As soon as the lecturer decided to criticize Florida they had a MASSIVe drop in hospitalizations for two consecutive weeks.
The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
As soon as the lecturer decided to criticize Florida they had a MASSIVe drop in hospitalizations for two consecutive weeks.
Hey look - Maybe I know what I'm talking about:
1. establish the starting condition. if you do not know this, you have no idea what any later numbers or changes mean. it also makes step 2 impossible.
These idiots that put together this study had no clue if the participants had COVID before.
Embarrassing lecturer - Even by your standards.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Honestly haven’t determined for sure yet
Going from Seattle to glacier National park and back
Gonna stay in Idaho going to and from but haven’t determined exactly where yet
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i'll be curious about your take if you decide to read the study and the rejoinder that you linked to
Last edited:
Tapate50
Well-known member
There are lots of small lodges along the way I'd imagine.
On the way out of the Frank Church and Middle Fork, we came out and stopped in North Fork, then Salmon and down to Stanley. Stanley is a very cool small town. It is the foothills of the Sawtooth mountain ranges and the hike up to Sawtooth Lake and Alpine lake is considered the best hike in all of Idaho. That big old lake is something to see up there.
Last edited:
Maybe when you read past the opening page you can let us know as well.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i read it a few days ago
and linked to it
my take is this is a pretty good study and adds to the already substantial body of evidence in favor of the efficacy of masks in reducing the spread of covid
They didn’t even know who was infected prior and you think this is a good study?
I guess that’s all we needed to hear to learn how to put a value on your “analysis”. I was able to pick apart the massive flaw in ten minutes.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
bump from September 4
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
They randomly assigned villages to the control group and the intervention group. I believe this is the way to do these things.
And they did attempt to control for case data so that they were similar in both groups. They also assigned villages in a way to equalize population density across the two groups.
Their method was to construct pairs of villages that were a minimum distance apart. Both villages in each pair were similar in terms of cases, population and population density. Then one village was assigned to the control group and one to the intervention group. Repeated for their entire sample. I think this is a good way to get two samples with similar characteristics. That way the resulting differences give you an idea of the effect of the intervention.
Last edited:
Yes they did all those things but if you have no clue who is naturally protected from the virus or not then all conclusions are irrelevant.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
They paired up the villages so they were similar in incidence of covid cases.
Kind of like North Dakota v South Dakota prior to the governor of North Dakota imposing the mandate.
Except they did this for thousands of villages. So you had a thousand chances to compare North and South Dakota after one of them stages a particular intervention.
That's the way to do it.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The results show about 10% less symptomatic seroprevalence in the villages with the interventions in favor of mask wearing. By now there are many studies showing the efficacy of masks. This adds to the mountain of evidence. And it is literally a mountain by now, you and sturg notwithstanding.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Ideally you would have tested each person in each village for seroprevalence at the start of the study and at the end of the study. That would be ideal if impractical. But using reported cases gets you a baseline for the two groups of villages that should be pretty similar.
Anyhow it is not as if this is the only study providing evidence in favor of the efficacy of masks. By now there is a mountain of evidence. For any study it is possible to point out some detail they could have done differently. Collectively, the evidence is overwhelming.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
There has only been 2 studies with RCT.
Both showed no effectiveness.
You can also see the lack of effectiveness in real world data, but those aren't scientific studies.
IIWII
sturg33
I
Like I dont get why people insist on tripling down on something that is not working.
Masks have been known to be ineffective against coronavirus for decades. This one is no different.
I get you dont want to admit you were wrong but at some point ita just embarrassing.
Behind closed doors they admitted they were worthless. After vaccination they admitted they were theater. Its nothing but a virtue signal.
If masks worked, we they would actually be making a difference. But they are not anywhere
Masks have been known to be ineffective against coronavirus for decades. This one is no different.
I get you dont want to admit you were wrong but at some point ita just embarrassing.
Behind closed doors they admitted they were worthless. After vaccination they admitted they were theater. Its nothing but a virtue signal.
If masks worked, we they would actually be making a difference. But they are not anywhere