Is there a "post-truth" majority in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Truth.

Your problem is that you can only tell people to believe lies that they can plainly see are lies so many times before they start to disbelieve you in all matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no science when the pandemic hit. The scientists were working off data from SARS and MERS, which were in the same family but never at a global scale of impact. We did lockdowns so that hospital wouldn’t get overwhelmed. I feel like a lot of conservative are making calls in hindsight with known data, which wasn’t available information in the Spring/summer of 2020. So yes looking back, they could have possibly changed a few actions, like having kids return in the fall of 2020 to schools.

That only explains the first couple of weeks of lockdowns, and not the behavior months and years afterwards. It doesn’t explain the very specific facts I mentioned about the lack of a scientific basis for example for extended school closures, distancing, mandated child vaccinations and cloth masking. The entire time those decisions were coming down, we had evidence out of European countries (that were managing things differently) that was discarded.

For all of the leftist worship of European socialism, they are remarkably good at frantically silencing the hard, solid science that comes out of those countries. They did it in the pandemic with respect to evidence concerning school closures and distancing, and they’re doing it now with respect to medicalized gender transition for children. It’s almost as if they want the socialist dream and propaganda without the accompanying state-sponsored science.

Poor baby. Try to get over your anger. What’s happened is over. We can’t go back in time and change it. The pandemic is over; move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ken Burns has always been a liberal and has been quite upfront about it. It’s not like he is suddenly changing his tune for this election.

So deeply entrenched in MAGA. Dismiss anything that doesn’t support Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, you lost that pro science argument when the left went berserk during covid.

Covid killed more than a million Americans including members of my family. You think the status quo was called for during an extreme health crisis like that? Do you disrespect health care workers that much? Wow.

The decisions made during COVID by the left were indefensible from both scientific and moral standards. From shutting down the lab leak theory to the unscientific six foot distancing rule, to the closing of outdoor playgrounds and masking of two year olds, the destructive and useless extended school closures, unwillingness to acknowledge that cloth masks were not protective, to the forced admission of COVID positive patients into nursing homes, the mistakes and disregard of science go on and on.

The lab leak theory had no evidence to support it at the time. And just because it did later turn out to be true is nothing more than the broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day. Not exactly a victory, nothing to crow about in terms of scientific or moral theories. What was far worse, far more detrimental and far more indefensible were people like YOU, PP

- the ones like the PP who ran around claiming COVID was a hoax, or that it was somehow being grossly exaggerated. That dishonest propaganda of yours led to disregard to public health guidance and actually contributed to higher transmission rates, it caused deeper divisions in society and deeper distrust in institutions, and hampered efforts to promote vaccinations and necessary public health measures. And don't deny it, PP - your post is dripping with it.

- the ones on your side who ran around touting bogus unscientific nonsense about miracle cures, like hodryxychloroquine, ivermectin, colloidal silver and other things, which distracted from effective treatment and prevention strategies, led to dangerous self-medication and misuse of drugs, and promoted a culture of skepticism toward scientific advice and evidence-based medicine

- the ones on your side who ran around claiming getting infected and having natural immunity would be superior to vaccination - a claim unsupported by science, and what resulted is that people did not protect themselves and even worse, in some cases intentionally exposed themselves, leading to what should otherwise been preventable illnesses and deaths. It undermined vaccination campaigns, and spread disinformation about the nature of immunity and vaccine effectiveness.

- the ones who falsely claimed the vaccines alter DNA, or contain microchips - completely unscientific, immoral garbage, which fueled vaccine hesitancy and slowed vaccination efforts, and prolonged the pandemic due to insufficient herd immunity, while also eroding trust in medical institutions and scientific research

- the ones who spread totally unscientific crap saying "it's being caused by 5G" - completely indefensible, and detrimental because it misdirected public concern away from actual transmission methods, led to vandalism of 5G towers and attacks on telecom workers, and fostered fear and confustion in the public.

The PP does not have a leg to stand on here. The stuff the PP's side did was far worse than anything the PP wants to whine about. That's an absolute fact.

People like the PP damaged the science of Medicine: The spread of misinformation undermined trust in healthcare professionals and public health directives. It also diverted resources to counter false claims and treat preventable cases.

People like the PP damaged science: Disinformation eroded public trust in scientific research and expertise. It contributed to a broader culture of skepticism towards scientific consensus and evidence-based practice.

People like the PP damaged society: The proliferation of conspiracy theories and disinformation led to social polarization, increased xenophobia, and a general erosion of trust in institutions and authorities. It also complicated efforts to manage the pandemic through collective action.

People like the PP damaged the economy: Persistent disinformation impacted economic recovery by prolonging the pandemic and necessitating longer periods of restrictive measures, which in turn hurt businesses and employment.

Completely inexcusable.

The fact that you jump to attack me personally for my completely factual post because you can’t defend anything I wrote - says everything. You know nothing about me or my politics, but the facts I presented here upset you so much that you jump to accusing me of damaging society. You have a lot of self reflection to do here. Your attacks are not going to persuade anyone that the above facts didn’t occur during the pandemic.

Next time, try to make a cogent argument.

You are correct, of course. But that poster you are responding to is largely here to demonstrate that the Republicans aren’t the only party with a deep base of lunatics in their ranks.

Oh, sure, I'm a complete lunatic for pointing out that people dying by the thousands because of conspiracy theories is worse than someone's bogus post being taken down.

Check yourself.

Why on earth do you keep repeatedly talking about posts being taken down? Man, you sound so insane.

I feel like your posts do nothing other than show how the left has as many unhinged lunatics as the right.

You're deeply confused. They are responding TO the unhinged and insane covid conspiracy theorist who repeatedly keeps trying to make some bullshit case that Facebook or whoever taking down what were at the time totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theories was somehow the crime of the century, and that it was somehow worse than the million plus Americans who died from covid. If you want insane, that's it right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, you lost that pro science argument when the left went berserk during covid.

Covid killed more than a million Americans including members of my family. You think the status quo was called for during an extreme health crisis like that? Do you disrespect health care workers that much? Wow.

The decisions made during COVID by the left were indefensible from both scientific and moral standards. From shutting down the lab leak theory to the unscientific six foot distancing rule, to the closing of outdoor playgrounds and masking of two year olds, the destructive and useless extended school closures, unwillingness to acknowledge that cloth masks were not protective, to the forced admission of COVID positive patients into nursing homes, the mistakes and disregard of science go on and on.

The lab leak theory had no evidence to support it at the time. And just because it did later turn out to be true is nothing more than the broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day. Not exactly a victory, nothing to crow about in terms of scientific or moral theories. What was far worse, far more detrimental and far more indefensible were people like YOU, PP

- the ones like the PP who ran around claiming COVID was a hoax, or that it was somehow being grossly exaggerated. That dishonest propaganda of yours led to disregard to public health guidance and actually contributed to higher transmission rates, it caused deeper divisions in society and deeper distrust in institutions, and hampered efforts to promote vaccinations and necessary public health measures. And don't deny it, PP - your post is dripping with it.

- the ones on your side who ran around touting bogus unscientific nonsense about miracle cures, like hodryxychloroquine, ivermectin, colloidal silver and other things, which distracted from effective treatment and prevention strategies, led to dangerous self-medication and misuse of drugs, and promoted a culture of skepticism toward scientific advice and evidence-based medicine

- the ones on your side who ran around claiming getting infected and having natural immunity would be superior to vaccination - a claim unsupported by science, and what resulted is that people did not protect themselves and even worse, in some cases intentionally exposed themselves, leading to what should otherwise been preventable illnesses and deaths. It undermined vaccination campaigns, and spread disinformation about the nature of immunity and vaccine effectiveness.

- the ones who falsely claimed the vaccines alter DNA, or contain microchips - completely unscientific, immoral garbage, which fueled vaccine hesitancy and slowed vaccination efforts, and prolonged the pandemic due to insufficient herd immunity, while also eroding trust in medical institutions and scientific research

- the ones who spread totally unscientific crap saying "it's being caused by 5G" - completely indefensible, and detrimental because it misdirected public concern away from actual transmission methods, led to vandalism of 5G towers and attacks on telecom workers, and fostered fear and confustion in the public.

The PP does not have a leg to stand on here. The stuff the PP's side did was far worse than anything the PP wants to whine about. That's an absolute fact.

People like the PP damaged the science of Medicine: The spread of misinformation undermined trust in healthcare professionals and public health directives. It also diverted resources to counter false claims and treat preventable cases.

People like the PP damaged science: Disinformation eroded public trust in scientific research and expertise. It contributed to a broader culture of skepticism towards scientific consensus and evidence-based practice.

People like the PP damaged society: The proliferation of conspiracy theories and disinformation led to social polarization, increased xenophobia, and a general erosion of trust in institutions and authorities. It also complicated efforts to manage the pandemic through collective action.

People like the PP damaged the economy: Persistent disinformation impacted economic recovery by prolonging the pandemic and necessitating longer periods of restrictive measures, which in turn hurt businesses and employment.

Completely inexcusable.

The fact that you jump to attack me personally for my completely factual post because you can’t defend anything I wrote - says everything. You know nothing about me or my politics, but the facts I presented here upset you so much that you jump to accusing me of damaging society. You have a lot of self reflection to do here. Your attacks are not going to persuade anyone that the above facts didn’t occur during the pandemic.

Next time, try to make a cogent argument.

You are correct, of course. But that poster you are responding to is largely here to demonstrate that the Republicans aren’t the only party with a deep base of lunatics in their ranks.

Oh, sure, I'm a complete lunatic for pointing out that people dying by the thousands because of conspiracy theories is worse than someone's bogus post being taken down.

Check yourself.

Why on earth do you keep repeatedly talking about posts being taken down? Man, you sound so insane.

I feel like your posts do nothing other than show how the left has as many unhinged lunatics as the right.

You're deeply confused. They are responding TO the unhinged and insane covid conspiracy theorist who repeatedly keeps trying to make some bullshit case that Facebook or whoever taking down what were at the time totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theories was somehow the crime of the century, and that it was somehow worse than the million plus Americans who died from covid. If you want insane, that's it right there.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truth.

Your problem is that you can only tell people to believe lies that they can plainly see are lies so many times before they start to disbelieve you in all matters.

Ken Burns is correct.

The US is going to be gone by 2025 and what will be left will be a hellscape.

Mike Flynn
Stephen Miller
Bannon
Stone
Raiklin (insane)
Gen Charles Flynn
And all the other sycophants will be in charge.

If Project 2025 does not horrify you those names above should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't gaslight people into misremembering what happened, which was coordinated efforts by government (leaning hard on social media companies) to shut down discussion. People are not going to forget.

The FACT is that House Republicans tried to have hearings on that but UTTERLY FAILED to prove there was some massive coordinated leaning hard on social media to shut down discussion. You can check the actual CSPAN hearing video for yourself on how it was a failure. If whatever media you follow didn't convey that to you then you are looking in the wrong place for where discussion was shut down.

I don't need a congressional hearing to prove something I experienced personally.

That you posted some sketchy covid conspiracy crap and some mod deleted it (which nobody here denies) is hardly evidence of a grand government coverup. Again, the House Republicans tried proving that and failed. And if they failed in their fervent witch hunt, yours is also by extension a fail. Accept the L and move on. It was some random mod, not a government conspiracy. You do not know more than, or better than the people who had far more resources and access to investigate than you do.

That was a different poster.

People lived through a time when their lives were completely upended and day to day actions and personal health care decisions were dictated by government policies.

The decision to get a vaccine was foisted on people whose employers suddenly had to administer a vaccine mandate from the federal government. Quiting your job suddenly and losing income and stability for your family is not an option for many people. My employer never intruded on my healthcare decisions until Trump and Biden's administrations put in sweeping government covid policies.

People were understandably uncomfortable with a vaccine that was rushed through production and approved on an emergency use basis. Vaccines usually take decades to confirm safety and efficacy. I participated in vaccine trials in college that I learned literally 10 years later hadn't been approved. Then there was the ever changing promises that the vaccine would prevent transmission that were watered down to say, oh no, it'll prevent serious illness and or death. Most demographics were never going to die from covid anyway. It primarily affected the elderly.

Schools were closed, for quite a while, depending on the state. Young families were left to figure out how to work fulltime remotely while simultaneously homeschooling their kids while people screeched about how "school isn't childcare". It is, actually. Our entire economy relies on parents knowing their children are being supervised so the parents can work.

Small businesses were deemed nonessential and had to close while big businesses had the resources to lobby for different treatment.

You STILL have people who are trying to shut down discussion on the government pandemic response, years later.

The "different posters" are all part of the same disease affecting American society - that we are being destroyed from within with willful and malicious disinformation. Disinformation which caused huge numbers of Americans to get sick and die when it should have been preventable.

Meanwhile, nobody died because schools were closed. Nobody died because some message board mod shut down what was, at the time, baseless theories about a lab leak. And do note that school closures were largely a local decision.

Again, it's truly bizarre that people here on this thread, whether you or the different poster alike somehow arrive at the utterly bizarre calculus that somehow "Democrats are worse" or "Democrats are destroying society" when it wasn't the Democrats who were getting Americans killed by the thousands spreading anti-vax garbage.

If you still don't get it, then you're truly hopeless. People dying a horrible death from covid is FAR worse than you being butthurt because some mod locked or took down your post. That's just objective reality.

The law isn't about relativism. The federal government can't be censoring speech through a third-party, like Facebook, no matter how beneficial it would be to the American public.

And House Republicans tried to prove that the federal government was censoring, and failed. And by the way, the First Amendment doesn't actually give unconditional blanket protections and carte blanche to post whatever you like. For example if you post classified information you absolutely will be prosecuted and convicted. Likewise, in most US jurisdictions, it is unlawful to threaten to harm or kill people or destroy their property (terroristic threats), or to falsely hold yourself out to be a physician, police officer, or member of other regulated professions.

So you fail to make your case on the law piece, and you completely failed on the morality and relativism piece. Two fails for the price of one. Congratulations.

It's unclear to me how blind you can be:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/judge-rules-white-house-pressured-social-networks-to-suppress-free-speech/

Further, you seem to be claiming that covid theories are classified information. That's an interesting straw man but not what we are discussing.

First of all, nobody here claimed covid theories were classified information. That was given out as an example of how the First Amendment is in fact not absolute and that the government does indeed have the legal right and authority to suppress information which can trump the First Amendment. So, that's a strawman entirely of your own making. Improve your reading comprehension.

That said, what came out of the GOP hearings was testimony and evidence that Facebook and other social media companies were in fact NOT under undue pressure and that there were MANY instances where either they declined to do anything about instances where the government asked them to look into it. They weren't following government orders, and there were no consequences for not doing so. Zero, none. Additionally, there was a lot of evidence that came out of the hearings showing that in many cases social media companies were suppressing posts entirely of their own accord, for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with the government. I personally can cite the fact that I was banned from Twitter, for no good reason other than the fact that I criticized Elon Musk's blue checkmark program. I was suppressed and the government had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no science when the pandemic hit. The scientists were working off data from SARS and MERS, which were in the same family but never at a global scale of impact. We did lockdowns so that hospital wouldn’t get overwhelmed. I feel like a lot of conservative are making calls in hindsight with known data, which wasn’t available information in the Spring/summer of 2020. So yes looking back, they could have possibly changed a few actions, like having kids return in the fall of 2020 to schools.

That only explains the first couple of weeks of lockdowns, and not the behavior months and years afterwards. It doesn’t explain the very specific facts I mentioned about the lack of a scientific basis for example for extended school closures, distancing, mandated child vaccinations and cloth masking. The entire time those decisions were coming down, we had evidence out of European countries (that were managing things differently) that was discarded.

For all of the leftist worship of European socialism, they are remarkably good at frantically silencing the hard, solid science that comes out of those countries. They did it in the pandemic with respect to evidence concerning school closures and distancing, and they’re doing it now with respect to medicalized gender transition for children. It’s almost as if they want the socialist dream and propaganda without the accompanying state-sponsored science.

Poor baby. Try to get over your anger. What’s happened is over. We can’t go back in time and change it. The pandemic is over; move on.

Shrug.

“Believe science. Oh wait. Not that science. We don’t like that science.”

That’s fine if you want, but don’t expect people not to see through you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ken Burns has always been a liberal and has been quite upfront about it. It’s not like he is suddenly changing his tune for this election.

So deeply entrenched in MAGA. Dismiss anything that doesn’t support Trump.

Not the MAGA response again. Are you ever able to debate on the issues?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The gold standard Cochrane meta analysis of over 78 rigorous studies showed that mask mandates don’t work. “The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.” (Tayag)

If you haven’t been following the science, then maybe just sit this discussion out.

The Cochrane study was only "gold standard" in terms of limiting itself to randomized controlled trials, it did not not capture real-world effectiveness as well as observational studies, and beyond that it has other flaws, for example it included pre-COVID studies of influenza, which has different transmission dynamics than COVID. However even that said, the Cochrane review nonetheless still concluded that there was "low to moderate certainty" evidence that masks provide a small reduction in viral respiratory infections based on RCTs - which contradicts your suggestion that masks were totally ineffective and worthless. Even the Cochrane study can't back that claim up.

There are links above to several other meta-analyses which were not as constrained and flawed as the Cochrane study, which found that effectiveness of masks can be influenced by the timing of implementation, adherence rates, and public compliance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread and consistent mask usage combined with other measures (social distancing, hand hygiene) did in fact play a crucial role.

Studies linked earlier in this thread specifically focused on COVID-19 (not influenza as in the Cochrane study) have shown that masks, particularly in combination with other measures, can in fact significantly reduce transmission. For instance, the Lancet systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that face masks could result in a large reduction in infection risk. Likewise, real-world data from Kansas and Germany indicated that mask mandates and usage correlated with reduced infection rates and growth. Weird that you would want to disregard European studies (Germany) while falsely claiming we are the ones disregarding European studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no science when the pandemic hit. The scientists were working off data from SARS and MERS, which were in the same family but never at a global scale of impact. We did lockdowns so that hospital wouldn’t get overwhelmed. I feel like a lot of conservative are making calls in hindsight with known data, which wasn’t available information in the Spring/summer of 2020. So yes looking back, they could have possibly changed a few actions, like having kids return in the fall of 2020 to schools.

That only explains the first couple of weeks of lockdowns, and not the behavior months and years afterwards. It doesn’t explain the very specific facts I mentioned about the lack of a scientific basis for example for extended school closures, distancing, mandated child vaccinations and cloth masking. The entire time those decisions were coming down, we had evidence out of European countries (that were managing things differently) that was discarded.

For all of the leftist worship of European socialism, they are remarkably good at frantically silencing the hard, solid science that comes out of those countries. They did it in the pandemic with respect to evidence concerning school closures and distancing, and they’re doing it now with respect to medicalized gender transition for children. It’s almost as if they want the socialist dream and propaganda without the accompanying state-sponsored science.

Poor baby. Try to get over your anger. What’s happened is over. We can’t go back in time and change it. The pandemic is over; move on.

Shrug.

“Believe science. Oh wait. Not that science. We don’t like that science.”

That’s fine if you want, but don’t expect people not to see through you.

Sorry hon, YOU are the one disregarding 98% of the science while cherrypicking the tiny handful of items that you think somehow give credence to your broken anti-vaxxer, anti-mask beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gold standard Cochrane meta analysis of over 78 rigorous studies showed that mask mandates don’t work. “The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.” (Tayag)

If you haven’t been following the science, then maybe just sit this discussion out.

The Cochrane study was only "gold standard" in terms of limiting itself to randomized controlled trials, it did not not capture real-world effectiveness as well as observational studies, and beyond that it has other flaws, for example it included pre-COVID studies of influenza, which has different transmission dynamics than COVID. However even that said, the Cochrane review nonetheless still concluded that there was "low to moderate certainty" evidence that masks provide a small reduction in viral respiratory infections based on RCTs - which contradicts your suggestion that masks were totally ineffective and worthless. Even the Cochrane study can't back that claim up.

There are links above to several other meta-analyses which were not as constrained and flawed as the Cochrane study, which found that effectiveness of masks can be influenced by the timing of implementation, adherence rates, and public compliance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread and consistent mask usage combined with other measures (social distancing, hand hygiene) did in fact play a crucial role.

Studies linked earlier in this thread specifically focused on COVID-19 (not influenza as in the Cochrane study) have shown that masks, particularly in combination with other measures, can in fact significantly reduce transmission. For instance, the Lancet systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that face masks could result in a large reduction in infection risk. Likewise, real-world data from Kansas and Germany indicated that mask mandates and usage correlated with reduced infection rates and growth. Weird that you would want to disregard European studies (Germany) while falsely claiming we are the ones disregarding European studies.

It’s laughable to compare a single study from Kansas to a 78 study meta analysis. At this point you are really grasping for straws. You are mixing theoretical mask data (Lancet) with real world, mandate results. It’s the difference between lab data and real world. Give it a rest. The data speaks for itself, as does how the left handled the debate at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no science when the pandemic hit. The scientists were working off data from SARS and MERS, which were in the same family but never at a global scale of impact. We did lockdowns so that hospital wouldn’t get overwhelmed. I feel like a lot of conservative are making calls in hindsight with known data, which wasn’t available information in the Spring/summer of 2020. So yes looking back, they could have possibly changed a few actions, like having kids return in the fall of 2020 to schools.

That only explains the first couple of weeks of lockdowns, and not the behavior months and years afterwards. It doesn’t explain the very specific facts I mentioned about the lack of a scientific basis for example for extended school closures, distancing, mandated child vaccinations and cloth masking. The entire time those decisions were coming down, we had evidence out of European countries (that were managing things differently) that was discarded.

For all of the leftist worship of European socialism, they are remarkably good at frantically silencing the hard, solid science that comes out of those countries. They did it in the pandemic with respect to evidence concerning school closures and distancing, and they’re doing it now with respect to medicalized gender transition for children. It’s almost as if they want the socialist dream and propaganda without the accompanying state-sponsored science.

Poor baby. Try to get over your anger. What’s happened is over. We can’t go back in time and change it. The pandemic is over; move on.

Shrug.

“Believe science. Oh wait. Not that science. We don’t like that science.”

That’s fine if you want, but don’t expect people not to see through you.

Sorry hon, YOU are the one disregarding 98% of the science while cherrypicking the tiny handful of items that you think somehow give credence to your broken anti-vaxxer, anti-mask beliefs.

You are speaking to multiple posters, HON. And there’s no “98 percent of the science” when it comes to COVID data, yet again you are making that up, and we all see through it. There is NO “pro science” political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gold standard Cochrane meta analysis of over 78 rigorous studies showed that mask mandates don’t work. “The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.” (Tayag)

If you haven’t been following the science, then maybe just sit this discussion out.

The Cochrane study was only "gold standard" in terms of limiting itself to randomized controlled trials, it did not not capture real-world effectiveness as well as observational studies, and beyond that it has other flaws, for example it included pre-COVID studies of influenza, which has different transmission dynamics than COVID. However even that said, the Cochrane review nonetheless still concluded that there was "low to moderate certainty" evidence that masks provide a small reduction in viral respiratory infections based on RCTs - which contradicts your suggestion that masks were totally ineffective and worthless. Even the Cochrane study can't back that claim up.

There are links above to several other meta-analyses which were not as constrained and flawed as the Cochrane study, which found that effectiveness of masks can be influenced by the timing of implementation, adherence rates, and public compliance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread and consistent mask usage combined with other measures (social distancing, hand hygiene) did in fact play a crucial role.

Studies linked earlier in this thread specifically focused on COVID-19 (not influenza as in the Cochrane study) have shown that masks, particularly in combination with other measures, can in fact significantly reduce transmission. For instance, the Lancet systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that face masks could result in a large reduction in infection risk. Likewise, real-world data from Kansas and Germany indicated that mask mandates and usage correlated with reduced infection rates and growth. Weird that you would want to disregard European studies (Germany) while falsely claiming we are the ones disregarding European studies.

It’s laughable to compare a single study from Kansas to a 78 study meta analysis. At this point you are really grasping for straws. You are mixing theoretical mask data (Lancet) with real world, mandate results. It’s the difference between lab data and real world. Give it a rest. The data speaks for itself, as does how the left handled the debate at the time.

Cochrane WAS NOT real-world, mandate results. Lancet was not "theoretical" unless you are confusing it with a totally different paper. The paper in Lancet was likewise an extensive meta-analysis, which was actually far more inclusive of real-world data than Cochrane was. And likewise, Germany, Kansas and others WERE real world studies.

Get your act together. You are the one grasping at straws and flailing wildly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gold standard Cochrane meta analysis of over 78 rigorous studies showed that mask mandates don’t work. “The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.” (Tayag)

If you haven’t been following the science, then maybe just sit this discussion out.

The Cochrane study was only "gold standard" in terms of limiting itself to randomized controlled trials, it did not not capture real-world effectiveness as well as observational studies, and beyond that it has other flaws, for example it included pre-COVID studies of influenza, which has different transmission dynamics than COVID. However even that said, the Cochrane review nonetheless still concluded that there was "low to moderate certainty" evidence that masks provide a small reduction in viral respiratory infections based on RCTs - which contradicts your suggestion that masks were totally ineffective and worthless. Even the Cochrane study can't back that claim up.

No.

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).