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

[Anonymous]

Suppose that someone falsely posted on social media that the posters above defending anti-vax lies were pedophiles and as a result they were assaulted and beaten by their neighbors, had their house and property vandalized? Perfectly fine to post those pedophilia lies and cause that harm? There should be no controls, no consequences whatsoever for posting them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not an anti-vaxxer and I believe N-95 masks are effective if worn correctly on adults. I do not believe mask mandates are effective at preventing disease spread, because that isn’t well-supported by studies.

Where I differ from you is that I do not reject science that isn’t politically expedient. I am not rejecting the overwhelming science outside of the US showing the failure of medicalized gender transition, unlike the US left, for instance.

You sound weaker and weaker every time you post.

Weakness us moving the goalposts by changing the subject - we were talking about covid.

Actually, no. PPs have been making the point about the science of medicalized gender transition for children (and how the left is ignoring the science) for many posts in this thread, as well as Covid. There are several posts talking about both. You only respond to the Covid posts, because the lack of evidentiary support for medicalized transition for children is so overwhelming, even you know you can’t defend it. But the discussion has been present in this thread from the start, from multiple PPs.

But since we are here: tell me how Democrats and leftists in the US are embracing the science coming out from around the world about the lack of medical support for youth gender transition. Show me those rigorous investigations, the Congressional hearings about that lack of evidence put forth by Democrats. Where are the blue state politicians that have championed rolling back the laws they passed to permit kids to get gender affirming medical treatment without parental permission?

[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.

Then why, as someone who is on heavy immunosuppressants, does my doctor instruct me to wear an N95 mask on an airplane? And also why don’t I get Covid on the plane like my DH or kid who don’t wear masks? Why do doctors and nurses wear masks when working?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignoring 98 percent of the science is referring to "ohh I have my Cochrane study of lab-only tests and influenza that I think proves masks don't work and therefore I am going to completely ignore the hundreds of other papers out there which say otherwise despite those studies being more specifically focused on covid and real-world effectiveness."

OMG what is confusing you about the idea that one way masking works and yet government mask mandates don’t? This is the what, the third time you’ve mixed this up? Even at the time this is exactly what Republican governors were saying when they dropped the mandates in their states and the Democrats put out absurd hyperbolic press releases about how they were going to kill their residents (which of course didn’t happen).

So now we're at "masking works" but "mask mandates don't." Well now there's some truth. The main reason mandates don't work is because some people are just contrarian idiots who also lack the common sense for self-preservation. The anti-maskers are birds-of-a-feather with the people who fought seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. Good for you. Darwin's law in action.

This is spot on!

[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.

Then why, as someone who is on heavy immunosuppressants, does my doctor instruct me to wear an N95 mask on an airplane? And also why don’t I get Covid on the plane like my DH or kid who don’t wear masks? Why do doctors and nurses wear masks when working?

You are never going to convince these wacko anti vaxxers of the importance of vaccines. They free-load off of the responsible behavior of others that helps to protect them and their families while they trash the scientific method

[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.

Then why, as someone who is on heavy immunosuppressants, does my doctor instruct me to wear an N95 mask on an airplane? And also why don’t I get Covid on the plane like my DH or kid who don’t wear masks? Why do doctors and nurses wear masks when working?

I’m not the PP but I assume one of the issues is whether the masks fit you and you wear them correctly.

There is a huge difference between whether an N95 mask is effective individually in specific situations and whether mask mandates are effective at preventing disease spread across a population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then why, as someone who is on heavy immunosuppressants, does my doctor instruct me to wear an N95 mask on an airplane? And also why don’t I get Covid on the plane like my DH or kid who don’t wear masks? Why do doctors and nurses wear masks when working?

You are never going to convince these wacko anti vaxxers of the importance of vaccines. They free-load off of the responsible behavior of others that helps to protect them and their families while they trash the scientific method

The post PP is responding to says literally nothing about vaccines. That post is about masks, not vaccines. You can’t even understand a simple DCUM post and yet you expect me to believe you can read and absorb scientific studies? What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then why, as someone who is on heavy immunosuppressants, does my doctor instruct me to wear an N95 mask on an airplane? And also why don’t I get Covid on the plane like my DH or kid who don’t wear masks? Why do doctors and nurses wear masks when working?

You are never going to convince these wacko anti vaxxers of the importance of vaccines. They free-load off of the responsible behavior of others that helps to protect them and their families while they trash the scientific method

The post PP is responding to says literally nothing about vaccines. That post is about masks, not vaccines. You can’t even understand a simple DCUM post and yet you expect me to believe you can read and absorb scientific studies? What a joke.

So sorry. Please substitute masks for vaccines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not an anti-vaxxer and I believe N-95 masks are effective if worn correctly on adults. I do not believe mask mandates are effective at preventing disease spread, because that isn’t well-supported by studies.

Where I differ from you is that I do not reject science that isn’t politically expedient. I am not rejecting the overwhelming science outside of the US showing the failure of medicalized gender transition, unlike the US left, for instance.

You sound weaker and weaker every time you post.

Weakness us moving the goalposts by changing the subject - we were talking about covid.

Actually, no. PPs have been making the point about the science of medicalized gender transition for children (and how the left is ignoring the science) for many posts in this thread, as well as Covid. There are several posts talking about both. You only respond to the Covid posts, because the lack of evidentiary support for medicalized transition for children is so overwhelming, even you know you can’t defend it. But the discussion has been present in this thread from the start, from multiple PPs.

But since we are here: tell me how Democrats and leftists in the US are embracing the science coming out from around the world about the lack of medical support for youth gender transition. Show me those rigorous investigations, the Congressional hearings about that lack of evidence put forth by Democrats. Where are the blue state politicians that have championed rolling back the laws they passed to permit kids to get gender affirming medical treatment without parental permission?

Sorry, but fewer people are responding to medicalized gender transition because it didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people the way the covid lies did. Likewise, medicalized transition is not some kind of proven science lie that led thousands to violently storm the capitol and cause millions of dollars in damage. To me, your priorities are completely backwards, you want to overhype something that barely affects a fraction of 1% of America while being completely dismissive of something that actually resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary and preventable deaths, serious illnesses and lifelong complications.

I haven't been here for this whole discussion. Personally, I disagree with medicalized gender transition solely because the current state of medicine is ill equipped to actually deal with it. But as for whether it's valid or not for people to genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria and to psychologically feel they are the opposite gender in the wrong body - I would likewise argue that medical science is also not sufficiently advanced to speak to this phenomenon - yet that doesn't stop conservatives from unscientifically trying to deny, demonize, marginalize and attempt to shut down any discussion of it as well, without any adequately robust scientific basis other than "God made two genders, there is only black and white" given what science we have points to a whole range of things like anomalous DNA, people born intersex, Klinefelter syndrome and a whole range of other things which science is still only scratching the surface of. Caster Semenya grew to adulthood never actually knowing she had parts of male genitalia internally. As such you can't just glibly say "there is only male and female and to say otherwise is unscientific and anti-science."

[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.

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).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484132/

"The science of masking and its impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated. Observational studies present valuable data that warrant consideration in informing policy with a full understanding of the utility of mask use in a variety of settings. The Cochrane review did not include a large body of evidence, and that resulted in a biased conclusion. If all types of studies are considered, it is clear that well-fitting, properly used masks do have a measurable and significant effect on reducing transmission when properly worn by the vast majority of the population during times of high community transmission.3 Although the data in the two new studies included in the Cochrane update on masks are accurate, modeling studies correctly predict the small effect sizes that those studies observed; furthermore, the models predict that the effect size would be much larger with better masks more widely and correctly used. Taken together, these and other studies strongly indicate that masking is an effective intervention to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (source control) and should be considered to protect those most vulnerable from severe COVID-19 illness (wearer protection) as a general nonpharmaceutical intervention during times of high transmission."

When you go around citing scientific studies, you have to consider their strengths and weaknesses.

One of the most important considerations with masking is whether they are properly worn. Unless a study completely controls for this, it is hard to draw a strong conclusion. The problem is not that masks don't work, it's that people don't always wear them properly. The problem, as always, is with people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then why, as someone who is on heavy immunosuppressants, does my doctor instruct me to wear an N95 mask on an airplane? And also why don’t I get Covid on the plane like my DH or kid who don’t wear masks? Why do doctors and nurses wear masks when working?

You are never going to convince these wacko anti vaxxers of the importance of vaccines. They free-load off of the responsible behavior of others that helps to protect them and their families while they trash the scientific method

The post PP is responding to says literally nothing about vaccines. That post is about masks, not vaccines. You can’t even understand a simple DCUM post and yet you expect me to believe you can read and absorb scientific studies? What a joke.

DP. Whether dismissing and denying masks or vaccines, it's all part and parcel of the same thing, the same machine trying to destroy public health. That you can't understand that pretty much shows us that you certainly aren't capable of reading and absorbing scientific studies because you can't even connect the dots or understand the big picture of something as basic as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not an anti-vaxxer and I believe N-95 masks are effective if worn correctly on adults. I do not believe mask mandates are effective at preventing disease spread, because that isn’t well-supported by studies.

Where I differ from you is that I do not reject science that isn’t politically expedient. I am not rejecting the overwhelming science outside of the US showing the failure of medicalized gender transition, unlike the US left, for instance.

You sound weaker and weaker every time you post.

Weakness us moving the goalposts by changing the subject - we were talking about covid.

Actually, no. PPs have been making the point about the science of medicalized gender transition for children (and how the left is ignoring the science) for many posts in this thread, as well as Covid. There are several posts talking about both. You only respond to the Covid posts, because the lack of evidentiary support for medicalized transition for children is so overwhelming, even you know you can’t defend it. But the discussion has been present in this thread from the start, from multiple PPs.

But since we are here: tell me how Democrats and leftists in the US are embracing the science coming out from around the world about the lack of medical support for youth gender transition. Show me those rigorous investigations, the Congressional hearings about that lack of evidence put forth by Democrats. Where are the blue state politicians that have championed rolling back the laws they passed to permit kids to get gender affirming medical treatment without parental permission?

Sorry, but fewer people are responding to medicalized gender transition because it didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people the way the covid lies did. Likewise, medicalized transition is not some kind of proven science lie that led thousands to violently storm the capitol and cause millions of dollars in damage. To me, your priorities are completely backwards, you want to overhype something that barely affects a fraction of 1% of America while being completely dismissive of something that actually resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary and preventable deaths, serious illnesses and lifelong complications.

I haven't been here for this whole discussion. Personally, I disagree with medicalized gender transition solely because the current state of medicine is ill equipped to actually deal with it. But as for whether it's valid or not for people to genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria and to psychologically feel they are the opposite gender in the wrong body - I would likewise argue that medical science is also not sufficiently advanced to speak to this phenomenon - yet that doesn't stop conservatives from unscientifically trying to deny, demonize, marginalize and attempt to shut down any discussion of it as well, without any adequately robust scientific basis other than "God made two genders, there is only black and white" given what science we have points to a whole range of things like anomalous DNA, people born intersex, Klinefelter syndrome and a whole range of other things which science is still only scratching the surface of. Caster Semenya grew to adulthood never actually knowing she had parts of male genitalia internally. As such you can't just glibly say "there is only male and female and to say otherwise is unscientific and anti-science."

Point out where exactly in my post I said the bolded. Be precise, thank you.

[Anonymous]

And meanwhile, surgeons wear masks... because they reduce transmission of germs.

And you know this.

Pretty sure not a single one of the anti-maskers on this thread are scoffing at their surgeons, telling them masks don't work, and demanding they don't wear masks in the operating theater. The whole anti-mask thing is so ridiculously dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484132/

"The science of masking and its impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated. Observational studies present valuable data that warrant consideration in informing policy with a full understanding of the utility of mask use in a variety of settings. The Cochrane review did not include a large body of evidence, and that resulted in a biased conclusion. If all types of studies are considered, it is clear that well-fitting, properly used masks do have a measurable and significant effect on reducing transmission when properly worn by the vast majority of the population during times of high community transmission.3 Although the data in the two new studies included in the Cochrane update on masks are accurate, modeling studies correctly predict the small effect sizes that those studies observed; furthermore, the models predict that the effect size would be much larger with better masks more widely and correctly used. Taken together, these and other studies strongly indicate that masking is an effective intervention to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (source control) and should be considered to protect those most vulnerable from severe COVID-19 illness (wearer protection) as a general nonpharmaceutical intervention during times of high transmission."

When you go around citing scientific studies, you have to consider their strengths and weaknesses.

One of the most important considerations with masking is whether they are properly worn. Unless a study completely controls for this, it is hard to draw a strong conclusion. The problem is not that masks don't work, it's that people don't always wear them properly. The problem, as always, is with people.

Agreed, but passing mandates based on wishful thinking about how people should act is never going to work. The problem here is that the people promoting the mandates claimed they were supported by science, when in fact the opposite was true.

I don’t disagree that a properly fitted N95 on an adult works to contain Covid. I strongly disagree that masking toddlers did anything other than harm those poor children, but that was policy promulgated by Democratic policymakers. And this thread is about post-truth and lack of science promulgated by political parties. The fact is that Democrats promulgated harmful policies that were not grounded in science. OF COURSE the Republicans did and do as well (guns being the first that come to mind but also a lot of their Covid policies). That isn’t a question. What you and other PPs seem to believe is that Democrats are somehow immune to the same political failings with respect to science and truth as the Republicans, despite mounds of evidence otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And meanwhile, surgeons wear masks... because they reduce transmission of germs.

And you know this.

Pretty sure not a single one of the anti-maskers on this thread are scoffing at their surgeons, telling them masks don't work, and demanding they don't wear masks in the operating theater. The whole anti-mask thing is so ridiculously dishonest.

I think you are a little too slow to be participating in this conversation. Try to keep up.