We broke all records of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations today

You have admitted your wife is the only one to wear a mask at home.

You are a person (unless you are a bot here at PF). You say people wii not follow such recommendations after above admitting you do not wear a mask at home.

Then you admit the science clearly shows mask usage at home reduces transmission and would be more effective than public usage.

What now? You don’t wear a mask. You say people just won’t. Then you admit science supports wearing masks in the home. So what’s left for a reason you aren’t wearing a mask at home except you don’t want to? Is someone hiding behind your couch and every time you mask up they jump out, rip it off your face and tear it in half? Are you spot checked by some authority that fines you if you are caught with a mask on in your house? Or are you having a family Covid party and intentionally trying to get infected to hurry herd immunity along?

Incorrect. You brought your household into the discussion with the above quote about your wife. I did not force you to do that. If you are discussing your household and I am discussing your household that means we are both discussing your household. Not just ME.

So you are now arguing that any mitigation that “everyone” won’t follow of their own free will is pseudoscience? Hardly anyone social distances 6+ feet. Hardly anyone wears quality masks correctly in public. So both recommendations are pseudoscience if we accept your argument. Do you realize what you are advocating for? You are advocating for recommending NO mitigations.

Yes I did. Here it is again.

Bold added this time around so you don’t miss it.
My opinions about what other people would do are as irrelevant as your opinions on what people would do. Our responsibility is to educate people on everything they can do and let them decide what works best for them. Then magically (Randi pun again LOL) Covid absolutism becomes completely irrelevant. The other option is to force the least effective measures on people. It seems neither of us like that option.

You are welcome to explain why you won’t wear a mask at home. But all your commentary so far shows it’s because you don’t want to.

In conclusion, what empirical evidence can you offer against recommending mask usage at home. Evidence, not your opinion.

 

Interesting. That makes a lot of sense. Seems to me we have been seeing here similar effects as Italy except with a month or two delay.

 

Reading posts here by those who profess to know and watching politicians pontificate and blame the other politicians, it appears to me that we really don't know all that much about this virus or what to expect next. Just chose your theory and run with it.

 

WTF? What nonsense is this?

First of all, you are confusing "deception" with certain aspects of Natural Selection. When scientist refer to them as "deception" they are talking somewhat metaphorically. In the sense that a butterfly doesn't appear bigger to its predator (for example) because it has made a decision to "deceive" them into not trying to eat them. It's exactly the opposite. The predator can be dissuaded from attacking a prey because they appear bigger. This allows the gene that carries the appearance of "being bigger" to be carried to the next generation.

The predator is "deceived". But not the scientist!

Your struggle understanding science is so evident.

Obviously (obvious, at least, to anybody with a moderate understanding of basic science) that is not the "deception" that Randi was referring to. The mechanisms that species develop "deceive" organisms that are trying to kill them. Not scientists that are studying them. That is not the purpose... or the functional aspect. As a matter of fact, those mechanisms quite often allow scientists to understand the organism better.

Of course, this is absolutely off topic. But it does further show that you have a mental framework that leans heavily towards pseudoscience.

 

Now you need two quotes. One in which I "admit" that my wife was "the only one to wear a mask at home" (the the text you quoted doesn't say that) and, after that, even if she was the only one, you still need to quote where I "admit" that the reason I didn't was because I "didn't want to".

Now you need to retract TWO statements. Or prove them. You keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. That's where your excessive use of logical fallacies gets you.

Oh God! One last time.

Mental Exercise 1
Find similarities between the following four statements.

-One can logically infer from existing science that if everybody wore masks at home (and everywhere), there would be no Covid infections at home.
-One can logically infer from existing science that if nobody drove a car, there would be no car accidents.
-One can logically infer from existing science that if nobody flew on airplanes, there would be no airplane accident deaths.
-One can logically infer from existing science that if nobody had sex, there would be no sexually transmitted cases of AIDS.

Mental Exercise 2:
Given that the above inferences are reasonable (unless you can demonstrate that they're not), would it be "a good idea" for the government to recommend people don't drive cars, don't fly on airplanes and don't have sex?

I might be able to come up with some possible reasons. Assuming, of course, that I'm not wearing a mask at home. Which you have yet to prove that I "admitted to" also

So now you need to retract. Or not retract, which would be a tacit admission that you ran out of arguments and, for that reason, and no other, you resorted to an ad-hominem. Which is it?

They most certainly are. But that's not a valid excuse to not answer the question.

I sense that the reason why you don't answer the question is that you realize that the only possible answer would completely undermine your case. Can you prove that this hypothesis is wrong? Not responding would prove it right.

Maybe one could infer that... maybe not. But you said I admitted it. That's not the same as inferring. So let's see the quote or retraction.

The demonstrated irrefutable and obvious fact that you refuse to answer the question. That, at least, is evidence that YOU yourself might have already realized that it's not a good idea. But refuse to admit it.

 

Look Golem. Your boy Randi is the one who introduced the concept of nature deceiving—not me. If you want to assign labels you should assign it to him. I’m simply pointing out the technical errors of his anthropomorphism. I’ve already stated I don’t approve of anthropomorphizing “nature” as your guy Randi did.

Again, I spend 20 hours a day in nature, and organisms most certainly do attempt to deceive the scientist. As I say, I can understand the confusion on your part and Randi’s part. You are not observers of nature.

To help you understand, can you explain how an organism can determine if the organism observing it is a scientist or not? And you should think that one through very carefully before answering.

 

I think there is a lot that we do know. But there is so much we still don't know that I understand your point. But the good thing about pointing out what we DON'T know is that we know what is it we need to find out.

We might not know all the answers. But at least we have progressed to the point where we know what the questions are.

 

Right. The only thing you introduced (or tried to introduce) was the nonsensical aspect into a very solid argument.

Organisms don't "attempt" anything. Because they have no conscience. And certainly no understanding of the concept "deceit" They act by instinct and reflex as dictated by millennia (in the case of microorganisms it might be just days or months) of evolution.

Randi very artfully uses a metaphor about nature not being deceitful. By which he means that nature is always nature. It "abides" by the laws of physics. It complies with precepts in biology, chemistry, ... etc. Pseudoscience tries to bend those rules in a deceitful way. Something that scientists are not used to deal with. They are used to dealing with reality, not with sleight of hand. So they are vulnerable to deceit by trickery. Unlike magicians, for example, who are used to dealing with trickery (like the one used in pseudoscience) and can spot it immediately.

You, on the other hand, managed to somehow interpret it literally. And you do it to attack the person making the point, to avoid addressing the point being made. That is called an ad-hominem fallacy. Ad hominem fallacies do not EVER undermine the person they are directed at. But they do tend to speak, in no positive terms, of the person who uses them. Not to mention that it completely obliterates any hint of rationality in their arguments.

 

You can admit you don’t wear a mask because you don’t want to or you can state why you won’t. When all your comments point in one direction we have no choice but to take the meaning from the plain English text you provided. I have no reason to retract anything gleaned from your writings. If you don’t want people to take your writing at face value, you should state that it isn’t to be taken literally.

There is no existing science in support of this statement. All existing empirical evidence is in direct opposition to this conclusion. There are no studies which conclude masks are 100% effective at stopping transmission in any environment. You should know this a year into a pandemic caused by a respiratory virus.

There is empirical evidence this statement can not be true. Autonomous vehicles have a lower accident rate than human operated ones, but that rate is not zero.

There is empirical evidence this statement is false. If you actually took your sig line to heart you would know it is false. Here’s a link to two confirmed airplane deaths involving nobody flying on airplanes.
https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2019/09/historys-weirdest-deaths-a-model-way-to-go/

This statement has validity.

Seventy-five percent of your examples are false, and verifiably so. Your exercise is empirical evidence most of what you post is verifiably false, just as I’ve been consistently pointing out.

Now that you have offered further evidence most of what you post has no foundation in science, it would be a bad idea for the government to recommend against flying, driving, having sex, and wearing a mask at home.

None of the above. I’m simply taking your statements on mask usage at face value.

I have answered the question twice. Perhaps you can tell me what part of my answer you don’t understand and I’ll clarify.

Clean up your writing or clarify what you’ve wrote.

I’ve answered the question twice. I’m happy to clarify if you need clarification.

Would you like to take a crack at answering my questions?

 

Sure. You can infer whatever conclusions you damn well please. And your conclusions might even be correct (or maybe not). But that's not what you said. You said I admitted it. Not that you inferred it. So prove that I admitted it. Or retract.

True. Then the fact is established that you only wanted to change the subject by using an ad-hominem. Which means you ran out of arguments. And that implies that you now realize I was right, but refuse to explicitly admit it. If it weren't so, you wouldn't have needed an ad hominem.

You said that if everybody did what you proposed (wear masks at home) the pandemic would have been gone in March (something like that). Does that not mean that it's 100% effective?

Don't you even try to make sense! Or, at least, be consistent with your own statements.

The rest you try to rationalize your lack of arguments by attempting to change the subject. But, in the end, you refused to answer the questions. And that means, as I stated before, that you realize that answering them would demonstrate that a blanket recommendation to wear masks at home would be unrealistic.

So BOTH my points are proven.

Thanks for playing....

 

You didn’t think it through Golem. Even magicians and pseudoscientists are a part of nature. LOL.

This is why you are always wrong. You hear something that makes you feel good or “sounds” scientific, but there is no fact or logic supporting it.

You have made the argument nature doesn’t intend to deceive. Then, you say an organism (part of nature) that is pushing pseudoscience is intentionally deceptive.

Someone who is pushing pseudoscience does so for the same basic reasons a cow will deceive a person on the location of her calf.

I have not used ad hominem against Randi. I have shown the bankruptcy of his arguments and beliefs. I just did so again. You appeal to his authority and are hurt when you see the bankruptcy of his erroneous ideas. I can’t help that. But I have clearly addressed his ideas, not him personally. To be ad hominem attack I must fail to address his argument (and yours). I have shown how you both are in error. That is not ad hominem. Sorry.

 

But they do not deceive scientists about the scientific fact. Which is the fact that a cow might try to protect her calf by hiding it. But a pseudoscientist might. Because scientists don't expect to be deceived by something they are studying. Science is guided by observation. So scientists work under the assumption that, if what they observe is not consistent with their hypothesis, it's their hypothesis (not the observation) that is at fault. So if a pseudoscientist uses trickery to make it appear as if cows were exposing calves to their predators, they might start thinking that they should shift their paradigm.

And they could do that by using data that is true, but cherry-picking only the data that confirms the position, ignoring anything that would contradict it. Much like you do in the case of masks.

 

Nah, we do know a lot about this virus. What happens is that some here who think they are experts, have no clue (there is a clear example right here in this thread of a poster who keeps uttering nonsense). The ones among us who do know what we're saying, are pretty knowledgeable.

Sure, science evolves as more information comes in about a novel virus that has emerged only about 15 to 18 months ago (depending on whether you consider only the Wuhan outbreak or hints of its presence elsewhere before that). But the scientific picture about the SARS-CoV-2 has now achieved rather complete information that is quite clear. There are still more areas of research; for example, new therapies and prophylaxis (ivermectin, EIDD-2801, Taffix, EXO-CD24) are constantly being studied (but this is true of most diseases as Medicine keeps advancing regarding therapeutics, and even truer of a new disease), and the surveillance of new variants and their effects in infectiousness, lethality, and vaccine evasion (also, this is true of many viruses and not extraordinary in any way; viruses mutate; vaccines sometimes need to adapt); research on long-term consequences of having had Covid-19 (which of course can't be that complete yet given that the virus has only been known for 15 months so there isn't anybody who has had it for more than 15 months for us to study the truly LONG term consequences), this kind of thing. Oh, and of course, some vaccines haven't even finished their phase 3 trials yet, so there'll be some new info regarding vaccines too (see my thread State of the Vaccines).

But it is actually quite remarkable how much we've learned about this virus in 15 months. It's almost unheard of, in the medical sciences, that such a body of knowledge gets developed so fast, including, the R&D, production, and distribution of highly effective vaccines in 11 months (the previous record was 4 years).

So, I don't understand at all why people seem to still accuse the medico-scientific community of not knowing a lot about this virus. Nope, we do know quite a lot about it.

The main problems regarding the information that gets filtered to the lay public, resides with:

A) Over here on PF, people who have no clue but keep spouting nonsense. I'd say that only some ten posters here truly know what they are saying and possess clear views of Virology, Immunology, Statistics, and Epidemiology, and the ability to teach other posters here. Maybe 10 is even too many, I don't know. Or maybe not; I don't know everybody; I only frequent some areas of this forum. But I do know for example that 557 is spot on, Bowerbird too, AlpinLuke as well, MiaBleu, Satistikhengst, a few others, and frankly, myself, do possess significant professional knowledge of these things and post correct information 99% of the time. Then you get some posters here who apparently aren't professionals in related areas or specialties, but do have a clear understanding of the explanations they get access to; examples would include QuantumNerd, Curious Always, Pollycy, M J Davies, Jack Hays, Tigger2, etc (a non-inclusive list); this group is more numerous but also finite. And then, unfortunately, you have a LARGE number of clueless people who say whatever and keep arrogantly believing that it's the truth (what they say is often laughable). To be kind, I won't name those.

B) Out there, politicians who interfere with science and pundits who also spout nonsense. This includes agencies, because agencies are lead by people who were ultimately nominated by politicians and may have an agenda. So, you can say that the WHO, the CDC, and the FDA have not always issued correct information. But rest assured, we members of the scientific community have always yelled out loud when they issued biased and incorrect guidelines.

C) Sometimes, even people who *supposedly* possess the expertise as far as their credentials are considered, are publicity-seeking and spout nonsense too. Not all doctors and scientists are ethical, unfortunately.

So, what "chose your theory" are you talking about? The theory is very clear. It's the people who ignore the theory, or misunderstand it, or those who manipulate the information for their political gains, who are clouding the picture.

Now, about what to expect next, unfortunately we do not have crystal balls. This is now a race between the vaccines and the mutations. So, things could go different ways. Say, the B.1.1.7 becomes predominant and doesn't leave much space to the B.1.351 and the P.1. This situation would likely lead to a bit of a temporary surge but then the pandemic would be petering out in a few months as more vaccines are rolled out (the B.1.1.7 is still entirely susceptible to the existing vaccines). Let's say that instead, the other two variants which are more prone to causing re-infection and to being less affected by the vaccines, are the ones that end up prevailing. Well, things won't be as rosy, then. Let's say that the B.1.1.7 gives birth to a new sub-variant that does evade the vaccines. Well, that would be a disaster. So, the jury is still out on *these* things, but they can't be known because they belong to the future.

But this has nothing to do with supposedly knowing little about this virus. We do know precisely what these variants are, down to the specific mutation sites and their effects (see my thread about the new variants). But we can't have a crystal ball to anticipate precisely what percentage of cases will be sickened by each variant, and what new mutations will pop up.

------------

Do you want to test my knowledge? Ask me anything about this virus, and I guarantee that I'll give you a coherent and science-based answer, as long as the information you will be asking about is known (I won't speculate if it is not known) and your question is logical and appropriate. If I don't know the answer, then I'll say that I don't know it, or will look it up for you. But I think it will be easy for you to notice that there won't be too many logical and appropriate questions that I won't be able to answer in a satisfactory manner, within the existing body of knowledge.

 

You seem to get a little touchy about not wanting to wear a mask in denial of clear science. Sorry. But you are still wrong and you have not provided ANY evidence recommending mask usage at home would be detrimental. NONE. Then you say I’m the one without an argument. LOL

Something like that? Why no direct quote? Are you really this uneducated on epidemiology? Since you have not quoted the statement of mine in question I will have to again respond to what you have written.

Here are some basics to help you out. There is evidence masks can prevent up to 80% of infection events that would have occurred in the absence of mask use. (Not to be confused with absolute risk reduction which is typically in the 20-30% range depending on the study). So continued mask usage in all cases where transmission is possible will not cut transmission to zero. But it will quickly reduce the rates of infection. If implemented early in a pandemic such practices would be very effective because exponential growth of infected individuals would not occur or would be quickly reversed depending on timing of mask introduction. Over a period of a few weeks, the 20-30% absolute risk reduction (80% risk reduction or .2 odds ratio if you prefer) compounds, in just the opposite manner in which uncontrolled infections increase exponentially over time.

A pandemic (or epidemic) is defined by rapid growth (above what’s considered normal) for an infectious disease. To be a pandemic you have to have rapid growth of infections. If growth rates are not exponential or rapid and existing cases are a small percentage of the population the disease is endemic and there is no pandemic (or epidemic if referring to less than international scale).

You fundamentally misunderstand terms and concepts of epidemiology. The end of a pandemic is not zero infections. Or the eradication of a pathogen. So no, masks do not have have to be 100% effective to end a pandemic or epidemic. They only have to prevent rapid expansion of infections to end a pandemic.

I’m very consistent. You just don’t have the background knowledge to understand epidemiology. I’ve consistently posted based on empirical evidence which you can not provide ANY evidence to counter.

I am not the one who changed the subject. You are. I was quite content debunking your incorrect opinions on herd immunity and empirical evidence supporting mask usage. You are the one who introduced Covid absolutism as an argument. You still have offered no empirical evidence in opposition to home mask usage after claiming I’m cherry picking evidence. If there is NO evidence against home mask usage then your argument is not valid. That’s why you keep changing the subject. Because ALL the empirical evidence supports my position. You have no option but to change the subject.

Thank you for playing. I tell you every time we converse I’m using you to educate others on the truth and the dangers of listening to people like you who can not produce an ounce of empirical data or other evidence to support their demonstrably false assertions.

 

LOL. A pseudoscientists is part of nature Golem. Your ideas are bankrupt. And I can tell you as someone who is a scientist in every sense except producing published material I fully expect to see deceptions in my observations. Any scientist who isn’t on the lookout for deceptions in nature is a fool and not a scientist at all. Or a student of nature. Any scientist who doesn’t question the observational component of science is a fool.

Now that you have dug a deeper hole, why don’t you share your definition of a scientific fact. (Careful, your first three sentences of your post set you up for another grave error).

 

My point is the questions depend on who is asking them. Experts are a dime a dozen and we all find an answer we choose to believe in. Fauchi has offered two or three.

 

I'm like most everyone, I have already formed my opinion and made my choices on what I need to do. Worked so far and now I have had the pfizer vaccine shots. I believe in social distancing, low contact and washing hands but I don't think masks do more than offer some security to believers.

 

Good for you that you got the two Pfizer shots. And good for you that you are doing two out of three of the epidemiological containment measures, but you are unfortunately wrong about masks. The right kind of mask worn the right way dumps the adjusted relative risk of contracting coronaviruses by 82% (and also drops the absolute risk in a very significant way, from 1 in 5.7 to 1 in 32), in a meta-analysis of 29 studies, which I've posted here. This is irrefutable. But if you wear bandanas, neck goiters, and single-layer cloth masks, and they are lose, and you allow them to drop below your nose, then sure, they are useless. But a good N100 or N95 or PFF2 or even some non-counterfeit KN95s, provided that they have a good seal, WILL protect you if you don't defeat it by removing it every time to scratch your nose, etc. And even if you don't have those, if you get a good ASTM level 3 face mask (widely available and cheap - but you need to make sure they are ASTM level 3 and not some flimsy crap) and enhance the seal by placing a tight cloth mask on top of it, or using interlaced rubber bands or neoprene or silicone braces to secure them tightly against your face, then you will also achieve protection not much worse than the first ones I've mentioned.

Regardless of what you "think," the above is established science. But if you've "formed your opinion" regrettably you probably won't believe me, although what I'm telling you is 100% correct.

On the other hand, you got the most efficacious vaccine (including against the new variants) and you are using other precautions, so you should be fine and much safer than most.

 

Nobody is buying the right kind of mask, they are buying those little blue ones. Have you noticed how so many wear them? Noses exposed so they aren't wearing them to prevent covid, they are wearing them to satisfy the mask police. I haven't said I don't wear one, I do but not because I believe in it but because it's required by most businesses. It doesn't make me feel any more secure and I wear it right.

 

Well, I know. I've been posting forever and ever about this issue, trying to teach people what kinds of masks are actually effective. The sad issue is that most are not yet vaccinated, the new variants are here, and now N95s CAN be easily purchased (let alone ASTM level 3 masks) but people still wear crappy masks just to fulfill the obligation like you're saying. These people may still get hurt. If you're interested, I can tell you where to get N95 masks. @557 can, too.

There are now readily available, American made N95s. With the new variants coming, people would be well-advised to wear them at least until a couple of weeks after the second dose of the vaccines.

I wouldn't say, though, that NOBODY is buying the right kind of masks. Yesterday I took my wife to an eye appointment and nearby Warby Parker to make her glasses. I parked in front of the store, waiting for her. I stayed there for close to one hour, and kept observing people walking by. I'd say that some 10% of people did have N95s or at least KN95s. But yes, most didn't. My wife, by the way, was wearing the Cadillac of masks, a 3M, American-made 1860-S N95 mask with a perfect seal. That's a truly superior, non-vented, high-performing N95 that has been tested to achieve at least 98% filtration. Sometimes she places an ASTM level 3 mask on top of it, for even bigger protection. I also gave her a silicone brace to enhance the seal. This one (this, on top of an 1860-S will be likely to perform almost as well as an N100, which by the way we own too - but not as many so we reserve them for the riskiest situations):

 

We know very much about this virus, because today we have the luxury of 12 months worth of hindsight. We, being those who have informed themselves by understanding the messages of those many whistleblowers.

We know it was engineered for gain of function at UNC Chapel Hill and Wuhan. We know that was greatly assisted by Anthony Fauci moving $ around in violation of sanctions against such GOF experiments.

We know the virus is about as morbid as the flu virus. We know that for 99.9% of those infected, they will survive. We know, but few people talk about, that a strong immune system will defeat the virus.

 

Last time: I have said NOTHING about me "wanting" or "not wanting" to wear a mask. This debate is not about me (your ad hominem fallacy), it's actually about your proposal to RECOMMEND people to wear a mask at home at all times. I have argued that it's unrealistic. And have also presented arguments (by others, though I tend to agree with them) that issuing such recommendations would be counterproductive.

NOTE that my argument doesn't say: "there is no evidence that wearing a mask at home would not reduce the number of infections" (your strawman fallacy). My real argument is simply that it would not be a realistic recommendation.

Since the only arguments you are now using are the two above fallacies, it's clear to any moderately rational human being, that you understand that I'm right, but just refuse to admit it.

Thanks anyway.

 

Your strawman arguments are getting more and more lame by the minute.

A butterfly might try to fool its predator about its size, but it won't fool (nor is there intention to fool) a biologist who studies them. A pseudoscientist might fool people who are prone to be fooled, but they won't fool.... "pseudoscientist-ologists" (a.k.a. pseudoscience debunkers)

 

Listen ... there are some basic problems:

since the time of the Spanish Flu [which wasn't Spanish at all!] we haven't had to deal with a so dangerous pandemic at global level [at regional level we have seen something]. SARS-Cov-2 is a virus with very high diffusivity because it's not lethal [you can be surprised, but this is the reality: it's nature is not lethal], it generates a disease with a slow development [Covid-19], so that you are contagious when the disease is still irrelevant for you, and that diseases is systemic [so that it become lethal when it meets weak organisms].

I like to make a comparison with a burn and running 10,000mt. A burn is a flu, running 10,000mt is Covid-19.

What does this mean? A burn is annoying for everybody, from a child to an elder. But make a child run for 10,000mt and then make an 85 years old elder run for 10,000mt. Who will go to the hospital with a heart attack? Probably not the child ...

This is about the biological side of the pandemic.

But then there is the economical / social side and that's when politicians step in to ruin all [!].
And from the very beginning. I do remember when an outbreak of SARS-Cov-2 had detected in Italy.
The right thing to do was to follow the Chinese example and to put in total lockdown a couple of provinces. But ... immediately there were politicians saying that it was impossible to close Bergamo and Brescia ... the economical damage for Italy would have been enormous.
The result was that after a month we had to close the entire country! With a well bigger damage for the national economy.

Now ... the real problem was that there weren't PPDs [Personal Protection Devices]. Just to say, it was impossible to find surgical masks ...

In this moment we've got those devices, so that [I've been repeating this since last summer] if we use PPDs and we follow basic NBC rules, we can contain the pandemic. The population is learning [but too slowly!] and this allows a bit of freedom, but not too much, waiting for the vaccination of the large majority of the population.

 

So you still have no empirical evidence to back your opinions. I’ve asked several times now. I accept your concession on the point of mask usage in the home based on your complete lack of evidence provided to back your OPINION.

You are incorrect on all points because your points have no basis in science or empirical evidence. My position is backed by peer reviewed data , logic, and expert opinion which you say you follow.

You are not the judge of what’s realistic for others.