Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Options
1…197198200202203…326

Comments

  • Options
    #5972
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Ok maybe have a look at the evidence yourself before commenting.
    You've done the exact same thing as twitter.

    Or maybe I'll not listen to random guys on boards or twitter and let scientists do the science.

    I mean is there some reason you're more capable than the scientific establishment?

    Funny the way no-one ever argued against surgical masks for the last few decades when they've been in hospitals everywhere but now people are asked to wear one....


  • Options
    #5973
    Detritus70
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Detritus70


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    There's absolutely no evidence to say masks will have such an impact, infact the evidence points in the other direction. The Danish study is the gold standard and will soon be peer reviewed and a lot of people won't like what it says.

    Seriously, that nonsense again? Did someone turn back the clock and it's March again?
    Maybe those unqualified hacks at the Mayo Clinic can answer that question for you
    Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes, face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and social distancing, help slow the spread of the virus.

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

    I mean, are we seriously going through this crap again?
    Jesus wept.

    Wear your damn mask, keep your damn distance and wash your damn hands.
    It's not rocket science.


  • Options
    #5974
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Fiery mutant wrote: »
    How can you claim that something that hasn’t been peer reviewed is the ‘gold standard’?

    Once it's peer reviewed there releasing the results. The study itself is the gold standard.
    It will be peer reviewed, it's a political hot potato.


  • Options
    #5975
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,867 ✭✭✭Christy42


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Ok maybe have a look at the evidence yourself before commenting.
    You've done the exact same thing as twitter.

    Why would you suggest looking at the evidence? You said a study you haven't even read is the gold standard. What evidence did you look at to come to that conclusion?

    There is no preprint of that study released, it isn't published yet. So why do you think it is the gold standard?


  • Options
    #5976
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Once it's peer reviewed there releasing the results. The study itself is the gold standard.
    It will be peer reviewed, it's a political hot potato.

    Do you see the benefits of us waiting until thing are peer reviewed though.

    I'm thinking homeopathy, vaccines, 5G, climate change?

    Can you see the inherent problem with your approach.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5977
    Detritus70
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Detritus70


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Once it's peer reviewed there releasing the results. The study itself is the gold standard.
    It will be peer reviewed, it's a political hot potato.

    It's hot nonsense


  • Options
    #5978
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,979 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Once it's peer reviewed there releasing the results. The study itself is the gold standard.
    It will be peer reviewed, it's a political hot potato.

    You're missing a word. Once it *passes* peer review, it will be released. As for gold standard, do you have any idea what that means?


  • Options
    #5979
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    The Danish study is the gold standard and will soon be peer reviewed and a lot of people won't like what it says.
    This sentence seems self contradictory.


  • Options
    #5980
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Detritus70 wrote: »
    Seriously, that nonsense again? Did someone turn back the clock and it's March again?
    Maybe those unqualified hacks at the Mayo Clinic can answer that question for you

    [QuotCan face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes, face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and social distancing, help slow the spread of the virus.

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

    I mean, are we seriously going through this crap again?
    Jesus wept.

    Wear your damn mask, keep your damn distance and wash your damn hands.
    It's not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

    ***If used correctly by everyone. The general population doesn't use them as intended and that's what the previous studies realised and the Danish one will do the same when published.
    Ask yourself why Tony Houlihan was so slow to recommend them and it wasn't about saving hankies for hospitals.

    Biden is using them for political advantage based on 0 real world data.
    That cdc link doesn't mean anything, it shows masks work, what it doesn't get into is when you mandate them for millions of people will they have the same effect.
    As I've linked to there is no evidence to say they work in the real world and what little evidence we have says they cause more spread due to secondary transmission.

    We'll have the peer reviewed study soon, until then it's just politics as each side is cherry picking what science to listen to.


  • Options
    #5981
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,867 ✭✭✭Christy42


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

    I mean, are we seriously going through this crap again?
    Jesus wept.

    Wear your damn mask, keep your damn distance and wash your damn hands.
    It's not rocket science.

    ***If used correctly by everyone. The general population doesn't use them as intended and that's what the previous studies realised and the Danish one will do the same when published.
    Ask yourself why Tony Houlihan was so slow to recommend them and it wasn't about saving hankies for hospitals.

    Biden is using them for political advantage based on 0 real world data.
    That cdc link doesn't mean anything, it shows masks work, what it doesn't get into is when you mandate them for millions of people will they have the same effect.
    As I've linked to there is no evidence to say they work in the real world and what little evidence we have says they cause more spread due to secondary transmission.

    We'll have the peer reviewed study soon, until then it's just politics as each side is cherry picking what science to listen to.[/QUOTE]

    Please state which pieces of the Danish study make it the gold standard. Ease reference any points that make it different to previous studies.

    If this is just a people don't use them muck, they will learn over time. That is a much less interesting study. I am seeing a lot more people wear them right than 5 months ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5982
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Why would you suggest looking at the evidence? You said a study you haven't even read is the gold standard. What evidence did you look at to come to that conclusion?

    There is no preprint of that study released, it isn't published yet. So why do you think it is the gold standard?

    I've read the evidence up until now I pretty much know what it's going to say.

    I'm saying gold standard as the studies up until now are limited,

    "The small number of trials and lateness in the pandemic cycle is unlikely to give us reasonably clear answers and guide decision-makers. This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence"
    https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

    Without evidence it's being used as a political football by Biden to score on Trump and evidence is being blocked by Biden supporters like Twitter.

    It makes the Danish study very important to help cut the politics out of the debate.


  • Options
    #5983
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    Lollers.

    Is it now people doubting masks and saying they don't work because in the problem with them is that people won't wear them?

    That's astoundingly odd.


  • Options
    #5984
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Please state which pieces of the Danish study make it the gold standard. Ease reference any points that make it different to previous studies.

    If this is just a people don't use them muck, they will learn over time. That is a much less interesting study. I am seeing a lot more people wear them right than 5 months ago.

    It's the only major study we have. It will be the benchmark until there is another one. Much like PCR testing is the gold standard even with it's flaws as we lack a better option.

    As we can see demonstrated already it's been dismissed here as it may disagree with a lot of peoples thinking. Nobody has said, oh that might be interesting, I wonder what it says.
    It's not on message so must be dismissed.


  • Options
    #5985
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,144 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Once it's peer reviewed there releasing the results. The study itself is the gold standard.
    It will be peer reviewed, it's a political hot potato.

    Peer review is a test, not a rubber stamping.

    Your assertion that it will be peer reviewed underlines your inability to understand the process


  • Options
    #5986
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,979 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I've read the evidence up until now I pretty much know what it's going to say.

    I'm saying gold standard as the studies up until now are limited,

    "The small number of trials and lateness in the pandemic cycle is unlikely to give us reasonably clear answers and guide decision-makers. This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence"
    https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

    Without evidence it's being used as a political football by Biden to score on Trump and evidence is being blocked by Biden supporters like Twitter.

    It makes the Danish study very important to help cut the politics out of the debate.

    What debate is that? That masks work? I give you South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong as data points as to whether masks work. None of those countries had to mandate their use, either. Why would that be?


    As for gold standard, this is making me facepalm. Randomized controlled trials are discussed as the 'gold standard' for *how* to run a study.

    You can still get the interpretation of the results wrong. So, no study is EVER the gold standard.

    Hope that helps.


  • Options
    #5987
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,483 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    It's the only major study we have. It will be the benchmark until there is another one. Much like PCR testing is the gold standard even with it's flaws as we lack a better option.

    As we can see demonstrated already it's been dismissed here as it may disagree with a lot of peoples thinking. Nobody has said, oh that might be interesting, I wonder what it says.
    It's not on message so must be dismissed.

    It hasn't been dismissed, it hasn't been peer reviewed yet and so would be premature to cite it.

    There could be flaws in it, the conclusions may not be properly coberated by the underlying evidence, the sample size might not be sufficient.


  • Options
    #5988
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,408 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

    I mean, are we seriously going through this crap again?
    Jesus wept.

    Wear your damn mask, keep your damn distance and wash your damn hands.
    It's not rocket science.
    ***If used correctly by everyone. The general population doesn't use them as intended and that's what the previous studies realised and the Danish one will do the same when published.
    Ask yourself why Tony Houlihan was so slow to recommend them and it wasn't about saving hankies for hospitals.

    Biden is using them for political advantage based on 0 real world data.
    That cdc link doesn't mean anything, it shows masks work, what it doesn't get into is when you mandate them for millions of people will they have the same effect.
    As I've linked to there is no evidence to say they work in the real world and what little evidence we have says they cause more spread due to secondary transmission.

    We'll have the peer reviewed study soon, until then it's just politics as each side is cherry picking what science to listen to.

    Didnt Trump do the same with hydroxychloroquine? I don't recall you ever getting your Jimmy's rustled when he did that.


  • Options
    #5989
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,028 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Go home monkey, you're drunk


  • Options
    #5990
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    It hasn't been dismissed, it hasn't been peer reviewed yet and so would be premature to cite it.

    There could be flaws in it, the conclusions may not be properly coberated by the underlying evidence, the sample size might not be sufficient.

    It tracked 6000 people, half masks half without, it's a decent sample size. There's nothing like it at the moment. Agree with all your points there we can't cite it yet.
    Back to my original point, a poster said wearing masks will reduce deaths by X amount, there is also no peer reviewed study to support that stance, it's just an assumption to support a political point of view, it's not based on any real world evidence.


  • Options
    #5991
    Detritus70
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Detritus70


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    ***If used correctly by everyone. The general population doesn't use them as intended and that's what the previous studies realised and the Danish one will do the same when published.
    Ask yourself why Tony Houlihan was so slow to recommend them and it wasn't about saving hankies for hospitals.

    .

    Then people should use them correctly. And enforcement should ensure that happens. Simples.
    Just because idiots can't or won't use them correctly, doesn't matter. They'll get fined or sick and they'll soon whistle a different tune.
    Same with seatbelts. People used the same idiotic arguments against seatbelts, but in the end that's policy, use them, use them correctly or face a penalty or get injured or worse.
    You found one study that supports your viewpoint and you're clinging onto it like Jack onto that piece of driftwood.
    At some stage the debate is over. At some stage measures are taken based on best available data.
    And people can whine and moan, but there's no choice but to get with the program.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5992
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    I think at this stage we should collectively give up on logic and accept that some posters like being on the lonely side of the argument.

    People have form for it. Some opinions aren't evidence based but 'how I want this conversation to go' based.

    If we all said no masks, they'd say masks.


  • Options
    #5993
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,979 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    It tracked 6000 people, half masks half without, it's a decent sample size. There's nothing like it at the moment. Agree with all your points there we can't cite it yet.
    Back to my original point, a poster said wearing masks will reduce deaths by X amount, there is also no peer reviewed study to support that stance, it's just an assumption to support a political point of view, it's not based on any real world evidence.

    How do you know that's a decent size? What's the (I think) P value for such a sample?

    Contrast it to the *millions* tracked in the 'vaccines cause autism' studies that scientists did. As I recall, one huge one was done over a long period of time in Denmark. So, serious studies can in fact be published by Danes.
    I'd say those are a good predictive size.

    6000 people in Denmark seems awfully light when you have experiential data like the SE Asian countries with enormous numbers of people wearing masks and infinitesimal case- and death rates from SARS-COV-2
    Another thing, they're likely to be Danes in a Northern country at a certain time of year. Not exactly representative for the world as a whole in such small numbers.

    This should all be part of the peer review, of course. And one study does not a conclusion make. You claim to have done your research, so, how many other studies have you looked at, and what common conclusions have you found? How many abstracts have you read, and in which journals? CEBM lists a lot of 'mask/Flu' studies, have you read them?


  • Options
    #5994
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    You'd do well to look at the evidence before making a statement like that. Some chap on you tube coughing into a mask in a controlled environment is not real world evidence based science, it takes into account none of the variables outside of the lab.


  • Options
    #5995
    Oafley Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 6,460 ✭✭✭Oafley Jones


    Midlife wrote: »
    I think at this stage we should collectively give up on logic and accept that some posters like being on the lonely side of the argument.

    People have form for it. Some opinions aren't evidence based but 'how I want this conversation to go' based.

    If we all said no masks, they'd say masks.

    A pandemic isn’t magically going to imbue common sense or the ability to parse information in a logical fashion, into someone who’s never demonstrated the slightest competence for either.


  • Options
    #5996
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Igotadose wrote: »
    CEBM lists a lot of 'mask/Flu' studies, have you read them?

    Yes, 100,000 people wearing a masks for a week prevents 5 flu transmissions was one of the stand out points from one of them.


  • Options
    #5997
    Field east
    Registered Users Posts: 2,433 ✭✭✭Field east


    Midlife wrote: »
    I think at this stage we should collectively give up on logic and accept that some posters like being on the lonely side of the argument.

    People have form for it. Some opinions aren't evidence based but 'how I want this conversation to go' based.

    If we all said no masks, they'd say masks.

    Re wearing of masks, three further points need to be part of the conversation re their effectiveness
    (1) is there a possibility that they are effective against other viruses, bacteria, dust, pollen, etc especially during the winter months. I would have the people vulnerable to one or other of these contributors to ailments.
    (2) when you see someone wearing a mast or wearing one yourself it reminds you of the presence of the virus and hopefully you will , as a result, wash your hands, etc.
    (3) even if the mask is not effective , not wearing one, especially in indoor areas, is showing disrespect of sorts to those who are wearing one and who may have lost loved ones to the virus.


  • Options
    #5998
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    You'd do well to look at the evidence



    Mike Pence's chief of staff tested positive along with another 150,000 people. in 48 hours.

    The evidence is, Trump hasn't a clue how to manage/control/mitigate Coronavirus.


  • Options
    #5999
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    You'd do well to look at the evidence before making a statement like that. Some chap on you tube coughing into a mask in a controlled environment is not real world evidence based science, it takes into account none of the variables outside of the lab.

    Neither is the conspiracy theory site content that you repost regularly, but that's never stopped you.


  • Options
    #6000
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,653 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    But since there is literally no negative consequences to wearing a mask and proof that they deffinitely give at least minor amount of protection why would you not wear one?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6001
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    The Trump approach to Coronavirus has largely been 'do nothing'.

    From a Trump perspective it's ideal because he can point at the States that do take countermeasures and blame them for any economic impact while ignoring the human impact.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement