CDC Mask Mandate Study... Debunked
- Thread starter coloradonoles
- Start date
coloradonoles getting dunked on in 3.......2........1
Isnt this the guy that worked in the Trump administration and vouched for hydroxychloroquine and thought the US should infect a large share of the population with Covid to get through the pandemic?
Also, @coloradonoles, why aren't you in DC for the Inauguration of our 19th POTUS?
Also, @coloradonoles, why aren't you in DC for the Inauguration of our 19th POTUS?
Not Bad
Getting a little sketchier.
And now we're done...
Overall, we rate The American Institute for Economic Research Right-Center biased based on Libertarian-leaning economic policy and Mixed for factual reporting due to the publication of misinformation as it relates to Coronavirus.
So economists are debunking the CDC's medical advice. Gotcha.
What's completely gross right now is seeing discarded soggy masks lying on the ground in every major parking lot in town.
Was just thinking HROT was overdue for a falls-on-face, hot take thread from OP.
how many posts until “clowns” is (ironically) submitted as a response?
how many posts until “clowns” is (ironically) submitted as a response?
You have to be a troll.
That's true. People are gross.
I was just talking with a friend that future archaeologists will have a clear demarcation line for 2020 because of the layer of masks in our garbage. Like the layer of ash from the K/T Impactor.
Didn't we just have a thread stating that the lack of children dying from the normal flu this year was due to masking?
Actually this is the author's education:
"Alexander has a bachelor's degree in epidemiology from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a master's degree from Oxford University. In 2015 he earned a PhD degree from McMaster University's Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact."
So why wouldn't such a consequential report be published in a medical journal, instead of a right-wing economic think tank?
Option (1). The "medical establishment" and "big Mask" is trying to "silence" him or
Option (2). He's a quack, but the Libertarians ate it up.
I read it about the time coloradonole posted it. I read relatively fast, and try to comprehend what I'm reading.
For all those making fun of it, please point out what is factually inaccurate about the article. I doubt many have taken the time to read it. In fact, there's a lot in the article that everyone should agree with, pro-mask or not.
For all those making fun of it, please point out what is factually inaccurate about the article. I doubt many have taken the time to read it. In fact, there's a lot in the article that everyone should agree with, pro-mask or not.
The conclusion seems to be "Mask mandates don't work, because people don't obey them, or wear their masks correctly, or wear them consistently in risk situations, or they wear shitty masks."
Um...duh? If people don't comply with a policy, then it's pretty easy to claim the policy has failed.
One would think the self-ascribed stages of hrot would go through your article for claims like this - “..evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission....” - then tear them apart line by line.
Nope; just the same old adolescent name calling and insults. Par for the course for the resident clowns. Science!!
The article was pointing out inconsistencies in studies, and how the CDC has updated their findings and conclusions on earlier studies.
Yep, that's what science calls "progress". You take your position, and modify/refine/discard it as you get more data and learn more.
And generally, I am extremely skeptical of the people who amplify the lone (Doctor/Climatologist/Biologist/Economist/Sociologist) that puts out a report refuting decades or centuries of scientific consensus, but just so happens to align with what they want to be true.
Anecdotal ‘evidence’ = propaganda.
Called this earlier, as well as the irony...now drink!
It's fine to be skeptical. I'm skeptical a lot. The thing is, a lot of facts and evidence is being presented, and a bunch of people are criticizing the author and poster without having a factual basis to do that.
Wanna make fun of the author or coloradonole? Find something that's inaccurate with the article. It should be easy, right?
I normally wait til 5 to start drinking: you laying down that challenge gave me a perfect excuse to start early.🥳
I found their article about the benefits of sweatshops in third world countries enlightening.
The author suggests that a study on army recruits published in the NEJOM supports the ineffectiveness of mask wearing. However, it appears that study came to the conclusion that close proximity (here, roommates and in same platoon) were the main risk of transmission and not that masks are ineffective.
The author's reference to the Danish study as support of his hypothesis that outdoor mask wearing is ineffective fails to identify the following limitation on the Danish study
these findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.
these findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.
Next UP:
Auto mechanics, telling heart surgeons that they aren't using the right carb mixture for bypass surgeries!!! 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
No....they've already pretty much debunked the alleged "facts" in the articles.
Things you're not well-versed in, and why you are so easily fooled.
Where did you get that impression?
Here is the study.
Paul E. Alexander received his bachelor’s degree in epidemiology from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, a master’s degree from Oxford University, and a PhD from McMaster University’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact.
Lets see your credentials Greely boy...
yes, I read it (reviewed it really). The proximity exposure as cause was taken from the study’s conclusion.
