How is Sweden doing with COVID-19 today?

facts and reason wrote:

Harambe wrote:

And I did call it, you would call me a psychopath for pointing out all the similarities. :)

"recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers".

Harambe lost the debate, but he's back for more. He might be a masochist. He's a contrarian, so he'll flounder and make retorts.

Why did Denmark just issue a mask order if they don't work?

Also, why are you a cherry picked sentence from the WE citing an article from July? That's kinda sloppy.

Here's the article that the WE cites for that sentence:

You should give it a read. It discussed the challenges of running trials for face masks and how complicated the data we have is. (Weren't run during a pandemic, different measures tested in man many studies, etc).

Note they also mention recent reviews using more, less stringent, evidence found a benefit.

It's a hard thing to trial - like doing human diet studies - compliance is challenging, signal and noise can be hard to separate when infection rates are low, and so on.

I encourage you to read and not just go searching for sentences.

facts and reason wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

So, the 80% rise in new cases is actually people from March and April who are just getting around to taking a test? And the 60% rise in hospitalizations are all from people exposed in the spring

You are just cherrypicking "cases" and "hospitalizations".

You don't address the crux of the argument which is deaths, testing method, and classification of death.

I thought we agreed the 220k number was legit? Don't go back on me now, we are making progress :(

Oopsie, you responded to yourself.

Harambe wrote:

It's a hard thing to trial - like doing human diet studies - compliance is challenging, signal and noise can be hard to separate when infection rates are low, and so on.

Again, Harambe admits there is no clear evidence that masks work. He lost the debate again.

He's using the excuse, "It's too hard to test if masks work on humans!"

facts and reason wrote:

Harambe wrote:

It's a hard thing to trial - like doing human diet studies - compliance is challenging, signal and noise can be hard to separate when infection rates are low, and so on.

Again, Harambe admits there is no clear evidence that masks work. He lost the debate again.

He's using the excuse, "It's too hard to test if masks work on humans!"

Based on the physical evidence of their ability to block aerosols and larger droplets -- I am reasonably confident they work well for outward protection.

Synthesizing evidence and coming to the best possible conclusion is always the goal. I understand that when there isn't gold-standard evidence that's not reason to reject an intervention -- especially one with as low cost as masking.

Many medical professions are very cautious about recommending interventions -- for good reason, there's a ton of quacks out there -- that for them, absence of gold-standard RCT evidence = not effective.

I think that during a pandemic we can be more permissive, especially given how little masks really affect our daily lives. It's not like this is a drug we are taking without trial data.

See SSCs analysis of how we treat evidence for masks:

Are they sick and dying? There is your answer; no, they are not. Why are you posting as multiple people on this thread? What is wrong with you? Cases do not mean sick, if they developed resistance they may still catch the virus in their nose...they are not running blood tests for active infections, either swabs or antibody tests but mostly nasal swabs....The case counts, nor people testing positive when they go to the hospital, means much at all....why not track people actually sick with Covid symptoms? Places don't do that for liability reasons and treat all as the same threat; news organizations and messed up liberals like yourself do not because your false narrative would crumble and you would feel as dumb as you already look.

So you are basically saying scientific data and consensus does not count, only the ignorance of stupid people like yourself...that's what matters. If we satisfy your needs we are being patriotic, but if we push for a return to national sanity for the good of the country....we are selfish. I get it. DB

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

So you are basically saying scientific data and consensus does not count, only the ignorance of stupid people like yourself...that's what matters. If we satisfy your needs we are being patriotic, but if we push for a return to national sanity for the good of the country....we are selfish. I get it. DB

Well if you see the consensus of "we don't have enough data either way -- it's a hard thing to test" as meaning "not effective," then sure -- think what you want.

I tried to explain how I reason through this given the lack of gold-standard evidence. See the article that "facts and reason" cited discussing the challenges of getting good data on masking.

I am confident in my analysis given the data so far. I am surprised at the pushback on masking from people who want the economy to re-open fully ASAP. Why not accept a low cost measure that could improve outcomes and the economy?

The consensus means when the studies show they don't do much, they don't do much. This is why they demanded they would not help at the onset of this pandemic; because the evidence says no. This virus should be treated the same. Just because a mask obviously block large droplets, does not mean it mitigates the spread of a virus when asymptomatic people where them all of the time in public. Cherry picking uncertainties is just ridiculous. Stop yourself, you are delusional and the main problem the USA faces right now are people like yourself.

And, people have accepted wearing the mask for now....but it is just to shut up idiots like yourself, not because we think or have evidence they work; the data and common sense suggest they are going to do very little if anything.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

The consensus means when the studies show they don't do much, they don't do much. This is why they demanded they would not help at the onset of this pandemic; because the evidence says no. This virus should be treated the same. Just because a mask obviously block large droplets, does not mean it mitigates the spread of a virus when asymptomatic people where them all of the time in public. Cherry picking uncertainties is just ridiculous. Stop yourself, you are delusional and the main problem the USA faces right now are people like yourself.

There's a difference between evidence of absence and absence of evidence. I don't think we have enough good data reject masks or good trials to show they definitely work. But, I think there is good physical evidence, as I have said, that they prevent the spread of aerosol and larger droplets that are the presumed route of transmission.

The turnaround on masks was driven by the realization that asymptomatic transmission was a sizeable contributor to spread. If we could knock down that vector, it would slow growth rates, etc. Always good to update your beliefs!

P.S. The histrionics you have in every post tend to detract from your argument. I think masks help - does that make me "the main problem the USA faces right now?" Chill out, bro

Show me actual data that proves asymptomatic spread is really significant? It is an assumption, a piss poor assumption at that. If high viral loads are required for asymptomatic spread, how is this occur if people do not have active infections and just virus shoved up their nose or in their bloodstream? It is either a lie and just a very poorly founded and bad hypothesis.

If you knew anything about effect sizes or statistics you'd see how stupid you sound. Even small effect sizes can be sufficient to push R0 below 1 and eliminate the virus. Small effect sizes are notoriously difficult to test for because you need large well-controlled studies - which we do not have for face masks, only observational studies. You're correct a face mask doesn't make transmission impossible - but even a 10-15% reduction would be a big help in allowing social contact and economic activity. Your artificial standard of masks as a magic panacea is intentionally designed to 1) unproveable to you're always maybe right 2) stifle actual progress and discussion. I would say it's malice, but I really think you're just naive and young, so try and learn!

You do more than demand that masks help. You exaggerate data to spread panic, you mock society for not complying with unfounded and unreasonable measures. You act like you know what you are talking about when you barely have a first grade understanding of the scientific process or even basic concepts. You are a shill constantly trying to shoot down reality to perpetuate this nonsense. You post daily via multiple handles to make your arguments sound more supported. You are a liar, you are a charlatan, you are a con and you are hyping a narrative that has killed thousands and destroyed millions of lives. You are disgusting, you are not just claiming your opinion.

Ok: viral load seems similar between the two:

Again -- tracing asymptomatic spread is really hard -- if someone doesn't know they have it it's basically impossible to show a chain of infection. If viral loads are tested similar (by RT-PCR) then transmission seems likely.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

P.S. The histrionics you have in every post tend to detract from your argument. I think masks help - does that make me "the main problem the USA faces right now?" Chill out, bro

You do more than demand that masks help. You exaggerate data to spread panic, you mock society for not complying with unfounded and unreasonable measures. You act like you know what you are talking about when you barely have a first grade understanding of the scientific process or even basic concepts. You are a shill constantly trying to shoot down reality to perpetuate this nonsense. You post daily via multiple handles to make your arguments sound more supported. You are a liar, you are a charlatan, you are a con and you are hyping a narrative that has killed thousands and destroyed millions of lives. You are disgusting, you are not just claiming your opinion.[/quote]

I don't mock anyone for not complying. I don't exaggerate data.

I just tell you stuff you don't want to hear.

You want to pretend that this is no big deal. 300k+ extra Americans are dead already and you want to keep your fingers in your ears.

You sound like a 9th grader with a thesaurus... Grow up, bro. This isn't how adults settle differences :D

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

You do more than demand that masks help. You exaggerate data to spread panic, you mock society for not complying with unfounded and unreasonable measures. You act like you know what you are talking about when you barely have a first grade understanding of the scientific process or even basic concepts. You are a shill constantly trying to shoot down reality to perpetuate this nonsense. You post daily via multiple handles to make your arguments sound more supported. You are a liar, you are a charlatan, you are a con and you are hyping a narrative that has killed thousands and destroyed millions of lives. You are disgusting, you are not just claiming your opinion.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Are they sick and dying? There is your answer; no, they are not. Why are you posting as multiple people on this thread? What is wrong with you? Cases do not mean sick, if they developed resistance they may still catch the virus in their nose...they are not running blood tests for active infections, either swabs or antibody tests but mostly nasal swabs....The case counts, nor people testing positive when they go to the hospital, means much at all....why not track people actually sick with Covid symptoms? Places don't do that for liability reasons and treat all as the same threat; news organizations and messed up liberals like yourself do not because your false narrative would crumble and you would feel as dumb as you already look.

If you have immunity, you won't test positive because the antibodies in your immune system stop the virus from infecting you. If the virus could successfully replicate in your nose despite having immunity, there would never be such a thing as herd immunity.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Why are you posting as multiple people on this thread? What is wrong with you?

The only person doing this is you -- who posts as LFH or LFH 2. Serious case of projection