SmallTown
Well-known member
You can't have missed my point...Wait, can you do blow out water vapour without breath?
Witchcraft.
You can't have missed my point...Wait, can you do blow out water vapour without breath?
Witchcraft.
He said he saw his neighbour blow out a match whilst wearing a blue mask. That's breath. Which contains amongst over things, water vapour. Remember when your grandad used to breathe on his glasses to clean them or wipe a smudge off of the window with his breath?You can't have missed my point...
Hmmm I wonder if anything could be used to stop the water vapour but not the breathe?He said he saw his neighbour blow out a match whilst wearing a blue mask. That's breath. Which contains amongst over things, water vapour. Remember when your grandad used to breathe on his glasses to clean them or wipe a smudge off of the window with his breath?
It's impossible to carry out a scientific test for masks and coronavirus. You'd have to get symptomatic coughers and asymptomatic breathers to stand for varying times in front of people with masks and without masks, with the people selected to have the same potential infection risk. And then the same again with different sets of people with different infection risks. And then repeat with different mask and face covering types. It would not be ethical or practical to carry out such a test so it won't happen.ST there is no measurable scientific test results that say wearing a mask has any benefit. There are, however, scientific, measurable studies done that suggest quite strongly that masks have no benefit at all.
I am not advocating for or against the wearing of masks, I am simply stating a fact.
ST there is no measurable scientific test results that say wearing a mask has any benefit. There are, however, scientific, measurable studies done that suggest quite strongly that masks have no benefit at all.
I am not advocating for or against the wearing of masks, I am simply stating a fact.
You were siding with the philosopher yesterday.From the way you write you can tell you're not a scientist, and if you are, you're a bad one.
I suggest people listen to scientists when it comes to scientific issues, not lay people or journalists with no scientific training for that matter.
To be honest it was an amusing, and in the circumstances, interesting stunt. The next test would be to see if you could light a fart through one.Did he blow it out with his breathe or with water vapour?
Your first point Bear, is true as far as it goes, however any particle the same size as the covid 19 virus could be used, and in fact has been used in scientifically measured tests.It's impossible to carry out a scientific test for masks and coronavirus. You'd have to get symptomatic coughers and asymptomatic breathers to stand for varying times in front of people with masks and without masks, with the people selected to have the same potential infection risk. And then the same again with different sets of people with different infection risks. And then repeat with different mask and face covering types. It would not be ethical or practical to carry out such a test so it won't happen.
Alternatively, the US have studied where mandatory mask wearing was introduced and, within two weeks and taking all factors into account have come up with a statistically significant result that masks reduce infection rates.
What an insulting crock. I suggest you do your own research instead of bad mouthing mine.From the way you write you can tell you're not a scientist, and if you are, you're a bad one.
I suggest people listen to scientists when it comes to scientific issues, not lay people or journalists with no scientific training for that matter.
Statistically significant isn't anecdotal and such means are used across real life 'science experiments'.Your first point Bear, is true as far as it goes, however any particle the same size as the covid 19 virus could be used, and in fact has been used in scientifically measured tests.
Your second example is anecdotal, the result may be statistically significant, but then so is the number of people who marry compatible birth signs. Statistical significance does not equate to scientifically measurable evidence. I do, of course, not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand, I simply prefer the scientifically measurable evidence, of which the video debate links to.
But Bear it is anecdotal. It is using examples, or stories. So for example, they looked at states that had mandatory mask wearing. against states that didn't have mandatory mask wearing in place. Now let's look at that. In the mandatory example, how many people were wearing masks? In the non-mandatory study how many people were wearing masks? What was the population density in each area? How well was social distancing being carried out? That is why it is anecdotal evidence.Statistically significant isn't anecdotal and such means are used across real life 'science experiments'.
There has always been a view that droplet based transmission is a means of infection (wash your hands), but, although the possibility of air transmission was put forward in February, it's only recently that asymptomatic transmission looks more feasible as virus quantities in air have been measured.
The flu, measles, 'colds' and coronavirus all transmit differently so no one mask experiment for one is any use for the others or even the one under experimentation because of the number of variables.
We still don't even know how much viral load is necessary to infect different groups of people.
No, it was a study of infection rates. It was found statistically significant in 15 States that had mandated the use of masks.But Bear it is anecdotal. It is using examples, or stories. So for example, they looked at states that had mandatory mask wearing. against states that didn't have mandatory mask wearing in place. Now let's look at that. In the mandatory example, how many people were wearing masks? In the non-mandatory study how many people were wearing masks? What was the population density in each area? How well was social distancing being carried out? That is why it is anecdotal evidence.
For any science to become universally accepted, at least in the hard sciences, the test must be repeatable and measurable.
I agree that that we are only beginning to understand how the covid 19 virus transmits. However to dismiss a test on flu, for example, as being useful in determining how effective masks are because of the variation, but accept your first example seems to be cherry picking.
One study showed that the air in an enclosed space is almost as loaded when people wear masks, as when they do not, and it is almost certainly over the infection rate required to catch corona-virus
With way too many variables to draw a conclusion from, it is not repeatable. Let me give you another example of why mandated mask wearing may reduce infection rates. Perhaps the states that mandate mask wearing has better social distancing guidelines and enforcement in place? Perhaps the population are more fearful of going out so there is not as much foot traffic around? perhaps from state to state there are other differences. This is evidence only, and it is based on so few factors, well, 1 factor only.No, it was a study of infection rates. It was found statistically significant in 15 States that had mandated the use of masks.
Thats what statistically significant means. The reduction in rate could not statistically have happened without masks no matter what else was going on.With way too many variables to draw a conclusion from, it is not repeatable. Let me give you another example of why mandated mask wearing may reduce infection rates. Perhaps the states that mandate mask wearing has better social distancing guidelines and enforcement in place? Perhaps the population are more fearful of going out so there is not as much foot traffic around? perhaps from state to state there are other differences. This is evidence only, and it is based on so few factors, well, 1 factor only.
You were siding with the philosopher yesterday.
Yes arguing all over the place ST! Let me go find the relevant article and post on this thread.I guess you're busy replying to bear @Laughing but I think it would strengthen your argument with both him and me if you pointed to these peer reviewed repeatable test reviews you have seen so we can see the evidence for ourselves.