To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[buckwacker]

Maybe you should reread mine as well. I never said he was right or wrong, that it was his opinion based on information he took as fact.
If he had put in all the details no one would read it because it would look like something a legislator wrote. He also said OOPS in lawyereze.


Twice in 1 day I've defended Kirk, I need to get a life!

It's like we're typing in different languages. My comment had NOTHING to do with studies, data, politics or anything else you seem to be inexplicably insisting I was referring to. Presuming to know others experiences better than they do IS arrogant. He insisted that someone couldn't possibly be short of breath due to wearing a mask (because science or whatever) and they should see a doctor to find out what the problem was, even though they became short of breath WHEN they put on a mask.

 

[Chewie]

Next thing you know, you're liking Kut's posts...

Let's not get carried away now!

 

[Chewie]

It's like we're typing in different languages. My comment had NOTHING to do with studies, data, politics or anything else you seem to be inexplicably insisting I was referring to. Presuming to know others experiences better than they do IS arrogant. He insisted that someone couldn't possibly be short of breath due to wearing a mask (because science or whatever) and they should see a doctor to find out what the problem was, even though they became short of breath WHEN they put on a mask.

I was referring to opinions.
I believe that a mask can cause shortness of breath. I also believe that mask are nothing more than a placebo.
As for arrogance, that is determined by the reader or the listeners skin thickness (hence the lighten up buttercup comment).
Every person presents opinions differently. You and I for example.

 

[Chewie]

It's like we're typing in different languages. My comment had NOTHING to do with studies, data, politics or anything else you seem to be inexplicably insisting I was referring to. Presuming to know others experiences better than they do IS arrogant. He insisted that someone couldn't possibly be short of breath due to wearing a mask (because science or whatever) and they should see a doctor to find out what the problem was, even though they became short of breath WHEN they put on a mask.

A little question for you. What forms your opinions? What you read? See? Hear? Watch? Friends? Acquaintences? Political leanings? They all influence opinions whether you want them to or not.

 

[BugI02]

It's a paper that can be cited, yes. Is this one authoritative on masks? Well, not if you think it says masks are 0% effective. And it's still not a study. It does support my view that mask mandates aren't actually useful enough to justify mandating them, and certainly not useful enough to support a viewpoint that shames people who are skeptical. That's not the same narrative that the GWP is trying to push, or saying they're 0% effective.

The problem here is that if a paper reports an estimated 10% efficacy of masks (and it is ALWAYS an estimate, it cannot be a hard number), then a true scientist and 'the science' will stop there. The scientist will usually not inject his opinion into the publishing process, even though he may think masking is useless. It should be left up to the individual but all pertinent information should be made available - including information that cuts against the grain of what the government wants

But someone like Fauci or Kirk WILL inject their opinion into the discussion, early and often, and then others will pick up the opinion and claim that THAT is 'the science'. It bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the way 'the' church (you know which one) used to interpret The Word for believers, because it was too dangerous, and the possibility of heresy (as judged by them, of course) was too high to let the rabble have their own opinion. That system offers too many entry points for manipulative behavior

With powerful social media companies working tirelessly to make sure only one viewpoint is supported, it is stupid to kvetch about who is presenting unorthodox information and how. You should be glad such information is still able to see the light of day

 

[BugI02]

It is an opinion, to some anything short of a RCT isn't a 'study' lol. Yes, in the strictest sense lit reviews are not what we consider a defined 'study' but also doesn't warrant them being dismissed as jamil tried to do. This example since it started with defined hypotheses would be a systematic review since it attempts to answer defined research questions vs a broad literature review.

One wonders what jamil thinks of meta-studies. I'm waiting to hear how studies of studies aren't actually studies

 

[chipbennett]

No, they do not have less scientific value just because they are a literature review.
Then you cite some potential problems that may or may not be true.

Kind of like a clinical study
a) may or may not be designed well.
b) may or may not include patients or subjects that should have been excluded
c) may or may not have properly done statistics

You simply can't say a conclusion is valid or not valid just because the study type was X or Y.
I have seen many examples of good and bad studies of every type.

You can't simply say one type of study is good or bad because it depends on many parameters that can be done properly or not for every type of study.

I would have thought you knew this.

Yes, and those problems are cumulative. When you start combining unrelated studies, those problems get worse, not better, in terms of conclusions you can draw from the data.

And, yes: a "survey" of 20 studies including 10 people each has less scientific value than a single RCT including 200 people.

 

[chipbennett]

Meta-Analyses are incredibly useful studies, i'd be more inclined to look at one of those first than a random RCT I pulled up on PubMed. Typically a good meta-analysis is only going to evaluate RCT's anyway but also will give you risk of bias assessments which help you determine the scientific merit before you even look up a single paper and they do mash all the data together lol, if nothing more it helps you see the results quickly and the level of agreement between different studies.

Note that I didn't claim (or, maybe I did; I'm still suffering from Pfizer fever today) that meta-analyses aren't useful. Rather, I claimed that they have less scientific value. They are certainly useful; they are of dubious value in establishing causative relationships among study targets and end points.

 

[BugI02]

Next thing you know, you're liking Kut's posts...

That would be a REALLY slippery slope

 

[Chewie]

That would be a REALLY slippery slope

Slip sliden away!

 

[BugI02]

Note that I didn't claim (or, maybe I did; I'm still suffering from Pfizer fever today) that meta-analyses aren't useful. Rather, I claimed that they have less scientific value. They are certainly useful; they are of dubious value in establishing causative relationships among study targets and end points.

Oh, great! Another vernier calibrated argument like 'I didn't say masks were TOTALLY useless. I just said they were the functional equivalent of useless'

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, great! Another vernier calibrated argument like 'I didn't say masks were TOTALLY useless. I just said they were the functional equivalent of useless'

This is what is known as a straw man. I said, "A has less value than B." The straw man is that I said, "A has no value."

Are we done with the logical fallacy now, or shall we dance some more?

 

[JettaKnight]

This is what is known as a straw man. I said, "A has less value than B." The straw man is that I said, "A has no value."

Are we done with the logical fallacy now, or shall we dance some more?

Careful - Bug does a mean Samba on the dance floor.

 

[BugI02]

This is what is known as a straw man. I said, "A has less value than B." The straw man is that I said, "A has no value."

Are we done with the logical fallacy now, or shall we dance some more?

You might note that neither position in the sarcastic synopsis I used as an example is saying anything has zero value (see: 'didn't say masks were TOTALLY useless' - so some non-zero quantity - and 'functional equivalent of useless' - also some non-zero quantity). The purpose was to make fun of pedantics, but thanks for the REAL WORLD example of a straw man argument

Edit: Less filling

 

[Tombs]

Joe Biden announces new tax credit to help spur vaccinations as US nears goal of 200M COVID shots

Biden announced a tax credit for small businesses to provide paid leave for those getting vaccinated or potentially needing to take time off to recover from side effects.

abc7ny.com

Enjoy your tax penalty for not shooting up the government's experimental drugs.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Joe Biden announces new tax credit to help spur vaccinations as US nears goal of 200M COVID shots

Biden announced a tax credit for small businesses to provide paid leave for those getting vaccinated or potentially needing to take time off to recover from side effects.

abc7ny.com

Enjoy your tax penalty for not shooting up the government's experimental drugs.

My work (DoD) offers up to 4 hours of administrative leave (paid) to get the vaccination.

 

[nonobaddog]

The problem here is that if a paper reports an estimated 10% efficacy of masks (and it is ALWAYS an estimate, it cannot be a hard number), then a true scientist and 'the science' will stop there. The scientist will usually not inject his opinion into the publishing process, even though he may think masking is useless. It should be left up to the individual but all pertinent information should be made available - including information that cuts against the grain of what the government wants

But someone like Fauci or Kirk WILL inject their opinion into the discussion, early and often, and then others will pick up the opinion and claim that THAT is 'the science'. It bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the way 'the' church (you know which one) used to interpret The Word for believers, because it was too dangerous, and the possibility of heresy (as judged by them, of course) was too high to let the rabble have their own opinion. That system offers too many entry points for manipulative behavior

With powerful social media companies working tirelessly to make sure only one viewpoint is supported, it is stupid to kvetch about who is presenting unorthodox information and how. You should be glad such information is still able to see the light of day

This post says it right.

 

[drillsgt]

Note that I didn't claim (or, maybe I did; I'm still suffering from Pfizer fever today) that meta-analyses aren't useful. Rather, I claimed that they have less scientific value. They are certainly useful; they are of dubious value in establishing causative relationships among study targets and end points.

We'll just have to agree to disagree which is fine, even in the bigger scientific community there's disagreement.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Am I the only one that can't believe we're still talking about this mask vs. no mask BS over a YEAR later? Not a damn thing has changed regarding opinions on the matter. Cheese and rice... Wear or don't wear. Who cares?

 

[Ingomike]

Am I the only one that can't believe we're still talking about this mask vs. no mask BS over a YEAR later? Not a damn thing has changed regarding opinions on the matter. Cheese and rice... Wear or don't wear. Who cares?

And miss all this fun?