They're tricking everyone by talking about possibilities of what might or might not happen instead of what actually occurs or has been shown to occur. But when you talk about vague possibilities instead of realities, then you can make and argument for anything.
Examples:
You feel OK,...but you might be sick, so you better assume that you are sick.
It's doubtful these masks are doing anything, and some actual studies indicate that they don't....but they could work, so just assume that they do.
You're a healthy adult with very low risk of dying...but you might die, so stay scared of dying.
And here's the argument turned on its head:
Masks could stop you from passing on the virus, but they also could increase your risk of a lung infection. So which "could" do you choose?
If you want to make an argument that you should do something, then you need to show that there's a real world benefit that arises.
This CDC articles references a study that shows widespread use of masks does not reduce the transmission of viral disease:
I don’t disagree. Just saying it does not do much to stop you from getting it. Not just inhalation but your eyes and other mucus membranes.
Best things to do is wash your hands and not cough/sneeze on people. Common sense shit. After that. Don’t talk or yell or sing n shit. Not joking lol. Which is fine with me.
Serially. If you go out And you aren’t coughing and sneezing and keep your mouth shut. You're way better off at stopping the spread than pretending your doing the best thing ever by just wearing a non medical mask.
The critical part everyone's missing is the donning and doffing procedures they use in the healthcare settings. It totally negates the effectiveness of the mask when spread the concentrated virus all over the place once you take it off. That's why it's effective in clinical settings, but not when everyone else uses them. If you want to adhere to those procedures, then that's fine, but most won't and there's no need to bitch at people for recognizing that reality. 99
For the sake of debate, I think it would in fact qualify as a statistically significant difference (5% or more) but I don't know how that plays out realistically.
You probably could get a statistically significant result in a test, I would concede that. I was using the term in a much more general sense, though. I don't believe that the difference is enough to warrant people screaming bloody murder at people not wearing masks.
A statistically significant difference doesn't say anything about the magnitude of the difference. It means, statistically, we believe there to be a difference. Typically if we are 95% sure that there is a difference, then we say it is statistically significant.
For the sake of argument, if wearing a t-shirt over your face reduces your chances of getting the virus by .01%, but we were 99% sure that was true, it would be a statistically significant difference. If they reduced your chances of getting the virus by 10%, but you were only 80% sure, that would not be a significant difference.
I fail to believe wearing a t-shirt over your face will significantly lower your chances of getting the virus, regardless of if others wear it or not.
It won’t stop you from getting it. It could stop you from passing it on.
If you are sick you should stay home.
If you know you are sick. Yep.
They're tricking everyone by talking about possibilities of what might or might not happen instead of what actually occurs or has been shown to occur. But when you talk about vague possibilities instead of realities, then you can make and argument for anything.
Examples:
You feel OK,...but you might be sick, so you better assume that you are sick.
It's doubtful these masks are doing anything, and some actual studies indicate that they don't....but they could work, so just assume that they do.
You're a healthy adult with very low risk of dying...but you might die, so stay scared of dying.
And here's the argument turned on its head:
If you want to make an argument that you should do something, then you need to show that there's a real world benefit that arises.
This CDC articles references a study that shows widespread use of masks does not reduce the transmission of viral disease:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
I don’t disagree. Just saying it does not do much to stop you from getting it. Not just inhalation but your eyes and other mucus membranes.
Best things to do is wash your hands and not cough/sneeze on people. Common sense shit. After that. Don’t talk or yell or sing n shit. Not joking lol. Which is fine with me.
Serially. If you go out And you aren’t coughing and sneezing and keep your mouth shut. You're way better off at stopping the spread than pretending your doing the best thing ever by just wearing a non medical mask.
The critical part everyone's missing is the donning and doffing procedures they use in the healthcare settings. It totally negates the effectiveness of the mask when spread the concentrated virus all over the place once you take it off. That's why it's effective in clinical settings, but not when everyone else uses them. If you want to adhere to those procedures, then that's fine, but most won't and there's no need to bitch at people for recognizing that reality. 99
For the sake of debate, I think it would in fact qualify as a statistically significant difference (5% or more) but I don't know how that plays out realistically.
You probably could get a statistically significant result in a test, I would concede that. I was using the term in a much more general sense, though. I don't believe that the difference is enough to warrant people screaming bloody murder at people not wearing masks.
Yeah I agree with that. It's way overblown.
A statistically significant difference doesn't say anything about the magnitude of the difference. It means, statistically, we believe there to be a difference. Typically if we are 95% sure that there is a difference, then we say it is statistically significant.
For the sake of argument, if wearing a t-shirt over your face reduces your chances of getting the virus by .01%, but we were 99% sure that was true, it would be a statistically significant difference. If they reduced your chances of getting the virus by 10%, but you were only 80% sure, that would not be a significant difference.