually were seeing consolidation and simplification of the message though things were granted rather messy at the beginning. Not every protest begins by tapping into highly organized churches like Martin Luther King Jr.) The Star is a liberal rag, and the Liberals were busy hyperventilating thinking they had found their December 6, describing it as an insurrection and various other ridiculous nonsense. I guess it worked for a lot of people. How the protest has been characterized is how Conservatives would normally portray the protests of their opposite number: Right-wing commentators sought to discredit these protests by heavily featuring and platforming the most off-topic or radical protesters, and then seeking to paint all protesters with that broad brush. This approach generally failed, and was mocked by the mainstream press, which depicted the diversity of protesters and homemade signs as a sign of the depth of the movement’s support.
But in the case of the truckers, that hatchet-job approach is working, because our society’s values have changed, and because the target audience is different. Smearing an Entire Protest Movement as Fascistic Will Come Back to Haunt My Fellow Leftists It was a horribly timed and dumb protest, the Coutts one was likely worse, or at least the bad apples were more dangerous (plotting to kill RCMP and bringing in weapons to do so). Why was it dumb? Well you are claiming that the restrictions are hurting business, while actively hurting a whole bunch of small businesses. The amount of economic damage that the Coutts one did was striking as well. It was super embarassing for the conservatives here because they had put in a law to break up protests of critical infrastructure, plainly to stop Indigenous and environmentalists from slowing down pipelines and other resource projects. But when their supports caused way more economic damage they did nothing. It is one of the many reasons Kenny lost one of the easiest political jobs in Canada. I do not like JT, nor do I think characterizing a whole group of people is a good thing, but pretending like this was a group of sensible protesters is just as foolish. If they were not run by a bunch of idiots maybe it would have been and they would have caused problems for the people that they were mad at instead of a bunch of people that they were supposedly fighting for. It became clear they were just generally mad and wanted to cause problems and have a "cool" rebellious party. There speeches rarely made sense, it was wholly an embarrassment. No point trying to pain it any other way.
So do you also believe in using emergency measures like warrantless wiretapping and freezing bank accounts of indigenous people that are blocking infrastructure because they are hurting businesses and the economy?
|
|
|
On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want.
It almost sounds like you wrote this because you saw my posts, but my two posts are basically a preemptive response to what you just wrote. For example, the meta-analysis very clearly states - multiple times - that it can't make confident conclusions; it has nothing to do with the "conclusions I want". And I wrote about that in my first post, using several direct quotes: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=689#13775
And then I essentially reiterated it, using slightly different language, in my second post: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=689#13780
So let me try a third time: If a meta-analysis said something like "We looked at a bunch of studies that properly controlled for various biases and potentially confounding variables, and came to a very confident conclusion about X", then that'd be great! However, the Cochrane meta-analysis very clearly - and repeatedly - noted that the assessed trials weren't to be blindly accepted due to a variety of problems, such as "poor reporting", "rarely measuring harm", "under-investigation", "adherence with interventions was low", and "the risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear". The mask results cited had low/no confidence attached to them, and precise reasons were given as to why they weren't to be trusted.
If we're looking to learn about mask efficacy, we should all be looking for meta-analyses of good studies/trials, not meta-analyses of bad ones. That doesn't mean this Cochrane meta-analysis has no value though; it certainly goes into plenty of detail regarding other "physical interventions", and I thought it did a great job of cautioning people against blindly accepting results from studies without considering bias and other research problems + Show Spoiler +although you and Elroi seem to have not noticed those key parts.
|
You're missing the point. The conclusion of all the studies and all the efforts within the scientific community to address this questions is still that Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness Now, why do you think it is so difficult to determine whether face masks help or not in the general community? Is it because masks are so effective and important or is it because they probably don't help at all?
|
This is not how it works. Scientists can tell you the magnitude of an effect but they will also tell you their confidence in it. Saying no confidence does not equal no effect.
|
On March 06 2023 21:39 Elroi wrote:You're missing the point. The conclusion of all the studies and all the efforts within the scientific community to address this questions is still that Show nested quote +Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Your meta-analysis source doesn't look at "all the studies and all the efforts within the scientific community to address this questions", and you can't extrapolate or generalize what you think the good studies say based on the meta-analysis of bad studies. The meta-analysis literally says, repeatedly, to not do what you're doing. It's explicitly the most important part of the Cochrane meta-analysis, and you missed it.
By the way, here's a direct counterexample to your claim that all the studies assert that wearing masks makes little/no difference (and there are many, many, many more counterexamples):
Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows
Researchers found that surgical masks impede the spread of COVID-19 and that just a few, low-cost interventions increase mask-wearing compliance.
A large, randomized trial led by researchers at Stanford Medicine and Yale University has found that wearing a surgical face mask over the mouth and nose is an effective way to reduce the occurrence of COVID-19 in community settings.
It also showed that relatively low-cost, targeted interventions to promote mask-wearing can significantly increase the use of face coverings in rural, low-income countries. Based on the results, the interventional model is being scaled up to reach tens of millions of people in Southeast Asia and Latin America over the next few months.
The findings were released Sept. 1 on the Innovations for Poverty Action website, prior to their publication in a scientific journal, because the information is considered of pressing importance for public health as the pandemic worsens in many parts of the world.
“We now have evidence from a randomized, controlled trial that mask promotion increases the use of face coverings and prevents the spread of COVID-19,” said Stephen Luby, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford. “This is the gold standard for evaluating public health interventions. Importantly, this approach was designed be scalable in lower- and middle-income countries struggling to get or distribute vaccines against the virus.” ...
“This is statistically significant and, we believe, probably a low estimate of the effectiveness of surgical masks in community settings,” Styczynski said. The fact that the study was conducted at a time when the rate of transmission of COVID-19 in Bangladesh was relatively low, that a minority of symptomatic people consented to blood collection to confirm their disease status, and that fewer than half of the people in the intervention villages used facial coverings means the true impact of near-universal masking could be much more significant — particularly in areas with more indoor gatherings and events, she noted.
“If mask-wearing rates were higher, we would expect to see an even bigger impact on transmission,” Luby said. “But even at this level, we saw the largest impact on older people who are at greater risk of death from COVID-19.”
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html
Now, we can have a conversation about whether or not you think studies that show positive effects of wearing masks are legitimate or unbiased or deserve high levels of confidence, but you simply can't assert that "The conclusion of all the studies and all the efforts within the scientific community to address this questions is still that "Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness"". That's just ridiculous.
Edit: Here's another one, just for fun. The title of this study is literally "Mask wearing in community settings reduces SARS-CoV-2 transmission", so you can't possibly claim that no studies exist that say mask-wearing is effective: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119
|
On March 06 2023 11:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. It almost sounds like you wrote this because you saw my posts, but my two posts are basically a preemptive response to what you just wrote.
You actually deleted half the paragraph there
On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. But an observational study that comes to the conclusion we want - now that's really strong evidence!
The issue is not how you're treating the Cohcrane meta-analysis. The issue is how you're treating it in conjunction with how you would normally accept a random observational retrospective study as gospel if it agreed with the conclusions you wanted to draw. From 3 years of this threads existence your modus operandi for digesting scientific articles is if you disagree with the conclusion you jump to the limitations section of the study and copy/paste the study limitations but if you agree with the conclusion there is nary a mention of the study limitations.
|
On March 07 2023 06:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2023 11:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. It almost sounds like you wrote this because you saw my posts, but my two posts are basically a preemptive response to what you just wrote. You actually deleted half the paragraph there Show nested quote +On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. But an observational study that comes to the conclusion we want - now that's really strong evidence!
I deleted the half of the paragraph that wasn't relevant to the Cochrane meta-analysis, because I was replying to precisely that. Your second half of the paragraph (the one sentence I left out) was trying to change the subject to something I've never done - advocated for a different study or meta-analysis that absolutely admits that it has low/no confidence. I wasn't interested in being baited by you into that obvious red herring, and I'm not taking the bait right now either, which is why I'm going to ignore the rest of your most recent post where you assert a whataboutism about how you think I've been behaving in this thread over the past three years. I am glad, however, that you agree with me on the Cochrane meta-analysis, with your "The issue is not how you're treating the Cohcrane meta-analysis" statement. (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.)
|
On March 07 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 06:19 BlackJack wrote:On March 06 2023 11:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. It almost sounds like you wrote this because you saw my posts, but my two posts are basically a preemptive response to what you just wrote. You actually deleted half the paragraph there On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. But an observational study that comes to the conclusion we want - now that's really strong evidence!
I deleted the half of the paragraph that wasn't relevant to the Cochrane meta-analysis, because I was replying to precisely that. Your second half of the paragraph (the one sentence I left out) was trying to change the subject to something I've never done - advocated for a different study or meta-analysis that absolutely admits that it has low/no confidence. I wasn't interested in being baited by you into that obvious red herring, and I'm not taking the bait right now either, which is why I'm going to ignore the rest of your most recent post where you assert a whataboutism about how you think I've been behaving in this thread over the past three years. I am glad, however, that you agree with me on the Cochrane meta-analysis, with your "The issue is not how you're treating the Cohcrane meta-analysis" statement. (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.)
(And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.)
Yeah and that RCT you cited (The Bangladesh study) was also included in the Cochrane meta-analysis of 78 RCT studies that, as you put it, was full of "bad studies." I guess you found the 1 study of the 78 that was not a "bad one" and by the sheerest of coincidences it's the one that supports your conclusion. This is quintessential cherry picking.
|
On March 07 2023 07:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2023 06:19 BlackJack wrote:On March 06 2023 11:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. It almost sounds like you wrote this because you saw my posts, but my two posts are basically a preemptive response to what you just wrote. You actually deleted half the paragraph there On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. But an observational study that comes to the conclusion we want - now that's really strong evidence!
I deleted the half of the paragraph that wasn't relevant to the Cochrane meta-analysis, because I was replying to precisely that. Your second half of the paragraph (the one sentence I left out) was trying to change the subject to something I've never done - advocated for a different study or meta-analysis that absolutely admits that it has low/no confidence. I wasn't interested in being baited by you into that obvious red herring, and I'm not taking the bait right now either, which is why I'm going to ignore the rest of your most recent post where you assert a whataboutism about how you think I've been behaving in this thread over the past three years. I am glad, however, that you agree with me on the Cochrane meta-analysis, with your "The issue is not how you're treating the Cohcrane meta-analysis" statement. (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.) (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.)Yeah and that RCT you cited (The Bangladesh study) was also included in the Cochrane meta-analysis of 78 RCT studies that, as you put it, was full of "bad studies." I guess you found the 1 study of the 78 that was not a "bad one" and by the sheerest of coincidences it's the one that supports your conclusion. This is quintessential cherry picking.
You seriously need to read what I write, before posting replies. The RCT I cited was a counterexample to his claim that no studies are pro-mask. That's it. Not only did I not assert that my source is necessarily a perfect study, but I preemptively qualified that post to make it clear that I'm not doing the thing that you eventually accused me of doing. I wrote this: "Now, we can have a conversation about whether or not you think studies that show positive effects of wearing masks are legitimate or unbiased or deserve high levels of confidence, but you simply can't assert that "The conclusion of all the studies and all the efforts within the scientific community to address this questions is still that "Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness"". That's just ridiculous."
If that pro-mask RCT was already inside the Cochrane meta-analysis, then Elroi disproved his own assertion with his own source, without even knowing it. And yet you attacked me instead of correcting Elroi.
I know you're eager to try and pick another fight with me over nothing, but that's never ended well for you in the past. You need to get a new hobby.
|
On March 07 2023 07:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 07:38 BlackJack wrote:On March 07 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2023 06:19 BlackJack wrote:On March 06 2023 11:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. It almost sounds like you wrote this because you saw my posts, but my two posts are basically a preemptive response to what you just wrote. You actually deleted half the paragraph there On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. But an observational study that comes to the conclusion we want - now that's really strong evidence!
I deleted the half of the paragraph that wasn't relevant to the Cochrane meta-analysis, because I was replying to precisely that. Your second half of the paragraph (the one sentence I left out) was trying to change the subject to something I've never done - advocated for a different study or meta-analysis that absolutely admits that it has low/no confidence. I wasn't interested in being baited by you into that obvious red herring, and I'm not taking the bait right now either, which is why I'm going to ignore the rest of your most recent post where you assert a whataboutism about how you think I've been behaving in this thread over the past three years. I am glad, however, that you agree with me on the Cochrane meta-analysis, with your "The issue is not how you're treating the Cohcrane meta-analysis" statement. (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.) (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.)Yeah and that RCT you cited (The Bangladesh study) was also included in the Cochrane meta-analysis of 78 RCT studies that, as you put it, was full of "bad studies." I guess you found the 1 study of the 78 that was not a "bad one" and by the sheerest of coincidences it's the one that supports your conclusion. This is quintessential cherry picking. You seriously need to read what I write, before posting replies. The RCT I cited was a counterexample to his claim that no studies are pro-mask. That's it.
That’s it
So the RCT you cited was only used as a counter example to a very specific point that Elroi made yet you still cited it again in another post that wasn’t even directed at Elroi. You seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of this one study despite the very narrow and singular reason you claimed to have cited it for.
|
On March 07 2023 08:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 07:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2023 07:38 BlackJack wrote:On March 07 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2023 06:19 BlackJack wrote:On March 06 2023 11:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. It almost sounds like you wrote this because you saw my posts, but my two posts are basically a preemptive response to what you just wrote. You actually deleted half the paragraph there On March 06 2023 08:57 BlackJack wrote:
Everybody knows that part of "following the science" is to handwave away a Cochrane meta-analysis of RCTs if it doesn't come to the conclusion you want. But an observational study that comes to the conclusion we want - now that's really strong evidence!
I deleted the half of the paragraph that wasn't relevant to the Cochrane meta-analysis, because I was replying to precisely that. Your second half of the paragraph (the one sentence I left out) was trying to change the subject to something I've never done - advocated for a different study or meta-analysis that absolutely admits that it has low/no confidence. I wasn't interested in being baited by you into that obvious red herring, and I'm not taking the bait right now either, which is why I'm going to ignore the rest of your most recent post where you assert a whataboutism about how you think I've been behaving in this thread over the past three years. I am glad, however, that you agree with me on the Cochrane meta-analysis, with your "The issue is not how you're treating the Cohcrane meta-analysis" statement. (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.) (And, by the way, my last post literally gave an example of a randomized controlled trial, not just an "observational study", but I guess you don't really care about the difference when you're trying to attack me.)Yeah and that RCT you cited (The Bangladesh study) was also included in the Cochrane meta-analysis of 78 RCT studies that, as you put it, was full of "bad studies." I guess you found the 1 study of the 78 that was not a "bad one" and by the sheerest of coincidences it's the one that supports your conclusion. This is quintessential cherry picking. You seriously need to read what I write, before posting replies. The RCT I cited was a counterexample to his claim that no studies are pro-mask. That's it. That’s itSo the RCT you cited was only used as a counter example to a very specific point that Elroi made yet you still cited it again in another post that wasn’t even directed at Elroi. You seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of this one study despite the very narrow and singular reason you claimed to have cited it for.
That is correct. I had posted it only with the intent of refuting Elroi's claim on the topic of pro-mask vs. anti/non-mask. I didn't initially realize that it would additionally work as a refutation to your claim on the separate topic of observational study vs. RCT as well, but I'm satisfied with the happy coincidence. You're the one who gave the study the additional mileage, with your hasty attack, not me. Now, did you have anything of substance to discuss about covid, or are you going to continue being a dishonest interlocutor? If it's the latter, then feel free to have the last word.
Edit: To extend an olive branch that you don't really deserve, I completely agree with you that "Take the case of the San Francisco Bay Area principal that called the police on a 4-year old with sensory issues to have them removed from school for not wearing a mask" was an insanely stupid move for the principal. 4-year-olds should not have the police called on them, especially when they have sensory issues, and especially over something like whether or not they want to wear a mask. (I'm assuming the full story is pretty much that cut-and-dry; the link you posted is paywalled and I can't read the full article, so I will simply believe your summary of what happened.)
|
On March 06 2023 21:39 Elroi wrote:You're missing the point. The conclusion of all the studies and all the efforts within the scientific community to address this questions is still that Show nested quote +Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness Now, why do you think it is so difficult to determine whether face masks help or not in the general community? Is it because masks are so effective and important or is it because they probably don't help at all?
I agree. The problem is that masks are so powerful, you are making a personal sacrifice and hide your face, for the better health of the grand community. Masks are also medical equipment, so their effectiveness is "scientific" by definition, right?
It is almost like discussing religion. If you believe masks are important, even the thinnest shred of evidence they might help make them worth it.
It is also true that Sweden did a lot to prevent covid-deaths, but they did not lock people in their homes, close schools or fine people for not wearing masks in public. The reason why is interesting: politicians in Sweden do not have the power to direct the response, the job and power went only to appointed officials, qualified by merits rather than popularity.
|
The evidence that masks help is both scientific, anecdotal and statistical.
Nobody was weighing up masks vs. socializing until you did it.
The argument was about something different.
If you wanna play Captain hindsight just be straightforward about it.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 07 2023 19:38 Artisreal wrote:
The evidence that masks help is both scientific, anecdotal and statistical.
Nobody was weighing up masks vs. socializing until you did it.
The argument was about something different.
If you wanna play Captain hindsight just be straightforward about it.
It was not hindsight, I absolutely hated how quickly people changed their minds about covid and the necessity of different measures. I certainly changed myself too, we are all in the same boat. I probably even wore masks more hours than the TL average.
A new study about long covid just dropped, showing that 49% of covid infected showed long covid symptoms vs 47% in the control group. It is only one study, but this indicates a few things:
-The definition of long covid is too wide to be useful.
-The condition had other or multiple causes in the Grand majority of cases.
-Lockdowns and limited social life is severely unhealthy.
Source:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802893
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
