Reply to Just received word that masks during game play are no longer required at the Soccerplex!

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Just received word that masks during game play are no longer required at the Soccerplex!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent[/quote]

None of the links in the article lead to a study showing masks work.  The evidence in favor of masks is very poor.  It boils down to the fact that in some cases where amsks were introduced case rates have fallen.  However correlation is very weak evidence, as there were many plausible reasons for cases to fall - and there are plenty of other data samples where mask rules not correlated with such a change.  In other words - what this article is calling evidence is not evidence at all - and it is the opposite of science.  The whole erason for having a scientific method is precisely that correlation proves nothing.  and this is obviosuly doubly true when you can only even show correlation by cherry picking your evidence.  This is witchcraft, not science.

The evidence against masks on the other hand is based on fourteen randomized controlled studies.  In other words actual science experiments where you have a control group and an experimental group - bith of which are subject to identical circumstances except for the variable you intend to measure.  There have been fourteen such studies done on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases, performed with scientific rigor and fully peer-reviewed.  Every single one has shown no measurable effect.  None.[/quote]

Don’t bother. It’s falling on deaf ears and little brains. Their source is the Washington Post, which ran a long article tonight on the high risks of flight, noting that 9000 people had been potentially exposed to 160 flyers known to have had a COVID (though the article notes with frustration how nobody has been shown to have caught it among the 9000 from flight transmission). Sounds like a lot of people exposed, right?  Of course the article fails to mention how many total flyers there were over the course of the CDC study because the concept of relative risk is completely at odds with the Posts agenda to shut everything down except the Treasury (for writing checks) and the Washington Post. They have educated their readers just as they wanted, which basically means scientifically and statistically illiterate and innumerate. [/quote]

your tin foil hats-  do you buy them or make them yourselves?[/quote]

Reference to tinfoil hats - is that more of your science?  No - it's a logical fallacy - argumentam ad hominem - you do it because you can't actually counter the argument with evidence or science.  [/quote]

This has a good discussion on masks (and lack of actual evidence); links throughout to other commentary; specific assessment of claims/studies/models:  https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics