2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Sorry, it I am not going to accept Luciom’s explanations at face value. He skews facts and data all the time to meet his political objectives and views. If the data exists and can be tabulated, I want that over Luciom’s logic very day of the week. I am not saying Luciom can’t be right, I just don’t trust the integrity of the guy claiming “trust me” after admitting the data hasn’t been parsed to answer that particular question.
There's no "Luciom's logic". It's just logic. I've re-stated the logic, you can call it my logic now if you like. Nobody is asking you to trust him on anything.
It's pretty simple. If a group is 55% blue and 45% red, and a subset of that group is 70% blue then what remains must necessarily be less than 55% blue.
Sorry, it I am not going to accept Luciom’s explanations at face value. He skews facts and data all the time to meet his political objectives and views. If the data exists and can be tabulated, I want that over Luciom’s logic very day of the week. I am not saying Luciom can’t be right, I just don’t trust the integrity of the guy claiming “trust me” after admitting the data hasn’t been parsed to answer that particular question.
Which claims don't you trust? that women get STEM degrees relatively less than other degrees?
https://randalolson.com/2014/06/14/perce...
If we were discussing in good faith, the fact that STEM degrees attract far less women than all other degrees would be much more than enough to claim confidently that STEM degree holders vote right more than non-STEM degree holders.
Because of the well known men-women gap in voting right these days, do you want that sourced as well?
You can answer this question yourself if you think logically. Let's first make sure you understand the basics: do you know the purpose of wearing a mask? I ask this because a surprisingly large number of people don't.
certainly it isn't to protect others as that has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, not to be the case, thanks to the quirks in spanish and italian school rules.
In italy and spain the under 6 weren't mandated masks in schools while the over 6 were.
If masks protected third parties from infection, elementary school teachers would have been infected dramatically more often than pre-elementary school teachers in Spain and Italy.
That didn't happen so we are absolutely certain wearing masks don't protect others. At all. in the slightest. 0 effect. Only anti-science people who deny all reality can keep claiming that.
In real world settings that is, we don't care about lab controlled settings to inform real world policy do we?
certainly it isn't to protect others as that has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, not to be the case, thanks to the quirks in spanish and italian school rules.
In italy and spain the under 6 weren't mandated masks in schools while the over 6 were.
If masks protected third parties from infection, elementary school teachers would have been infected dramatically more often than pre-elementary school teachers in Spain and Italy.
That didn't happen so we are absolutely certain wearing masks don
Stuff like this, where you claim that we can be "absolutely certain" of some general conclusion based on some sketchy anecdotal evidence that, even if true, would only allow you to draw a much, much narrower conclusion certainly doesn't help your case for when you do have a legitimate point to make.
There's no "Luciom's logic". It's just logic. I've re-stated the logic, you can call it my logic now if you like. Nobody is asking you to trust him on anything.
It's pretty simple. If a group is 55% blue and 45% red, and a subset of that group is 70% blue then what remains must necessarily be less than 55% blue.
Yes, but we are talking about a voting population where only 50% vote and he was extrapolating data from the 2016 elections.
Stuff like this, where you claim that we can be "absolutely certain" of some general conclusion based on some sketchy anecdotal evidence that, even if true, would only allow you to draw a much, much narrower conclusion certainly doesn't help your case for when you do have a legitimate point to make.
Ouch. You made me read his firehose of ignorance again.
JFC
He thinks literal school children are competent enough at wearing a mask all day to be a serious experiment yielding usable data.
For those unsure: yes, the purpose of wearing masks is source control. It reduces the amount of virus being put into the air. No matter how hard Luciom tries to deny, it's just factually true. The proof of this is simple. Wear a mask for 5-10 minutes, then take it off and feel the inside of it. It will be damp. That's the moisture from your breath that would be in the air if you weren't wearing the mask. That moisture contains a LOT of virus that you just prevented from being in the air. I literally feel sorry for people who can't follow this simple logic.
So, should you wear one in the car alone? The answer to the question is the same as the answer to "are you trying to reduce the amount of virus being put into the air?" When trying to answer this, consider if someone else will be in your car soon.
You can also consider if it's worth the bother to remove it when between places where the need is more obvious.
You can answer this question yourself if you think logically. Let's first make sure you understand the basics: do you know the purpose of wearing a mask? I ask this because a surprisingly large number of people don't.
Knowing the purpose is the step one, someone with a STEM degree would make it to the second step where you ask if the mask serves the intended purpose. What is the purpose of blood letting and witch doctoring?
I love this game of trying to logically deduce how STEM people vote instead of seeking out actual data.
Which claims don't you trust? that women get STEM degrees relatively less than other degrees?
If we were discussing in good faith, the fact that STEM degrees attract far less women than all other degrees would be much more than enough to claim confidently that STEM degree holders vote right more than non-STEM degree holders.
Because of the well known men-women gap in voting right these days, do you want that sourced as well?
When the author has questionable ethics and a history of lacking credibility, yes, you need o source every claimed “fact” in your argument.
Yes, but we are talking about a voting population where only 50% vote and he was extrapolating data from the 2016 elections.
Well it doesn't matter what % vote since we're only concerned with those who voted, but I didn't realise he was using 2016 numbers for the original 55-45 split or whatever, yeah, that's a problem. That's the sort of mistake I was asking for people to point out.
Knowing the purpose is the step one, someone with a STEM degree would make it to the second step where you ask if the mask serves the intended purpose. What is the purpose of blood letting and witch doctoring?
The answer is yes, it does. If would like a simple proof of concept read the post right above yours. Hope that helped.
Stuff like this, where you claim that we can be "absolutely certain" of some general conclusion based on some sketchy anecdotal evidence that, even if true, would only allow you to draw a much, much narrower conclusion certainly doesn't help your case for when you do have a legitimate point to make.
sketchy anecdotal evidence?
even a very small protective effect to third parties of mask using would mean a dramatic difference in cases for the protected population over the months and the years, do you understand that logically? even a 10% effect would have massive impact multiplied by all the contagious students for all the months.
A lack of gigantic differences in cases between the "protected" and the "unprotected" groups that spend 40+ hours per week with those students is more than enough to prove the effect is 0.
It's like if you have a 1% edge in betting over the house, that would generate immense profits. You have no edge if you can't show immense, gigantic, consistent results.
That's generally the case with interventions, you need a dramatic decrease in cases following them every time no exception in every setting to even suggest they have some effect, because the purported reduction in cases affects an exponential function.
I love this game of trying to logically deduce how STEM people vote instead of seeking out actual data.
I did look extensively for the actual data (polls about voting propensity by college major), i didn't find anything. And i wrote that since the beginning.
We need inference. Inference is often not very informative. Except when you are just looking for a qualitative direction of effect not for exact quantification. Which is how i limited my claim.
I tried to seek out actual data and apparently it doesn't exist, or if it does, nobody knows where it is. So AFAIK extrapolation is the best we have here.
Ten seconds of googling turned up this, there's probably better polling out there.
sketchy anecdotal evidence?
even a very small protective effect to third parties of mask using would mean a dramatic difference in cases for the protected population over the months and the years, do you understand that logically? even a 10% effect would have massive impact multiplied by all the contagious students for all the months.
A lack of gigantic differences in cases between the "protected" and the "unprotected" groups that spend 40+ hours per week with those students is more than enough to
What if, and try to follow along with me here, there are certain groups that are more at risk of contracting Covid to other groups, and young healthy elementary school teachers are not in the highest risk group? I.e. some amount of Covid in the air, call it x, would be benign to someone in both a low risk group and a high risk group, but x + 50% would still be benign to the low risk group and not to the high risk group?
That may or may not be the case, but regardless, that's just one way in which your evidence doesn't allow you to draw the general conclusion you want it to. So, all that preaching you do to everyone else about applying logic, practice some of it.
Ouch. You made me read his firehose of ignorance again.
JFC
He thinks literal school children are competent enough at wearing a mask all day to be a serious experiment yielding usable data.
For those unsure: yes, the purpose of wearing masks is source control. It reduces the amount of virus being put into the air. No matter how hard Luciom tries to deny, it's just factually true. The proof of this is simple. Wear a mask for 5-10 minutes, then take it off and feel the inside of it. It will be damp.
the "droplet theory of covid transmission" was proven false. It's airborne, no need for the "moisture", even the WHO belatedly acknowledged that with a lot of delay. Because of course if it's truly airborne masks do nothing at all (too small for them).
No one in real world settings except PERHAPS some specialized health care professionals (hint: not those who made dancing videos) is able of competently wearing a mask for many hours every day.
If your theory of efficacy is predicated on people wearing masks perfectly, then that fails as well in the real world for almost all mask mandates. You might keep mandating them *to health care professionals* (not to visitors to healthcare facilities) for viruses under your (failed) model. But not to others.
And if the idea is that even when used badly they still work at least a bit to protect others, then no that's objectively false, no effect in the data for schoolchildren.
Ten seconds of googling turned up this, there's probably better polling out there.
Academics form a small and non-representative subset of those with STEM degrees. We've already had the data for academics and discussion of it upthread.
What if, and try to follow along with me here, there are certain groups that are more at risk of contracting Covid to other groups, and young healthy elementary school teachers are not in the highest risk group? I.e. some amount of Covid in the air, call it x, would be benign to someone in both a low risk group and a high risk group, but x + 50% would still be benign to the low risk group and not to the high risk group?
That may or may not be the case, but regardless, that's just one way in which
? doesn't matter what the risk is, if masks work to protect others, teachers with masked students would get covid far less often than teachers with unmasked students. It's not that those teachers never got infected. They did like the rest of the population.
We can draw general conclusions from the fact that a massive real life experiment proved masks have no effect. and keep in mind, you would have needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the effect exists and is significant BEFORE being allowed to mandate them lol.
That would be the logic: first, absolute certainty the effect exists and is relevant. THEN we discuss tradeoff. Even a shade of doubt about efficacy of a mandate should be more than enough to make it impossible to mandate (among rational people).
FIRST we learnt seat belts save a ton of life, and we got certain of that beyond any reasonable doubt.
then we discussed tradeoff for MANY years, because even if they save lives that's absoluetly not enought per se to justify a mandate.
then we mandated them.
? doesn't matter what the risk is, if masks work to protect others, teachers with masked students would get covid far less often than teachers with unmasked students. It's not that those teachers never got infected. They did like the rest of the population.
We can draw general conclusions from the fact that a massive real life experiment proved masks have no effect. and keep in mind, you would have needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the effect exists and is significant BEFORE being allowed
What if nobody under 10 ever got Covid, does your logic still hold? Hint: no.
The experiment of "let's make a bunch of 6-9 year olds wear masks in the control group and not wear them in the test group and see what effect it has on the adults around them" is nowhere near as persuasive as you seem to think it is. It might just mean that 6-9 year olds get Covid so rarely or their immune system deals with it so quickly that it has barely any measurable effect in terms of how often that age group is liable to transmit it to others. My point is, it might mean a lot of things, and this very narrow experiment doesn't allow you to draw the general conclusion that you want. Logic, yo.
Your seat belt analogy doesn't apply for obvious reasons.
the "droplet theory of covid transmission" was proven false. It's airborne, no need for the "moisture", even the WHO belatedly acknowledged that with a lot of delay. Because of course if it's truly airborne masks do nothing at all (too small for them).
Sigh, I knew I was going to have to catch more of your dangerous ignorance and misconceptions. That's not what that means. Airborne simply means transmitted through the air. It doesn't mean no moisture is necessary. You simply have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
Which isn't to say that even if you were right (you're wrong) it would matter. What I said is still demonstrably true. The moisture in the mask contains a ton of virus which is now not in the air.
You are also making the classic mistake of arguing about the effectiveness of mandates vs the effectiveness of masks. I'm only talking about masks. I don't give a crap about the effectiveness of mandates. The issue was whether a person should wear a mask in the car, not if we should make school children wear masks.
Unbelievable.
What if nobody under 10 ever got Covid, does your logic still hold? Hint: no.
The experiment of "let's make a bunch of 6-9 year olds wear masks in the control group and not wear them in the test group and see what effect it has on the adults around them" is nowhere near as persuasive as you seem to think it is.
Lol the left mandated vaccines to them, and masks to them, and often called kids "superspreaders", so i guess they can't use the "kids under 10 don't get covid" nor can you.
I don't think you want to claim that kids don't get covid, do you?
What if nobody under 10 ever got Covid, does your logic still hold? Hint: no.
The experiment of "let's make a bunch of 6-9 year olds wear masks in the control group and not wear them in the test group and see what effect it has on the adults around them" is nowhere near as persuasive as you seem to think it is.
Your seat belt analogy doesn't apply for obvious reasons.
It seems very persuasive to him because he desperately looks for anything to confirm his pre-conceived beliefs. To everyone else it's like the dumbest possible example.
"we put masks on these tasmanian devils and didn't see a change in zookeepers covid infection rates therefore masks do nothing" is the level of dumb we're talking about here.
