Deli tells anti-maskers off

submitted by FediNetizen from i.imgur.com

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Velocity 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

This is a great example to study how brain dead a portion of the population is. Very sad how propaganda and pseudo science can turn people into sanctimonious virtue signaling robots. Also, very bad for business..I suspect they're going to alienate a good cross section of soon to be former customers.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"propaganda and pseudo-science".

Yeah, those pseudo-researchers with their pseudo-equipment performing pseudo-tests and coming up with pseudo-results which they publish in pseudo-journals. This is as opposed to Saidit, where we're all doing the real science as it should be done...in our heads.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Suck it bootlicker.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.

https://ahrp.org/medical-journals-complicit-in-corruption-of-medicine/

A growing number of prominent physician-scientists, including several former journal editors, and New York Times columnists, have written sobering critiques about the corrupting impact pharmaceutical industry influence has had on medicine. That influence has debased the integrity of medical research, clinical practice and medicine’s institutions.

Although industry’s cash inducements have corrupted both individual doctors, universities, professional associations, and industry front groups that masquerade as "patient advocates," those most responsible for the corruption of medicine are medicine’s academic leaders, prestigious medical institutions, journal editors, experts charged with formulating practice guidelines, and federal oversight agencies–in particular, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control.

When academia and government agencies became stakeholders in the business of medicine, promoting the commercial interests of manufacturers, rather than the public interest, they betrayed the public trust and their professional integrity.

Pseudo voodoo science

[–]FediNetizen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

COVID-19 isn't the flu, and it isn't some big pharma conspiracy either, genius.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It's a corona class virus with flu-like symptoms.

it isn't some big pharma conspiracy either

Not so much conspiracy, perhaps just malfeasance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

Here, my other boot needs cleaning too.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If there was any doubt that you didn't understand what a bootlicker was with your first comment, you certainly settled it with the 2nd.

[–]Velocity 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fedinetizen: Slurp, slurp, slurp.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]mongre 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Naw. They've seen the evidence.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    C'mon John, pick your pants up and join us at the table.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Reminds me of when Alex Smith, the host of radioecoshock started showing his political bent during interviews with scientists on climate matters. He was anti-trump and derided the administration's stand on climate change. Whatever, everyone is entitled to their opinion I thought but you have just alienated 50% of you listener base.

    I would expect this deli's revenues to fall in a similar manner.

    [–]TripleZ 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    Keep sucking that cock son.

    [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    His propaganda is futile, I never wear a mask :)

    [–]cure_osa_disorder 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    STFU racist disease bag

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Wihhhlllduuuu 👍

    [–]TripleZ 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    It was meant for OP because, not you.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    I noticed the county we were camping in that many locals didn't wear masks. Thought I'd compare it to one that did.

    1,813 cases 29,126 pop. Sporadic mask compliance. Infection 6.2%.
    245,551 cases 4,746,600 pop. General mask compliance. Infection 5.17%

    That isn't super encouraging.

    Stats from covidtracker.com

    [–]FediNetizen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Way too many variables to just compare two counties. More testing means more cases, higher population density means more cases, etc.

    I'd put it like this: if you think masking doesn't work, then why do you think medical professionals have been wearing them for decades? Do you think they were just making a fashion statement?

    [–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Masks are effective against bacteria. That is why they have been used for the past century in medicine. There's a big difference between bacteria and viruses.

    As to AmericanMuskrat's point, this cuts both ways. You say that there are too many variables, but scientific studies isolate certain variables that they emphasize; as a corollary, they may in fact miss the variables which matter. It seems to me the real-world comparisons are about as good as we can get at this point, since we have data now for almost a year. And the numbers Muskrat cites are quite consistent in many areas. Masks make very marginal difference which is never statistically significant. Meanwhile, the regions that are hardest hit all have the most strict regulation, and their numbers are skyrocketing, while areas with a lighter touch are doing better. You say we don't know all the variables, but that point itself argues against your conclusion. The one variable we do know is mask/other social restriction regulation, and when we isolate just that variable, it doesn't tell the story you're looking for.

    [–]FediNetizen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The regions hardest hit? You mean cities, where everyone is packed in and you're in close contact with way more people on average than someone in a rural county?

    Places like North Dakota get away with fewer regulations because it's North Dakota, not because masks don't work. And while early in the pandemic it was primarily the northeast that was getting hit the hardest, at this point all regions are getting hit pretty hard.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Areas of high compliance, if the masks were effective against the spread, would be trending towards zero cases. But they're not.

    I started on the same side of this particular issue as you. And indeed many people's initial hatred of masks seems unreasonable and dogmatic. They just started off oppositional and clung to anything to support their beliefs.

    But now we've been wearing masks for the better part of a year. Reevaluation is prudent or that's being just as dogmatic as the other side has been. I don't know of any real life data showing they're stopping covid. I'm looking at a small, partial dataset here, but we work with the data we have.

    I'd put it like this: if you think masking doesn't work, then why do you think medical professionals have been wearing them for decades? Do you think they were just making a fashion statement?

    How medical professionals used to wear masks, they'd at least use a new mask for each patient, possibly scrub and glove up too. That's not how masks are being used even at a corporate level, employees get a mask a day, or maybe a few poorly fitting cloth ones they're supposed to wash. And the people using them are not medical professionals.

    [–]FediNetizen[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Just to be clear about terms, when we talk about pandemics, we have what's called the R value. This is a coefficient that expresses how many new cases will be created on average from an existing case. This number is important, because the trend is exponential. If your pandemic has 1000 cases, then with an R value of 2 it doubles each cycle. So you have 1000, then 2000 new cases develop over the infection's lifecycle, then 4000, then 8000, and so on.

    The critical value is R = 1. This means that for each existing case will, on average, create 1 new case over that lifecycle. So you have your 1000 cases, and then over the course of the infection's lifecycle you get 1000 new cases, but they only appear as the old ones resolve themselves, so you end up with a steady stream of cases that never really increases, but never decreases until a sizeable enough percentage of the population is innoculated that your R value drops below 1.

    It's where you get the R value below 1 that you see the trend towards zero that you're talking about. If the R value is, say, 0.5, then your 1000 cases creates 500 new cases, then those create 250 new cases, and so on. For reference, COVID-19 has a base R value of between 2 and 3. A typical flu is more like 1.3-1.5, so you understand that COVID-19 is far more infectious.

    When you take steps to reduce the spread, you reduce that R number. And while a reduction in that number does help, you're still going to see increasing numbers of new cases, unless you're actually able to get that R value below 1.0.

    The problems is that moderate compliance isn't enough to get that R value from 2-3 all the way down to a fraction. If masks are fairly effective at fighting COVID-19, and take an R value of say, 2.5, all the way down to 1.5, does that mean that masks are effective? Yes, it does. But at the same time, you're still above R = 1, so you're still going to see growth in cases.

    It's pretty clear that we can get the R value below 1.0. Italy is a great example. They got hit super hard early in the pandemic, and they went into strict lockdown. They don't have the same attitudes among the population, or the same rights, so compliance was much higher. And what was the results? They brought their R value below 1, and deaths slowed to a trickle as a result.

    You need real compliance, though. Social distancing that is respected by everyone, no parties, avoiding contact, etc. And if enough spoilers ignore the restrictions, it just doesn't work. And that's what we have in America right now. Our government just doesn't have the same level of control as in Europe, and a lot of people aren't taking it seriously, and the result is that we're struggling to get things under control. It's not that these methods don't work, it's that American culture is too individualistic to get the compliance levels you need to bring an infection like this under control.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    We're not in disagreement about the basic facts, just have different conclusions.

    One way or another it'll be a moot point soon. Either the vaccines work and we don't need masks or Americans get sick of wearing them and we don't need masks.

    [–]dissidentrhetoric 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Masks do nothing.

    [–]joewest1313 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I didn't want to eat there anyway their food probably tastes like poo.