Dear stupid person,

There are dozens of studies that show masks help
There are dozens of studies that show masks are worthless or negative

Fortunately we have something that's not theoretical or small size. We have a population-level (hundreds of millions of people) experiment that we've run for a year on mask use, in the real world. The result: Countries with mask mandates have been disasters with worse outcomes than non-mask-mandates. That's hard proof, at the population level, non theoretical, that masks as mandated in 2020 don't work.

That your brain is so ossified by old age and a lifetime of stupidity that you can't incorporate this information to update your view, isn't my problem.

The funniest thing in your post is that you google "masks do work" and got 9 for 9 mentioning droplets. Yeah, if they study droplets - which masks stop - they will say masks work at stopping droplets. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether masks work at the population mandate level to stop or slow an infection. They don't. The data is in. The experiment has been run.

Your post is like that CDC study saying masks stop 95% of volume. Here's the clue train, coming for you:

If masks stop 95% of volume, and if volume/large droplets matter for spread, then there would be a signal in the data - mask mandate countries would do far better for spread than those without. They do not. Explain Hungary too much, or 20 other countries, if masks stop 95% of droplets and droplets matter for transmission?



It's game over, clown. You lost. The end. Tell your brain to call me in about a year's time when it's able to process this information. Thanks.

there is more than one cited there that sets up physical tests measuring droplet spray by many different methodologies.

So your post should say 'yes some do quantitative measuring and show PROVEN results the mask do work, while some are anecdotal'.

But the main point is ALL OF THEM on a random google search say Masks work.

Based on that alone one could reasonably guess that at a minimum you will find 10 times more material 'supporting' Masks work than denying. But you would need to check another few google page results until you hit your first negative.

I suspect it would mirror the 'Climate change is a Hoax' percentages if you just searched the same on Climate change real or not. You probably have to be pages deep before Tooth can cherry pick something to pretend it is definitive.

(in before 'google sucks')

Yes thank you for learning from me as I said EXACTLY that way up thread in saying it is a waste of time to try and post a study to say 'see I am right' as the other person will just post countering studies.

And yet here we are. Stupid you posted a study thinking you could prove 'see i am right' and now you have to d*ck tuck and admit I was right and there are studies to counter your study.

God you are easy to beat up and make submit like a b*tch.




And yet Tooth leaves his home today and wears a mask over a mask because masks don't work.

And yet Tooth says "it is settled science, masks work' ... 'I am right mask don't work'.

[QUOTEToothSayer]
It's been settled science for 20+ years that masks block some percentage of incoming and outgoing viral load. It varies by mask. N95 = close to 100% incoming, 0% outgoing, high grade surgical from 20% to 70%, cloth masks 5% to 30%.[/QUOTE]


Tell us Tooth, do you or have you wore your mask over a mask even when outside?

I am betting you wear it the second you leave your home, indoors or out, lots of people or sparse.

You legit have brain damage. Nothing you have posted is relevant to anything anyone has said.

And yes, science research is a joke with hundreds of conflicting studies on every single topic. That's why, clown - and if you try really hard you can grasp this - we defer to the real world where possible to test those studies at scale and get a definitive answer to the question: "do masks as mandated and suggested by authorities work in the real world for stopping or slowing covid-19". The answer:



Let me know when the lightbulb goes on in your brain damaged brain. I know it's hard to synthesize new information but if you try really hard it will happen eventually, maybe in a month or two?

You've got to show mask are effective at preventing transmission of sar-cov2 or at least a similar airborne virus. If its so easy to prove why are we talking about lab tests and studies with self selection bias off google?

I haven't seen strong evidence of how effective cloth mask are at preventing the spread of sars-cov2.

I don't have to show that.

Some of the studies I linked to address that and people should trust them more than me doing diagrams on MS Paint and posting them.

And lol at Tooth blanket throwing out 'research' while posting 'research' to make his point at the same time.

You can't make that stuff up.

This guy is incredible and so are the replies.
80% of Epidemiologist's are now butthurt because Daddy (CDC) said they're wrong. It's very difficult times for them. They either have to accept they are morons or the CDC is.

The survey asked:

"If you had to predict"

"with people whose vaccination status they don't know."

1. CDC is still recommending precautions, such as mask wearing, for people who aren't fully vaccinated.
2. With the timing and wording of the survey, the epidemiologists were basically asked to "predict" what CDC, other government agencies, and private businesses were going to do.

Frankly, I had never heard of Eric Feigl-Ding before the last post. That tweet however is pure garbage. The NYTimes Upshot column isn't much better.

The survey simply doesn't say what the article/tweet asserts.

He's an enormous clown.

PS: I think masks should continue to be required in public settings, just to encourage/shame the unvaccinated into wearing masks if nothing else. Last thing I want to do is give the unvaccinated an easy way to get out of wearing masks by lying about their status.

The weirdest thing about all this is that these cucks are holding forth on public policy. Why should virologists be in charge of cost/benefit analyses at the societal level? Like what the actual ****? Back in your box, clown.

It should go like this:

Virologists/epidemiologists supply the data/projections: if you don't wear masks, it will increase spread by X with tail risk Y. then STFU. And then the people who aren't such losers/mental midgets that they studied virology/epidemiology get to weight the cost, benefit and acceptable risks of each scenario.

It seems bizarre to me that virologists should hold forth on public policy. You stare at frigging viruses all day. Why do you get an outsized say on what people should do and not, beyond providing your best projections and error bars.

The trouble is that the virologists are so completely worthless at their job that they can't even get the projections and error bars right; the predictions and "consensus science" on mask efficacy for example have been comically wrong with 100K+ deaths across Europe linked to their stupidity, as health ministers relied on the "masks work very well" expert consensus claims while covid soared harder in the mask countries than the non-masked ones. The virologists should probably just STFU altogether and be janitors cleaning up the covid. There would be 100K+ fewer people dead.

Bring in the physicists, businessmen and data scientists to analyse the data and make the decisions. Covid would have been knocked dead early on with that.

What about if you have recovered from being infected, clearly they don’t need to be vaccinated. People less than 30 in good health (I’d argue under 40) you don’t need to be vaccinated. Btw if you have been vaccinated what are you worried about as masks are useless?

I tried to make this point to you ages ago. Experts never tell you what to do. Of if they do, they're not beign experts when they're doing so.

This is true in all field. The minor mark of an expert (aside from their qualifications and job) is that they dont tell you what to do. The major mark is that they explain their reasoning well. They provide expert advice on their view of the consequences (within their domain) of various courses of action. There is no way an expert can conclude what is best to do in any absolute sense because it's simply not what expertise is about - that's our job or politicians jobs etc.

Ah yes, the "no true expert" fallacy. You should get on Twitter and tell these PhDs, professors and department heads who've spent their life studying virology that they're not experts in virology because they're offering opinions outside of their narrow field. You'd be doing a valuable public service, and providing entertainment for the rest of us.

But they're not even experts on the data - they've been clown-level wrong and less reliable than a redneck offering his common sense opinion over gator steaks through the entire pandemic on every topic - what use are they? None of them have any clue what the answers are and the consensus answers they've settled on - such as masks work great, the opposite of their original position - have been completely wrong and net harmful and shoved down our throats with fat helping of "I'm the expert, who are you to disagree?". Just look at Fauci dismissing - laughingly when they could have helped the most if they could help all - the common sense notion that masks might help.



Do you see why I belittle these cucks? They're morons who have no better idea than the rest of us on anything, but pretend that they do.

Imagine what damage these expert losers - and the people who listen to them and base policy on them - do in fields that are far less straightforward and measurable than epidemiology or virology, like global warming policy or education research? They can't even get the straightforward stuff right so how on Earth are they getting that right? It's quite scary.

The damage of an expert and claims of "consensus" is that they remove healthy doubt or an appreciation of the uncertainty inherent in that "consensus". They close the door on common sense or flexibility and cement idiotic policy, and then wagon circle that idiot policy.

It hasn't just happened in the pandemic. It happened with saturated fat "expert" global consensus that caused a switch to trans fat and sugar, to enormous public health consequences such the that entire world would have been better if none of those experts ever existed. It leads to men getting their prostate cut to bits and loss of lifetime sexual function because it's "consensus" to treat this even though it's pointless to survival outcomes and net harmful. It leads to millions of people taking chemo and psychiatric drugs that are net harmful with no positive benefit when the publishing bias is stripped out. It leads to incredibly destructive global warming policies that actually increase CO2 and create a more dangerous world by moving manufacturing to China, and less energy security and money for the poor.

Expert suck donkey dick, and listening to them and trusting them at the fringes of science - low effect sizes, conclusions based on modelling, high corruptibility, high self interest alignment with catastrophizing - has cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives.

It's not a fallacy at all. Expertise is a real thing and it isn't telling people what to do because that can't possible fall within their domain of expertise.

Confusing expertise with sales and politics is a bad mistake that it's wise to avoid. It's hard to do perfectly but easy to do reasonably well.

But they're not. You and the politicans and the media present it that way but if you actually listen to them the advice is very qualified and they frequently go out of their way to make clear quite clear that others decide what is best. They get frustrated by the simpletions who keep dumbing down what they're saying for a public who crave being told a nice simple answer.

Ah yes, the few who in act the way chezlaw believe experts should act are the real experts. The rest aren't experts even though they have the same publishing record, credentials, titles as the ones that act the way chezlaw thinks they should.

Do you have no notion how ridiculous your position is? It's middle school level "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Words mean what they mean, man. You don't get to define a Scotsman only as someone who's as sexy as Sean Connery, which is what you're doing for the definition of "expert". You have to take the fat ones, the hairy ones, the pedophiles and the skinheads too if they were born in Scotland, and the PhDs, professors and titled department heads who've done this all their life, even if they make clowns of themselves reaching too far or getting it dead wrong. They're experts too bro. Sorry.

I mean, can you get a purer "No True Scotsman" fallacy than what you're doing right now? Just clown level absurd, man.

No. Your position is as ridiucous as reponding to someone pointing out crap done with the badge of scicence on it by accusing them of the 'no true science' fallacy.

If you're really unable to tell any difference between people with expertise and the salesman, idiots and politicians of this world then more fool you. of course you can and do. The really odd thing about this part of the debate is when you're not ranting* you actually agree.

*i assume because you think I only attribute expertise to those who agree with my view. This is not true at all but I understand the fear because many do.

Or maybe you're just so frustrated by something as valuable as expertise beign attributed to politcians, charlatons etc that you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Chez you get it mostly right here, but Tooth will never acknowledge it and will continue to spin and spin.

Science in these areas is rarely about a determinative definitive outcome and then 'telling people exactly what to do' in a proscribed way and is in fact about pegging within a certain range probabilities, with their confidence levels and describing a range of optimal reactions, often based on differing situations on the ground that others (policy makers) can use to decide actions to get optimal results.

People love to point at the lack of 'definitiveness' or 'declaration' and proclaim that means the scientists are 'unable to obtain a conclusion' (ie not as smart as they think they are) or they love to point at any change, even when it addresses different and changing circumstances as 'wrong' 'proof they don't even believe what they said prior' or other.


But when it comes to Tooth specifically some other poster pointed this out (i cannot remember whom) and it fits him perfectly.

He has created and amplifies a world view that holds both disdain for the cohort of people who are less educated than him ('no STEM degrees = "worthless" and "scum") but also those who achieve higher educational results 'Experts' are 'Useless' and 'Stupid'.

In his world view only people like himself live in the sweat spot of 'value' and only they can bring everyone clarity.

It is the reflex of an immensely insecure person, we see play out all the time in society, of individuals who hate to see anything they put forth dismissed by the quoting of 'experts' ('how dare anyone assume their work and conclusions are better than mine') and to allow them to maintain an inflated ego.

Most are at least a little capable of hiding it. Tooth just wears it on his sleeve for all to see as he also lacks self awareness.

Sure except science is never about telling people what to do at all. There is no way science can reach a conclusion of the form 'You should do X' even with a lack of definitiveness or certainty. It's simply not the domain of science.

The lack of definitiveness of the answers and all the caveats and asumptions) generally reflects the fact that science is so strong. Precise simple answers on most questions are for those who make things up. Similarly with expertise.

Presented without comment

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-gui...science-fauci/

I’m really enjoying the conundrum certain people are finding themselves in right now. Chaos out there with no way to discern their neighbor’s level of #science or anti

LOL the data just came in... the vaccines work!

I am not sure I agree with his assessment of the Yankees situation though. 8 people tested positive and one had symptoms. That is a lot of positive cases in a small group of fully-vaccinated people. Fauci claims that if vaccinated you have a lower viral load and therefore less likely to transmit to others even if you are positive. But it seems like common sense to me that if you are symptomatic (as one of the Yankees coaches was), then you likely can spread the disease. If your viral load was low enough that you couldn't spread it, you would likely be asymptomatic. I certainly think positive+symptomatic people should still be isolating, whether vaccinated or not.

Hmmm I do not think you are wrong per se but i think such strong statements start to tip into philosophical and theoretic debates that require some agreement on definitions.

For instance would you say that if i give you the question to answer 1+1=

...that science necessities you answer 2?

The answer is 'determined', 'known' 'consensus', etc?