"Science, Politics, And COVID: Will Truth Prevail?"

You can not even start to refute what I said in my post.

You can't be anti-science so thoroughly as you state and then get away with suggesting you have ANY interest in science.99

 

Refute your post? You didn't say anything!
Lets go through it again:
"My entire argument is based in reality not theoretical, lab condition conclusions."

How in the hell is this "anti-science" (which, btw, is just another one of an ever growing list of lazy liberal pejoratives)? Show me the paper that studies the efficacy of practical mask use the general public. It doesn't exist? Then look at the F**KING DATA!!!! It's there. You make not it but it but its there.

" There is no state that I'm aware of that ONLY removed mask mandates and had infections go up. "
I know reality just pisses you off, doesn't it? You just waaaaant so badly for this pandemic to drag on and on. You lefties are sad bunch of drama queens.

Anyway, the post you took exception to with your well thought out and presented critique </sarcasm> is consistent and in sync with science.

 

But there was a state that did the opposite.
'Natural experiment' paints clear picture: Masks work. (msnbc.com)

 

A good percentage of Americans will not accept truths anymore due to the "Fake News" phenomenon championed by our previous President and the power of propaganda.

 

Interesting. Do you think there were any variables other than masks that might possibly explain the large divergence? I find it HILLARIOUS that Maddow thinks her viewers are so stupid. She hammers the point that "science" is rarely so clear while completely ignoring one of the tenets of science: correlation does not imply causation. In fact, we can't really draw ANY reliable conclusions from her chart let alone blatantly obvious ones. Of course Maddow knows that but she doesn't believe her brain dead audience does. What a joke.

 

Sure they do go away like that. If viruses didn't go away like that everybody would have colds all the time. You quarantine for two weeks and it's gone. Either the vaccine protects you or it doesn't.

The question really is: are you a germophobe?

 

This post is pretty funny coming from someone that tried to make his point by saying the opposite.
I think there were several states that instituted masks and closed bars and got good results.
Fla., Texas, and Arizona if I remember correctly.
By the way... Did you read the post about the size of particle that surgical masks reduce.

 

Feel free to cite your sources.

What I've posted is from the CDC.

 

No, that is not even SLIGHTLY the question.

The questions of import have to do with protecting America against a pandemic that has caused ~600,000 deaths.

Ignoring the science on this topic is not a methodology for doing that.

 

They exist in the air (and on surfaces) on their own.

 

Of course if you close bars and in-person dining and schools and malls etc etc you will limit spread. What you can't do is implement a multi faceted approach and then say that masks are responsible for any observation (which is exactly what Maddow appears to do).

On the other hand there people on the left who had predicted a huge infection spike in states like Texas and that is not happening. However, I agree that unless you control for other variables you cannot draw a lot of conclusions about mask effectiveness other than: THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY RIGHT NOW. I'm fine with that.

 

Medical science is saying you are wrong in your conclusion here.

YOU may draw some other conclusion, but I don't see you identifying ANY legit basis for suggesting that medical science is crap.

 

If you are worried about vaccinated people being vectors, you are a germophobe.

 

Of course you don't, you can't think for yourself.
How's this for a legit basis: the largest state in the nation opened up and covid cases did not increase. I know that you need your masters to tell you what to make of this but I do not.

 

Sure he did. The prediction of an infection spike in TX didn't pan out. Bad predictions indicate bad science.

 

If you are ignoring the CDC on infecting other people with a potentially deadly virus, you are a sociopath.

 

You are picking results you like. That is absolutely NOT science.

There are a number of states that have relaxed the guidelines in question. Picking one state that didn't follow the prediction is NOT a revocation of science in ANY WAY.

 

Well, there is FL, too.

Your attitude is the epitome of confirmation bias.

 

Bad predictions indicate it was a prediction, not a fact. Predictions are best guesses, they are not always right.

 

Alas, no. Sociopaths have an easier time in life.

I just don't trust the CDC.

 

And when people make bad predictions you are well advised to pay less attention to them.

 

Nothing I've said would suggest that.

 

Sure you did. You ignore inconvenient facts. Bad predictions are the result of bad assumptions. I have lost faith in the CDC's ability to control infectious diseases. I think they are being ridiculously overcautious because they, too, understand they don't know what they are talking about.

 

Your idea here works in a social setting.

But, rejecting medical science based on what you consider to be a "bad" prediction is not even slightly justified. It's about the most ridiculous reaction imaginable.

Let's remember that these predictions are based on a specific characterization of human response.

If that response turned out to be better than what was assumed by the prediction, then GREAT!!! What more could one POSSIBLY ask for?

Maybe people reacted to the knowledge that bad behavior could still lead to serious spikes in COVID.

 

What the HELL did you think the CDC could do to "control" infectious diseases???

Infectious diseases are spread by our population. The CDC doesn't have the authority or power to control our population.

All they can do is analyze what is happening and recommend to the public the best methods for reducing the problem. They have significant resources for doing that.