Topic: Sturgis redux

[carnivorous chicken]

That seems to be the consensus on this thread...


"People outside not wearing masks (as well as people inside not wearing masks) spread Covid to the neighboring states and to an unknowable amount of people all across the country. A majority of the pople who live in Sturgis wanted to postpone the rally, but politicians caved to business interests and allowed the rally. As a result, there are infections and deaths that could have been preventable, but some people just had to go to Sturgis -- in the name of "freedom"?"

For some people I guess it is difficult to understand the difference between scientifically trying to trace a superspreader event and acknowledging its toll and the posting of graphs completely devoid of context -- that, as Scottly has poitned out, contain information that is completely contrary to the point you're trying to make. Without context, things such as weather (cold weatehr drives people inside), school openings, fatigue, etc., are all contributing. I don't think mask mandates are driving up infection rates when scientific consensus tells us that wearing a mask is the great way to protect others. You're arguing a correlation without causation. Do you know much about the Philippines?

But hey, wearing a mask isn't in the Constitution, and that's good enough for some people. Hilarious for most others, but there you go.

A quarter of a million people dead in the USA and counting. Goodtryer, why do you think that is?

[goodtryer]

I do it, it's "post hoc..."

You do it, it's "because reasons..."

THAT difference is the thing that's difficult to understand.

The entire premise of your post is that X led to Y.

Doesn't have anything to do with the Philippines. But since you brought it up, I guess you're not going to explain why the graph doesn't agree with your logic.

[Don R]

 I just saw a nurse interviewed in S Dakota. People are dying (multiple instances) and still won't admit they have corona and all they want to do in their final moments is argue that it's not real. The Nurse said they could be calling family but spend their time angry and in denial. 

[carnivorous chicken]

I do it, it's "post hoc..."

You do it, it's "because reasons..."

THAT difference is the thing that's difficult to understand.

The entire premise of your post is that X led to Y.

Doesn't have anything to do with the Philippines. But since you brought it up, I guess you're not going to explain why the graph doesn't agree with your logic.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Let me help you here. In a chart that you posted, there is a line that says mask mandate, and then the rates of infection go up. So you're infering that one caused the other, or any number of other things -- it's competely unclear without context or any kind of statement about causation. You do realize that you posted a graph of the Philippines which is why I asked you about it?

When you ask me to explain why the graph doesn't "agree with (my) logic" -- do you say that after having read what I just posted (citing multiple causes for Covid spikes) or do you just ignore that part?

I invented the piano necktie.

[carnivorous chicken]

I just saw a nurse interviewed in S Dakota. People are dying (multiple instances) and still won't admit they have corona and all they want to do in their final moments is argue that it's not real. The Nurse said they could be calling family but spend their time angry and in denial.

Same thing has been happening here, along with conspiracies that hospitals cause Covid, or that there are "quotas" for how many people must die in hospitals. As a result, people aren't taking family to hospitals until they are on the verge of death, which means that the hospital can't save them, which means they die at the hospital, and it makes their conspiracy seem founded. It's madness.

[Don R]

 It would be cruel for me to say what I'm thinking so I'll bow out now.

[carnivorous chicken]

It would be cruel for me to say what I'm thinking so I'll bow out now.

Although I don't do as much work on conspiracies and rumors as I did before, I still follow the literature a little. There has been some neat work out of Europe in the past two years in the field of social psychology looking to explain why people believe conspiracies and also contradict scientific consensus despite having no sceintific expertise -- in the context of global warming, for example, but also currently with Covid that will likely get published in the next year or so. It boils down to a desire to feel "special" -- literally. It will motivate people to ignore facts and reality and seek out information that confirms the conspiracy. No amount of reason will change their minds.

[goodtryer]

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Let me help you here. In a chart that you posted, there is a line that says mask mandate, and then the rates of infection go up. So you're infering that one caused the other, or any number of other things -- it's competely unclear without context or any kind of statement about causation. You do realize that you posted a graph of the Philippines which is why I asked you about it?

When you ask me to explain why the graph doesn't "agree with (my) logic" -- do you say that after having read what I just posted (citing multiple causes for Covid spikes) or do you just ignore that part?

I invented the piano necktie.

Yes, I was there when I posted the multiple graphs that contradict your X-leads-to-Y assertion. No, I was not there when you posted a logical response that explains why your assertion is correct.

[calj737]

Although I don't do as much work on conspiracies and rumors as I did before, I still follow the literature a little. There has been some neat work out of Europe in the past two years in the field of social psychology looking to explain why people believe conspiracies and also contradict scientific consensus despite having no sceintific expertise -- in the context of global warming, for example, but also currently with Covid that will likely get published in the next year or so. It boils down to a desire to feel "special" -- literally. It will motivate people to ignore facts and reality and seek out information that confirms the conspiracy. No amount of reason will change their minds.

I sure hope they spell my fcuking name right this time...

[carnivorous chicken]

Although I don't do as much work on conspiracies and rumors as I did before, I still follow the literature a little. There has been some neat work out of Europe in the past two years in the field of social psychology looking to explain why people believe conspiracies and also contradict scientific consensus despite having no sceintific expertise -- in the context of global warming, for example, but also currently with Covid that will likely get published in the next year or so. It boils down to a desire to feel "special" -- literally. It will motivate people to ignore facts and reality and seek out information that confirms the conspiracy. No amount of reason will change their minds.

I sure hope they spell my fcuking name right this time...

Oh Cal, you lovable galoot! Turn that grumpy frownie emoji upside down! I forgot that just because -- wait, is it 97% or 98%? -- whatever, the vast majority of climatologists are in agreement doesn't mean we can't save a little space for the other guys.

Check this out, though. I think you'd dig it. It's what the kids call a "dank meme." It's a picture of a famous TV celebrity, and the text is something like "Imagine spending years thinking that scientists, mass media, teachers, etc., have been lying to you and along comes this guy..." For me, just the first part is funny.

[scottly]

As far as I'm concerned the refusal of many to don a mask when in close proximity to other people, especially when indoors, shows a total lack of respect for the safety and well being of their fellow man.

Wilbur, I think what some find ironic and hypocritical is this “mandate” to something new and hyped, yet I’ve never seen lockdown mania or mask paranoia over other airborne diseases, like TB. TB kills more than 1.5M people globally every year. And has killed tens of millions throughout time. Still no vaccine. So why not masks?

Cal, just what prompted you to inject TB into the discussion? I ask because 2-3 weeks ago someone told me the same BS, so I checked it out and found the same info as 'Chicken, that there were less than 600 deaths per year in the US. You both must be following the same twitter feeds, or whatever the on-line equivalent of the National Enquirer is. BTW, TB is a bacterial infection, not a virus, so a vaccine is not applicable.

[Don R]

 Thanks CC, having some insight into that thought process gives me a little relief from my total lack of understanding of how these folks can argue against what I see as an easily proven fact.
  If I need surgery I prefer hand washing, gloves and masks, thank you.
 
 

[calj737]

Cal, just what prompted you to inject TB into the discussion? I ask because 2-3 weeks ago someone told me the same BS, so I checked it out and found the same info as 'Chicken, that there were less than 600 deaths per year in the US. You both must be following the same twitter feeds, or whatever the on-line equivalent of the National Enquirer is. BTW, TB is a bacterial infection, not a virus, so a vaccine is not applicable.

Apparently you remain literacy challenged. Or like many, you ingest only the excerpt convenient to your argument: "Sure, it has a lower annual mortality rate in the US, but it fits exactly the criteria being touted with respect to Covid. But it’s all crickets..."

The source of that info is the WHO. You know, the penultimate source for global health statistics. It doesn't matter whether its a bacterial infection or a virus, the spreadability of it airborne, the mortality rate is annually very high, and yet no mask mandate. Seems all too convenient to cry "different strokes for different folks" especially when you decry people traipsing around in your public area with the potential to infect you.

Or do you get your logic from the same group-think cauldron as the rest of the acolytes?

[goodtryer]

You local experts on masks & disease transmission are needed at the CDC & WHO. They aren't getting the same "easily proven facts" you guys are:
 

CDC Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal, May 2020  https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR2V1hPqN0WKb2kXVExP_1UE9ARvru6mtPZvZN0w1jx0S3l3fXLhxMP_bXs

“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

WHO: Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, 5 June 2020 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC_Masks-Children-2020.1

“Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”   (Oh my! Other harms? Say it ain't so..)

WHO: Advice on the use of masks for children in the community in the context of COVID-19, 21 August 2020

“Evidence on the benefits and harms of children wearing masks to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses is limited.”


https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

In summary, though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people. We are very concerned about messaging that suggests cloth masks or face coverings can replace physical distancing. We also worry that the public doesn't understand the limitations of cloth masks and face coverings when we observe how many people wear their mask under their nose or even under their mouth, remove their masks when talking to someone nearby, or fail to practice physical distancing when wearing a mask.


What?! But this can't be! People who "follow the literature" and "fully understand the subject" told me the masks worked!!!
Comedy GOLD, Jerry!

"But this is different" in 3, 2, 1...

[carnivorous chicken]

You're crackin' me up and living up to your name, goodtryer! Good try, once again, you cantankerous contrarian!

First study is about the flu, not Covid.

The second study is about children. Although some people may think and behave like children, for the purposes of this post we are assuming you are not.

The third study compares cloth masks, N95 masks, and respirators. N95 masks, according to the study, are more effective. Here, let me cherry pick a few quotes like you did:

"An N95 FFR on coughing human subjects showed greater effectiveness at limiting lateral particle dispersion than surgical masks (15 cm and 30 cm dispersion, respectively) in comparison to no mask (68 cm)."

It notes that due to shortages, N95 masks should not be worn. But the study was published on April 1, so it was written some time in February or March, perhaps reflecting the US administration's confusing messaging on mask wearing in a misguided attempt to prevent a shortage for health care workers -- who they know needed masks. I know it's nine months later (And nine months after the study was published) and there are still a lot of people who are confused (including here), but the messaging on masks has been pretty consistent.

"Despite the current limited scientific data detailing their effectiveness, we support the wearing of face coverings by the public when mandated and when in close contact with people whose infection status they don't know."

So if you're going to cite an article to support not wearing a mask, perhaps you should find an article that states you shouldn't wear a mask.

Here, from Who (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks?gclid=Cj0KCQiAhs79BRD0ARIsAC6XpaWqpz4iuReoCSuGHiZtXhGGqv72jWXd5Wjdf0j9KBOwtbzrUAWgnzcaAjtWEALw_wcB)

Make wearing a mask a normal part of being around other people.

Here, from the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html)

CDC recommends community use of masks, specifically non-valved multi-layer cloth masks, to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Here's some more recent research you might want to have a peek at: (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e039424.info)

"Conclusions The current coronavirus pandemic has left many communities without access to N95 face masks. Our findings suggest that face masks made from layered common fabric can help filter ultrafine particles and provide some protection for the wearer when commercial face masks are unavailable."

While it's kind of funny to spend time looking for stuff that confirms your bias and cherry picking the results, citing studies that aren't about Covid or are about children, posting sentences from studies that atually have different conclusions, not looking for (or more likely ignoring) more recent studies that contradict what you already think, and misrepresenting what major health organizations such as the CDC and WHO recommend (no, really, they recommend wearing masks), it's also somewhat reflective.

It boils down to a desire to feel "special" -- literally. It will motivate people to ignore facts and reality and seek out information that confirms the conspiracy. No amount of reason will change their minds.

[goodtryer]

First study is about the flu, not Covid.

Nice deflection. The study is about the efficiency of masks.

The second study is about children.

The study is about the efficiency of masks. IT'S IN THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE.

Getting back to the original premise for your post, doesn't the existence of all of this contradictory data/evidence/information/whatever give you ANY pause for reflection at all??

Without resorting to ad hominems like you have so many times previously or apologies like "I'm sorry you got mad"...


edit: missed bracket

[carnivorous chicken]

First study is about the flu, not Covid.

Nice deflection. The study is about the efficiency of masks.

The second study is about children.

The study is about the efficiency of masks. IT'S IN THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE.

Getting back to the original premise for your post, doesn't the existence of all of this contradictory data/evidence/information/whatever give you ANY pause for reflection at all??

Without resorting to ad hominems like you have so many times previously or apologies like "I'm sorry you got mad"...


edit: missed bracket

I'm sorry you are having trouble understanding the literature. I know it can be confusing, and perhaps tempting to single out one or two sentences that appear to support what you already believe. But rather than assert things that are the opposite of truth (such as the CDC or WHO don't recommend wearing masks when they clearly do) or getting lost as to what the article is talking about ("the article is about masks!" but in the context of the flu or children, and we are clearly (I think?) talking about adults and Covid) perhaps it's best to simply follow the conclusions and not get lost in all of the jargon of the articles' content.

Both the CDC and WHO recommend wearing masks as a precaution against the spread of Covid. So do myriad other accredited health organizations in the United States and elsewhere. You don't want to. I get it. We all get it. It's a pain sometimes. But we do it because it is the smart thing to do, and it shows that we care about those around us.

There are over a quarter million people dead in the United States and the death toll is rapidly increasing. Wearing a mask can decrease the death toll and the rate of infection. Doesn't that make wearing a mask a pretty small sacrifice of convenience for a pretty big payoff?

[goodtryer]

Cherry picking here, cherry picking there, we're all cherry picking. You just won't admit you're part of it. It's fine and I won't waste any more time trying to get you to.

You have moved the goalposts AGAIN. If you had asked me nicely to wear a mask, I might be more inclined to do so because, no, it's not a large sacrifice and I never said it was.

However, I object to being ordered to do it by unelected bureaucratic statists, lectured to about it by biased simpletons in the media, and harassed about it by blindly compliant masses who have never thought once about liberty, freedom, or independence.

You have made clear multiple times your disregard for the principles in the Constitution that guarantee the very freedom that it provides to do so. You reference it only when you find it convenient and you mock it when you disagree with it. Fine.

But you have no authority over me, no matter how loudly you shout it, no matter how earnestly you believe in your cause.

Your appeals to emotion and authority are hollow. Your obfuscations, distractions, and your willful blindness to directly contradictory evidence do not change reality.

I bid you peace, health, and happiness.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams, 1776

[jlh3rd]

You local experts on masks & disease transmission are needed at the CDC & WHO. They aren't getting the same "easily proven facts" you guys are:
 

CDC Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal, May 2020  https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR2V1hPqN0WKb2kXVExP_1UE9ARvru6mtPZvZN0w1jx0S3l3fXLhxMP_bXs

“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

WHO: Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, 5 June 2020 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC_Masks-Children-2020.1

“Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”   (Oh my! Other harms? Say it ain't so..)

WHO: Advice on the use of masks for children in the community in the context of COVID-19, 21 August 2020

“Evidence on the benefits and harms of children wearing masks to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses is limited.”


https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

In summary, though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people. We are very concerned about messaging that suggests cloth masks or face coverings can replace physical distancing. We also worry that the public doesn't understand the limitations of cloth masks and face coverings when we observe how many people wear their mask under their nose or even under their mouth, remove their masks when talking to someone nearby, or fail to practice physical distancing when wearing a mask.


What?! But this can't be! People who "follow the literature" and "fully understand the subject" told me the masks worked!!!
Comedy GOLD, Jerry!

"But this is different" in 3, 2, 1...

exactly.....but it won't matter on here. If someone believes that mankind is causing climate change, you'll never convince them that throwing trillions of dollars at it to control it will not work because we can't control it.
    I love the " follow the science " when, in fact, history has proven science can be wrong. Yep, I remember the " we're gonna freeze" back in the 70's.......Please don't hit me with the 20/20 hindsight, monday morning quarterbacking explaining how wrong they were.
     So, just where is all the evidence that people are NOT wearing masks, as someone on here supposedly stated as a fact,  because I don't see it. Please, show me the graph confirming the allegations.......Oh, that's right, anecdotal doesn't count with some on here, .....but , yet it's part of the picture whether someone wants to accept it or not......I see more mask wearing than ever.
     This thread was started strictly related to a follow up of sturgis...........I'm sorry, I though sturgis was just in south dakota, so why are cases rising worldwide?
       So the increase was predicted way back in the spring. So now it's here, as predicted, so why the outcry and finger pointing? ...masks or no masks, right?
        I've said it before, so you shut everything down again, case numbers drop, open up again, the cases will start rising...again...So you shut down again?
        I haven't seen one post or graph on here that shows the statistics relating to the countless thousands , if not millions, of victims of business closures and shutdowns, and the associated, connecting personal fallout.......none......so, I guess that just doesn't count as part of the other fatality rate...in the minds of the anti - constitutional minds. It matters to me.
        So now there's a 95% effective vaccine, thanks to ,well, we know.....and, as viruses do, mutations down the road will render that less effective....so, we mask up and shut down again? Or do we continue living with this virus as we do every year with the spanish flu variants?... I choose that....
        Gotta get to the gym, I don't spend my life consistently on this ipad.......Any inference from anyone on here that I do not feel sympathy for wuhan virus victims is on them, not from me.
         
       

       

[jlh3rd]

Cherry picking here, cherry picking there, we're all cherry picking. You just won't admit you're part of it. It's fine and I won't waste any more time trying to get you to.

You have moved the goalposts AGAIN. If you had asked me nicely to wear a mask, I might be more inclined to do so because, no, it's not a large sacrifice and I never said it was.

However, I object to being ordered to do it by unelected bureaucratic statists, lectured to about it by biased simpletons in the media, and harassed about it by blindly compliant masses who have never thought once about liberty, freedom, or independence.

You have made clear multiple times your disregard for the principles in the Constitution that guarantee the very freedom that it provides to do so. You reference it only when you find it convenient and you mock it when you disagree with it. Fine.

But you have no authority over me, no matter how loudly you shout it, no matter how earnestly you believe in your cause.

Your appeals to emotion and authority are hollow. Your obfuscations, distractions, and your willful blindness to directly contradictory evidence do not change reality.

I bid you peace, health, and happiness.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams, 1776

yep...Exactly......I guess they're gonna make us get a " vaccine " number stamped on my forehead if I wanna  be able to buy groceries..
    Don't EVER apologize to anyone trying to make you feel guilty for understanding what the constitution stands for. That is a tactic they use.

[carnivorous chicken]

Oh boy... we're back to the Constitution and "you can't make me!" and "It's the government! It's the media! It's the scientists!"

All rather than "It's the right thing to do."

You can't make this stuff up.

More than a quarter of a million people in the USA dead.

But you guys all showed "them" how hard you could freedom.

Stay safe.

[calj737]

More than a quarter of a million people in the USA dead.

Here's the problem with your mantra: is it possible that the number is incorrectly inflated? Not due to intentional cause, but merely due to "associated" death. Simply because someone has tested positive for Covid then dies, it is automatically attributed to a Covid-caused death. This is factually incorrect. And there are ample examples of persons and medical professionals attesting to this.

And if Covid is lethal, then why are so many testing positive yet not dying? Heck, there's heaps of people who test positive yet are asymptomatic. Whether they wore a mask or not, they are not dropping dead like flies.

250k dead is sad. Yet nearly 3,000,000 people die every year in the US and another close to 1,000,000 fetuses are aborted. So should we get all wound up over 250k?

Stats from the CDC for 2018:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 655,381
Cancer: 599,274
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 167,127
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 159,486
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 147,810
Alzheimer’s disease: 122,019
Diabetes: 84,946
Influenza and Pneumonia: 59,120
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 51,386
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 48,344

So with Covid added in post-2020, respiratory deaths will climb. Okay, yep, tragic. But is it apocalyptic? Not by a long shot.

From my end, I never believe in anything I don't know the truth of. Period. Carved in granite in my DNA. And that leads to-
- differing data on cause/effect on Covid. There's data to both sides of the argument. Which is correct? Which is undeniably true? You can't answer that because you take it on "faith" that the source of your information is infallible and accurate. And has been said, science often contradicts itself with further evidence. But over the cliff you go today not waiting for more, better information...

Personally I have traveled internationally for the past 2 years extensively. I even flew internationally to APAC in March during the height of transmission and spread. No mask. No mandate. No quarantine. Guess what, no infection. I have traveled still this calendar year domestically and have only worn a mask while aboard a domestic flight as it was required for travel by the carrier. Fine, happy to consent to their rules to use their service. But not in the airport coming or going. Guess what, no infection. How can that be? I am traveling to all the major "hotspots" and mingling with thousands upon thousands of non mask-wearing people and still not getting sick. It certainly has caused me to be dubious to the validity of the claims of morbidity and infection rates.

In my entire life I have never, ever had the flu. Not once. I have never had a flu shot. I don't get sick, I don't get infections, heck I barely get colds and I have 4 kids. I don't live an especially "healthy lifestyle" as dictated by the "mainstream" health professionals. Yet no illness. Hmmm.... Cause to ask, "Well, what then...?"

So you are welcome to believe as you do and live as you wish. But it is a fallacy to presume that others who live and choose to believe differently are ignorant, amoral, or intellectual cave-dwellers. Perhaps it is we, not you, who are enlightened enough to ask the tougher questions. Maybe not.But I guarantee those answers aren't coming from your mainstream sources as this point because they are speculating and projecting based upon theoretical models. Insufficient time and historical studies have not occurred to prove one way or another.

Until then, rant on all you wish-

[carnivorous chicken]

Comparisons to other causes of death are invalid, for numerous reasons that have been stated repeatedly. Please don't ask me or others to rehash them.

This is what your contribution sounds like, forgive the paraphrasing.

Wearing a mask saves lives and lessens the spread of Covid (overwhelming consensus from science).

You: "I don't believe the numbers"

They are verifiable, including the methodology as to how they are calculated, and many medical professionals think the number of deaths is actually higher than the official count. It's easy to find this information.

You: "People die of other things."

If only it was as simple as wearing a mask to help reduce heart disease, cancer, accidents and the other things you listed. A fire has started in a house -- it's seems like your'e saying "Don't put water on it, houses also fall from earthquakes and storms."

You: "People are getting sick with Covid, including asymptomatic people, and aren't dying."

Uh, yeah, no sh1t. Asymptomatic people who don't know they are sick and don't wear masks are potentially spreading it to people who are more vulnerable. Again, you're arguing that because the overall lethality rate is low compared to the number of poeple infected that it is no big deal. But as the number of people infected rises -- 11.3 million cases! -- so does the death toll, proportionately -- 247,000 people.

You: "I travelled in March at the height of the spread..."

March certainly was not the height of C19, it was the start for most places.

You: "Your mainstream sources..."

Science is based on consensus. Just as there is little anyone can do for people who think the Constitution means they shouldn't have the decency to wear a mask, there is little anyone can do for someone who thinks that the mass media, scientists, educators, health professionals, etc., ad infinitum, are lying to you (why, again?), that because you as an individual haven't gotten sick that the whole thing is overblown, that because people die of other causes then Covid is no big deal, etc. They just sound like self-justifications to avoid the inconvenience of a mask.

The information is pretty clear, straightforward, and backed by overwhelming consensus. Your fellow mask avoiders apparently gave up on trying to make scientific arguments when they realized they aren't sound, and reverted to "the Constitution" (see below). The justifications for not taking precautions are pretty thin compared to the benefits.

I'm curious, however, why you guys think they US has done so poorly with regard to C19 than other developed countries. I've asked it several times, but you guys just don't acknowledge it. Could it be because a large portion of the population just doesn't take it seriously enough and refused to take precautions?

[calj737]

Comparisons to other causes of death are invalid, for numerous reasons that have been stated repeatedly.

Only because it confounds your argument on the behavior contradiction.

They are verifiable, including the methodology as to how they are calculated, and many medical professionals think the number of deaths is actually higher than the official count. It's easy to find this information.

Just as it is to find information in conflict with it. So how do you determine which is true, and wholly accurate? You can't, nor can I.

You: "People are getting sick with Covid, including asymptomatic people, and aren't dying."

But that refutes your argument of lethality, yet you have not "data" to explain it.

But as the number of people infected rises -- 11.3 million cases! -- so does the death toll, proportionately -- 247,000 people.

Conjecture. Possible, yes, but unproven.

Science is based on consensus.

Science is based on provable data, no group-think and consensus. Consensus is achieved when the data proves the hypothesis.

The information is pretty clear, straightforward, and backed by overwhelming consensus. The justifications for not taking precautions are pretty thin compared to the benefits.

And yet, many folks who don't wear them aren't sick, exhibit no symptoms, and have tested negative. Assuming facts not in evidence on your part.

I'm curious, however, why you guys think they US has done so poorly with regard to C19 than other developed countries. I've asked it several times, but you guys just don't acknowledge it. Could it be because a large portion of the population just doesn't take it seriously enough and refused to take precautions?

That's your opinion that we have done poorly comparatively. It is not universally agreed in fact as has been contested here.

Hey, I could explain it all to you (again), but I'll never understand it for you.

[carnivorous chicken]

It must be nice to live in this alternative universe, where logic, science, the media, health professionals, common sense, evidence and other inconveniences simply do not matter. It also must be a bit strange to live life thinking that most everyone is lying to you, except for a (thankfully) small number of people who agree with you -- unfortunately mostly clustered in one country, which has objectively been among the worst in dealing with Covid. You win Cal -- it's all a concoction of lies from people who just can't see the truth.