How do you calculate the odds?
-
-
That depends on the specific claim in question (vague enduring fatigue? or specifically years-long physical damage? etc). But the same way anyone does, looking at the studies. To flip it around, what do you estimate the prevalence of "long COVID" or similar to be?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
More broadly, how convinced are you that the net increase in net wellbeing attributable to avoided COVID-19 mortality/complications will outpace the decrease in wellbeing due to school closures, economic devastation, suspended elective surgeries, general stress/anxiety/fear etc?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
You are conflating topics. Masks look like a smart cost-benefit play. School closings and business closings were smart during the initial fog of the unknown, but not at this point.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I concede that; it occurred to me that you likely don't support all of those, but twitter length prevents/ed me from elaborating. Let's focus on that then - why does it look like a smart cost/benefit play to you? The theoretical mechanism doesn't even make sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
I do have to mention though that both school closures and business closures were not smart during the fog of the unknown. This is the fallacy that it's better to *do something* than to do nothing. If you're lost in a 20-dimensional space, don't start walking randomly
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I never want to be in an emergency situation with you. You don't seem to have the right kind of judgement for that.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I could say the same. Go back a couple millennia and you'd be partaking in ritualistic sacrifice to ward off the evil spirits. I'm curious why you'd pollute the discussion by making such an empty comment though. Why won't you engage with any sense of rigor? It comes off poorly.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I think you said that you would not wear a mask on day one of a deadly pandemic, no matter how many experts say it probably helps, because there would be no proof (or possibility of proof) initially. Did I get that right?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
No, you didn't get that right. It is true that I don't believe in believing smth just b/c an expert said it tho. Although, you seem to be using some schrodinger's cat logic here. You started this discussion by scoffing at the opinion of these experts:https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Let's keep this simple. There are no studies on Coronavirus transmission and masks, but most experts agree it probably helps more than it hurts, for very obvious reasons. No matter how many studies of OTHER THINGS you send me, it doesn't change those facts.
-
-
Most experts speaking haven't studied it specifically. There are quite a few experts the disagree, and are censored. Science doesn't care about consensus. They either work or they don't and you should see it in the outcomes.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.