At the risk of being contrarian...I respond not because I expect to persuade Paul, but rather for those who may come along and read, to point out the flaws.
If Paul's responses were private, I would simply ignore. Since they're public, they get a response.
I see your point but have simply preferred to label him for what he is - a troll. When i did that I got an huge amount of likes. If those who didnтАЩt тАЬlikeтАЭ read how many agreed with me, it should give them pause.
Calling somebody names is preaching to the choir, and does nothing to inform those whose position may still be malleable. His behavior is definitely troll-esque, but the words can still influence others' evaluation of the scenario.
Your response is a non-sequiter. Regardless of what you've convinced yourself about masking, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not finding evidence against something is not all the same as finding evidence against something. It's basic logic.
It's hard to reason or dialogue with someone hung up on contrarian concepts that most people find illogical. Let the best man win - in this case let he who is without mask bet who will be first become ill with Covid19. Now excuse me as I check my mask as I enter my first public building of the day.
There is clear evidence of efficacy- several studies were linked in the article. There are fewer studies showing non-efficacy, and they tend to have methodological issues. But lets say they balanced.
If we follow your logic that there is no evidence in either direction, the consequences of following your course of action (not using masks at all) has a far greater potential negative impact than your irritation of putting a piece of paper over your face in crowded settings or where people are vulnerable if they do work to mitigate spread. I would understand if the mask had to be stapled on or had to be on 24/7 but that simply isn't the case. Even in offices or medical settings people get breaks and can remove them for some "fresh air". Also some masks are better than others and not so difficult to breathe through without sacrificing much on the filtration. This goes back to your comparison of masks (a piece of paper or melt-blown fiber you wear with strings that is there to help others) to medication (a chemical compound which can cause serious reactions or interactions which help only yourself). There are some pretty clear differences.
> It is possible that masks increase viral transmission
Please present evidence for this hypothesis.
"Paul" has been a ccontrarian on this blog, to say the least. Perhaps if no one responds to him, he will get bored and wander away?
At the risk of being contrarian...I respond not because I expect to persuade Paul, but rather for those who may come along and read, to point out the flaws.
If Paul's responses were private, I would simply ignore. Since they're public, they get a response.
I see your point but have simply preferred to label him for what he is - a troll. When i did that I got an huge amount of likes. If those who didnтАЩt тАЬlikeтАЭ read how many agreed with me, it should give them pause.
Calling somebody names is preaching to the choir, and does nothing to inform those whose position may still be malleable. His behavior is definitely troll-esque, but the words can still influence others' evaluation of the scenario.
Your response is a non-sequiter. Regardless of what you've convinced yourself about masking, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not finding evidence against something is not all the same as finding evidence against something. It's basic logic.
It's hard to reason or dialogue with someone hung up on contrarian concepts that most people find illogical. Let the best man win - in this case let he who is without mask bet who will be first become ill with Covid19. Now excuse me as I check my mask as I enter my first public building of the day.
Thus, in the case of the cochrane study cited above, it's equally useful to anti-maskers as to pro-maskers--which is to say that it isn't.
There is clear evidence of efficacy- several studies were linked in the article. There are fewer studies showing non-efficacy, and they tend to have methodological issues. But lets say they balanced.
If we follow your logic that there is no evidence in either direction, the consequences of following your course of action (not using masks at all) has a far greater potential negative impact than your irritation of putting a piece of paper over your face in crowded settings or where people are vulnerable if they do work to mitigate spread. I would understand if the mask had to be stapled on or had to be on 24/7 but that simply isn't the case. Even in offices or medical settings people get breaks and can remove them for some "fresh air". Also some masks are better than others and not so difficult to breathe through without sacrificing much on the filtration. This goes back to your comparison of masks (a piece of paper or melt-blown fiber you wear with strings that is there to help others) to medication (a chemical compound which can cause serious reactions or interactions which help only yourself). There are some pretty clear differences.
Yes! the precautionary principle. Not the Wikipedia definition, but the "Act Up" one, which Fauci accepted! The Gaia people also.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/31/opinion/anthony-fauci-hiv-aids-act-up.html
Sigh.
So you'd've denied AZT from AIDS people?
When the "thing" is only inconvenient, you rail against it?