advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Lizabeth
Date: September 16, 2021 05:34AM
Head hitting keyboard...several questions

1. Is the Southern Medical Journal legit?

2. If it isn't how do I politely tell him that?

3. Is there a mask study that shows the opposite?


Link: [report.drudgenow.com]

Note: While said BIL and Sis are not TRUMPERS they are very conservative. That said they didn't really believe that COVID is causing an uptick of still births in Mississippi among unvaccinated (WP article - light on the science side but the numbers are concerning enough that docs are raising loud flags about it)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: September 16, 2021 06:00AM
Correlation and causation are not discussed. The statistics of mask wearing was not discussed. Also note that every sick person who did NOT mask was a walking suicide bomb for everyone around them. Especially if they did not mask.

IMHO this is the process that took place:

1- Masks were mandated.
2- People did not wear them.
3- The virus spread AS A RESULT.

To me this does not mean "LOL MASKS ARE NOT REAL MAH FREEDUMB !"
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: p8712
Date: September 16, 2021 06:17AM
I’d pass

A single study, a single journal, can say anything. Science is argued by the sheer preponderance of evidence. The evidence is masks work. Vaccines work. We should use them to reduce infection. People like your bil and sis Will do anything to you avoid simple reality.

The study seems to look at the effect of the mask mandate going in place. A before and after and a single county in Texas. Does not say how they made sure that people, and a single county in Texas, followed the mandate. Just that it was an effect. People in my part of Florida were under a mandate too. Didn’t really encourage them to wear masks, and most people didn’t! Or, wore them incorrectly by nosedicking. So of course you would say masks are ineffective. There is some state level data, but you can bet it underwent the same chicanery.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 06:23AM by p8712.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: mattkime
Date: September 16, 2021 07:01AM
Quote
Lizabeth
While said BIL and Sis are not TRUMPERS they are very conservative.

Weigh their actions more loudly than their words.

No point in engaging, IMO.

I have an aunt and uncle that aren't Trumpers....but they're still waiting for the right moment to get the vaccine...which is continuously pushed further out.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 07:03AM by mattkime.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: September 16, 2021 08:02AM
The link below is pretty much all the information I need as whether masks work or not and has a diagram of the classroom.

Also I have a HS classmate that has a doctorate in nursing from Yale and she's a CRNA and also a staunch conservative but she'll tell you right quick that the masks work.

Unmasked elementary school teacher infects half of class with COVID-19
[www.whsv.com]



Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: September 16, 2021 08:10AM
Quote
cbelt3
Correlation and causation are not discussed. The statistics of mask wearing was not discussed. Also note that every sick person who did NOT mask was a walking suicide bomb for everyone around them. Especially if they did not mask.

IMHO this is the process that took place:

1- Masks were mandated.
2- People did not wear them.
3- The virus spread AS A RESULT.

To me this does not mean "LOL MASKS ARE NOT REAL MAH FREEDUMB !"

agree smiley

If you don't wear the seatbelt, it's guaranteed it won't save your life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 08:11AM by DeusxMac.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: neophyte
Date: September 16, 2021 08:19AM
From the article's discussion section:

We have several limitations to our study that we must acknowledge. First, we are only assessing the effect of the mask order itself. In other words, we are not able to assess the actual mask use because we do not have data on adherence to the mask order. Although we adjusted our model for public health complaint calls, we do not have a direct measure of wear.

This study does not address whether or not WEARING a mask has an effect on hospital resources or mortality, but rather addresses whether or not a MANDATE has an effect on hospital resources or mortality in a single county in Texas.

I suggest the authors repeat the study in other counties, especially in other states where the populations are known to have actually ADHERED to mask mandates.

If the op's BIL lived in a cave, and only came outside at night, he would conclude the sky is mostly black.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: pdq
Date: September 16, 2021 08:45AM
This seems like a place for this, from the “conservative” local paper in my town (St Paul Pioneer Press), today:



Red states. Blue states. I’ve never seen it so clearly delineated.

It’s always been tending this way with the Delta variant, tho it took awhile for some of the more thinly populated red states like South Dakota, Idaho, and Montana to turn black, but Sturgis helped there. I imagine Iowa, Nebraska and Missouri may eventually join them.

Apologies and condolences to Georgia, which is too purple, too divided, and too surrounded by red to have escaped.

tl;dr - there is something that blue states are doing that appears to be (relatively) protective against delta Covid…and/or something that red states are doing that is not.

Whatever could it be?

confused smiley dunno smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: deckeda
Date: September 16, 2021 09:01AM
That journal either put the thing together out of incompetence or agenda. Everyone knows “a mandate” is not action. Action is action, and of course they had no way of verifying it. But even if they had it would have ignored differences among mask types that have been discussed for over a year now.

Arguments about mandates are not really arguments about effectiveness. They are just arguments saying because a thing is unenforceable, it won’t work and so don’t try. That’s it: The demand for a guarantee and perfection before signing on and having to give something up. It’s another way of saying, “someone ELSE must pay a price if I make this change or sacrifice to what I want.” See also firearms regulations.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: pdq
Date: September 16, 2021 09:22AM
Also apropos here (NYT, paywall):

Quote

G.O.P. Seethes at Biden Mandate, Even in States Requiring Other Vaccines

… Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas called the president’s move “a power grab.” Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina promised to fight Mr. Biden in court, to “the gates of hell.” Gov. Greg Gianforte of Montana called it “unlawful and un-American.” Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama called the move “outrageous” and “overreaching.”

But each of these states — indeed every state in the country — already mandates certain vaccinations for children, and sometimes for adults, including health care workers and patients in certain facilities.

In fact, some verrry red states look at their vaccine mandates as a badge of honor:

Quote

Mississippi has some of the strictest vaccine mandates in the nation, which have not drawn opposition from most of its elected officials. Not only does it require children to be vaccinated against measles, mumps and seven other diseases to attend school, but it goes a step further than most states by barring parents from claiming “religious, philosophical or conscientious” exemptions.

Alabama too.

But for Covid, which has killed 650,000 Americans?

Quote

…Tate Reeves of Mississippi reacted angrily to the coronavirus vaccine mandates President Biden imposed on private businesses. Declaring the move “terrifying,” he wrote on Twitter: “This is still America, and we still believe in freedom from tyrants.”

Oookay, then, Guv. Freedum!

(As the NYT article notes drily, There is a deep inconsistency in that argument.)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: deckeda
Date: September 16, 2021 09:30AM
Anti-vax is irrational and never survives scrutiny. And so with scrutiny never addressed the noise continues. It’s such a shame we wasted so much time coddling these people.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: September 16, 2021 09:31AM
Quote
pdq
Whatever could it be?
confused smiley dunno smiley

Prayer, obviously.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: September 16, 2021 09:35AM
Action is action, and of course they had no way of verifying it


While there are a lot of factors involved, it boils down to this.

Even though most people I see out walking, and certainly everybody indoors, wearing masks, there are a number of them who don't wear masks properly.

So many wear the mask under their nose; do they believe that's enough or is it a passive aggressive move.

So many walk into a store, and then about 10-15' in, they don their mask: WTF?

So many pull their mask down to talk, as if wearing it (properly or not) before and after, makes this a safe practice.

By 'so many', I have no data on the numbers of who I see do these things, as opposed to who I see don't.

It's enough that it's not a rare occurrence by any means, and an extremist would say one occurrence is too many.

There is the odd maskless shield wearer or two, and the occasional valved-mask wearer (no telling what their particular valve's functions are).

Once in a while, there is a Bandana Guy.

But I have no doubt that properly wearing a qualifying mask can make a difference.

Focusing on one study that tells one what they want to hear is convenient, but often not helpful or productive.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: pdq
Date: September 16, 2021 09:41AM
Quote
Lux Interior
Quote
pdq
Whatever could it be?
confused smiley dunno smiley

Prayer, obviously.

Well, it just really struck me, when we have folks like Mr645 dinging Biden for Covid running “rampant”.

Yup, it is. Mostly in red states, whose GOP governors are actively opposing basic public health measures (!) to score political points among a shrinking, dying base.

facepalm
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: voodoopenguin
Date: September 16, 2021 09:58AM
Right from the beginning we over here were told by the medical experts that mask wearing was not so effective in keeping the wearer safe but still helped. What they are effective at is lowering the chances of the wearer spreading the virus. I do a LFT every few days and always wear my mask in every shop or other inside area as well as when walking through the areas of towns and the city that have more than a couple of pedestrians in view. I have never had a problem with a mask and in winter there is the wonderful bonus that it keeps my nose warm.

Paul



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: TheCaber
Date: September 16, 2021 12:47PM
LFT is Lateral Flow Testing, I presume? Not in common use over here in the US (or Canada).

Unless it has a different name here?



=TC
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: September 16, 2021 03:38PM
pdq, that map is a DISTURBING use of decimals to confuse people. Ohio is at 50.1 ? Where the hell do they get 0.1 of a person ? Wow. Someone's math teacher needs to hunt them down a deliver a detention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 03:39PM by cbelt3.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Diana
Date: September 16, 2021 04:02PM
Sorry guys, this is rather long. This is my critique of the paper, and my opinions afterwards. Keep in mind that I'm not a doctor of medicine, just a PhD. Yes, I quoted directly from the paper; if this gets me into trouble, so be it.

Quote
Lizabeth
Head hitting keyboard...several questions

1. Is the Southern Medical Journal legit?

2. If it isn't how do I politely tell him that?

3. Is there a mask study that shows the opposite?


Link: [report.drudgenow.com]

Note: While said BIL and Sis are not TRUMPERS they are very conservative. That said they didn't really believe that COVID is causing an uptick of still births in Mississippi among unvaccinated (WP article - light on the science side but the numbers are concerning enough that docs are raising loud flags about it)

1. Yes, the journal is legit. I don't know how often it gets cited, nor how "cutting edge" it may be, but it has been in publication since 1908 or so.

2. Since it appears to actually publish real data, I thought to actually read the article and not someone's interpretation of it. If you would like it, I will send it to you. I don't think you can argue that it isn't a real journal, as it will be indexed in PubMed and other information aggregators. Note that even if it appears in PubMed, it doesn't mean that the journal is noteworthy, only that a study was published in it.

3. First, before we discuss any studies that show masking works, let's look at what the article actually says.

a. They appear to say that there is no *strong* evidence that masking works, that any studies they list; any studies they cite that do indeed show evidence that masking works don't link the data to whether or not it is reflected in hospital usage (which is what they are reportedly doing). The single study done in the US apparently excluded states that did not have a mask mandate in place during the time period of the author's study, Texas being one of them. This indicates to me that if you wanted to test whether or not a mandate had a difference you would then use states with a mandate as one group, and states without a mandate as another group. If you wanted to further investigate any confounding issues, then do a deeper dive into whether these confounders (such as *politics*) influence things.

b. Methodology:

b1. The timeline of events they are using is at most about 60 days in total. They look at 30 days before the statewide masking mandate as a "control" of some type, and then the following 30 days (or so) are used as the "test".

b2. Texas had already gone through a period of shutdown, masking, social distancing, etc. I see no indication that the study used anything such as people's fatigue with mask mandating (again) as a confounder in the study (a confounder is something that could explain the results, and thus needs to be accounted for in the study to eliminate it and thus making the results they achieved valid). As this study only used publicly available data, and apparently didn't survey people, it couldn't logically exclude this as a confounder.

c. Data analysis: They used "average" times from the date of mandate implementation: 5-day incubation period (when we know it could be as short as 3 days or as long as 10-14 days); 7 days for hospitalization (which seems rather short to me, as a conservative "pioneer" mentality of most folks in San Antonio, or Texas in general, would wait longer); 10 days for intubation requirement and ICU bed occupancy (which means that 3 days after hospitalization, the patient went to ICU and was intubated); and deaths, while not stated in the study, must have happened within the last 20 days of the study.

d. Model development: Here is where I have another issue with this study. Using the number of traffic calls as a proxy for the activity of the population in the city is fine; we have seen that when the shutdown mandates were put into place the number of traffic calls (and nature of them) changed dramatically, with fewer traffic calls overall. However, they also used calls to the police department about mask wear, social distancing, and capacity violations as a proxy for compliance to the mandates. In such as place as San Antonio, how many folks would call the *police* for such issues? Again, this would be a confounder, and calls up a big red flag for me. As stated, San Antonio also serves as a regional receiving center for more advanced care (and not specifically just to the county, but to the region as well). They said that they acknowledged this, as well as weather (outdoor activity, and heat), and so they used the daily mean temperature to control for this potential confounder.

Next, I looked at the discussion of the paper. I'm sure this was NOT given. They pretty well covered the flaws and issues with this study, and it may be best just to quote them (bolding is in their words, used to emphasize; italics will be my comments):

"We performed a before-and-after analysis of a countywide mandate for public mask use on rates of COVID-19 infection, mortality, ICU utilization, and ventilator utilization. We found that in both unadjusted and adjusted assessments, the caseload for all of the measured outcomes increased after the mask orders went into place. On visual assessment (Supplemental Digital Content Figures 1–5) there appeared to be no readily apparent effect in reducing the resource consumption after implementation of the mask order. Our findings suggest that mask orders alone cannot be expected to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. They only gave them less than 30 days--more like 20-25 days; is this really enough time to see a difference? And what do you mean, can't be expected?

To date, there are limited data on the effectiveness of public mask wear regarding COVID-19 infection rates.23,24 Lyu et al compared public data for COVID-19 infection rates pre- and poststatewide mandates for public use of masks in the United States; among 15 states and the District of Columbia issuing governmental requirements for public mask wear from April 8 to May 15, 2020, they found a significant reduction in county-level COVID-19 infection rates of 0.9% to 2.0% (P < 0.05 for all).23 They also evaluated the same outcome among 20 states that issued directives for mask use among business employees, but not among the public. This analysis revealed no benefit to mask utilization.23 The state of Texas was not included in either analysis because it had not issued a statewide mandate for mask use in public or among business employees. We found no effect at the county level. Early in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were concerns about a sudden influx of patients overwhelming hospital resources resulting in a situation in which limited resources such as ventilators must be rationed.31–33 Unlike their analysis, which focused on overall caseload, we used county-level data with more granularity, including resources such as ventilator and ICU bed use.2 We did not detect a decrease in hospital resource consumption, which was the primary reason for implementing measures targeted at limiting the rapid influx (ie, methods sought to flatten the influx curve). Again, length of time for the study, and whether or not the mandate is actually being followed. They also state that they used county data to provide with more "granularity" and then later admit that they cannot exclude regional data from the hospitalization data.

Cheng et al compared COVID-19 infection rates within Hong Kong with other areas of the world from day 1 (December 31, 2019) to day 100 (April 8, 2020) of the outbreak.24 They reported a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19 in Hong Kong than 8 other countries, including the United States (P < 0.001).24 They attributed this finding to public mask wear within Hong Kong, which they reported to be 95.7% to 97.2% as directly measured by 67 hospital staff over a period of 3 days.24 They suspect the Hong Kong public’s compliance with universal mask wear (although not dictated by the Hong Kong government) was the result of the city’s experience with the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak and the assumption that COVID-19 was as lethal.24 It should be noted that Hong Kong is 570 miles from Wuhan, China, has a population of 7.45 million, has a population density of 6700 individuals per square kilometer, and experiences an average of 170,000 travelers entering and departing the city daily.24 The size, location, and population are far different from Bexar County, thus limiting the ability to extrapolate their findings to Texas. Can you attempt to normalize it in some manner, thus making them more comparable? We were unable to compare our county findings to other counties that were exempt from the mask order by virtue of the low incidence within those counties. Such an analysis would add further to this limited body of literature. Low incidence? Like, nothing to compare to because there is no difference?

Our analysis, like the previously discussed studies, is a natural difference-in-differences experiment, which may be considered a lower level of evidence within evidence-based medicine.34 It IS considered a lower level of evidence. Natural experiments, however, are both necessary and useful as the availability of both control and experimental study groups for an intervention such as public mask wear with public health–oriented outcome measures would be difficult to create and, as a result, likely suffer from a lack of external validity.35 Also, the ETHICS of the creation of just such a "natural" experiment would be considerable! Consequently, findings of natural experiment studies should be considered by policy makers when deciding which nonpharmaceutical public health measures are appropriate in the setting of infectious disease pandemics. Bexar County represents a unique opportunity for attempting to identify a discrete effect of a mask order, because most other established means of control (eg, social distancing recommendations, availability of testing) had already been in place for months and did not meaningfully change during the study period. The controls stated here do not make Bexar County unique, as the same controls have been implemented elsewhere.

We have several limitations to our study that we must acknowledge. First, we are only assessing the effect of the mask order itself. In other words, we are not able to assess the actual mask use because we do not have data on adherence to the mask order. Although we adjusted our model for public health complaint calls, we do not have a direct measure of wear. Second, we performed model adjustment based on local caseload to account for local caseload changes. Because many San Antonio hospitals serve as regional receiving centers for the offloading of cases from smaller hospitals along with regional support for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation capabilities, we have no way to determine what volume of the ICU and ventilator use was attributable to transfers.36 Although obesity has been identified as a risk factor for COVID mortality and cannot be adjusted for in our study, the overweight and obese proportion in Bexar County (71%) is similar to that of national proportions (66%).25,37,38 It also is possible that the mask order had a hypothetical effect in slowing the rate of increase of the various burden metrics; if this were the case, then implementing an order earlier may have a greater impact on the hospital burden in terms of the daily increase in caseload without affecting the total caseload. Ya think?!? Conversely, the mask order may be extraneous, and the disease may follow a typical progression in spite of it (eg, application of Farr’s law).39 It also is possible that the order did not meaningfully alter mask utilization patterns because mask use was not novel in San Antonio or Bexar County. Lastly, given that we used only publicly available data and did not have patient-level data including transfer status or comorbidities, it is not possible to perform substratified analysis regarding any demographic or medical specifics to determine whether the mask order had meaningful effects on one or more subgroups.

Conclusions

We were unable to detect a reduction in per-population daily mortality, hospital bed, ICU bed, or ventilator occupancy attributable to the implementation of a mask order."

Apples and oranges, folks: apples and oranges. They appeared to be trying to link one thing to another, but failed to do so. They assume that the public would change their mask wearing behavior due to a government mandate; an even-slightly suspicious public fed with propaganda regarding government over-reach will result in folks at least listening to what is being said and thus the mandate will become less effective. I would interpret it as the mask mandate failed to change the hospital outcomes, not because of the assumptions implicit in the study, but rather because the mandate failed to change people's attitudes and thus failed to increase the use of masking. The use of the hospital, and thus the data derived from it, is only a side-effect of this failure. It doesn't reflect the numbers of people that don't go to the hospital because they flat-out cannot afford it. I won't even go into the number of people that fear the government or government intervention into their lives, especially in a town such as San Antonio. You gotta know the confounders to your study; you gotta mitigate them; if you don't, your study is garbage. In my opinion, they didn't mitigate the confounders, and made conclusions that are not fully justified. A simple survey would have yielded more data than this "study" did.

For those that don't know, the numbers following a statement are references. Those I found especially curious are these:

References 23, 24:

23. Lyu W, Wehby GL. Community use of face masks and COVID-19: evidence from a natural experiment of state mandates in the US: study examines impact on COVID-19 growth rates associated with state government mandates requiring face mask use in public. Health Aff (Millwood) 2020;39:1419–1421.

24. Cheng VC, Wong S-C, Chuang VW, et al. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. J Infect 2020;81:107–114.

As far as a study that shows masking works, a search of Web of Science database gave me some 6 when I used the keywords "COVID19 mask effectiveness" and 95 when I shortened the search to "COVID19 mask", in addition (or including?) those the above paper referenced. Put a dash in COVID19 making it COVID-19 and the number of hits jump up to over 4,000.

Perhaps someone with more expertise on COVID19 can steer you to what you are wanting.

Again, my two cents.

Diana
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: bazookaman
Date: September 16, 2021 04:30PM
Quote
Diana

Again, my two cents.

Diana

That's more like a buck an a quarter.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 16, 2021 04:38PM
Quote
cbelt3
pdq, that map is a DISTURBING use of decimals to confuse people. Ohio is at 50.1 ? Where the hell do they get 0.1 of a person ? Wow. Someone's math teacher needs to hunt them down a deliver a detention.

And what about those poor folks between 50.0 and 50.1?



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 16, 2021 04:39PM
Quote
bazookaman
Quote
Diana

Again, my two cents.

Diana

That's more like a buck an a quarter.

Three-fitty! smiley-laughing001



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: September 16, 2021 05:11PM
Geeeze, that was a great post, Diana!

It was truly edifying to my inner 6yo.

Thank you!





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Ted King
Date: September 16, 2021 05:23PM
Quote
Diana
Sorry guys, this is rather long. This is my critique of the paper, and my opinions afterwards. Keep in mind that I'm not a doctor of medicine, just a PhD. Yes, I quoted directly from the paper; if this gets me into trouble, so be it.

Quote
Lizabeth
Head hitting keyboard...several questions

1. Is the Southern Medical Journal legit?

2. If it isn't how do I politely tell him that?

3. Is there a mask study that shows the opposite?


Link: [report.drudgenow.com]

Note: While said BIL and Sis are not TRUMPERS they are very conservative. That said they didn't really believe that COVID is causing an uptick of still births in Mississippi among unvaccinated (WP article - light on the science side but the numbers are concerning enough that docs are raising loud flags about it)

1. Yes, the journal is legit. I don't know how often it gets cited, nor how "cutting edge" it may be, but it has been in publication since 1908 or so.

2. Since it appears to actually publish real data, I thought to actually read the article and not someone's interpretation of it. If you would like it, I will send it to you. I don't think you can argue that it isn't a real journal, as it will be indexed in PubMed and other information aggregators. Note that even if it appears in PubMed, it doesn't mean that the journal is noteworthy, only that a study was published in it.

3. First, before we discuss any studies that show masking works, let's look at what the article actually says.

[Cut an excellent analysis.]

Again, my two cents.

Diana

Lizabeth, it does seem like that should do it for you to respond to BIL and Sister. Ya think?!

I'm jealous. I'm sure I've asked for an analysis of some situation I don't know much about but I never got anything remotely as erudite as that.



e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 05:24PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Lizabeth
Date: September 16, 2021 05:29PM
OMG! Thank you Diana! Great reading…

I was not expecting that type of response. BIL here I come…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 05:32PM by Lizabeth.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: RgrF
Date: September 16, 2021 07:18PM
Quote
Lizabeth
OMG! Thank you Diana! Great reading…

I was not expecting that type of response. BIL here I come…

Check out this TikTok link you might want to also forward it to BIL.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: davester
Date: September 16, 2021 08:00PM
Thanks Diana. My two cents based on your much more valuable two cents is...GIGO!



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Acer
Date: September 16, 2021 08:21PM
Diana, can you say that again in meme language?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Diana
Date: September 17, 2021 12:08AM
Quote
Acer
Diana, can you say that again in meme language?

I don’t know if I can, but I’ll try with this summary:

WTF dude? Srsly?? Fail!!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: RgrF
Date: September 17, 2021 12:27AM
Quote
Diana
Quote
Acer
Diana, can you say that again in meme language?

I don’t know if I can, but I’ll try with this summary:

WTF dude? Srsly?? Fail!!

Who decided dude was a better choice than doudette?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Diana
Date: September 17, 2021 01:20AM
Quote
RgrF
Quote
Diana
Quote
Acer
Diana, can you say that again in meme language?

I don’t know if I can, but I’ll try with this summary:

WTF dude? Srsly?? Fail!!

Who decided dude was a better choice than doudette?

The term “dude” does not necessarily have a gender assigned to it. But, in deference to your sentiment, I shall say:

Dood (or doodette or even doodetta), WTF? Srsly faild bunny smiley stoopit

Better?
/sarc

I could also go with pants-on-head but I think folks get the point. smiley-excited001
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: Lizabeth
Date: September 17, 2021 05:51AM
Okay, I compromised and sent an email to said BIL asking him if he actually read the SMJ report cited in the article. And to read it if he hadn't because it says some very different things from the "news" link he sent.

The link he sent shows up as both an FEE news site AND the Drudge Report. I don't know if he really reads the Drudge Report.

I expect to get silence...

Diana, I like the pants on head idea!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2021 05:51AM by Lizabeth.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: pdq
Date: September 17, 2021 09:06AM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
cbelt3
pdq, that map is a DISTURBING use of decimals to confuse people. Ohio is at 50.1 ? Where the hell do they get 0.1 of a person ? Wow. Someone's math teacher needs to hunt them down a deliver a detention.

And what about those poor folks between 50.0 and 50.1?

confused smiley

Ohio’s daily new Covid case rate, averaged over the last 7 days, is over 50 per 100,000 residents. (That’s what “50.1+%” means.)

I don’t get why that is confusing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2021 09:09AM by pdq.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: September 17, 2021 01:04PM
The term “dude” does not necessarily have a gender assigned to it.


Indeed.

I've seen it written and heard it said by many females to females.

Much like 'guys' has become gender neutral and an acceptable, informal way to address a group of girls/women or a group of mixed sexes.

'Dudette' sound patronizing and condescending, at best.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: BIL sent a link from the Southern Medical Journal article about masks not a "viable" option to fight COVID
Posted by: RgrF
Date: September 17, 2021 01:42PM
surrender It was meant as a facetious comment.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 134
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020