These stats is a type of survival bias. The data set has no way estimating the number of people who wear masks and didn't get the virus
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well if those 70% were not wearing masks imagine where we’d be...

-
Same as now. With ~60-70% having been infected
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@ScottAdamsSays@KCchemguy If I see my wife in town, very high probability she has glasses on. If I see a woman with glasses, very low probability that it happens to be my wife. -
I understand the thought process and I see where my argument isn't entirely logical. But what it does indicate is that masking doesn't have the impact people think. The WHO and CDC knew this before 2020.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Masks are a LAYER of protection. If you mingle with others frequently even while wearing a mask it can still transmit. Plus, many don't wear a mask everywhere every time. One mistake is enough.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1/ Sure. I'll help. You have a half-pinion. You did not state the % of infection without masks. If that number was, say, 90%, then you might be able to conclude masks work. If it was also 70% then you might be able to say they don't. Notice that I said might.
-
2/ That's because there could be confounding factors. For example, maybe one group was healthier, or were from a different part of the country, etc. The only way to know would be to do an RCT like this one: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 … Of course, rarely is any one study perfect.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.