|
|
Post by bluehen on Jul 27, 2020 21:03:03 GMT
Good to hear, Bevo. Tell ol' Herdfan that the Hen wants him back. We + B90 and Stumpy ( need him too ) were the only posters that knew the difference between real, competition based national championships and these phony opinion and TV business driven mythical championships. Those other guys would be good too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Jul 30, 2020 13:11:47 GMT
Jesus is rolling over in his grave right now. To all the other posters on this board, I apologize for being so harsh to AuFan upon his return. But, I will point you to this statement as evidence to why I think he is despicable. He will not debate complicated issues in good faith, seeking to teach or learn. Rather, he ignores points he doesn't like, presents other insignificant data, twists your words into things you didn't say, and then this... an unsolicited attack on the very foundation of your faith. I wish real conversation was possible. There's intelligence in there, somewhere. But, it's buried deep beneath a bunch of anger and indoctrination.
I suggest you read the posts in this thread and take some accountability.
I said: "The science says that the general population wearing a mask is a good thing, that helps prevent spread." Your response: "Show me ONE Random Controlled Trial that show this... with a virus." Your response: "In PERFECT conditions, the study you posted shows that masks are ineffective against aerosols. At best, they help against droplets. But, that's not how such viruses are spread." My response: "You are suggesting that the virus cannot be spread through respiratory droplets?" Your response: "I never said the virus can't be spread by respiratory droplets. Pretty stupid thing to suggest." My response: I point out how you said exactly that with quotes. Your response: "I should have said: That's not the ONLY way such viruses are spread. I didn't say they "CAN'T" be spread that way"
Then you bow out of the conversation, saying I am unreasonable. Is it unreasonable to give you what you ask for, a scientific study saying masks can stop the spread of viruses? Is it unreasonable to point out your erroneous statements?
The arguments against masks are mind boggling. Maybe we'll eventually get the point as a country, which will be for the benefit of everyone.
On your other point, I have been indoctrinated throughout my life. It is probably why I still hold Christian and conservative values, though I don't let my indoctrination completely govern my thoughts and actions. Though I do hold onto the "love thy neighbor", I think it is invaluable regardless of faith. Wearing a mask is the epitome of love thy neighbor, yet many people in the south are not doing it, while still attending church and studying the teaching's of Jesus. If Jesus could see/understand this, he would absolutely be applauded by people who claim to follow his teachings yet not wearing a mask/protesting mask mandates are their priority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 30, 2020 17:30:21 GMT
To all the other posters on this board, I apologize for being so harsh to AuFan upon his return. But, I will point you to this statement as evidence to why I think he is despicable. He will not debate complicated issues in good faith, seeking to teach or learn. Rather, he ignores points he doesn't like, presents other insignificant data, twists your words into things you didn't say, and then this... an unsolicited attack on the very foundation of your faith. I wish real conversation was possible. There's intelligence in there, somewhere. But, it's buried deep beneath a bunch of anger and indoctrination.
I suggest you read the posts in this thread and take some accountability.
I said: "The science says that the general population wearing a mask is a good thing, that helps prevent spread." Your response: "Show me ONE Random Controlled Trial that show this... with a virus." Your response: "In PERFECT conditions, the study you posted shows that masks are ineffective against aerosols. At best, they help against droplets. But, that's not how such viruses are spread." My response: "You are suggesting that the virus cannot be spread through respiratory droplets?" Your response: "I never said the virus can't be spread by respiratory droplets. Pretty stupid thing to suggest." My response: I point out how you said exactly that with quotes. Your response: "I should have said: That's not the ONLY way such viruses are spread. I didn't say they "CAN'T" be spread that way"
Then you bow out of the conversation, saying I am unreasonable. Is it unreasonable to give you what you ask for, a scientific study saying masks can stop the spread of viruses? Is it unreasonable to point out your erroneous statements?
The arguments against masks are mind boggling. Maybe we'll eventually get the point as a country, which will be for the benefit of everyone.
On your other point, I have been indoctrinated throughout my life. It is probably why I still hold Christian and conservative values, though I don't let my indoctrination completely govern my thoughts and actions. Though I do hold onto the "love thy neighbor", I think it is invaluable regardless of faith. Wearing a mask is the epitome of love thy neighbor, yet many people in the south are not doing it, while still attending church and studying the teaching's of Jesus. If Jesus could see/understand this, he would absolutely be applauded by people who claim to follow his teachings yet not wearing a mask/protesting mask mandates are their priority.
I asked for an RCT that showed wearing a mask was effective at stopping the spread of a virus. These people couldn't find one: wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR16c7QwNuxW6SPTvFgGejfWjEi6b7X-nUlvA5WK1F990EpQFZsqJ6XRglU#r18The study you provided was NOT this... it was a study that showed effectiveness in stopping virus particles spreading in respiratory droplets. That's mechanistic, but not determinative of effectiveness in stopping the spread of a respiratory virus in a general public setting. When people read things like that study posted on the CDC, they shouldn't be faulted for questioning the effectiveness of mask-wearing. There is clearly reasonable doubt as to the overall benefit. At best, it's a leap of faith, based on an assumption that COVID is primarily transmitted by respiratory droplets. I re-read the entire thread. I will accept blame for my negative tone at the beginning. I started with the bias of a highly negative opinion of you. I should have waited, to see if anything had changed. But, my pre-formed opinion was solidly re-confirmed over the course of just a few interactions. FYI>> I have actually attended a church in the south in the past few weeks. Two of them, actually. I didn't see ANYONE not wearing a mask, or social distancing. People in our church do Love their Neighbors. Enough to wear masks, even if they are personally convinced that the benefit of doing so is de minimis. Hard to understand why you have such a desire to project ill will on church-goers? |
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Jul 30, 2020 17:37:22 GMT
Jesus is rolling over in his grave right now. To all the other posters on this board, I apologize for being so harsh to AuFan upon his return. But, I will point you to this statement as evidence to why I think he is despicable. He will not debate complicated issues in good faith, seeking to teach or learn. Rather, he ignores points he doesn't like, presents other insignificant data, twists your words into things you didn't say, and then this... an unsolicited attack on the very foundation of your faith. I wish real conversation was possible. There's intelligence in there, somewhere. But, it's buried deep beneath a bunch of anger and indoctrination. Also, I used a idiom about a religious figure. Not at all a personal attack. It is not even an attack on that religion or faith. It was used to emphasize how refusing to wear a mask in public goes directly against Jesus' teachings of love thy neighbor, and it is simply frustrating to see the amount of non-compliance in very religious areas. It most certainly is an attack on those who refuse to wear masks in public, as don't think very highly of them in that regard.
An unsolicited attack, for example, would be calling someone the most despicable human one has encountered. Even if using an idiom about a religious figure was an attack on a religion (it is not), or an attack on an individual (most certainly not) you are still using it to retroactively justify yourself.
Does this all stem from not wanting to back down on your original claim that there is no scientific study that shows masks can help prevent the spread of viruses? That the proponents of mask mandates have a scientifically valid point?
Nothing about this conversation is personal for me. Personal attacks don't phase me, and definitely is not why I posted. I was curious what an intelligent conservative group-think thought about mask mandates, that surely the anti-mask demographic was mostly a vocal yet uninformed group on the right. Maybe not? Scary...
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 30, 2020 20:32:58 GMT
Those who are “pro mask” and “close schools” aren’t basing their positions on the scientific data or observational evidence for either position. Current evidence, of which there is a fair amount, supports neither position. ( See recent Oxford expert epidemiological panel - science on efficacy of masks is weak).
The science on HCQ is far better than the science on unviersal masking, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Jul 30, 2020 22:35:26 GMT
I asked for an RCT that showed wearing a mask was effective at stopping the spread of a virus. These people couldn't find one: wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR16c7QwNuxW6SPTvFgGejfWjEi6b7X-nUlvA5WK1F990EpQFZsqJ6XRglU#r18The study you provided was NOT this... it was a study that showed effectiveness in stopping virus particles spreading in respiratory droplets. That's mechanistic, but not determinative of effectiveness in stopping the spread of a respiratory virus in a general public setting. When people read things like that study posted on the CDC, they shouldn't be faulted for questioning the effectiveness of mask-wearing. There is clearly reasonable doubt as to the overall benefit. At best, it's a leap of faith, based on an assumption that COVID is primarily transmitted by respiratory droplets. I re-read the entire thread. I will accept blame for my negative tone at the beginning. I started with the bias of a highly negative opinion of you. I should have waited, to see if anything had changed. But, my pre-formed opinion was solidly re-confirmed over the course of just a few interactions. FYI>> I have actually attended a church in the south in the past few weeks. Two of them, actually. I didn't see ANYONE not wearing a mask, or social distancing. People in our church do Love their Neighbors. Enough to wear masks, even if they are personally convinced that the benefit of doing so is de minimis. Hard to understand why you have such a desire to project ill will on church-goers? You could similarly argue that washing your hands or covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough does not have randomly controlled trials to show that they are effective either. Just look at the study you posted. Do you need to revise your earlier statements about hand washing to reflect this study?
Feel free to dismiss mechanistic scientific evidence. I think it is short sighted. Should I wear a hard hat at a construction site? No randomly controlled study dropped bricks on people's heads with and without a helmet, but we can use the mechanism to give us a good idea that hard hats are effective. If lives are at stake, dismissing the mechanism and only accepting randomly controlled trials of the actual disease is not the prudent scientific approach.
I have nothing against church goers in general. In fact I was arguing for a tenant of Christianity from the start of this thread. People who love thy neighbor should be wearing masks. But they're not.
Many people love to govern or be governed with their Christian viewpoint at the forefront. From that perspective they should be all for mask mandates. But they're not.
From my view, it seems like anti-government or anti-science is taking a front seat to love thy neighbor. This disease has affected me personally like it has so many others, and I think I have the right to be angry that so many people are taking it lightly or even dismissing it entirely. Why is now the time we forget about love thy neighbor? Absolutely infuriating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 31, 2020 0:11:20 GMT
I used a idiom about a religious figure. Not at all a personal attack. It is not even an attack on that religion or faith Yea... right. Keep telling yourself that. You're the only one who might believe it. If you sat alone in a room for a week, you couldn't come up with a more offensive thing to say to a Christian in so few words. The least you could do is, own it and apologize. I might respect that. I'll never believe you didn't know exactly what you were saying. You thought it was exceptionally clever. |
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Jul 31, 2020 1:34:11 GMT
I used a idiom about a religious figure. Not at all a personal attack. It is not even an attack on that religion or faith Yea... right. Keep telling yourself that. You're the only one who might believe it. If you sat alone in a room for a week, you couldn't come up with a more offensive thing to say to a Christian in so few words. The least you could do is, own it and apologize. I might respect that. I'll never believe you didn't know exactly what you were saying. You thought it was exceptionally clever. Couldn't disagree more.
First, I could think of 1,000 more offensive things to say. As I was typing it I thought it was humorous to me based on the myth of Jesus, so I kept it.
Second, if we assume that was an attack on a belief system, so what? Nobody should be offended by anything said about a belief system. All beliefs and ideas should be open to critique, criticism and even common idioms. There is no idea or belief I hold that you could attack that I would ever take personal offense to. If I made a off handed comment about the earth being billions of years old, would that also be offensive?
Third, being raised a Christian and continuing to follow many of Jesus' teachings like love thy neighbor, Christians don't have a monopoly on those ideas. Jesus died. He was buried. His corpse is likely in the ground. Saying someone is rolling over in their grave is a common idiom. If Jesus were alive today, he certainly would disagree with people refusing to wear masks on the basis of love thy neighbor - i.e. rolling over in his grave.
If an offhanded comment, that doesn't conform to your religious beliefs, is the most offensive thing that could ever been said to a Christian in so few words, maybe you might be one of those snowflakes that was mentioned earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 31, 2020 12:41:38 GMT
If an offhanded comment, that doesn't conform to your religious beliefs, is the most offensive thing that could ever been said to a Christian in so few words, maybe you might be one of those snowflakes that was mentioned earlier in this thread. Fear not, I will survive. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 1, 2020 11:32:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 6, 2020 21:21:04 GMT
As Bevo rereads the study that he linked, he may reconsider that washing his hands and covering his mouth when he sneezes and coughs. Why wash your hands, or cover your mouth, when a randomly controlled trial showed that this was not effective to reduce spread of viruses? Why look at mechanisms, when you have a meta-study showing that washing your hands and covering your mouth did not have a pooled statistically significant reduction in the spread of sicknesses caused by virus? I'm sure this is exactly what is being read by the anti-mask crowd when it comes to the virus, to form their very informed opinions about the corona virus and protocols to help reduce spread. Maybe the next protests should be for the right to sneeze and cough wherever you please? This is our right as free Americans, and there is no study that shows this spreads sicknesses caused by viruses.
There may be a simpler explanation. I thought this opinion piece was interesting, and is an insight that maybe this anti-science view is not new. I suppose when a group believes they have all the answers, science trying to provide answers is a direct threat to that group's ideology. Resistance should be expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Aug 7, 2020 10:23:25 GMT
I thought this opinion piece was interesting, and is an insight that maybe this anti-science view is not new. I suppose when a group believes they have all the answers, science trying to provide answers is a direct threat to that group's ideology. Resistance should be expected.
Another anti southern anti Trump rant having nothing to do with science nor any other redeeming quality. Fairly typical of The Washington Post. I can certainly see how this type would hold your interest. Onward, through the fog. |
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 7, 2020 12:04:56 GMT
I thought this opinion piece was interesting, and is an insight that maybe this anti-science view is not new. I suppose when a group believes they have all the answers, science trying to provide answers is a direct threat to that group's ideology. Resistance should be expected. Another anti southern anti Trump rant having nothing to do with science nor any other redeeming quality. Fairly typical of The Washington Post. I can certainly see how this type would hold your interest. Onward, through the fog. It talks about the history of anti-science sentiment in the south. Interesting to point out that this anti-mask behavior is nothing new, just a different form of anti-science that has been around for a long time. The problem now is that being anti-science is risking the health and lives of people. The behavior of some people in the south certainly deserves ridicule. Arguing that we are throwing out god’s wonderful breathing system. It’s one thing when this idiocy is localized to the individual who will just remain ignorant their entire lives. But now they are quite literally a threat to others. The people who don’t take this virus seriously are so selfish and it’s frustrating. I guess they’ve been lucky enough not to be affected. |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 7, 2020 12:47:57 GMT
It's weird that the "pro-mask", "anti-school" folks take these positions, especially when neither position is supported by science.
Like the OXford panel said, there's a big difference between the opaque phraseology of "being on the side of science" and actual scientific evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 7, 2020 14:30:11 GMT
I'm curious; are the Dutch and Danes considered part of the "South"? Their national leaders have also not supported mandated mask-wearing in the general public. Denmark, in particular has survived the Covid crisis pretty well, without having their general public wear masks.
As an engineer, you should be well versed in the difference between "theory" and "practicality". In theory, masks should slow transmission of such a virus, at least from respiratory droplets. However, so far anyway, for the studies that have been done looking at the actual effectiveness in a general population, there hasn't been much evidence that they matter. Not hard to believe, when you look at what people are actually doing. There certainly has not been a correlation between case spread and mask wearing in the various states that have gone through 2nd waves. California mandated mask wearing on June 18. Take a look at how effective it was. COVID didn't care.
There are at least a couple of studies underway to investigate more closely. We should have better data with a few months.
DO you recall, a few months ago everyone was so worried about the spread of COVID on surfaces that we were told we should disinfect all the groceries we brought home from the store. Why? Because there were studies showing COVID particles survived for several days, even weeks on various kinds of surfaces. Accurate studies, I'm sure... verifying a "theoretical method of transmission". Further studies have shown, in practice, this not a significant mode of transmission and we don't actually need to wipe every pickle jar with Chlorox.
There remains much to be learned. It's not helpful though, when one side rushes out with a solution (that may well not be a solution at all) and then proclaims that anyone who doesn't jump on board is "anti-science". Science is defined by challenging and proving.
|
|
