Longhornmaniac8

I'll bite. How is the 200K number wildly inaccurate? I mean you're likely right; it's probably undercounted by a fairly wide margin as people died before they could be tested, but you seem to be insinuating the other way.

You know that CDC thing about 6% dying from "only" COVID doesn't mean the death total from COVID is over-counted, right? Comorbidities are exceptionally common (like, almost always) on death certificates. Somebody with an underlying medical condition who contracted COVID and died will have both COVID and other medical conditions (eg diabetes, hypertension, obesity, etc) listed. So it's entirely inaccurate to say only 6% died of COVID. It is, however, accurate to say that 6% died from *only* COVID, with no other health anomaly.

I'm condescending because, once again, people who have no expertise or even formal training in this area talk like their opinions on scientific issues matter. There is almost a pathological need by certain populations to proclaim themselves experts on everything. And they post garbage regularly that gets seen and taken as gospel that further dilutes good, sound scientific information from reputable sources that contradicts it.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with admitting we as individuals don't know everything. You'd rightfully get ****ed if a passenger with no flight training started mouthing off to you about a landing or questioning your abilities.

Non-scientists, and especially non-viralogists/epidemiologists, have no business interjecting their opinions into a scientific discussion. They lack the knowledge/training to provide meaningful insight, and instead muddy the waters. See this article in response to a pseudoscientific, non-peer-reviewed post masquerading as legitimate (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...udoscience?amp).

So yes, as someone with both a formal scientific background and experience with primary research in academia, I'm exceedingly frustrated with the platitudes and misinformation being spewed by people. I also acknowledge that I'm not a doctor, virologist, or epidemiologist, which means the best thing I can do is sit down, shut up, and accept what they say. In other words, I know enough to know what I don't know. Some people just struggle with that, and make asses of themselves while doing so.

There's not scientific debate on the efficacy of masks in helping reduce the spread of the virus (note the implication of the word "helping." No one is saying it's a panacea. Far from it. But in instances where more effective PPE isn't available, it does *help*). Maybe you read a blog post or a tweet about it (or whatever kids are using these days), or maybe you misinterpreted some legitimate research (see earlier references to the Duke study that came to an almost polar opposite conclusion than was posted here), but the actual scientific literature (and yes, this is one instance where to preserve the integrity of the discipline, gatekeeping is 100% acceptable) is very clear.

Read these and be educated.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...sTextOnly=true

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...__ffn_sectitle

** https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent ** Good layman summary.

There's a lot more out there.

flyguy23

Yea, there are also comorbidities such as heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, etc. You'll likely deny that's true, but it absolutely is and can be found with minimal research or in my case, a family member.

As far as masks stopping spread, I'm simply not arguing they are useless, but I am however saying they can cause harm if used improperly which they certainly are in most cases. I'm also arguing for basic freedoms this country used to afford people, which are now under attack. I completely support an individual business' right to require a mask to enter just as I agree with the need wear pants to enter. I however disagree with a gov't mandate and feel it is a far overreach and will be proven to be such when this all comes to a head. At some point people will have had enough and this will make its way through the court system and ultimately be ruled an overreach and unconstitutional. Thats really the only way out at this point as the looney toons such as yourself are demanding we wear masks permanently.

As for you, I can tell you have the background you claim to have as you are a complete ass and certainly put yourself above others. You also make a lot of assumptions about someone you know absolutely nothing about. So attacking them is coming from a place of pure ignorance, but thats irrelevant to you, because its you of course. I'm beyond grateful I don't have to share the cockpit with you and feel sorry for those that do.

With that, you can have the last word and I'm out.

Longhornmaniac8

Bemoans someone making assumptions about others. Then makes lots of assumptions about others. Classic. But by all means, keep thinking you have the moral high ground. I'm attacking a specific type of person, not any one person. So if they display the traits I'm talking about, then by definition I know enough about them to make my point.

To sum up, you've tried strawmen, reductio ad absurdums, ad hominems, tu quoques, cherrypicking, appeal to emotions, slippery slopes, and anecdotes. That's a staggering amount of logical fallacies for just a few posts.

Have a great day.

rdneckpilot

good. We are not so it’s all good.