To be fair, I’ve converted probably a dozen people at the office with some of these charts. I just today, put ALL 50 states in it because I was curious. Next up will be 25 countries in Europe. 
Show me PROOF they work. Show me where mask mandates have reduced the deaths. If they actually work, you can show a direct correlation between the reduction in the death rate and the mask mandate date, right? You can show definitive proof of a mask mandate state showing far better results than one with no mask mandate, right? Your belief is irrelevant. The evidence shows masks are BULLSHIT.
2 Likes
Is there any data that shows death rates at the same period of time before COVID? How many compared to flu season prior to COVID.
That is a terrible situation SP and sadly your story is becoming all too common, I sincerely hope yours and the fortunes of people in a similar position change soon. I think Republican business owners that are open need to start employing their own kind, if it’s ok for Dems to screen the national guard, then it is ok for business owners too.
2 Likes
That data isn’t available until mid to late 2021 according to the CDC.
Same with Flu deaths.
Just not hearing about the normal flu issues this year.
The CDC flu map. A few moderate states none high or very high.
Great job fighting this pandemic. You should submit your analysis to a peer reviewed journal so the world can be enlightened.
Meanwhile, here is an actual review and analysis.
1 Like
Ah, the classic slippery slope argument, down to the socialist pits of hell. Yes, I’m sure that is why people are being told to wear masks.
This is far more about inevitabllity than it is desire, and jockeying for position in that eventuality. Whether you like it or not, whether it’s good for the whole of humanity or not is irrelevant…
So explain why they are… or are you stupid enough to think it’s safety?
What the fuck is with you idiots and peer review. I can get 10,000 people to agree that grass is purple. Doesn’t make it true. Try looking at the stats and coming to a conclusion. It’s fucking idiotic to look at the death rates and come to a conclusion that masks made a difference. I don’t give two shits what peer review “studies” say. Facts are facts.
1 Like
Kind of the same stupid contrived narratives on Climate change nonsense. Let’s pay off a bunch of scientists to agree that Climate change is a thing, but prevent any debate in an open forum with the other scientists who disagree and use factual data to back up their dissenting views. The biggest irony in the entire gaslighting climate change debate was it started with a cartoon artist making emotional pleas based on false science and thus the rest is history where political expediency for graft was too rich to resist. Kind of the same thing we are seeing with this bullshit COVID hoax.
2 Likes
Bingo. It’s amazing how all of these “scientists” jack each other off and ignore external debate and claim 97% consensus as if it even mattered. Same shit with climate change, there’s a massive amount of data out there that proves CO2 isn’t the primary driver but they can’t tax solar activity so they pretend the answer is what they can tax.
1 Like
Your criteria for believing a piece of information seems to be whether or not you agree with its conclusions already. It’s called cognitive bias and we all do it.
The purpose of peer review is to vet something by other recognized experts (mostly normal people like us who have risen in their fields) in the field before publishing it. Like anything involving people, there can be mistakes, but I reject the conspiracy theory that you are pushing. The scientific community is not out to get us.
Here’s some more fun shit… From his study.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that there is association between face mask use and reduction of COVID-19. However, COVID-19 spreads primarily with contact routes and respiratory droplets, but its transmissibility has many mysteries yet and there is controversy about airborne transmission of COVID-19.
They studied 7,866 participants while my data represents 330,000,000 Americans and 300,000 fatalities. They studied what MIGHT happen as a result of masks, my charts show what DID happen with masks. These dipshits will still believe the “study” over actual data involving millions of Americans.
1 Like
No. My criteria is what can we PROVE. The charts provided show ZERO correlation between mask mandates and a reduction in Covid deaths. I don’t give two shits about a study involving masks and 7800 people when we have 9 months of REAL RESULTS.
1 Like
Yeah OK! (Eye roll again)
Your complacency to trust the sources to which you believe your own bullshit is revealing just how far from the truth and misinformed you are! Try again!
1 Like
By the way, peer review does nothing to validate the study other than to say based on the data collected, the study looks right. There are a hell of a lot of assumptions in this study and their conclusion points them out. It’s incomplete and they admit it’s not conclusive but you want to take it as the gold standard and ignore ACTUAL FUCKING EVIDENCE collected over months with millions of test subjects. This is why I laugh at peer review. You folks don’t understand what the hell it is. It’s not validation of accuracy, it’s just a review of the paper and assumptions. To properly vet something like this, there needs to be a similar study with different parameters, different people, different assumptions and see if they’ve reached the same conclusions. Other than that, it’s just one government employee jacking off another and claiming victory.
2 Likes
They systematically searched for all the actual studies done that show correlation between masks and transmission of covid. That is the reason it’s not a larger number of participants, although 7700 is not a small group either.
They found that people who wore masks had 12% the risk of infection as those who did not wear masks. This is a strong correlation and based on actual studies instead of some guy on the internet looking at a bunch of graphs and concluding that masks don’t work.
Yes and no. Perhaps vet was the wrong word. Peer review helps keep flawed studies out of published academic literature. It’s not perfect, but better than the alternative you seem to advocate: believe only what supports your belief.
You are fking hilarious! 
You got a white horse too?
Says the same guy who posts a CDC website link with out specifically answering a direct question! Yeah OK now we get more word salad nonsense from you again.
Why do you come here? You think you are fooling anyone here that such weak limp wristed responses is an actual exchange of ideas based on scientific evidence? Truth is your views are myopic in nature and only serve to support your own insecurities from being exposed than the objective position that you pretend to be in.
1 Like