Andy Paquette, Mask Science, Big Lie? |523|

Huh? You’ve still just described the relative risk between the two procedures.
Here’s how you know it’s deceptive reasoning:

Flip it into odds for winning a new car in two separate raffles:
1. Pay $100 for a 1 in 1000 chance to win a new Toyota Corolla
Or
2. Pay $125 for a 1 in 500 chance to win a new Toyota Corolla

If your point of focus is that the odds of #2 are double that of #1 it’s because you’re obviously trying to distract them from how little the odds are for both.
 
Here’s how you know it’s deceptive reasoning:

Flip it into odds for winning a new car in two separate raffles:
1. Pay $100 for a 1 in 1000 chance to win a new Toyota Corolla
Or
2. Pay $125 for a 1 in 500 chance to win a new Toyota Corolla

If you insist on pointing out that the odds of #2 are double that of #1 it’s because your trying to distract them from how little the odds are for both.
:eek:
 
The first number is meaningless without the context of the second number.

If someone in Florida contracted long covid and wanted to sue DeSantis for not enforcing mask mandates, the 9% protection over no mask would be the pertinent figure, and one the judge and jury could more easily get their head around.
We're talking about an academic article. In that context, this is not the right way to report the data. Also, as Alex pointed out, they also failed to highlight the absolute number of people represented by those tiny percentages, 8 and 9, respectively. That is also very bad practice.
 
We're talking about an academic article. In that context, this is not the right way to report the data. Also, as Alex pointed out, they also failed to highlight the absolute number of people represented by those tiny percentages, 8 and 9, respectively. That is also very bad practice.
I expect those peer reviewing this paper will be better qualified than either of us. We’ll see how it pans out.
 
Isn't the (possible) 9% protection to the wearer over and above the barrier provided to the wearer's aerosolized spread to others?

Many Asian cultures have been using masks for years to hinder the spread of viruses.
 
Many Asian cultures have been using masks for years to hinder the spread of viruses.

Masks are worthless. It was for compliance, and social modeling and surveillance. [my god how can anyone think a damp nappy on your face is beneficial, and on children too... demonic]
 
I expect those peer reviewing this paper will be better qualified than either of us. We’ll see how it pans out.
I'm not sure the peer review system is much use anymore - except perhaps to filter out total junk - although even computer generated trash papers have made it through peer review before now.

I'm don't know what the long term answer is.

David
 
Last edited:
We're talking about an academic article. In that context, this is not the right way to report the data. Also, as Alex pointed out, they also failed to highlight the absolute number of people represented by those tiny percentages, 8 and 9, respectively. That is also very bad practice.

The most useful way to report the data is to give the measured symptomatic seroprevalence as a percentage for each group, with the relative reduction between the two groups. A percentage so that a comparison can be made between two groups of somewhat different sizes. And a relative reduction, to give an idea of how useful these results would be in general. An absolute percentage reduction is a useless piece of information. It can't be applied to any other group, and it's redundant when you are given the symptomatic seroprevalence. And as far as I can tell, this is pretty much how every clinical/epidemiological result is reported. And, of course, if this were a parapsychology paper, this would be considered a fine way to report the outcome.

What definitely wouldn't be a fine way to report the results would be to claim a difference that was 35 times smaller than the actual difference (0.002% vs. 0.07%), or that the absolute number of people represented by the percentages were in the single digits (8 and 9) when they were really in the thousands. Would you take someone seriously if they grossly misrepresented a parapsychology study like that and then claimed that they were qualified to do so?
 
I'm not sure the peer review system is much use anymore - except perhaps to filter out total junk - although even computer generated trash papers have made it through peer review before now.

I'm not sure what the long term answer is.

David

How well do you think "I agree with it = good science, I don't agree with it = junk science" is working out for you guys?
 
They're calling it a "relative reduction". The word "relative" is the problem. For instance, if you have 100 blue balls and 100 red balls, but lose 2 blue balls and 3 red balls, what do you have? You've lost 2% of the blue balls and 3% of the red balls. The difference between the two loss rates is one ball, or 1%. However, if you look at the "relative" difference, you don't pay attention to the original ball population. Instead, you only look at the lost balls. Looked at that way, the red balls lost 50% more than the blue balls, for a 50% increase in their loss rate. However, that is a dishonest way to look at these numbers if you then apply the relative value of a 50% increase in loss rate to the general population of red balls, because that would create the false expectation of losing 50 balls, not 3. That is what the authors of the mask study did by talking about a "relative" improvement. It effectively exaggerated the negligible actual value to something that looked significant.

So, with the numbers from figure 1 a how do you calculate the 9.3%?

Is my understanding of the math correct with the following? 0.76% of 146,783 people is 1116 people rounded up to whole people. 0.69% of 160,323 people is 1106 people. That's a difference of 10 people.

1634816428036.png
 
So, with the numbers from figure 1 a how do you calculate the 9.3%?

Is my understanding of the math correct with the following? 0.76% of 146,783 people is 1116 people rounded up to whole people. 0.69% of 160,323 people is 1106 people. That's a difference of 10 people.

View attachment 2199
Following your math of the ball example. 3 lost red - 2 lost blue = 1 ball. 1 ball/2 lost blue= 50%. With the mask numbers you have 1116 people -1106 people=10 people. 10 people/1106 people =0.00904 or 0.904 %

What am I getting wrong?
 
I was living in NY until this past May. Mask mandates everywhere, businesses shut down because of restrictions. Now I live in AZ. The mask mandates lifted right as I arrived, though some businesses still demand it. I still see many idiots walking around out door or driving in their cars with masks on.

The mask mandate has now morphed into the vaccination mandate. There is a lot of psychology science around gaining compliance/brain washing. View the Milgram Experiment as well. Basically, get people to buy into wearing masks. See? That wasn't so bad! Now take this vaccine! Now roll over and bark like a dog! Beg for food! Turn in your neighbor! Give up your rights and property ("They will own nothing and be happy" - quote from a World Economic Forum speech)

You don't get people to give up their rights or do extreme things at the snap of a finger. They must be trained to follow the orders of authority figures. Easier to do if they are made afraid (Covid and global warming are going to kill us all!) Also, as I said, those who refuse to be malleable can be identified, vilified and eliminated in time; all with, minimally, the passive acceptance of the compliant.

End game? You're being too rational. People who seek a career controlling others are not always rational. Power and control are an end in themselves. Surely you have met at least a few like that.

That said, there are others who do have an end game. Our own federal agencies - those tasked with protecting us and forwarding our interests - have determined that the US is an empire in decline (a self-fulfilling prophecy!) and that the future is a global economy and government. The US will have to relinquish its power and wealth so the rest of the world becomes equal. There are, of course, many tangential objectives and short term tactics, and many stakeholders (e.g. Bill Gates), but that's it in a nutshell. No, this isn't something I dreamed up. It is actually stated loudly and clearly by strategists in the CIA, State Dept, etc. and all of those disgusting "think tanks". People just don't read that stuff and the "news" won't report it. So the "masterminds" apparently feel free to openly discuss. Anyhow, that idea appeals to the many commies and slacker midwits in our society. So even if it did become common knowledge, half of the country would think it's great.

It's all about destroying the freest most prosperous society the world has ever known in order to bring about a global quasi-utopia that also happens to be deemed more profitable, long term, to many companies, especially social media and online marketing/purchasing (Zuckerberg, Bezos, et al). You can't just destroy the US overnight. First you have to remove the will of a free people to fight back. There are a few profiteers involved and there are many ideologues.

These things are always driven by ideology. The profiteers then hijack the ideology. Socialism is a disease that is more popular than covid. The dream of oneness and world peace even inspires beauty pageant contestants. It's simpleton stuff, but half the US, based on IQ distribution, are simpletons. They eat this crap up. On the other side of the bell curve are the wolves that salivate over being in control of an important movement, over people. Also, over to the right side are the profiteers. Not many remaining who are interested in truth and freedom.
The endgame in Asia is when is Xi Mao going to take Taiwan? I watched an informative Australian 60 Minutes program that shows why Xi Mao must have it. It has $564 billion in reserves & is the foremost maker of microchips. Since the CPC's policy of driving their phenomenal growth rates w/ debt is starting to blow up in their faces, there's going to be new pressure to seek wealth to prop up the economy. Hence, we see the ultra-nationalism & the CPC worship propaganda machines in full swing to fire up the masses to be marched off to die for the gold & red flag. Hatred of foreigners & western culture is also being fanned. Homosexuality is a decadent western disease. Feminism? Prosecuting rapists? Western hogwash.
Putin, in another program, says Beijing doesn't even have to invade to take Taiwan, but he ignores the growing purchases of US armaments by Taiwan & the serious increases in Australian military preparedness. There was an ancient princess pushing an alliance between S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, & others to face off w/ China. What this reluctance to form up reminds me of is the appeasement efforts of Chamberlain. Let's let them have Taiwan so they'll leave us alone, but you know how well that worked. Besides, Australia knows it's a tasty morsel as well w/ all its nasty coal & other minerals. Japan, S. Korea, & ultimately the USA are all within reach.
What I see is a readying of various populations to be thrown into the fabled WWIII. Decimating the US economy & making huge parts of it dependent on gov't support sets up a great reserve of compliant soldiers. Masks, vaccines, gov't credit cards, boot camp, MARCH!! Whether world gov'ts fool around w/ abandoning Taiwan to appeasement or we end up trying to stop Red China off the mainland's coast remains to be seen. The real kicker is the old nuclear option wild card, but any full-blown bombs & rocket conflagrations would most certainly aggravate already teetering weather systems & likely bring an end to warfare due to globally violent storming & environmental catastrophes.
 
I would suppose that It must boil down to:
At what exact point were each of the individuals/groups knowingly making the decisions that would knowingly lead to lost lives, rather than allowing those who lost their lives to be afforded fully informed consent.
It must be determined at which point the freedoms were stolen at the level of life or death.

A long list is needed of people who/when/where swapped out good cheese with poison cheese. And while I think you would agree that the good cheese doesn't swap Itself out for the bad, I think it will be a lot harder than it sounds to get a record of when and where each swap has occurred.

Nice one... I'm definitely using that ( with your blessing of course :))
 
Following your math of the ball example. 3 lost red - 2 lost blue = 1 ball. 1 ball/2 lost blue= 50%. With the mask numbers you have 1116 people -1106 people=10 people. 10 people/1106 people =0.00904 or 0.904 %

What am I getting wrong?
(76-69)/76
 
It is funny to watch Andy and Alex criticize this study for being released prior to publication. And then bring up Bem, whose study was released months and months and months before it was published, as a shining example of rigor.

Can you point me to documentation of exactly what you're referring to
 
Back
Top