The 85% Nonsense
Quote: heatmapthis isnt about definition. this is about their lack of ability to understand independent thought, and that without independent thought we wouldnt be the diverse nation that we are today.
they think that because "science" or data tells them something, that everyone is immediately going to change, for what they consider to be "better". they think they can control thoughts, and actions by simply telling us something and adding a bit of emotional charm to it. "think about the children" or "think about the elderly".
you will never be able to control the people who can think for themselves. there are too many hypocrites out in the world who are living their lives without the fear of getting sick and not wearing a mask for me to even consider wearing a mask. ive been approached by the police in a store because i wasnt wearing a mask, and what did i do? i told him i wasnt going to wear the mask, and what did they do? said ok and walked away. i live in pa where its a "mandate". whatever that means but what i do know is that its not illegal. otherwise i would have been arrested, no?
this is about control by fear. thats all its about.
I totally agree.
The government even tries to control when you can cross the street. I never listen to them. If the light is red and oncoming traffic is headed my way, every good NY'er knows to put your arm out as you step in front and make traffic talk to the palm.
I happen to know jaywalking is not illegal because cops never give me tickets for it even when I do it in their purview.
Traffic lights are just a means of controlling the sheep. How dare they tell me when I can cross or where I can walk. This is a free country, by dangit!!!
That's like saying condoms don't really offer protection that you're led to believe after taking it off mid intercorse or only using them some of the time.Quote: AZDuffmanPage after page here of maskers saying "BUT-BUT-BUT" to the study and claim. Even if it is "because people ate in restaurants" the point is the same. The point being you are not getting the protection from masks that you are led to believe you are getting.
HTTP ERROR 500
Quote: AxelWolfThat's like saying condoms don't really offer protection that you're led to believe after taking it off mid intercorse or only using them some of the time.
Condoms are actually about the lease effective form of birth control. A quick google search shows 2-15%! But people engage in risky behavior, thinking they are protected.
The point remains, the maskers are happy because they are "doing something." A cheaper version of the people who build the bomb shelter in their basement in 1954.
IMHO what they really hate about my position is they see people who will not "just listen." Someone who questions. Before the virus they asked why we didn't "just listen to the scientists" on global warming. They also hate the we go thru life on both not living in fear of this or that which we have been told is the big crisis. Sort of like Tony Soprano hating "The Happy Wanderer."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp2006372
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
Logic, sets, and numbers was Math 101 when I went to college. Do they no longer teach it?
Quote: darkozI totally agree.
The government even tries to control when you can cross the street. I never listen to them. If the light is red and oncoming traffic is headed my way, every good NY'er knows to put your arm out as you step in front and make traffic talk to the palm.
I happen to know jaywalking is not illegal because cops never give me tickets for it even when I do it in their purview.
Traffic lights are just a means of controlling the sheep. How dare they tell me when I can cross or where I can walk. This is a free country, by dangit!!!
when i said you add emotional thought to this, i neglected to point out that, apathetic passive aggressive humor is always how you try to prove a point as well.
joke all you want but this is something you are arguing for. you think that because you know one person who died from this, you think that everyone should have to suffer. this is my issue. leave me out of this. leave the general public out of this. choose to do these things yourself, and stop trying to push everyone else to do it. we want less laws, less governement, yet, like i said, you think that if you implement a law people are going to just stop living life how they want. but they wont, and they are willing to shed blood for what they think is the right thing to do.
Quote: billryanMasks are not supposed to protect you, they protect others from you. It's amazing how many people here can't read a fairly simple study and understand the results. No wonder the casinos flourish.
Logic, sets, and numbers was Math 101 when I went to college. Do they no longer teach it?
i think you need to reevaluate that logic
Masks dont protect you - your first fact
You is actually equivalent to others, you = others, because you are a person and others are people as well
yet you say in the second part of your first statement, that, masks do protect people, from you.
odd logic happening just in the fist statement
oh wait i get it the virus only transmits in one direction after thinking about it now! - see i can be passive aggressively humorous too
Let us say two hundred million are old enough to wear masks.
Let us say half of them wear masks. That is 100 million mask wearers.
Now some people here are trying to say that 85% of people who wear mask catch the virus.
85% of 100 million would be 85 million.
Have 85 million people in the USofA caught the virus? If not, that statistic of 85% of mask wearers catching the virus is obviously wrong.
As long as you are making up scenarios, that should include the 170 million non-mask wearers who become infected with the virus. For the innumerate, that totals 255 million infected in that scenario.Quote: billryanThere are roughly 300 million Americans.
Let us say two hundred million are old enough to wear masks.
Let us say half of them wear masks. That is 100 million mask wearers.
Now some people here are trying to say that 85% of people who wear mask catch the virus.
85% of 100 million would be 85 million.
Have 85 million people in the USofA caught the virus? If not, that statistic of 85% of mask wearers catching the virus is obviously wrong.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAs long as you are making up scenarios, that should include the 170 million non-mask wearers who become infected with the virus. For the innumerate, that totals 255 million infected in that scenario.
Non-mask wearers aren't part of the equation. Quite frankly, since they don't care about their fellow Americans, I'm not particularly concerned about them.
sorry to mess up your gambling forum
How in God's name can you argue your own opinions over theirs with a straight face and while being fair and honest?
LOL.https://news.yahoo.com/trump-repeats-inaccurate-claim-masks-194453508.html
Quote: redietzHere's what I do not get regarding some of the posters in this thread. How can you value your own opinion above the statements of the people who designed, executed, and analyzed the study? How many of you are qualified to override the statements of the doctors who did the study and wrote the paper?
How in God's name can you argue your own opinions over theirs with a straight face and while being fair and honest?
LOL.https://news.yahoo.com/trump-repeats-inaccurate-claim-masks-194453508.html
Science? Math? Please. You probably are one of those people who read books. Only an elitist would think years of education, training, and experience makes one an expert.
I mean you can find some so called "expert" that has any opinion that you are looking or hoping for.
I try to educate myself by reading many, many expert opinions. I try very hard to make my decisions based on science rather than what I want something to be. And I am constantly re-evaluating. Here is an example of my re-evaluating:
I shutdown my blackjack and casino play (which is how I support myself) about a week BEFORE our governor shut down casinos.
When casinos reopened, I went back testing protocols that were in place. I quickly didn't feel comfortable, mostly because of the "optional" mask wearing at the time and shut down again.
Several weeks later mask wearing became mandatory in casinos and I re-evaluated and returned.
Part of my thinking that went into my own decisions was that contracted this virus back in April and recovered after a number of weeks. Most experts though that mean some immunity, although there continue to be differing opinions on how long.
It has now been 6 months since I had the virus. I have had a complication, Pericarditis, inflammation around the heart, and recovered from that with medication. And 6 months appears to be a key number in the amount of immunity that some experts expect. There is a case here in Nevada, being talked about nationally about a healthy 25 year old male that contracted the virus twice 6 weeks apart, which throws the whole immunity thing into question. And they know he contracted it twice rather than the same infection lingering because testing showed it was actually a different strain. And the second time he got much sicker than the first requiring hospitalization, blowing up that theory that a second infection would be milder than a first.
So based on these new things, and infections once again rising here in Nevada and through out the U.S. and hitting that 6 month period where immunity may wane, I a have once again re-evaluated and decided to shutdown my casino activities.
For me it is an ongoing process, constant re-evaluation of my situation and learning all I can from those knowledgeable, including other people that have gone through or are still going through recovery.
The whole idea that herd immunity can work is shot down by two simple problems, First, you have no long term data on degree of immunity or longevity of immunity. Second, you have no long term data on long term consequences of having had it. Without long term data, the concept of herd immunity is just a wild, high risk guess. The people who push herd immunity are either being dishonest or incredibly arrogant regarding what they think they know.
Hubris when it comes to other people's lives is the height of irresponsibility or sadism.
Science is self correcting. People are so flat out stupid that they think that is a defect. LOL.
Quote: AZDuffmanCondoms are actually about the lease effective form of birth control. A quick google search shows 2-15%! But people engage in risky behavior, thinking they are protected.
Condoms are 98% effective against unwanted pregnancy.
They are 2% ineffective.
And yes that's Google searches.
At this point I have to ask you to please stop lying. This isn't stating an opinion anymore. Just flat-out lying
Quote: darkozCondoms are 98% effective against unwanted pregnancy.
They are 2% ineffective.
And yes that's Google searches.
At this point I have to ask you to please stop lying. This isn't stating an opinion anymore. Just flat-out lying
Not lying, just giving Google results.
Quote: billryanThere are roughly 300 million Americans.
Let us say two hundred million are old enough to wear masks.
Let us say half of them wear masks. That is 100 million mask wearers.
Now some people here are trying to say that 85% of people who wear mask catch the virus.
85% of 100 million would be 85 million.
Have 85 million people in the USofA caught the virus? If not, that statistic of 85% of mask wearers catching the virus is obviously wrong.
How many times do you need to see it explained that you are explaining it backwards here?
For the however many th time, 85% of people with the virus were mask wearers. Not the way you have it.
Quote: AZDuffman
You lied.
Your own Google results link says it's 98% effective.
Is using it wrong less effective? Yes.
So is using pretty much anything in life. Using antibiotics wrong is ineffective, using a seatbelt wrong is ineffective.
That doesn't make proper usage less safe and to say so is a lie.
Use a condom properly. Don't use it properly then stfu
People who tie their shoelaces improper are only 2% effective at not tripping over their own shoelaces. Tying shoelaces therefore are not effective at preventing tripping over your laces. Everyone who ties their shoes is living a lie.
Pretty easy to spew BS isn't it?
Quote: AZDuffman
Gee., I'm not into personal judgement much, but you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, I'm not even kidding. The search result you link is giving an up to 15% failure rate for condoms with their typical and not proper use and you interpret it as if condoms have 2 - 15% efficiency against pregnancy is that correct?
How did you do that?
Condoms are one of the most efficient form of birth control at 98% efficiency. Arguing the opposite
Quote: AZDuffmanCondoms are actually about the lease effective form of birth control.
is.. well just a lunacy.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow many times do you need to see it explained that you are explaining it backwards here?
For the however many th time, 85% of people with the virus were mask wearers. Not the way you have it.
Perhaps if you hold it up to a mirror and squint real hard, you might see the results you are looking for.
Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffman
You lied.
Your own Google results link says it's 98% effective.
Quote: googleOverall, the World Health Organization says condoms have a 2% failure rate when used perfectly and consistently. But the typical failure rate is much higher, at 15%, with the typical use of condom
I can't help but think that kids are a part of that. I keep reading that children are less at risk, get sick and seriously sick at lesser rates, which is FANTASTIC and makes sense with stronger young immunity systems. But children still get and transmit the virus. I can't help but think that now a month after schools really began opening again, children carrying and spreading isn't at least part of these new higher infection numbers.
I totally concur. IMHO, school age children will be a reservoir for this. School age kids are happily mingling in school and asymptomatically incubating the disease. Then they take it home and pass it on to older family members, within the safe space, socially close home environment. We are already seeing this in the UK where it's tearing through schools and colleges. Totally bypasses social distancing measures. Hell, our schoolkids are generally not asked to wear masks at school and they certainly don't at home.Quote: kewlj
I can't help but think that kids are a part of that. I keep reading that children are less at risk, get sick and seriously sick at lesser rates, which is FANTASTIC and makes sense with stronger young immunity systems. But children still get and transmit the virus. I can't help but think that now a month after schools really began opening again, children carrying and spreading isn't at least part of these new higher infection numbers.
Quote: darkozPretty easy to spew BS isn't it?
Personal insult, masked profanity -- 3-day suspension.
My shoelaces come untied frequently for as long as I can remember (I hate double knotting them). I don't bother to stop and retie them until I reach my destination, even then, I might forget and continue on to the next place. I haven't tripped on my own shoelaces since elementary school.Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffman
You lied.
Your own Google results link says it's 98% effective.
Is using it wrong less effective? Yes.
So is using pretty much anything in life. Using antibiotics wrong is ineffective, using a seatbelt wrong is ineffective.
That doesn't make proper usage less safe and to say so is a lie.
Use a condom properly. Don't use it properly then stfu
People who tie their shoelaces improper are only 2% effective at not tripping over their own shoelaces. Tying shoelaces therefore are not effective at preventing tripping over your laces. Everyone who ties their shoes is living a lie.
Pretty easy to spew BS isn't it?
Of course, sometimes you have to deal with people informing you your shoelaces are untied.
Quote: AxelWolfI haven't tripped on my own shoelaces since elementary school.
Then why all the somersaults playing pickleball?
Quote: WizardCan someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.
The study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
Dammit..... the 154 sample were 'case patients'. I.e. they were already infected when they were asked if they had worn a mask. Your summary implies that wearing a mask had increased correlation with getting infected.Quote: TankoThe study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
So your summary should have been :-
85% of those infected said they'd always or often worn a mask
7.8% of those infected said they'd never or rarely worn a mask
Quote: OnceDearDammit..... the 154 sample were 'case patients'. I.e. they were already infected when they were asked if they had worn a mask. Your summary implies that wearing a mask had increased correlation with getting infected.Quote: TankoThe study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
So your summary should have been :-
85% of those infected said they'd always or often worn a mask
7.8% of those infected said they'd never or rarely worn a mask
I'm reading it and that looks like what he wrote?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: OnceDearDammit..... the 154 sample were 'case patients'. I.e. they were already infected when they were asked if they had worn a mask. Your summary implies that wearing a mask had increased correlation with getting infected.Quote: TankoThe study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
So your summary should have been :-
85% of those infected said they'd always or often worn a mask
7.8% of those infected said they'd never or rarely worn a mask
I'm reading it and that looks like what he wrote?
I'm reading it that some members here don't do nuance. Others twist numbers to 'look like' whatever they want it to look like.
I'm done with this thread. It's become a proxy for squabbling between rival camps.
I would have to suspend myself if I gave my true opinion.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: OnceDearDammit..... the 154 sample were 'case patients'. I.e. they were already infected when they were asked if they had worn a mask. Your summary implies that wearing a mask had increased correlation with getting infected.Quote: TankoThe study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
So your summary should have been :-
85% of those infected said they'd always or often worn a mask
7.8% of those infected said they'd never or rarely worn a mask
I'm reading it and that looks like what he wrote?
I'm reading it that some members here don't do nuance. Others twist numbers to 'look like' whatever they want it to look like.
I'm done with this thread. It's become a proxy for squabbling between rival camps.
I would have to suspend myself if I gave my true opinion.
LOL. I dealt with Tank over at Diversity. Reading has become a hard task these days. No big deal. Reading comprehension in this country has gone down the toilet. Obviously, AZ and Tanko's "interpretations" of the study are completely wrong. All you have to do is read the summaries provided by the study's authors on various news sites.
What I find entertaining is that, even when given quotes from the people who designed, carried out, and wrote the study -- quotes that specifically say what the study did or did not ask questions about and what it found, some folks have decided that they know what the study was about and what it said better than the authors. Others purposefully won't bother to read the interviews or quotes from the study's authors.
And here is where we get into how extreme confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance have become. If you are reading a study and your conclusions are way out in left field compared to what the study's designers, executors, and writers say, well, the problem is not likely with them. It's a wake up call for you. Something is horrifically wrong with how you approach information, process it, and draw conclusions.
It's funny, in a sense, because it highlights how bad confirmation bias is for millions of people. They wind up elevating their own interpretations of academic studies above the authors'. That's not rational.
If you want to debunk studies and argue with the evidence they provide, that's one thing. Have at it. But to adopt a study as evidence for something when the study's authors are flat out telling you that's not the case, well that is evidence of something wrong with you.
Quote: OnceDearOthers twist numbers to 'look like' whatever they want it to look like.
You’re the one twisting numbers.
My summary concerning the 85% statistic in response to Wizard's question, was not meant to imply anything.
Especially from the small sample, which I made sure to mention.
Quote: TankoYou’re the one twisting numbers.
My summary concerning the 85% statistic in response to Wizard's question, was not meant to imply anything.
Especially from the small sample, which I made sure to mention.
Your interpretation of the study's numbers is bizarro and flat out wrong, as any perusal of the study's authors' comments will verify.
How long will we let these subversive " institutes of higher learning" continue to mess with the minds of our impressionable youth?
It was sad when a virus somehow became political, but now it seems even basic understanding of science and reading comprehension is, as well.
Quote: redietzYour interpretation of the study's numbers is bizarro and flat out wrong, as any perusal of the study's authors' comments will verify.
What did I interpret? Wizard asked about the 85% statistic and specifically asked for no interpretation.
The only one's doing the interpreting are you and OD.
I posted from the study, with zero comment.
Quote: TankoWhat did I interpret? Wizard asked about the 85% statistic and specifically asked for no interpretation.
The only one's doing the interpreting are you and OD.
I posted from the study, with zero comment.
HEAR HEAR!
The people complaining about the virus being "political" are in large part the ones making it political. The dirty little secret remains---the government cannot "fight" it except in the most marginal ways. We have to wait for it to run its course. And that is why so much anger here about the study.
Strangely enough, it's not planned or something I do on purpose. When I dive for a ball somehow my body knows going into a somersault roll will lesson the impact and keep me from geetting badly injured. there's one spot on my lower knee that always gets jacked up and bloody I don't think it ever has time to heal completely. I do make sure I double knot my tennis shoes when I play, but that's more so that others don't step on them(that would certainly trip me or break them off). I'm sure I could play with them untied and not have a tripping issue.Quote: WizardThen why all the somersaults playing pickleball?
Quote: TankoThe study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
Thank you.
I assume the 85% you refer to is the one on page 1260. Here is a screenshot.
Somebody correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but it says 85.6% of the 154 people with positive test results had been shopping in the 14 days before onset.
If this is right, why are so many people in this thread talking about using and not using masks in restaurants? Here is an example.
Quote: darkoz85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)
That was the findings of the study.
Quote: Wizard
Somebody correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but it says 85.6% of the 154 people with positive test results had been shopping in the 14 days before onset.
If this is right, why are so many people in this thread talking about using and not using masks in restaurants? Here is an example.
Data can be subjective. I think that is the case with the data about shopping. That is such a very common thing EVERYBODY has done some kind of shopping within a 14 day period, since a trip inside your local Walgreens would qualify.
I'll bet everyone that contracts the virus has used the toilet at some point several days prior to contracting the virus. That doesn't mean there is any connection between using the toilet and contracting the virus.
Common sense says we are dealing with an airborne virus, so use of a mask HELPS reduce transmission. Doesn't stop it or guarantee anything, it helps reduce transmission. Anyone arguing anything different has chosen to disregard their God given common sense. And the politicization of something like masks when dealing with an airborne virus is absurd. It really is. Scary to think that we as a society have come to that.
Quote: billryanI'm going to assume most of the people who are wrongly citing the statistic are simply parroting what they heard from others, rather than deliberately spreading misinformation, although why they continue to do so when informed they are mistaken is anyones guess.
People see and hear what they want to see and hear.
Quote: kewljQuote: Wizard
Somebody correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but it says 85.6% of the 154 people with positive test results had been shopping in the 14 days before onset.
If this is right, why are so many people in this thread talking about using and not using masks in restaurants? Here is an example.
Data can be subjective. I think that is the case with the data about shopping. That is such a very common thing EVERYBODY has done some kind of shopping within a 14 day period, since a trip inside your local Walgreens would qualify.
I'll bet everyone that contracts the virus has used the toilet at some point several days prior to contracting the virus. That doesn't mean there is any connection between using the toilet and contracting the virus.
Common sense says we are dealing with an airborne virus, so use of a mask HELPS reduce transmission. Doesn't stop it or guarantee anything, it helps reduce transmission. Anyone arguing anything different has chosen to disregard their God given common sense. And the politicization of something like masks when dealing with an airborne virus is absurd. It really is. Scary to think that we as a society have come to that.
Masks are worthless unless you're wearing an N95 or a KN95 mask. Cloth and surgical masks are about as effective as using a screen to block water. Wearing those masks is more about being compliant and submissive. Enforcing mask compliance enables a government to enact stricter measures in the future, if needed, by mentally conditioning the general public now. Fortunately here in the US we're doing soooo much better than most of Europe, despite our much higher rate of obesity and diabetes. It's because we test soooo much more than any other country, have more PPE, therapeutics, and Operation Warp Speed.
Quote: TankoThe study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
First, please ignore this post. I incorrectly guessed where the 85% was in the CDC report. The following video clears it up.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjU6TJPZ3kY
The 85% evidently refers to this table.
I've copied and pasted the pertinent numbers in the following table.
Table Title: Characteristics of symptomatic adults ≥18 years who were outpatients in 11 academic health care facilities and who received positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (N = 314)* — United States, July 1–29, 2020
These are the figures for the 153* case patients who tested positive.
| Characteristic | Case-patients | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Never | 6 | 3.9% |
| Rarely | 6 | 3.9% |
| Sometimes | 11 | 7.2% |
| Often | 22 | 14.4% |
| Always | 108 | 70.6% |
| Total | 153 | 100.0% |
Next, here is the same table for 159* control participants who didn't test positive.
| Characteristic | Case-patients | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Never | 5 | 3.1% |
| Rarely | 6 | 3.8% |
| Sometimes | 7 | 4.4% |
| Often | 23 | 14.5% |
| Always | 118 | 74.2% |
| Total | 159 | 100.0% |
* In both tables, one person did not respond.
Going back to the positive table, if you add the group of case patients, adding the groups who often or always wore masks, there are 130 of them. Out of 153 who tested positive, that is 130/153 = 85% of them.
The same statistic, for those who didn't test positive, is (23+118)/159 = 141/159 = 89%.
Does anyone dispute that this is the 85% in question?
Quote: WizardQuote: TankoThe study found 85% of the 154 case patients who always or often wore a mask, at least 14 days before symptom onset, became infected with the virus, and 7.8% of the 154 case patients who never or rarely wore a mask became infected.
First, please ignore this post. I incorrectly guessed where the 85% was in the CDC report. The following video clears it up.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjU6TJPZ3kY
The 85% evidently refers to this table.
I've copied and pasted the pertinent numbers in the following table.
Table Title: Characteristics of symptomatic adults ≥18 years who were outpatients in 11 academic health care facilities and who received positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (N = 314)* — United States, July 1–29, 2020
These are the figures for the 153* case patients who tested positive.
Characteristic Case-patients Percentage Never 6 3.9% Rarely 6 3.9% Sometimes 11 7.2% Often 22 14.4% Always 108 70.6% Total 153 100.0%
Next, here is the same table for 159* control participants who didn't test positive.
Characteristic Case-patients Percentage Never 5 3.1% Rarely 6 3.8% Sometimes 7 4.4% Often 23 14.5% Always 118 74.2% Total 159 100.0%
* In both tables, one person did not respond.
Going back to the positive table, if you add the group of case patients, adding the groups who often or always wore masks, there are 130 of them. Out of 153 who tested positive, that is 130/153 = 85% of them.
The same statistic, for those who didn't test positive, is (23+118)/159 = 141/159 = 89%.
Does anyone dispute that this is the 85% in question?
The statistics for the virus and how various people interpret the sound bytes, and snippets that they read is somewhat entertaining. For example, what's missing is the occupation of the people that wore the masks, and the type of masks that they wore. For example, if you're a doctor, nurse, or dentist then you're more likely to wear a mask. You're higher risk occupation means that you're also more likely to be exposed to the virus. However, if you're a farmer...out in the country then you're less likely to wear a mask and you're less likely to be infected. The data can be spun in so many different ways if you leave out important details. The data and science is so polluted with politics that it's virtually impossible to get to the real numbers with the emotions running so incredibly high in the scientific community and with the science activism.
