Two Months After Biden Slammed Gov. Greg Abbott’s ‘Neanderthal Thinking,’ Texas Reports Zero COVID Deaths
Congratulations to the Lone Star State for following the science!
Two months after Gov. Greg Abbott was derided by Biden for ‘Neanderthal thinking’ after the Texas governor rolled back business restrictions and lifted the state’s mask mandate, Texas is reporting zero deaths due to coronavirus infection.
The Texas COVID-19 dashboard reports that there were zero “newly reported deaths” and 388 new confirmed cases statewide. It is important to note that this data reported to the State is preliminary in the sense that a handful of counties do not report data on the weekends anymore, so that data could potentially be backlogged to Monday.
Abbott said the case numbers reported Sunday were the lowest they’ve been more than 13 months.
The Texas governor also said the State reported the lowest seven-day positivity rate ever and the lowest recorded number of hospitalizations in the past 11 months.
Today Texas reported:
* 0 Covid related deaths–the only time that's happened since data was tracked in March, 2020.
* the fewest Covid cases in over 13 months
* the lowest 7-day Covid positivity rate ever
* the lowest Covid hospitalizations in 11 months.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) May 17, 2021
The results show that Biden, once again, offered an inaccurate and insulting assessment of an important domestic issue.
President Biden skewered Texas, as well as Mississippi, at the beginning of March for relaxing lockdown measures, accusing state officials of “Neanderthal thinking.” At the time, Abbott had announced that businesses would be allowed to operate at full capacity – even though some health experts cautioned at the time that dropping preventative measures could lead to a spike in cases.
I think it’s a big mistake,” Biden told reporters, following the announcement from Texas. “Look, I hope everybody’s realized by now, these masks make a difference. We are on the cusp of being able to fundamentally change the nature of this disease because of the way in which we’re able to get vaccines in people’s arms.”
Since then, however, caseloads nationwide have dropped as more Americans are vaccinated.
But when your policy analysis is based on memes and soundbites, poor results should be expected.
But to be fair to Biden, even the “experts” are flummoxed that the Red State approach is working so spectacularly.
Public health experts have been left scratching their heads as largely conservative states like Texas and Florida reopened early against their advice, with little consequence, while liberal states like California and New York maintained mask mandates but saw persistently high Covid case rates.
But as vaccinations ramp up, the playing field is leveling out and coronavirus cases and fatalities are ebbing nationwide.
The U.S. recorded fewer than 17,000 new COVID-19 cases on Sunday for the first time since the pandemic took hold in America in March 2020.
‘Today, for the first time since the pandemic began, pandemic cases are down in all 50 sates,’ said President Joe Biden in a Monday press conference.
Congratulations to the Lone Star State for following the science!
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Biden* is such a pathetic retard.
the Retard Guild would like a word with you
I guess even they have standards
Why are you insulting Pathetic Retards like that?
however, this news cuts against ” the illegals are bringing in the WuFlu” meme
but so be it, still good news for my long lost home state
It has never been about scientific things like data and statistics it has been about religion,
Texan Heretics are doing a lot better than New York faithful.
LIES AND HYPOCRISY
The CDC and NIH knew by April 2020 that 98% of all cases were elderly (over 70 yo) and obese. Almost all the other 2% had some underlying condition that weakened their immune system.
Yet they continued the charade that everyone was at risk. They destroyed $2 Trillion of economic value by lying to the people. They withheld vital information and skewed whatever they released. Great example is Hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) which needlessly became a political football just because Trump said it showed some potential as a treatment. Then the Lancet published a fraudulent study of HCQ – apparently guided purely by a deranged desire to smear Trump. Lancet, one of the two most prestigious Journals in healthcare looked like partisan buffoons when the obvious fraud was exposed. Their 100+ years of credibility was destroyed.
The pandemic should have been a health crisis that united all American regardless of Party, race or income. But the political ideologues could not resist playing politics with it and ultimately dividing people. If we cannot agree on objective facts and apply logic and reason to solving problems – then there is little hope we can ever come together as a country.
With respect the risk profile increases with age, that doesn’t mean that other age groups are suddenly at no risk. Thats particualrly the case given two basic problems with your arguemnt Firstly there have been deaths in lower age groups especially those with vulnerabilities and b) the virus might mutate and cause more harm later on (we dont know) and thirdly there is long covid which has impacted on a small subset of people.
The economic cost would have been a lot less if leaders globally had acted a lot quicker.
HCQ does fuck all, that’s been proven by multiple studies
Well when your political leadership pretends its not an issue while secretly acknowledging its going to kill people don’t you think that’s a slight issue
Shut down air travel from the epicenter of the outbreak.
Launch Operation Warp Speed.
Or “pretend it’s not an issue.”
Which was it?
Policy isnt in a vacuum.
Shutting down air travel and oepration warpspeed were both great initiatives but that doesnt change the other actions (or non-actions) of the adminsitration at the time.
1) Public messaging
Pretty awful, from pretending it was no worse than the flue, claiming it would magically disappear by whenever, then privately knowing that it was seriously harmful
There has been virtually no evidence in support of the treatment, yet was pushed
3) Delegating state leadership to a national crisis, this lead to states competing for the same scarce resources like masks and ventilators pushing up prices and making it harder for less wealthy areas to get the equipment they needed,
4) The testing pace was really slow.
5) publicly advocating against social distancing and mask wearing.
@mark311, you wrote, “3) Delegating state leadership to a national crisis, this lead to states competing for the same scarce resources like masks and ventilators pushing up prices and making it harder for less wealthy areas to get the equipment they needed,”
You sure you’re an American? Because there was no “delegation to state leadership” by the Trump (or now, by the Biden) administration. ALL powers not expressly granted the federal government in our Constitution are the purview of the states and the people. And neither Trump nor Biden can change that. Or are you equally appalled that Biden hasn’t done what Trump had no power to do? (yeah, thought not) This is how our Constitutional Republic works, you moron. We are a republic of independent states, each with its own constitution and laws. You’re not young enough to have missed that basic foundational principle of our government in school.
This is why Biden cannot mandate masks nationwide, not because he doesn’t want to but because he cannot. Anymore than Trump could dictate to the states. Honestly, you really need a refresher course in trollery because you are abysmal at it.
As to your fifth point, no one here cares what Trump or Biden or Fauci “advocate” because we all read the reports, look at the data, and make our own decisions. For example, when Fauci and Trump were both advocating AGAINST masks early on, I wore one because the initial reports suggested those who were high risk should do so (I am due to a heart condition . . . and not being 20). I got WuFlu anyway. And lived. Wasn’t even hospitalized. After more data came out, particularly about how incredibly useless all but properly worn N95 masks were, I stopped wearing one. Haven’t worn one since except to make a required trip to the DMV, back when they were still requiring them inside.
We are not sheeple like you brainwashed losers. I was out shopping today (unmasked, of course), and I saw about three people wearing a mask. It was all I could do to stop myself from asking why they didn’t get vaccinated. Because not being vaccinated is the only reason to wear one now, and again, it needs to be an actual–and properly worn–N95, not some old bra strapped to your face, to be effective. The vaccinated should not be wearing a mask anywhere, ever. It’s useless. And stupid. And frankly, a masked face makes me think they haven’t been vaccinated or why wear one?
Anyway, unlike you, we have our own minds. And we fully understand how much that irks you and your handlers. It makes us smile.
OF course but we arent talking about powers, we are talking about coordination and taking leadership. Trumps administration say back and let the states do the work while he did very little. IT was well documented at the time that Trump did his very best to delgate as far as possible and even inhibited national agencies from doing there jobs.
With regard to 5) don’t be stupid, when the president says or does something that has an impact, he is after all the most powerful man in the world. That’s going to have an impact. And to be honest you come across as a complete sheep the free passes you give him makes me think you are totally unable to think critically about DT
Again with masks there is considerably data suggesting the efficy of masks in the context of social distancing.
1) Public messaging, well maybe if DT didn’t act like a complete moron moderates and the left would listen to him more. It was clear from the actions and words he said during the pandemic that he wasn’t a leader.
2) There is a big difference between saying we are trying lots of different measures to see what works compared to actively advocating something that had little data to support it.
3) You total idiot, the federal system doesn’t mean that states cant have a coordinating effort above them so that they work effectively together. The federal system specifically provides for this through national organisations so that the response is effective. Jesus Christ do you know how shit the response was, do actually understand that because of DT’s incompetence people died?
4) Help govern, the role of the opposition is to hold those in power to account, and there was a lot of that required.
5) Oh fuck you, we are talking about basic measures to save lives. As a result the States has one of the worst death rates in the world. The position you advocate is utterly selfish.
What a strange, deluded troll you are, @mark311. I considered, very briefly, responding to this comment, but honestly, it’s so full of crazy that I don’t really think it deserves a thoughtful response.
What I will say, however, is that your intellectual dishonesty in consistently moving the goal posts is duly noted. Of the many examples in this screechy screed alone, you initially claim Trump literally “delegated leadership” to the states, but when I point out he had no power to do otherwise (i.e. he could not, as you suggest, grab the power for himself and dictate to states), you suddenly decide it’s about “leadership” and “coordination,” but you fail to state how Trump failed in that (new) arena. I would contend, and have contended, that Trump did a lot to protect the American people . . . before the U.S. saw its first WuFlu-related death.
Your Trump-derangement precludes you from noting that no government in the world responded perfectly because the WuFlu presented a unique challenge to all of the governments of the world. Different leaders tried different things, at different times, shifted course as new data emerged, flip-flopped on masks and social distancing (more than once), and so on. That is perfectly acceptable for all world leaders but President Trump?
Personally, I wish Trump had never shut down the economy, that was–at the time (to me) and particularly in hindsight–a monumental mistake. But like all world leaders, he was working on what was known at the time, and not much was.
Meanwhile, Trump set up a task force; got American companies manufacturing masks and even anti-viral wipes, ventilators, and cleaning supplies; he sent military support to those states who said they needed it (remember that unused military hospital ship in NY as but one example?); and, perhaps most importantly, he tried to keep the nation calm (what you call lying about how severe it was then thought to be, which we now know was highly over-stated, even though Trump apparently thought it worse than it was). A panicked nation is the last thing ANY president wants. Heck, panic is the last thing a school teacher wants when the fire alarm goes off or a flight attendant wants when the oxygen masks drop mid-flight or the bank manager wants in the middle of a bank robbery or that a parent wants when their child is frightened. Calming things down is what LEADERS do. And all leaders, all over the world did it, too.
Jesus, Nancy Pelosi was out in Chinatown hugging people and sharing how safe it was to go out to eat early on in the pandemic. De Blasio assured New Yorkers there was nothing to worry about, just keep on hugging those Asians to show that racist xenophobe Trump what’s what! Cuomo actually ordered WuFlu-infected patients BACK to nursing homes where he literally (i.e. directly) caused thousands of deaths (and many of the dead are still, to this day, piled in refrigerated trucks in NY). But yeah, Trump is the only leader on earth who got anything wrong at all. And you wonder why everyone here thinks you’re a troll (and why we feel insulted that we got assigned such a shoddy, ineffective, intellectually lazy one, at that).
Mark311, Your brainwashing is now complete.
What. By expressing an opinion with reasons and facts. Odd.
Mark, you denigrate HCQ. Do you deny that Lancet published outright fraudulent study in a rush to adversely impact Trump in an election year ? I thought medical professionals took a Hippocratic oath that was non-partisan.
By the way, studies have come out in the last 6 months showing there is a positive effect of HCQ. I don’t want to get into a debate over HCQ. It’s not a cure – but it appears to have some prophylactic benefits.
Regardless of whether HCQ has benefit or not – the knee-jerk reaction was just anti-Trump rather than pro-science. When healthcare is politicized – people die.
There is zero evidence that HCQ does anything for covid. There was a study when it was used as part of a cocktail of drugs.
I’m not aware of any fraudulent Lancet study. I am aware of a retracted study because the original study researchers didn’t provide the dataset to allow peer review. The Lancet retracted it because of this and other studies which have been peer reviewed continue to point to the lack of efficy for HCQ. Characterisating the Lancet as fraudulent for retracting a study for those reasons is entirely unreasonable.
Well, no, mark311, that is not why the article claiming HCQ was killing WuFlu patients was retracted by the Lancet . . . well, by three of its four authors who were unwilling to keep their name on a clear fraud. You don’t seem to be aware of this, but peer review occurs PRIOR to publication, not after.
In this case, it was a political treatise–what the Lancet specializes in, as they openly push for a “progressive future”–aimed at undermining Trump (who was talking up HCQ), and it was retracted because it was fraud not for that garbled gibberish you typed (“The Lancet retracted it because of this and other studies which have been peer reviewed continue to point to the lack of efficy for HCQ.” Word soup much?). The Lancet didn’t retract it, three of its four authors did. Do you ever get any facts right? Or are you too busy driving 50,000 miles a year and commenting “for ages” on LI (“ages” to you is less than six months, apparently)?
Your own ill-informed statements about HCQ can likely be traced back to that fraudulent, retracted Lancet paper. Since you drive 50,000 miles a year to check on buildings, I’m guessing your background is not in either medicine or any medical science . . . unlike that of a great number of our readers who have advanced degrees (back when their schools were educationally exceptional) and long careers in one or both.
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read, It does appear that there is more too it than just a simple retraction so I take your point on the specifics of that paper. I would point out that there is still no research supporting HCQ as a treatment for Covid. Its been widely tested and found to have no significant impact on Covid as a treatment.
Lancet – yeah I’m’ not clear that one papers issues allows you to smear the whole of the Lancet.
“I’m guessing your background is not in either medicine or any medical science . . . unlike that of a great number of our readers who have advanced degrees”
Correct but stating that others have qualifications isn’t actually an argument is it. If they have a view point id be delighted to hear what they say on the subject.
“Do you ever get any facts right?” classic, when the other side is honest and revises there opinion its weakness and not honesty but when they hold there opinion with arguments they are brainwashed. I’ve got plenty of facts right, and I have the decency to state when I’ve got it wrong as above with the lancet paper. From our conversations on various threads its quite clear you cant claim the same.
Mark says, “Id actually point out that the public health response has been guided by previous outbreaks.”
Actually, Mark, most of the world, including the US and UK, radically departed from accepted health practices to mitigate and control infectious disease. They copied a novel, draconian, and authoritarian approached implemented by China.
There have been no studies to prove HCQ “does fuck all”. Its effectiveness as an early treatment that mitigates infection and disease progression has been demonstrated through observation and signal diversity (i.e. population, geography, jurisdiction). HCQ works in two modes to prevent recognition of the spike protein and facilitate entry of zinc that inhibits viral replication.
BS, provide links to the research that proves your point
“Firstly there have been deaths in lower age groups especially those with vulnerabilities and b) the virus might mutate and cause more harm later on (we dont know) and thirdly there is long covid which has impacted on a small subset of people.”
Firstly, Ben accounted for this where he wrote, “Almost all the other 2% had some underlying condition that weakened their immune system.”
Second, viruses tend to mutate in two directions, usually at once – greater transmissibility and lower lethality. These mutations increase a virus’s success at replication, the goal of all organisms. Also, we shouldn’t be making decisions based on what we don’t know (i.e., how the virus will mutate). Our entire pandemic response was based on things we didn’t know, and the long-term damage was done by a general failure to react (by drawing back our response) as new data became available.
Third, “long COVID” involves a vanishingly small subset of all infected people. Public policy should not be based on what is good for a statistically insignificant portion of the populace, but what’s good for (at least) the majority. Also, people with “long COVID” by definition survived COVID.
“HCQ does fuck all”
Ben stated that yes but his stats are completely wrong and very simplistic
Second viral mutation – you are correct but misinterpret my comments. If the virus mutates to a point where the vaccines no longer work that has serious consequences. The more viral infections the more chance of that happening. In terms of decision making its about risk do we really want to be in a position where the virus mutates and we go back into a sequence of lockdowns. Id actually point out that the public health response has been guided by previous outbreaks. ITs just that the US /Uk were not responsive to those lessons. Which is why places like South Korea have had a much better success rate with Covid.
Id agree with your statement “and the long-term damage was done by a general failure to react (by drawing back our response) as new data became available.”
Long covid – i dont know the stats in the US but in the UK its reportedly over a million
The two links reference the same study and in the first link there is text that seems to cast doubt on it.
“Rosenberg also pointed out that the Detroit paper excluded 267 patients — nearly 10% of the study population — who had not yet been discharged from the hospital.
He said this might have skewed the results to make hydroxychloroquine look better than it really was. Those patients might have still been in the hospital because they were very sick, and if they died, excluding them from the study made hydroxychloroquine look like more of a lifesaver than it really was.”
Where to begin with Mark. The point is not there is “no risk” but that such risk is so low as to not be considered a factor in daily life. Young healthy people have an exceedingly low risk of mortality or serious disease from COVID-19. The is an absolute, irrefutable medical fact. The flu is more dangerous to small children than COVID. It is impossible and indeed undesirable to reduce risk to zero. The risk of COVID is overwhelmingly to older people with substantial comorbidities. “Lockdowns,” mask mandates, economic dislocation, and repression was in no way justified by the threat of this virus nor were they effective in reducing the threat to the population actually threatened by this virus. We should have taken sensible measures to protect the elderly, measures that have been long known and practiced. Wearing a mask was NEVER going to protect grandma and grandpa against a virus. Neither was wearing a face shield. or even social distancing as it spreads through long-term exposure to aerosolized particles (not droplets) that mask afford absolutely no protection against.
And certainly placing these people in solitary confinement was going to cause devastating psychological and emotional harm that also likely cause the early demise of many. I have many friends who lived under these conditions and very many of them died quickly after the forced isolation. It was tragic, cruel, heartbreaking, and completely unnecessary.
Your statement “HCQ does fuck all, that’s been proven by multiple studies.” I suggest you review the following.
and I could go on and on, and on. Last time I counted there were 48 peer reviewed papers stating HQC was effective at reducing mortality and the onset of severe disease progression in patients treated with HQC upon early onset of symptoms. I stopped counting many months ago. The weight of evidence indicates it is not effective as a prophylaxes, or after disease progression to more severe symptoms, however.
The politicization of the use of HQC quite possibly killed people. The asinine and stupid health practices copied from an authoritarian state caused great damage to our freedoms, prosperity, and, indeed, health.
The above cited articles contradict your statement. To be fair, there are studies that show HCQ to have no effect, or even to have adverse effects, but the actual weight of the evidence of peer reviewed publications indicates HQC is effective when administered early.
As for the fraudulent Lancet paper regarding HQC, please see this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials
The Lancet published a paper with entirely fabricated data and the paper was later RETRACTED by the Lancet. Being highly influential, this scientific fraud set back clinical testing, trials, and evaluation of HQC as an early treatment for COVID-19.
There are a number of flaws in many HQC studies, particularly in many early efforts, but the Lancet article was outright fraudulent.
Except we know from the death rate that the risk is not zero its pretty high. And characterising the virus as just for old people doesn’t follow the evidence. There are still significant deaths in the middle aged going older. And yes there are still deaths amongst young people.
The data strongly suggests lockdowns have worked, there are endless graphs showing spikes post lockdown in populations internationally.
In terms of the mental health impact of course that’s a serious concern. But that’s an argument to ensure that future responses are far better. If the response had been as effective as say South Korea lockdowns might have been avoided.
Perhaps i should have taken more time in stating my position on HQC – its irritating to have to repeat myself so often.
The position is this there have been numerous studies, small trials, study reviews etc and the best available evidence is that it doesn’t provide any net positive outcomes. This Cochrane study is pretty recent.
“Except we know from the death rate that the risk is not zero its pretty high.”
Mortality rates are only high for the elderly and those with recognized comorbidities. Young people without these comorbidities (the VAST majority of them) have a much higher chance of being killed in a car accident than being killed by COVID. Even as a total group to include those with these comorbidities, the chance of death in car accident is still on the order of 10 times greater. It is NOT “pretty high.” It is in fact negligible. Anyone who is not elderly and in good health who is restraining their life on account of this virus is acting irrationally because of overt fear mongering.
These are facts Mark. Follow the science.
“The data strongly suggests lockdowns have worked, there are endless graphs showing spikes post lockdown in populations internationally.”
This is so obviously incorrect as to be classifiable as an abject lie. Period… full-stop.
The stats don’t support your assertion. the risk from increases in each age group so with a base age group of 5-17 as the base rate the next age group has a ten fold increase, then 45x then 130x then 440x then 1300x then 3200x. Those aren’t trivial numbers and you seem to be simplifying the issues to the elderly with comorbidities. That simply isn’t true. The stats clearly indicate age is primary factor but that doesn’t negate the impact on other age groups.
I’m not clear why you would use care death stats as a reference since death rates are inverse to covid ie more young people die compared to older people. That seems a pretty inappropriate comparator.
Lockdown data. Jesus that’s pretty ignorant. Do you have any research or studies that support your side of the argument?
There are several threads to the ,lockdown argument. Firstly they clearly save lives diretly. Secondly they should have been used in combination with other measures such as test and trace to control the spread of the virus. Instead the US and the UK saw that lockdowns were eased far to early thus allowing the virus to have second/third waves etc. It would have been far wiser to continue with the original lockdown and establish a system which contained the virus better. Instead we just swung between lockdowns and viral spreading.
Characterising facts as abject lies is foolish. You may have a different opinion on how the covid situation should be handled but blandly saying another position is a lie is fundamentally dishonest.
Joe Biden has been wrong about nearly every major policy decision for the last 40 years! He is also stupid. The “gaffes” have been laughed away by the dinosaur media, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, for decades. Now this idiot is developing dementia. His family and party are abusing him.
While Biden was known as the ‘Dumbest Man in the Senate’, his being wrong about every policy decision is by design.
So simple a caveman could do it.
My governor thanks is for doing what? The virus acts on its own, there isn’t squat anyone can do about it but stay away from other contagious people or be vaccinated. Good luck consistently succeeding with the former.
There seems to be evidence a lot of people are naturally immune to begin with. I might fall in that category because I didn’t participate in any lockdown, traveled multiple times to multiple states, got tested about once a month and nothing happened to me that I know of.
I believe in Muller’s ratchet. That is virology 101. That is science… if it wasn’t true the human race would have been wiped out a long time ago. What we see now is worse than bs, It is arrogance plain and simple.
Anything less than N95, following strict protocol, is known to have random effectiveness to mitigate viral transmission, at best, or increase infections, at worst. Lockdownsprotocols that operate in environments with the greenhouse effect are known to increase infections through study and physics.
Vaccination is not the definitive solution, not a magical elixir without side-effects, but is part of a risk management protocol. A large majority, have preexisting immunity, or can undergo early treatments to mitigate infection and disease progression without the risk posed by novel vaccines.
Don’t be a moron, vaccination is the absolute primary solution. Its the reason why countries are considering getting back to normal. There is limited evidence of pre existing immunity, it just affects older people more. That doesn’t mean to say it wont mutate. Allowing that to happen means it turns into a worse version of the flu where there is an expense rush to find another vaccine every year to treat those vulnerable to it. Id rather eradicate it thanks.
A telling development is the fact that my local county health department gave up on counting COVID cases and deaths about a month ago. Just not fitting the narrative anymore, I guess.
Maybe it’s time to call for an end to the baseless bigotry heaped on us Neanderthals.
Resident Biden is just reading off a sheet prepared by his handlers
Abbot most definitely ignored the science. Claiming otherwise is not supported especially by a link to the daily mail!
It’ll interesting to see the research on the various covid responses when it comes out. Then perhaps we can have a reasoned discussion about what did or didn’t work. There are so many factors that need consideration when it comes to transmittability. Understanding this will be important if/when this happens again.
You claim that Abbot ignored the science… but then you claim it’ll be “interesting to see the research on the various covid responses” and “there are so many factors that need consideration when it comes to transmittability.” So if the science isn’t settled, if we don’t really understand the transmissibility (that’s the word you’re looking for) of the virus… THEN HOW CAN ABBOT HAVE IGNORED THE SCIENCE?
What you’re really saying is that Abbot ignored the experts. The scientists who were making dire predictions, claims that changed constantly. And good for him. It turns out they didn’t really know what they were talking about.
The science clearly indicated the efficy of masks when combined with other measures. The article also claimed that Abbot was following the science yet references the daily mail. Sorry but no.
The issue about additional research is that there are multiple factors that are likely to affect transmutability. Its clear that masks work (to some degree) but what environmental conditions, or social conditions make it that Texas could reduce the lockdown type procedures. Those are important considerations. Don’t forget that Texas saw a surge in cases back in July so understanding the bigger picture is important rather than a bland statement without any substance.
Oh fuck you, the experts have reasoning that has substance Abbot didn’t. Sure the science is evolving but fuckwits like Abbot eased restrictions in other places and people died as a result. So don’t defend stupidity. The experts follow a risk based approach, what’s the gain in easing mask restrictions, well potentially more cases and therefore deaths and the cost of having masks. None.
AS for those predictions, they are based on models and the models have various scenarios sure its on incomplete data but in many places those models have been pretty good. For every exception you mention there will be dozens where its held true, so you your assertion that the experts didn’t know what they were talking about is pretty stupid.
You seem upset that no one in TX died from CV on Sunday, marx. It’ll be ok, little buddy.
What. That’s absolutely the wrong conclusion based on what I said. How on earth did you make that leap?
So…can you go ahead and link me some of those peer-reviewed, published, and independently replicated studies that demonstrate the degree of effectiveness of mask mandates with regards to covid-19 transmissibility?
This. If there is so much evidence, where is it? I’d like to see it.
There are plenty of studies that have linked mask wearing to a statistically significant reduction in covid cases.
With regard to your negative effects they are realtively trivial, ive yet to see this be raised as a concern from anyone. In fact you are the first. From the brief amount of reading I’ve done following that up it seems like an increase in propensity for bad breath and bleeding gums so i guess the answer is to brush your teeth more. Maybe you could point me to some RCT’s on the negative effects of mask wearing.
There is nothing religious about wearing a mask in public, that’s just common sense, Its pretty weird to make a religious analogy when the scientific community is in support of the usage of masks.
Notice that mark311 isn’t citing anything recent……
Mark311, I apologize for not replying directly to you, but I can’t seem to find the button that allows me to do so. I appreciate the links, but they seem to be the response to a brief google search without seriously considering what was linked. The titles are nice, though.
1st study is a self-reported survey. That alone is enough grounds to discount it entirely. The fact that it is also published in the Lancet is a reason to be deeply suspicious of it as they have long been unashamedly politically compromised.
2nd study has error bars larger than the reported change due to the mask mandates. Also, the limitations listed in the study are enough that this should be taken as nothing more than a “more detailed study is needed” study.
3rd study has far too many variables that they pretend to be able to resolve through multivariate regression for any person to take it seriously. I mean…really? Also, you’ll have to forgive me for not taking seriously a bunch of ophthalmologists when it comes to virology and epidemiology. I don’t go to a virologist to get eye surgery and neither should we go to an ophthalmologist here. Hell, I’ve met a lot of doctors and I’ve never met one that can properly read, let alone perform, any kind of meaningful statistical analysis.
Bottom line: None of those have been through any kind of serious critical review nor have they been replicated by an independent group. They all contain massive red flags as to their methods, their statistics, and both the validity and generalizability of their stated results.
There aren’t a lot of things I do well in this world, but I am very good at understanding science, scientific literature, and judging the statistical methods employed therein. I urge you to take a look through those studies and see if you really want to hang your hat on them. They are as deeply flawed as that insane “London report” about how Covid was gonna kill us all if we didn’t go full tyrant.
No worries I have the same problem frequently.
The only viable means of having a data set is via observation studies. I’m not really clear why you would exclude the lancet as a data source on the basis of one bad paper.
With respect to the error bars the study discusses the statistical significance. That’s been addressed within the paper.
With regard to the third paper it provides reasoned discussion on many of the factors. Sure there is a lot to analyse.
That’s the thing it took a trivial amount of effort to find studies in support and a lot of effort to and anything that would make a case against face masks. I could add more studies in support if you like but I don’t see the point particularly. Suffice to say I haven’t seen any literature that counters the mask narrative not from a science perspective.
I appreciate your response, I think the stats side of things we can agree to disagree on. From my point of view there isn’t a counter paper on the ones I’ve cited, indeed there have been follow up papers that look into them and use the data sets for further analysis. Maybe you’ve found a good source that i haven’t seen?
I appreciate the genial nature of your reply.
We will have to agree to disagree, which I have no problem with. I have spent too much time in the world of scientific research not to be jaded. If you spend some time there you will quickly realize that an orthodoxy exists and that the existing orthodoxy is politically, rather than scientifically, driven. I am sure you can find 100 studies that show masking is great, but you won’t find any that have acceptable methods or that show the details of their statistical analysis so it can be checked by other people.
A large part of my issue is trust – I know how compromised the system is and I know how politically useful materials get published even if they would otherwise be totally unacceptable. The hard sciences have a massive problem right now where scientists just fabricate data in order to publish. This is made much worse because there is no glory in replicating another study to verify it, but much condemnation if you fail to verify a politically expedient fabrication.
Are you much trained with statistical analysis? I mean, beyond the one or two basic stats classes required by a university. We may agree to disagree, and I certainly don’t want to spend hours of my time detailing the problems in the studies you listed, but you may want to look into it some if you have the time.
There are no RCTs that demonstrate mask wearing to have a statistically significant reduction in the spread of viral infections. ZERO. Meanwhile, evidence shows that continuous mask wearing raises the risk of skin conditions, bacterial infection, and dental problems.
But go ahead and cling bitterly to your magical mask talisman in the superstitious belief that it’ll ward off the evil “covid.” The government won’t harass you for practicing that religion, nor impose restrictions on the cult of “covid.”
Unless it is an M-95 mask, it is virtually useless.
2 months ago, Fauchi was touting the benefits of wearing 2 or 3 masks.
> A year before that, he said no mask was necessary.
CDC and NIH have lied and misled the people. They should all be ashamed of their performance when the country most needed facts and clear communication.
Facemasks are easily available nowadays in grocery stores, big box stores and even dollar stores. The vast majority of all of these masks clearly state that they are not medical grade. So, I would venture to say that most of us have been walking around for lo these many months wearing masks that are quite simply ineffective. And except for a tiny, tiny percentage of us, we are all still alive.
“The science clearly indicated the efficy of masks when combined with other measures.”
The studies you dredged up sometime ago to support this nefarious and unjustified claim are seriously flawed… almost laughable.
“The science” clearly does not show what you claim. However, Neanderthal thinking in Texas seems to have worked fairly well.
“Those are important considerations. Don’t forget that Texas saw a surge in cases back in July”
And back in July, Texans were wearing masks.
“so you your assertion that the experts didn’t know what they were talking about is pretty stupid.”
A great many “experts” in fact have no idea what they are talking about. You should try a bit more skepticism. I have been face-to-face with countless moronic “experts,” to include “experts” who wanted to do gain in function experiments that were dangerous beyond belief, “experts” who have no idea how to create a proper and methodologically sound experimental design, and “experts” who did not understand statistics, or statistical analysis.
In truth, the number of bad “scientific” articles out there is astounding. Take a gander at this: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
And these are admissions from a survey, and comport to my personal suspicion and general impression gained from experience.
It’s a bit amusing to me that @mark311 puts such faith in “experts” . . . including some who have refuted their own “findings” upon “further study,” but he still clings to their initial findings as some sort of weird Gospel of the uninformed masses. I try not to laugh at others’ unfortunate failings, but I make an exception for @mark311 because he is such a deceitful, condescending, thoroughly unlikable troll.
“It’s a bit amusing to me that @mark311 puts such faith in “experts” . . .
There are interesting studies that support my general life experience that groups of “experts” in a given field tend to make inferior decisions to groups composed of diverse knowledge and experiences make much better informed and effective decisions and designs. The trick is to get the members of such groups to have confidence in their perspectives and opinions set against and not deferring to the “experts” in the room and, also, have “experts” who are actually open to hearing the opinions and advice from people that are different from themselves.
In other words, “experts” in a field are normally self-selecting, narrow minded, and mutually reinforcing into each other in group think. The outsiders bring in a reality check. I have seen guys who never completed high school blow apart the theories of PhD’s. When some guy comes to me and says he has a PhD in LASER physics or something like that, I am generally not impressed. They tend to have extremely limited ranges of expertise, and their lack of broader knowledge make their advice and opinion generally impractical or problematics from a variety of perspectives, and when someone throws credentials at me, I know it’s all they have, and they will be arrogant, demeaning, and defensive, at least until broken down and molded into a team. The “experts” generally take longer to mold into effective teams that can solve hard problems.
The strength of America has been its skepticism of “experts” and egalitarian notions that all people have worth and have opinions worth expressing and listening too. This broad engagement of ideas is truly superior. This worship of “experts,” especially a highly selective worship of a certain group of self-anointed experts is destructive and leads to technocratic authoritarianism.
And I refuse to be ruled by the drivel produced by a small group of people who were simply diligent enough to study in school, complete a dissertation, and publish a paper in a poorly read journal controlled by like minded people..
Marvelous comment, BSR. There’s much here and all of it awesome, but I was particularly struck by two points you make.
1. “In other words, “experts” in a field are normally self-selecting, narrow minded, and mutually reinforcing into each other in group think.”
Field “experts” also exist on a built-in “expert” hierarchy. The bestest “experts” (most published, most prizes, best jobs at best places, presidents of the area society, and etc.) tend to lead and even dictate the discussion. They determine not only what is discussed in a given field but how it is discussed, and more often lately, by whom and in which (if any) publications.
This even happens in literary studies, fgs, a field with which I am very familiar. “Experts” decided Hemingway was a machismo-worshiping misogynist racist, and then when they retired or died off, the new “top” experts decided, no, wait, Hemingway was totes into androgyny and probably even “queer” (their word, not mine) or at least queer-adjacent, himself! If you didn’t buy this line of absolute lunacy, you didn’t get selected for conference panels, get published, get that cushy tenure-track position, and etc. In fact, you were likely to be shunned by your fellow lesser (on the “expert” hierarchy) academic “experts” because even being associated with your unapproved by the “experts” opinion was totally toxic to their career.
And that’s just in freaking literary studies! It’s even worse in certain fields and areas of study (like global warming / climate change, and much more recently in COVID-19).
But yeah, let’s keep putting our faith in “experts” . . . who are not experts at all, just the latest to climb to that sanctified spot as “prominent expert” (or whatever the tag is used to identify them as not “a” but as “the” authority on a given subject. Hmph!).
2. “The strength of America has been its skepticism of “experts” and egalitarian notions that all people have worth and have opinions worth expressing and listening too. This broad engagement of ideas is truly superior. This worship of “experts,” especially a highly selective worship of a certain group of self-anointed experts is destructive and leads to technocratic authoritarianism.”
This was built into the fabric of America; it was who we were: free, independent, capable, worth listening to, worthy of respect, the ones holding the actual reins of power through the ballot box. But that was before the government grew to such ridiculous and unnecessary proportions, before half the country lost their damn mind and want the federal government to act as their mommy and daddy, and before not just the government, but far too many of the people themselves, decided the people are just too stupid to make even basic decisions about what to eat, drink, think, say, believe, or do.
Yeah im not sure how that article supports your position on the mask research. Your basic claim here is that scientists sometimes lie. That’s human nature, which is why we have peer review, and follow studies and people asking questions about data etc.
You claim the article I cite are laughable yet you cant provide an argument. That’s pretty telling
Texans wearing masks, – as I’ve stated repeatedly masks is part of a package of measures. You haven’t shown causality between mask use and the rise in cases only that the easing of restrictions .
A great many experts have a great deal more knowledge than you, citing specific examples of where it goes wrong is part of how science works. People make mistakes and learn from them. Science is self critical that’s the whole bloody point. But yes i do take your point that experts should work as a team – multiple experts from multiple fields is clearly superior to an isolated individual.
You really are an idiot, science is self critical it will evolve its opinions as new data and better experiments are done. Faith has nothing to do with it. Which is why i keep telling you that if you come up with a good argument i might change my mind. Its just a shame that you continue to prove that your arguments are god awful.
Fucking hell you call me deceitful, look in the mirror.
Regarding experts and American greatness, hate to point it out but those experts are the ones that drive the technological base that America and the west thrive on.
“You claim the article I cite are laughable yet you cant provide an argument. That’s pretty telling.”
If you want to go head-to-head or toe-to-toe with me discussing the flaws in methodology of a published scientific article, be real careful what you wish for,
“Regarding experts and American greatness, hate to point it out but those experts are the ones that drive the technological base that America and the west thrive on”
Actually, not really. And certainly not a narrow stratum of “experts”. Your “expert” worship is rather shocking. You also pick and choose the “experts” you desire to worship, and then stop there.
To thrive, a society needs openness and the free exchange of ideas. This “expert” worship is actually a closing of this openness and is meant to deprive the inclusion of other ideas and opinion so that a few can dominate the many. It is authoritarian.
Let me tell you about a story of man named Jed and poor mountaineer who could barely keep his family fed….
There was this project to produce a very complicated piece of machinery. A great cabal of “experts” were gathered to design it. They had PhD’s in various highly technical areas. They had masters degrees in engineering. They used very expensive engineering and scientific software run on supercomputers to model and design this machine. Then, they built a prototype, with meticulous care to ensure it matched the the model, using precise materials and quality control down to the subatomic level. No detail or tolerance was left deviate from the design produced by the models, not even to the slightest subatomic deviation. And they turned it on, and it did not work. And they worked on it and worked on it. They reviewed “the science.” They reviewed the computer codes. The reviewed all the design schematics. The compared every aspect of the machine to ensure it conformed to every aspect of the computer generated design, spending millions of dollars, and nothing they did could make the machine work.
So, a new boss comes in, and looks at the situation. And he brings in a bunch of mechanics and line maintenance personnel – people who tinker with things and keep things running. The PhD’s and masters degreed engineers were horrified, and tried to do everything they could to keep the people with mere high school and associate’s degrees away from their precious machine. But, alas, the PhD’s were not in charge, and could not block this. And so these new people tinkered and adjusted, and tinkered and adjusted. They added a little power here, subtracted a little there. They made this thing spin faster, and that thing slower. They exchanged this fluid for that. They altered the size of this component and that component, and changed mechanical tolerances. They replaced this piece with that part, and this material with that stuff. And in a few months, the machine worked beyond threshold performance criteria, and all the new design drawings and schematics, and list of materials, was given to the PhD’s and masters’ level engineers who then refused to validate the new design because it did not conform to the their computer models and therefore should not work. It never occurred to them they could be wrong. It never occurred to them their understanding and application of science and math could be wrong. It never occurred to them that their computer code could be wrong. Nope, the uneducated dimwits who turned wrenches for a living were wrong. A PhD even insisted the altered machine did not work, even though it clearly did. Standing there, right next to it as it happily hummed away, he denied it worked. It just couldn’t work. It was impossible for it to work, so it did not, to him at least.
You can ignore reality all you want, but reality will go upon its merry way all the same.
American greatness – we can agree to disagree on that – there are many valid views on this subject.
I’m not clear how you’ve reached your ‘narrow stratum’ of experts idea? You haven’t offered an alternative expert view do you have one?
As for your story well, is that a real world example that I can look up? In my own industry I have similar stories but the opposite way around. MY dad is a structural engineer and believe me he has made a decent amount of money out of builders and so on who thought they knew better only to find that really it was a botch job that didn’t work and as a result defects have materialised.
The thing is the real moral of your story and my example is that its arrogance that is the issue. I fully appreciate that experts can get it wrong but you seem to think that they operate in a vacuum that there are no consequences for failure. That really isn’t the case in the professional world, certainly in my experience. I fully appreciate that your previous example of experts in publications might be a different case you may well be right in some cases but to take a broad brush and paint all experts as bad seems pretty naïve.
Also regarding empirical evidence that falls under the umbrella of science so I don’t see where you are going with that. You still haven’t acknowledged that science is self critical, there are endless debates and criticisms within scientific circles about innumerable subjects that’s why it makes progress,
“I’m not clear how you’ve reached your ‘narrow stratum’ of experts idea? You haven’t offered an alternative expert view do you have one?”
I have not offered an alternative expert view? Seriously? And you are not sure how I have reached my “narrow stratum of experts” idea. I guess you need a study by some PhD to think it’s real or valid. Small insular groups make bad decisions. It’s why dictatorships eventually fail and open societies and systems outperform closed societies and systems. Your desire to graft all authority to a narrow band of self-appointed experts is nothing more than a desire for tyranny and societal failure. The idea is quite transparent and easy to grasp.
“As for your story well, is that a real world example that I can look up?”
As fr the rest of your response, the idea is not that PhD’s or master’s level people do the best job, or people without advanced degrees do a better job. It’s that have a lot of people with different perspectives, expertise, skills, and experiences produces a better outcome and that narrow mindedness and arrogance that seeks to exclude this broader perspective is an inferior and destructive approach.
“As for your story well, is that a real world example that I can look up?”
I should say, it is a real world example, but yo cannot look it up.
“You claim that Abbot ignored the science… but then you claim it’ll be “interesting to see the research on the various covid responses” ”
Mark believes in “the science,” not empirical evidence.
You seem to think there hasn’t been any research. Covid 19 may be the most researched subject in history.
The specific research I’m talking about it the multifactorial analysis of why Texas has done well in this particular moment in time regarding the restrictions and there easing. If you have a paper that covers this id love to see it.
Big open skies
You’re right, we can’t know anything until it’s written in a paper.
That’s not the claim, the claim is its better to have analysed a situation. Merely stating something without thought or consideration to other factors isnt helpful.
Could be a factor, less density in population is certainly helpful, as could weather patterns, socio economic effects and behavioural trends. How that all fits together I’ve no idea.
Hyperbole. Mark311 seems to be unaware of something called common sense.
That’s pretty non-specific common sense to what exactly?
Its not hyperbolic to want to understand something better when it might well inform future policy decisions. That’s especially in context of somewhere like the UK where the Indian variant has caused an uptick in cases.
Around 80% of cases are in “fat is beautiful” is a past, present, and progressive comorbidity. Excess deaths (e.g. planned parent/hood) are correlated with age with comorbidities. The greenhouse effect in lockdown environments, the placebo effect of most masks, have been established through controlled trials and physics to increase infections. Then there is collateral damage from unscientific general mandates, not limited to social distancing (e.g. depression) and progressive incidence of self-abortions.
It’s big news that Texas didn’t record a Covid death yesterday, but it’s a bit deceiving. Deaths for COVID-19 are only recorded recorded after they are verified and the diagnosis is confirmed. This sometimes takes a few days, and can be over two weeks. So that zero number for yesterday might not stay zero. I daily check with the Texas Department of State Health Services, COVID-19 page:
The line on this (deaths) graph is a 7-day moving average, but only calculated as far in time as seems stable. It’s very promising, and we’re certainly not Neanderthals, but it’s not really zero yet.
Statistically zero through observation in a limited frame of reference. There will always be cases and mortality attributed to the virus and disease. The goal is to control statistical spread (i.e. community immunity) to mitigate instant (i.e. exponential outbreaks) and durable progression (e.g. slope). Or people… persons can wear N95 masks, follow strict protocol, avoid environments with the greenhouse effect, but that has been established through controlled trials to be a losing strategy. Also, close planned parent/hood, the only venue and practice with excess year-over-year deaths.
How would we know? Leftists like mark311 were claiming WuFlu was killing via gunshot.
What, I never claimed that.
It’s not (and never has been, apparently) about the science, or the truth…it is all about the narrative. That narrative is Dems = Good and Repubs= Bad.
To those thinking Trump mislead us, I call your attention to the February 2020 NEJM editorial by Fauci. Read paragraph 3. He states it will be about as bad as the seasonal Flu