COVID Theatre Kills

 

Today the New York City Mayor’s Office announced that like it’s doing with restaurants, soon storefronts will be doing business outside. Just in time for the balmy months of winter, famously temperate and mild in the Northeast United States.

This is yet another anti-science response to COVID. Throughout contact tracing efforts, we’ve never seen grocery stores or other retail operations prove to be a hotspot for COVID, if they were, we’d all have had it in March and April.

I think to some extent, masks are another part of our COVID theatre. They have been billed as a magic bullet that will save us all, except, they aren’t.

It’s the same story in Europe. John McGuirk, an Irish writer and political commentator wonders:

We now have far more cases than we had in the spring, when the official consensus from Governments was that facemasks are bad.

How can this be so? Are there other explanations?

First, remember what the argument against masks was, back in the Spring:

Here in Ireland, HSE lead for infectious diseases Prof Martin Cormican recently reviewed guidelines on mask-wearing for hospital staff and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to support the wearing of surgical masks by healthcare workers for close patient encounters and staff meetings.

Citing WHO advice, Prof Cormican suggested mask-wearing by people with no symptoms could create unnecessary cost and create “a false sense of security”.

That’s the HSE lead for infectious diseases, warning that masks might actually be counter-productive, saying that wearing them could lead to people dropping their guard.

Is that what’s happened? Is there a sense, perhaps, that wearing the mask is a good enough protection and that other attempts at self-preservation have fallen by the wayside? How many people, for example, still keep hand sanitiser in their cars, and use it immediately after getting in? How many people have stopped doing that, and now take their mask off using hands they’ve touched fourteen or fifteen surfaces with?

Repeatedly, in the spring, we were warned that facemasks would pose hygiene risks – that people would touch them, not clean them properly, and mis-use them in such a way as to actually heighten the risk of virus transmission. Do those warnings look more, or less, prescient, today?

Of course, there’s no going back. Because for most people, masks do provide a sense of security. But could it be that the sense of security is, in fact, what’s proving fatal?

This has been my thinking on masks over the last few weeks especially, as I’ve seen the social distancing we know slows the spread slowly fading, as folks around me relying on whatever protection they think they’re getting from their masks. This is an extension what I call COVID theatre, the games we play that make us think we’re safer, but really do little more than lower our guard.

Earlier in the pandemic, we saw another important part of COVID theatre taking center stage: temperature checks. At several local businesses, they were performed outside, and I always liked to sneak a peek at the number and laugh: usually our temperatures were in the 93-degree range; even in the heat of the summer. On one outing I noticed all of my kids’ readings were “too low” on the thermometer gun, which I saw as we were waved in for admission.

I recalled this today as I read a powerful profile of Herman Cain from BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray, and in her piece, she talked to Cain’s family about his decision to attend the President’s rally in Tulsa.

Melanie Cain Gallo believes he could have been more careful — after the Tulsa rally, she said, she questioned him herself about why he wasn’t wearing a mask in the photo he tweeted. He told his daughter that he felt comfortable enough to do so because of the event’s temperature checks, a measure that was popular early in the pandemic that scientists increasingly say offers little protection.

We know one effective preventative in the fight against COVID: physical distancing (which, frustratingly is more commonly known as social distancing). Regular hand washing and avoiding touching one’s face doesn’t hurt either. With all of the additional COVID theatre, I think at the tail end of this epidemic we’ll wonder how much it actually contributed to the death toll. At the best, we may learn it led to a feeling of complacency, and at the worst, we may discover it made viral transmission worse.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 93 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Come on man! DeBlazio (or Wilhem or whatever his name is..) is just doing small business a service- since he won’t allow the police to stop looting, by having goods located outside the store he allows looters to steal w/o damaging the building! It’s a win-win!

    LOL!  That was funny and probably true.  It makes it easier to loot.

    • #31
  2. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Manny (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Come on man! DeBlazio (or Wilhem or whatever his name is..) is just doing small business a service- since he won’t allow the police to stop looting, by having goods located outside the store he allows looters to steal w/o damaging the building! It’s a win-win!

    LOL! That was funny and probably true. It makes it easier to loot.

    Next Bill will probably supply hand carts & wagons to help the looters- i mean protesters.

    • #32
  3. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Just posted at RushBabe49.com:

     

    https://rushbabe49.com/2020/10/29/lets-play-demoralize-the-population/

     

     

    • #33
  4. Hammer, The Inactive
    Hammer, The
    @RyanM

    MiMac (View Comment):

    .

     Go ahead read the citations provided by the article- news flash: overall they support mask use. The CEBM article relies on a study of cloth mask wearing that showed an increased rate of influenza in hospital workers wearing cloth masks-that study had numerous problems (and to their credit the authors themselves have said so). 1st, it was a study of HEALTHCARE workers who where heavily exposed to influenza by definition (since they worked on “high-risk wards” with many such patients). It is unlikely such a exposure load would occur to anyone in the community. The authors seem to believe the masks became saturated with virus and thereby didn’t protect the worker. More importantly, many of the “control group” wore surgical masks ( https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.responses#covid-19-shortages-of-masks-and-the-use-of-cloth-masks-as-a-last-resort) so they didn’t demonstrate masks did not work- only that surgical masks might be better. The Federalist author completely misinterprets the NEJM opinion piece of May 21, 2020- the authors have a subsequent article that completely refutes his understanding of the 1st article-written specifically to try to stop such use of their 1st article (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article). The NCBI study cited had a total of 32 workers involved and had a TOTAL of two colds reported- one in each group (masks vs no mask)-a study of so little power it is practically useless. The Cambridge study cited states in the summary- “There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected(emphasis mine)”. The Oxford study cited states in its abstract: “This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection.” The last study cited (Influenza Journal): states :“Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome(SARS).” All these journals admit the data isn’t great but almost all believe masks work & misquoting such studies does no one any good. It is profoundly mistaken to state that these pieces show the lack of efficacy for masks as the Federalist author tries.

    I am not going to argue with you, as any study will be flawed in your mind. The facts do not line up with your belief, not do any of the outcomes. That has become increasingly obvious, and will be utterly undeniable in the not too distant future. Hopefully by then, we will at least have agreed to allow personal choice and stop this insane elimination of our liberty in order to placate the few remaining true-believers.

    • #34
  5. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    If masks work, why do states like ours with state-wide mask mandates still have growing numbers of cases?

    • #35
  6. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    .

    Go ahead read the citations provided by the article- news flash: overall they support mask use. The CEBM article relies on a study of cloth mask wearing that showed an increased rate of influenza in hospital workers wearing cloth masks-that study had numerous problems (and to their credit the authors themselves have said so). 1st, it was a study of HEALTHCARE workers who where heavily exposed to influenza by definition (since they worked on “high-risk wards” with many such patients). It is unlikely such a exposure load would occur to anyone in the community. The authors seem to believe the masks became saturated with virus and thereby didn’t protect the worker. More importantly, many of the “control group” wore surgical masks ( https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.responses#covid-19-shortages-of-masks-and-the-use-of-cloth-masks-as-a-last-resort) so they didn’t demonstrate masks did not work- only that surgical masks might be better. The Federalist author completely misinterprets the NEJM opinion piece of May 21, 2020- the authors have a subsequent article that completely refutes his understanding of the 1st article-written specifically to try to stop such use of their 1st article (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article). The NCBI study cited had a total of 32 workers involved and had a TOTAL of two colds reported- one in each group (masks vs no mask)-a study of so little power it is practically useless. The Cambridge study cited states in the summary- “There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected(emphasis mine)”. The Oxford study cited states in its abstract: “This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection.” The last study cited (Influenza Journal): states :“Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome(SARS).” All these journals admit the data isn’t great but almost all believe masks work & misquoting such studies does no one any good. It is profoundly mistaken to state that these pieces show the lack of efficacy for masks as the Federalist author tries.

    I am not going to argue with you, as any study will be flawed in your mind. The facts do not line up with your belief, not do any of the outcomes. That has become increasingly obvious, and will be utterly undeniable in the not too distant future. Hopefully by then, we will at least have agreed to allow personal choice and stop this insane elimination of our liberty in order to placate the few remaining true-believers.

    So ad hominem beats analysis of the data….

    Really read the cited articles-they do not support what the author is citing them for- a serious breach of journalistic ethics (I know- today a 5 star oxymoron based on the NYT and CNN’s behavior) BUT the whole purpose of a community like Ricochet is to provide a forum where people in the community with experience in the field can help provide context to what is reported by the media-because, on many occasions, the media does a poor job-while there are people in the community (this one a virtual community) who can provide useful information. What is important is not my credentials or opinion but what the facts are-and the author cites 6 article in the 1st half of his piece- three of the articles ACTUALLY support mask use (despite his claims-he calls them “Cambridge University Press, Oxford Clinical Infectious Diseases, & Influenza Journal”), one article has been retracted by the authors (the NEJM which has been one of the most misquoted articles this year-hence the retraction)and the last two are essentially worthless to the COVID pandemic (and one of the articles has an addendum by the authors pointing that specific fact out). On this occasion the misuse of science was by a right leaning author -but just because he is on my side of most issues doesn’t give him cart blanched to misrepresent studies. Again-read the articles listed & you will see they don’t support his analysis. It is true I have often posted on Ricochet pointing out such misuse of medical/scientific journal articles- that is because a) it is becoming more common- “the science is settled” is such a misuse b)it offends the physician in me & c)it is the truth- and the fight against the left is a nonstop fight for the Truth-which they don’t believe in (and if we use untruths we just confirm them in their radical skepticism). If we try to win by using untruths-we lose.

    • #36
  7. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If masks work, why do states like ours with state-wide mask mandates still have growing numbers of cases?

    Masks are not absolute-but they are cheap, cause little economic disruption and have evidence supporting their effectiveness (again the data isn’t great- but in the face of novel infections we never have great data). Masks are less disruptive than social distancing and easier than hand washing (expert advice on hand washing in my field is insane-by their criteria I have to wash my hands for 20+ secs up to 54 times per hour -I kid you not). As you might guess, no one actually follows such guidelines-otherwise patients would die while we wash our hands the 33rd time.

    • #37
  8. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If masks work, why do states like ours with state-wide mask mandates still have growing numbers of cases?

    Masks are not absolute-but they are cheap, cause little economic disruption and have evidence supporting their effectiveness (again the data isn’t great- but in the face of novel infections we never have great data). Masks are less disruptive than social distancing and easier than hand washing (expert advice on hand washing in my field is insane-by their criteria I have to wash my hands for 20+ secs up to 54 times per hour -I kid you not). As you might guess, no one actually follows such guidelines-otherwise patients would die while we wash our hands the 33rd time.

    The “data” about mask effectiveness is solely about controlled mechanical testing. Hurray that most micro-loogies were not expelled after the observed cough or sneeze (depending on the style of face-covering)!  But then what?  The fomites did not die.  Will they eventually be expelled?  What happens when the mask is loosened or removed? And if somebody else’s fomites are all over the surfaces of me and my mask.. . How the heck are so many health care professionals getting infected when they are the most knowledgeable users of PPE?  How is it that huge majorities of those who test positive claim to have been using masks conscientiously? Has anybody figured out whether eyeballs are the main point of vulnerability after all?  Can a critical mass viral load be cumulative or does it have to come in large chunks right away?  Do I have to worry that little potential doses are floating around the office building A/C getting through my imperfect mask all day or being similarly spread by little old asymptomatic me?

    Anyone who has all the answers on exactly how COVID spreads should contact the CDC immediately because they were still revising their latest theory two weeks ago.

    Masks as policy are a joke.  A cloth covering that is 42% effective is about as useful as missile defense systems that block only half the incoming warheads when any one of them is enough.  There are no jurisdictions where it can be shown that a mask mandate policy made a difference.  I have waded through the Johns Hopkins site where lockdowns, school closing, and mask mandates are marked on a graph of the daily infection numbers for each state.  States in the same geographic clusters have identical case and death patterns.  Where those marks of policy interventions occur might as well be randomly selected.

    Masks are the outward compulsory affirmation of the myths that (a) we know how COVID spreads and therefore we know enough to control that spread; (b) we are all equally at risk, and (c) we are protecting the vulnerable by pretending to control spread among everyone else.  Short of Chinese-style home quarantine at gunpoint, none of the policies being deployed are effective and where we have managed to spread out the pandemic over time (e.g., “flattened the curve” a la western Europe except for Sweden) all we did was establish the basis for a “second wave” of “cases.”

    So I flatly reject the whole ‘gosh darn it, it’s not perfect but it’s better than nothing’ position as so much eyewash.  If you are COVID-vulnerable, live or work with someone who is vulnerable, or are a health care provider than by all means score yourself a high-end mask, use it properly, be prudent, and wear goggles and hope that enough young, healthy people without masks or taking any unusual precautions whatsoever are out there building herd immunity ASAP.

    • #38
  9. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I don’t see how you can get past the AIER article. 

    Dan Proft had this angry pro mask, pro lockdown doctor on last night and that guy never ever explains how masks “work”. The other new one is, he is the only pro mask doctor I have ever heard say that it protects the individual that is wearing it. As far as I’m concerned the whole situation defaults to: it’s a waste of money and grief. 

    The Fox News doctor this morning basically said people should be putting them on only in intense outbreaks when you can’t social distance very reliably. I would add, they should only be using paper medical masks, too.

     

    • #39
  10. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If masks work, why do states like ours with state-wide mask mandates still have growing numbers of cases?

    Masks are not absolute-but they are cheap, cause little economic disruption and have evidence supporting their effectiveness (again the data isn’t great- but in the face of novel infections we never have great data). Masks are less disruptive than social distancing and easier than hand washing (expert advice on hand washing in my field is insane-by their criteria I have to wash my hands for 20+ secs up to 54 times per hour -I kid you not). As you might guess, no one actually follows such guidelines-otherwise patients would die while we wash our hands the 33rd time.

    The “data” about mask effectiveness is solely about controlled mechanical testing. Hurray that most micro-loogies were not expelled after the observed cough or sneeze (depending on the style of face-covering)! But then what? The fomites did not die. Will they eventually be expelled? What happens when the mask is loosened or removed? And if somebody else’s fomites are all over the surfaces of me and my mask.. . How the heck are so many health care professionals getting infected when they are the most knowledgeable users of PPE? How is it that huge majorities of those who test positive claim to have been using masks conscientiously? Has anybody figured out whether eyeballs are the main point of vulnerability after all? Can a critical mass viral load be cumulative or does it have to come in large chunks right away? Do I have to worry that little potential doses are floating around the office building A/C getting through my imperfect mask all day or being similarly spread by little old asymptomatic me?

    Anyone who has all the answers on exactly how COVID spreads should contact the CDC immediately because they were still revising their latest theory two weeks ago.

    Masks as policy are a joke. A cloth covering that is 42% effective is about as useful as missile defense systems that block only half the incoming warheads when any one of them is enough. There are no jurisdictions where it can be shown that a mask mandate policy made a difference. I have waded through the Johns Hopkins site where lockdowns, school closing, and mask mandates are marked on a graph of the daily infection numbers for each state. States in the same geographic clusters have identical case and death patterns. Where those marks of policy interventions occur might as well be randomly selected.

    Masks are the outward compulsory affirmation of the myths that (a) we know how COVID spreads and therefore we know enough to control that spread; (b) we are all equally at risk, and (c) we are protecting the vulnerable by pretending to control spread among everyone else. Short of Chinese-style home quarantine at gunpoint, none of the policies being deployed are effective and where we have managed to spread out the pandemic over time (e.g., “flattened the curve” a la western Europe except for Sweden) all we did was establish the basis for a “second wave” of “cases.”

    So I flatly reject the whole ‘gosh darn it, it’s not perfect but it’s better than nothing’ position as so much eyewash. If you are COVID-vulnerable, live or work with someone who is vulnerable, or are a health care provider than by all means score yourself a high-end mask, use it properly, be prudent, and wear goggles and hope that enough young, healthy people without masks or taking any unusual precautions whatsoever are out there building herd immunity ASAP.

    It is not ethical to do a study that “proves” mask work- ie a challenge study nor is ethical to withhold treatment/prophylaxis believed to be effective from those sick/at risk (cue the infamous Tuskegee experiment). That is much of the problem. But as I have said ad nauseam- the bulk of the data we have supports the concept that masks reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses and that masks are cheap etc etc….and are less intrusive & have many less detrimental effects than lockdowns and many other alternatives.

    And no the studies aren’t all mechanical ones- there are observational studies of other coronavirus epidemics that demonstrated that masks reduced transmission (ie SARS). I’ve quoted them previously-you can find them. Reason even has written that the Navy credits mask wearing with reduction of spread on board (https://reason.com/2020/06/11/the-government-was-wrong-about-masks/)

    • #40
  11. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If masks work, why do states like ours with state-wide mask mandates still have growing numbers of cases?

    Masks are not absolute-but they are cheap, cause little economic disruption and have evidence supporting their effectiveness (again the data isn’t great- but in the face of novel infections we never have great data). Masks are less disruptive than social distancing and easier than hand washing (expert advice on hand washing in my field is insane-by their criteria I have to wash my hands for 20+ secs up to 54 times per hour -I kid you not). As you might guess, no one actually follows such guidelines-otherwise patients would die while we wash our hands the 33rd time.

    The “data” about mask effectiveness is solely about controlled mechanical testing. Hurray that most micro-loogies were not expelled after the observed cough or sneeze (depending on the style of face-covering)! But then what? The fomites did not die. Will they eventually be expelled? What happens when the mask is loosened or removed? And if somebody else’s fomites are all over the surfaces of me and my mask.. . How the heck are so many health care professionals getting infected when they are the most knowledgeable users of PPE? How is it that huge majorities of those who test positive claim to have been using masks conscientiously? Has anybody figured out whether eyeballs are the main point of vulnerability after all? Can a critical mass viral load be cumulative or does it have to come in large chunks right away? Do I have to worry that little potential doses are floating around the office building A/C getting through my imperfect mask all day or being similarly spread by little old asymptomatic me?

    Anyone who has all the answers on exactly how COVID spreads should contact the CDC immediately because they were still revising their latest theory two weeks ago.

    Masks as policy are a joke. A cloth covering that is 42% effective is about as useful as missile defense systems that block only half the incoming warheads when any one of them is enough. There are no jurisdictions where it can be shown that a mask mandate policy made a difference. I have waded through the Johns Hopkins site where lockdowns, school closing, and mask mandates are marked on a graph of the daily infection numbers for each state. States in the same geographic clusters have identical case and death patterns. Where those marks of policy interventions occur might as well be randomly selected.

    Masks are the outward compulsory affirmation of the myths that (a) we know how COVID spreads and therefore we know enough to control that spread; (b) we are all equally at risk, and (c) we are protecting the vulnerable by pretending to control spread among everyone else. Short of Chinese-style home quarantine at gunpoint, none of the policies being deployed are effective and where we have managed to spread out the pandemic over time (e.g., “flattened the curve” a la western Europe except for Sweden) all we did was establish the basis for a “second wave” of “cases.”

    So I flatly reject the whole ‘gosh darn it, it’s not perfect but it’s better than nothing’ position as so much eyewash. If you are COVID-vulnerable, live or work with someone who is vulnerable, or are a health care provider than by all means score yourself a high-end mask, use it properly, be prudent, and wear goggles and hope that enough young, healthy people without masks or taking any unusual precautions whatsoever are out there building herd immunity ASAP.

    It is not ethical to do a study that “proves” mask work- ie a challenge study nor is ethical to withhold treatment/prophylaxis believed to be effective from those sick/at risk (cue the infamous Tuskegee experiment). That is much of the problem. But as I have said ad nauseam- the bulk of the data we have supports the concept that masks reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses and that masks are cheap etc etc….and are less intrusive & have many less detrimental effects than lockdowns and many other alternatives.

    And no the studies aren’t all mechanical ones- there are observational studies of other coronavirus epidemics that demonstrated that masks reduced transmission (ie SARS). I’ve quoted them previously-you can find them.

    I am not persuaded by mask modeling studies that purport to show big reductions in transmission because the only studies I have seen about mask use by actually infected persons indicate no correlation.  If masks were really as much as 40% effective, wouldn’t the routinely unmasked be infected far more often than the conscientiously masked?

    I think that proper masks in proper contexts with proper use for proper protective needs make absolute scientific sense.  However, they do not work as a general policy for spread control.  For whatever reason, the alleged reductions in spread do not happen.  I know that seems counterintuitive based on perceptions of controlled use in a professional medical setting but that is the empirical outcome. Mask mandates do not help in any measurable way. And mandated use carries significant social, psychological, and political downsides.  I don’t care how cheap masks are. 

     

    • #41
  12. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If masks work, why do states like ours with state-wide mask mandates still have growing numbers of cases?

    Masks are not absolute-but they are cheap, cause little economic disruption and have evidence supporting their effectiveness (again the data isn’t great- but in the face of novel infections we never have great data). Masks are less disruptive than social distancing and easier than hand washing (expert advice on hand washing in my field is insane-by their criteria I have to wash my hands for 20+ secs up to 54 times per hour -I kid you not). As you might guess, no one actually follows such guidelines-otherwise patients would die while we wash our hands the 33rd time.

    The “data” about mask effectiveness is solely about controlled mechanical testing. Hurray that most micro-loogies were not expelled after the observed cough or sneeze (depending on the style of face-covering)! But then what? The fomites did not die. Will they eventually be expelled? What happens when the mask is loosened or removed? And if somebody else’s fomites are all over the surfaces of me and my mask.. . How the heck are so many health care professionals getting infected when they are the most knowledgeable users of PPE? How is it that huge majorities of those who test positive claim to have been using masks conscientiously? Has anybody figured out whether eyeballs are the main point of vulnerability after all? Can a critical mass viral load be cumulative or does it have to come in large chunks right away? Do I have to worry that little potential doses are floating around the office building A/C getting through my imperfect mask all day or being similarly spread by little old asymptomatic me?

    Anyone who has all the answers on exactly how COVID spreads should contact the CDC immediately because they were still revising their latest theory two weeks ago.

    Masks as policy are a joke. A cloth covering that is 42% effective is about as useful as missile defense systems that block only half the incoming warheads when any one of them is enough. There are no jurisdictions where it can be shown that a mask mandate policy made a difference. I have waded through the Johns Hopkins site where lockdowns, school closing, and mask mandates are marked on a graph of the daily infection numbers for each state. States in the same geographic clusters have identical case and death patterns. Where those marks of policy interventions occur might as well be randomly selected.

    Masks are the outward compulsory affirmation of the myths that (a) we know how COVID spreads and therefore we know enough to control that spread; (b) we are all equally at risk, and (c) we are protecting the vulnerable by pretending to control spread among everyone else. Short of Chinese-style home quarantine at gunpoint, none of the policies being deployed are effective and where we have managed to spread out the pandemic over time (e.g., “flattened the curve” a la western Europe except for Sweden) all we did was establish the basis for a “second wave” of “cases.”

    So I flatly reject the whole ‘gosh darn it, it’s not perfect but it’s better than nothing’ position as so much eyewash. If you are COVID-vulnerable, live or work with someone who is vulnerable, or are a health care provider than by all means score yourself a high-end mask, use it properly, be prudent, and wear goggles and hope that enough young, healthy people without masks or taking any unusual precautions whatsoever are out there building herd immunity ASAP.

    It is not ethical to do a study that “proves” mask work- ie a challenge study nor is ethical to withhold treatment/prophylaxis believed to be effective from those sick/at risk (cue the infamous Tuskegee experiment). That is much of the problem. But as I have said ad nauseam- the bulk of the data we have supports the concept that masks reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses and that masks are cheap etc etc….and are less intrusive & have many less detrimental effects than lockdowns and many other alternatives.

    And no the studies aren’t all mechanical ones- there are observational studies of other coronavirus epidemics that demonstrated that masks reduced transmission (ie SARS). I’ve quoted them previously-you can find them.

    I am not persuaded by mask modeling studies that purport to show big reductions in transmission because the only studies I have seen about mask use by actually infected persons indicate no correlation. If masks were really as much as 40% effective, wouldn’t the routinely unmasked be infected far more often than the conscientiously masked?

    I think that proper masks in proper contexts with proper use for proper protective needs make absolute scientific sense. However, they do not work as a general policy for spread control. For whatever reason, the alleged reductions in spread do not happen. I know that seems counterintuitive based on perceptions of controlled use in a professional medical setting but that is the empirical outcome. Mask mandates do not help in any measurable way. And mandated use carries significant social, psychological, and political downsides. I don’t care how cheap masks are.

     

    I agree most modeling studies-both pro & anti-mask are not very useful. the modeling entails too many presuppositions that essentially dictate the outcome-ie GIGO. But there are observational studies & the better ones, by & large, support the theory that mask use reduces transmission of respiratory viruses. The population wide reports such as the graph above provide little info because the data is a large agglomeration of disparate groups hence no controlling for confounding variables. I wouldn’t claim a 42% effectiveness is worthless- with droplet spread that is enough to make a difference. 

    • #42
  13. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I agree most modeling studies-both pro & anti-mask are not very useful.

    The state of Minnesota has just announced that they know how to model for masks. 

    • #43
  14. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    It is not the masks that are intrusive, it is the mandates that are intrusive.  And the officials who have been Ruling by Decree for months. This has ceased to be a free country, with the consent of the governed. We the People want our country and our Liberty back. 
    And we are willing to take our chances on getting infected and possibly dying. 

    • #44
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    If masks actually lowered the R0 I wouldn’t care, but I just don’t see it. They aren’t worth the grief and the money. 

    • #45
  16. Hammer, The Inactive
    Hammer, The
    @RyanM

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    If masks actually lowered the R0 I wouldn’t care, but I just don’t see it. They aren’t worth the grief and the money.

    And literally nowhere do they actually correlate to improved outcomes. The actual science is clear. The only “studies” that purport to sho masks work are ones that begin with the assumption that masks work and then add computer modeling for outcome. This is the definition of junk science. Masks serve one purpose and one purpose only, and virtually every doctor admitted this prior to march, 2020 (Dr Savage stated it perfectly on the Ricochet podcast). They are a talisman, a virtue signal, and a rabbit’s foot for people who are too scared to leave their houses without “protection,” even if it’s only an illusion of safety.  It took a gullible population to buy into the panic, and an equally gullible population to believe in the magical masks.

    But we are foolish and wilfully ignorant. We would rather be directed than think for ourselves, and we demand control over our own fate. Masks let us pretend we are in control. They are vanity, stupidity, and mysticism all rolled into one. And they are defended, against all actual reason and sense, by people whose religious adherence to their masks have blinded them to the most obvious truth… 

    That governments lead the charge is proof of why we so jealously guarded our liberty to begin with.

    • #46
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I want to make it clear that I’m not against central planning a pandemic. It has to be done on some levels. The R0 on COVID-19 is too high not to do that. I just don’t think that in most scenarios masks do jack. They–the government– really need to explain themselves. 

     

    • #47
  18. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Minnesota 

     

     

     

    • #48
  19. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Every major medical speciality society backs the use of masks-EVERY SINGLE ONE. On has to credit a vast conspiracy to suborn virtually every medical group. The majority of work in the field supports the use of masks- obviously it is not gold standard level material (due to time, ethical and practical limitations)- but the best studies are observational studies that demonstrate reduced transmission of similar respiratory viruses in the community. For example-a study after the original SARS outbreak in 2003, probably the best model we have, found that in the community “the use of masks was strongly protective” (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15030685/).  Another good review (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/27724590) states:

    “a study of secondary SARS-CoV-2 transmission in 124 Chinese households found that mask wearing at home by 1 or more family members before the onset of symptoms in the primary case was associated with a lower odds of secondary transmission (adjusted odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06-0.79]).2 In a study at a US academic medical center, after the implementation of universal mask use for all health care workers and patients, the SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate among health care workers declined from 14.65% to 11.46%, with a decline of 0.49% per day.3

    The fact that the outbreak has not spread as widely as initially feared among healthcare workers is undoubtedly due to a)the effectiveness of masks and b)the fact that it is NOT primarily spread by aerosols. The aforementioned drop in positivity rate among healthcare workers after masks were mandated in the hospital was DURING an epidemic while case numbers were on the rise in the community- you would not have expected a drop to occur naturally (JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-704. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12897).

    Many of the articles quoted by those opposed to masks either do NOT show what they claim (see my posting earlier on half the citations in the Federalist article) or are very flawed studies- some laughably so. For instance- one widely quoted claiming to show masks didn’t work was of caregivers & infected children given masks AFTER diagnosis to see if they could prevent the mother from catching a respiratory virus (problem #1-they may have already spread it since the use started after diagnosis).  Second, compliance was ridiculous- the child typically slept in the same room with the mother and neither wore masks – ALL NIGHT-in fact the average time masks were worn were less than 4 hrs/day by either the child or mother. Other studies frequently used to attack masks are studies that do not simulate the question at hand- the use of masks to reduce spread of coronaviruses in the community- they occur on wards full of infected patients, or are primarily of rhinoviruses etc.

    Some other recent articles to check out:

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/276839https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314683/pdf/main.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/pdf/main.pdf

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

    • #49
  20. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Maybe they do, but why does the all-Powerful Government have to make them mandatory?  This should be a FREE country, where people get to make their own decisions.  And I don’t really care what all the medical specialists (by definition, with narrow expertise, not including making public policy) say.  It is not their job to dictate what we do with our own lives.  Once it is their job, we are no longer citizens, but slaves of our government, and America ceases to be America, and becomes…what?  Rome under the Emperors?

    No, No, 1000 times NO.

    • #50
  21. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe they do, but why does the all-Powerful Government have to make them mandatory? This should be a FREE country, where people get to make their own decisions. And I don’t really care what all the medical specialists (by definition, with narrow expertise, not including making public policy) say. It is not their job to dictate what we do with our own lives. Once it is their job, we are no longer citizens, but slaves of our government, and America ceases to be America, and becomes…what? Rome under the Emperors?

    No, No, 1000 times NO.

    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    • #51
  22. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Our all-powerful governor has been ruling by decree since March. I will defy him any way I can. This health crisis cannot go on forever and we must start acting like free people not slaves. You cannot control something too small to see. Ever. The only way I can get my life back is to leave the state. 
    And I am in a supposedly high risk group. I go to work every day rather than cowering under my bed. If I get infected there are treatments available. If I die of the virus, I will have died a Free Person. 

    • #52
  23. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe they do, but why does the all-Powerful Government have to make them mandatory? This should be a FREE country, where people get to make their own decisions. And I don’t really care what all the medical specialists (by definition, with narrow expertise, not including making public policy) say. It is not their job to dictate what we do with our own lives. Once it is their job, we are no longer citizens, but slaves of our government, and America ceases to be America, and becomes…what? Rome under the Emperors?

    No, No, 1000 times NO.

    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    So state and local gummimints have no power? I may have to tell my Goobernor that, maybe he’ll stop acting like the tin-pot dictator he’s been impersonating for the last 8 months. Give me a break.

    • #53
  24. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Every major medical speciality society backs the use of masks-EVERY SINGLE ONE. On has to credit a vast conspiracy to suborn virtually every medical group. The majority of work in the field supports the use of masks- obviously it is not gold standard level material (due to time, ethical and practical limitations)- but the best studies are observational studies that demonstrate reduced transmission of similar respiratory viruses in the community.

    ***

    The fact that the outbreak has not spread as widely as initially feared among healthcare workers is undoubtedly due to a)the effectiveness of masks and b)the fact that it is NOT primarily spread by aerosols. The aforementioned drop in positivity rate among healthcare workers after masks were mandated in the hospital was DURING an epidemic while case numbers were on the rise in the community- you would not have expected a drop to occur naturally (JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-704. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12897).

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    I think the arguments over masks seem to pass by each other. Do masks, properly worn, reduce the spread of disease? Yes. But there are two important words: properly and reduce. To be effective, people need to wear good masks and wear them good. Few people actually do, therefore spread is minimally reduced by broad public wearing of masks. In fact it is so minimal that unintended consequences of wearing masks may bring it to zero as a practical matter. Studies of health workers is convincing with respect to the benefits of health workers wearing masks but is not translatable to a public that does not have the same incentives and structural support for proper mask protocols. Given this reality, the public is rightly skeptical of the motives of those leaders who are trying a punitive approach to scofflaws or making mask wearing a kind of secular purity ritual. “Don’t kill grandma” campaigns empower karens without increasing compliance.

    As RushBabe says: let the people decide. Give them information, not propaganda. If someone is asymptomatic and is going to wear a scarf instead of an N-95, those viral particles are going to float as if nothing was on the face. If you are symptomatic for any chest congestion anything you wear will catch something, but people around you should not be comfortable in your presence. And yet, the public message is put on a mask and it is all good. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The virus is going to do what the virus is going to do. Therapeutics is the key at this point. Masks are mainly health theatre outside of a medical setting.

    • #54
  25. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe they do, but why does the all-Powerful Government have to make them mandatory? This should be a FREE country, where people get to make their own decisions. And I don’t really care what all the medical specialists (by definition, with narrow expertise, not including making public policy) say. It is not their job to dictate what we do with our own lives. Once it is their job, we are no longer citizens, but slaves of our government, and America ceases to be America, and becomes…what? Rome under the Emperors?

    No, No, 1000 times NO.

    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    So state and local gummimints have no power? I may have to tell my Goobernor that, maybe he’ll stop acting like the tin-pot dictator he’s been impersonating for the last 8 months. Give me a break.

    You don’t need a break-the all powerful gov’t is the feds-the state & locals do have the authority in public health emergencies to act.

    • #55
  26. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    MiMac (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe they do, but why does the all-Powerful Government have to make them mandatory? This should be a FREE country, where people get to make their own decisions. And I don’t really care what all the medical specialists (by definition, with narrow expertise, not including making public policy) say. It is not their job to dictate what we do with our own lives. Once it is their job, we are no longer citizens, but slaves of our government, and America ceases to be America, and becomes…what? Rome under the Emperors?

    No, No, 1000 times NO.

    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    So state and local gummimints have no power? I may have to tell my Goobernor that, maybe he’ll stop acting like the tin-pot dictator he’s been impersonating for the last 8 months. Give me a break.

    You don’t need a break-the all powerful gov’t is the feds-the state & locals do have the authority in public health emergencies to act.

    This comment puts your entire history of comments on this thread in exquisite perspective.

    • #56
  27. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Every major medical speciality society backs the use of masks-EVERY SINGLE ONE. On has to credit a vast conspiracy to suborn virtually every medical group. The majority of work in the field supports the use of masks- obviously it is not gold standard level material (due to time, ethical and practical limitations)- but the best studies are observational studies that demonstrate reduced transmission of similar respiratory viruses in the community. For example-a study after the original SARS outbreak in 2003, probably the best model we have, found that in the community “the use of masks was strongly protective” (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15030685/). Another good review (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/27724590) states:

    “a study of secondary SARS-CoV-2 transmission in 124 Chinese households found that mask wearing at home by 1 or more family members before the onset of symptoms in the primary case was associated with a lower odds of secondary transmission (adjusted odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06-0.79]).2 In a study at a US academic medical center, after the implementation of universal mask use for all health care workers and patients, the SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate among health care workers declined from 14.65% to 11.46%, with a decline of 0.49% per day.3

    The fact that the outbreak has not spread as widely as initially feared among healthcare workers is undoubtedly due to a)the effectiveness of masks and b)the fact that it is NOT primarily spread by aerosols. The aforementioned drop in positivity rate among healthcare workers after masks were mandated in the hospital was DURING an epidemic while case numbers were on the rise in the community- you would not have expected a drop to occur naturally (JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-704. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12897).

    Many of the articles quoted by those opposed to masks either do NOT show what they claim (see my posting earlier on half the citations in the Federalist article) or are very flawed studies- some laughably so. For instance- one widely quoted claiming to show masks didn’t work was of caregivers & infected children given masks AFTER diagnosis to see if they could prevent the mother from catching a respiratory virus (problem #1-they may have already spread it since the use started after diagnosis). Second, compliance was ridiculous- the child typically slept in the same room with the mother and neither wore masks – ALL NIGHT-in fact the average time masks were worn were less than 4 hrs/day by either the child or mother. Other studies frequently used to attack masks are studies that do not simulate the question at hand- the use of masks to reduce spread of coronaviruses in the community- they occur on wards full of infected patients, or are primarily of rhinoviruses etc.

    Some other recent articles to check out:

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/276839https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314683/pdf/main.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/pdf/main.pdf

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

    Thanks for the links. Good stuff. (The jamnet.com links did not work for some reason. ) 

    I don’t think there was much issue that properly worn high-end masks worn by HCWs must have some effect.

    There was a concession in the metastudy that there is no data on shorter term use, different environments or studies on general public use which is where we need to be.

    Masks as policy have not had any detectable effect comparing jurisdictions with respect to mandates and the timing of such mandates. Also, some of those authors you provided appear to be droplet-obsessed and openly dismissive of the aerosol theory of transmission which the CDC now seems to think must have a role. We kinda need to resolve transmission issues especially given the studies which find that large numbers of COVID positive folks claim to be mask users.

    The fundamental objection I have to mask policy is that it is part of an inexcusably stupid, futile attempt to stop the spread so as to prevent the bug from reaching the truly vulnerable.  Even if mask policy or lockdowns work, they mostly delay the spread. Granny’s risk is in part a function of time—the longer we spread this out, the greater the chance she will have an exposure. In contrast, maxing out the PPE for Granny and her immediate contacts while having the rest of us breathe deep and get it over with is a more logical and moral policy. Those who want to opt out with N95 and goggles can still do so, of course.

    I really don’t care if Chinese masked health care workers had fewer viral infections by 40% or 90%. That is not a circumstance that can ever be transformed into a sustained universal practice nor do we want to try.  

    We have been discussing this at cross-purposes. You most ably defend the relative efficacy of the mask as a device.  I am trying to make the point that (a) those sorts of  reductions don’t accrue when generalized in far more varied conditions under a mandate. Worse, if they do have an effect, it is only to delay, to create some false assurance and fetishization, to symbolize an overblown personal risk with concomitant exaggerated fear and to foster the disastrous illusion that this is most viable way to protect the vulnerable.

    So, Doc, by all means mask up in professional settings, get some for Granny and her care-givers and make sure they know how to use them but don’t waste time defending a policy that has more drawbacks than benefits. There is a proper role for masks.

    • #57
  28. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe they do, but why does the all-Powerful Government have to make them mandatory? This should be a FREE country, where people get to make their own decisions. And I don’t really care what all the medical specialists (by definition, with narrow expertise, not including making public policy) say. It is not their job to dictate what we do with our own lives. Once it is their job, we are no longer citizens, but slaves of our government, and America ceases to be America, and becomes…what? Rome under the Emperors?

    No, No, 1000 times NO.

    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    So state and local gummimints have no power? I may have to tell my Goobernor that, maybe he’ll stop acting like the tin-pot dictator he’s been impersonating for the last 8 months. Give me a break.

    You don’t need a break-the all powerful gov’t is the feds-the state & locals do have the authority in public health emergencies to act.

    This comment puts your entire history of comments on this thread in exquisite perspective.

    Really?- a statement of fact-ask any lawyer-the locals have legal precedent to act in public health emergencies. I do not support the acts of many-especially Whitmer, but local authorities have acted in the past in emergencies & many of their actions probably would be upheld by a court of law.

    • #58
  29. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    MiMac (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe they do, but why does the all-Powerful Government have to make them mandatory? This should be a FREE country, where people get to make their own decisions. And I don’t really care what all the medical specialists (by definition, with narrow expertise, not including making public policy) say. It is not their job to dictate what we do with our own lives. Once it is their job, we are no longer citizens, but slaves of our government, and America ceases to be America, and becomes…what? Rome under the Emperors?

    No, No, 1000 times NO.

    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    So state and local gummimints have no power? I may have to tell my Goobernor that, maybe he’ll stop acting like the tin-pot dictator he’s been impersonating for the last 8 months. Give me a break.

    You don’t need a break-the all powerful gov’t is the feds-the state & locals do have the authority in public health emergencies to act.

    This comment puts your entire history of comments on this thread in exquisite perspective.

    Really?- a statement of fact-ask any lawyer-the locals have legal precedent to act in public health emergencies. I do not support the acts of many-especially Whitmer, but local authorities have acted in the past in emergencies & many of their actions probably would be upheld by a court of law.

    Governors have broad emergency power in most states. After this, legislatures may want to tighten up definitions of “emergency” and require legislative concurrence after a short period of time, analogous to the oft-abused supposedly time-limited war powers of the president.

    • #59
  30. Hammer, The Inactive
    Hammer, The
    @RyanM

    Rodin (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Every major medical speciality society backs the use of masks-EVERY SINGLE ONE. On has to credit a vast conspiracy to suborn virtually every medical group. The majority of work in the field supports the use of masks-

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Not the all powerful gummimint-the state & locals are doing it. Trump is right he can’t/shouldn’t do it. But the locals do have legal precedent. Wether they should is a different story- but my point is that it is unwise to state that masks don’t work.

    I think the arguments over masks seem to pass by each other. Do masks, properly worn, reduce the spread of disease? Yes. But there are two important words: properly and reduce. To be effective, people need to wear good masks and wear them good. Few people actually do, therefore spread is minimally reduced by broad public wearing of masks. In fact it is so minimal that unintended consequences of wearing masks may bring it to zero as a practical matter. Studies of health workers is convincing with respect to the benefits of health workers wearing masks but is not translatable to a public that does not have the same incentives and structural support for proper mask protocols. Given this reality, the public is rightly skeptical of the motives of those leaders who are trying a punitive approach to scofflaws or making mask wearing a kind of secular purity ritual. “Don’t kill grandma” campaigns empower karens without increasing compliance.

    As RushBabe says: let the people decide. Give them information, not propaganda. If someone is asymptomatic and is going to wear a scarf instead of an N-95, those viral particles are going to float as if nothing was on the face. If you are symptomatic for any chest congestion anything you wear will catch something, but people around you should not be comfortable in your presence. And yet, the public message is put on a mask and it is all good. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The virus is going to do what the virus is going to do. Therapeutics is the key at this point. Masks are mainly health theatre outside of a medical setting.

    Excellent point. 

    There is also this issue- if masks DO work to slow transmission, they will still not eradicate the virus, even if worn indefinitely, by 100% of the population. We will still need to gain immunity by allowing the virus to do it’s thing. That happens regardless.

    So, if masks do “work,” the last thing we should do is all wear them. Their only legitimate use would be to protect extremely vulnerable subsets of the population.  Under no scenario is universal masking a good idea.

    (p.s. the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy in the comment you quote is astonishing. That so many so-called experts fall into that trap is extremely sobering)

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.