Below is a disturbing response that I received in response to my proving that more than 5,484 additional Minnesotans would have died if Gov Walz had handled our COVID response as terribly as Gov Noem did. He had proposed that the cost of saving their lives was $150 million. Which I calculated to being $27,352 per person and he said.
"There's worse things than dying, Being controlled has a pretty high price tag also."
A little background to help you understand why this shocked me. This response came from one of nicest caring guys I know. So I asked him some follow up questions
Yes it is a terrible burden to have to wear a mask when one can not social distance.
It would be nice if American's were all more concerned about their friends and neighbors, stopping the transmission of a deadly virus and if mandates were not needed. Unfortunately the SD, ND and IA numbers prove that that is not reality.
So let's look at this a different way.
- What would you do or pay to save the life of an elderly or infirm person?
- What would you resist doing and for what reason?
Speaking of freedom I just remembered something else... What are your thoughts on:
- texting / emailing and driving
- drinking and driving at over .08 or .10%
- smoking in public spaces
- requiring a driver's license and insurance to drive
- etc
Are our society's laws that are aimed at saving lives excessively controlling or logical?
Unfortunately he has not helped me understand his position better yet.
Ironically, another friend on FB was preaching the NRA mantra that guns are just like knives and should have no controls that would help keep them out of the hands of the disturbed and/or criminals. I replied with this...
I always like this video to explain how an AR15 is not a knife. And certainly not needed for deer hunting... 🙂 It looks like fun... But if he can get that gun easily... So can everyone else...
Now I am no DEM who wants to protect everyone from everything, or pay them for every past problem. But I am pretty sure that saving lives is worth not texting while driving, wearing a mask when you can not social distance, ensuring people are responsible with their weapons, etc. Thoughts?
83 comments:
I think dying is worse than wearing a mask. But I recognize there is a lot of disagreement issue on this issue. Every time I see Gazelka on the tv, I think this is a guy who wouldn't do the most routine things to keep himself and his colleauges safe.
--Hiram
The question I have is...
Has he somehow convinced himself that masks do not work?
or
Is he really that selfish and unconcerned about spreading a killer virus to the old and infirm?
Here is an excellent piece to show how people will read the same thing differently.
One group will likely read it and say we need to raise taxes, another will say we need to cut spending and all will keep pushing the bomb down the road. 🙂 🙁
The Real Financial Bubble
And another good read
Has he somehow convinced himself that masks do not work?
He just feels freedom is more important than life. He is willing to die for other people to die for his right not to wear a mask.
--Hiram
Ahhh... But now you are making assumptions about his beliefs and intent...
With a Democrat president, history tends to show that the increase in the national debt will slow. Then we'll elect another Republican who will slash taxes again and drive the debt higher.
Yep... That seems like a certain based on history
Sorry, but if you cannot spell "Walz" correctly you have lost what little credibility you had. AND, the latest study says that asymptomatic spread of COVID is very low--0.7%-- even among members of the same household, while symptomatic spread (coughs and sneezes) is about 25% (again in sustained close contact at home). SO... if you're sick, stay home, but there is essentially zero justification for the universal mask mandates and lockdowns and school closings the Dictator has decreed. You've been watching too much panic porn.
Thanks for the correction, I must have been distracted.
The reality is that MN has about half the deaths per capita of SD.
Why do you think that is?
- we have higher population density
- we have more mass transit
- we have more international travel
And if MN had performed like SD, ~5,500 more MN's would be dead.
And if SD had performed as well as a similar sized state like VT, ~1,400 more SD's would be alive. (see post for the numbers)
So we are back to the questions that my friend would not answer.
What would you do or pay to save the life of an elderly or infirm person?
What would you resist doing and for what reason?
As to what I would do, I would first of all deny the entire premise of your questions. You assume that your statistics are meaningful at some universal and grossly-oversimplified level. And from that assumption, you infer that public policy is the only thing that mattered to that result. It's circular reasoning at best. The best science currently available says that dictatorial universal mask mandates, lockdowns and school closings have no more beneficial effect than a simple "stay home when you are sick" request from health officials. And none of the terrible downsides of these affronts to free common sense.
As always... Source please...
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
"In fact, a study published October 23 in Nature Medicine by IHME’s forecasting team modeled current public health interventions — projecting case numbers based on current behavior — and found that universal mask use could save as many as 130,000 lives by the end of February 2021."
Apparently you have not found the latest and most thorough study, by independent researchers rather than your politically-motivated sources. You're still peddling panic porn for political purposes.
You are such a goof...
Peddling the belief that masks do not limit the travel of water vapor / germs from the mouth and nose?
If you have surgery, remember to tell the surgeon to skip the mask... :-) :-) :-)
Another cool video
The principal carrier of [infectious] water droplets from the mouth and nose are sneezes and coughs-- both of which are symptoms. SO, masks only help if symptomatic people go out and spend long hours in close contact with the non-immune public, NOT if they simply stay home when they are sick and let the rest of us go about our business. The masks might be worn to avoid catching or transmitting the common cold or flu, too, but that choice is still a personal one, not something for which you could be fined or jailed.
The "belief" that mandated universal masking has some sort of talismanic effect is exactly that, a belief. Did you notice that in MN, WITH the mandates in effect, cases climbed very rapidly through the fall? How is that possible?
ND, SD, IA, and Out State Minnesotans / Wisconsiners did not wear their masks. They were more worried about their "freedom" than the lives of the elderly and infirm. Therefore the brush fire came back to MN...
Remember that MN was impacted severely at the beginning since we have an international airport, and information was scarce.
Then MN got things under control when the virus hit SD, ND, IA, WI hard starting in ~Aug. Unfortunately viruses do not recognize state lines and large swaths of folks like you were willing carriers / dispersers of death back into MN.
It is okay, you supported freedom at the cost of thousands of lives. Just accept it and thank the fallen.
I think you just set a new world record for the long jump to conclusions. Out state Minnesotans were under the same mask mandates as everybody else, and so was Wisconsin for a while. If they did any good, we would know. You seem unwilling to even entertain the notion that this virus is seasonal, that it went down in the summer and started back up in the fall, despite all of the dictatorial efforts which we now know did almost nothing to contain the spread of the disease, while severely impacting our economy, mental and social health.
Yes, we probably should have had some rules-- government mandates-- that would have protected our senior living places, but rather than do that we find 138 of the last 140 deaths occurred in these facilities, while the unclothed Emperor runs around forcing people to wear masks, or maybe two or three. Please, don't compare Minneapples and Dakotans as if they were equal and equally homogenous groups, it's just silly.
Jerry,
I am sorry that the people you helped to an early grave do not weigh on your conscience... Oh well.
My conscience is clear. I didn't give it to anybody. It's you and Gov. "Wahls" that have a lot to answer for. Kids who lost a year of their education, elderly he failed to protect to the point that 138 of 140 dead are elder care residents, businesses permanently closed, suicides...
Yes, in this case it is a good thing people like yourself have little or no power in the state of MN. Otherwise as the numbers show, ~5,500 more Minnesotans would be dead.
And yes it is unfortunate that some businesses and young people suffered to save the lives of the elderly and infirm. Though on the upside they are still alive.
I always wonder how you would have protected the folks in care centers? Lock their staff in for the duration? Lock all the families out?
The numbers do NOT show that, and it is foolish to claim they do. It's comparing Minneapples and Dakotans.
Young people suffered to save the lives of the elderly?? Really? Did you look at who died? And with all of the Imperial decrees fully in place, 138 of 140 deaths are in nursing homes???
I wonder why Walz did not take immediate steps to protect those folks, rather than pulling a Cuomo and causing MORE deaths than were necessary?
You seem to always defend the insane proposition that government is smarter than the rest of us. Even if it was true that the government is OF us, it could not be true. In the best case, it would be only as smart as we are, and that is obviously not what is going on here. Most of us are perfectly capable of following reasonable precautions to protect our health and the health of others. Ordered to do so, we rankle, just like Prohibition.
I always wonder how you would have protected the folks in care centers? Lock their staff in for the duration? Lock all the families out?
FYI, This is called data / source.
MN vs SD Demographics
So, because government massively fails at its primary responsibility of protecting its citizens, it suddenly becomes my responsibility to issue imperial decrees to do so? You seem willing to invest authority in me I should not have, but think the Governor should not have used his self-assumed authority more wisely?
You are like the arm chair quarterback on Monday morning at the water cooler...
All criticism and no better ideas.
Not my job. We elect our "leaders" to solve problems. If we have to do it, we don't need them. And when they do what appears to be the OPPOSITE of the right solution, we rightfully criticize, and recognize we elected the wrong leaders. And yet some people-- ahem-- continually defend the idiocracy.
Well the numbers show that our governor did a great job of keeping Minnesotans alive !!!
EXCEPT for the congregate care facilities. Early on, almost 90% of deaths were in those places. "Effective policies" have reduced that to over 70%. Is that good? And given that, why are the other 30% of us locked down so tightly? When do the kids get their lost year of education back?
Well we could have followed SD's lead and had another 5,500 dead Minnesotans. Plus thousands of more long haulers.
Would that have been a better result in your opinion?
And yes many States that were hit early due to their international airports had to learn and adjust on the fly. Thankfully they learned quickly and slowed the losses.
That is what makes the SD, ND and IA stories so sad. They could have learned from the states who were initially impacted, but they chose to not and incurred thousands of unnecessary deaths.
I see. Yours is the only possible interpretation of a horribly flawed statistical comparison. So, we have millions of kids who missed a year of much-needed education, thousands of small businesses, especially minority businesses, put out of business, untold numbers of people who died of suicide, depression, starvation, or other illnesses for lack of treatment. Is THAT preferable, even ASSUMING as you do that the draconian measures of blue states actually made a difference that could be detected?
Jerry,
If you can not acknowledge the simple science that social distancing and masks slow the spread of a virus and reduce the resultant number of deaths, this is a pointless discussion.
And I have provide plenty of data explaining the 5,500 lives saved. However you have yet to prove the costs of the policies enacted. Given that Trump and crew pumped $4+ Trillion into the economy last year, I assume a lot of people did better because of the economy.
As for children and schooling, you always said that different methods may be more effective. This will be a good test to see if they worked. I assume that kids with good responsible parent(s) will do well as usual. :-)
If you can prove the "simple science" that masks slow the spread of the virus from asymptomatic people, when the masks only filter particles about 20 times the size of the virus, feel free. I would think the rapid rise of cases in the fall, with those mask mandates in place would argue against your theory. They are more talisman than treatment.
You have plenty of data, but it's apples, kumquats, bagels and sand fleas. You're looking at gross data and ignoring the plethora of minutiae that might account for it, far beyond the simple matter of public policy. Perhaps the overall economy improved, but individual economies were devastated. Where's your compassion for those people?
Yes, this is a good test of education. We know that about 30% of all kids-- the poorest kids, the ones who need it most and who are "locked in" to the public school system-- NEVER logged in to their "distance learning environment." Yes, home and charter schools will be proven more effective, and the "lucky" kids will leave the public schools behind. Sound good to you?
Simple Science
We saved 5,500 lives and are compensating the suffering with ~$6 TRILLION of our kid's money. I feel for the business owners who had to sacrifice to save lives. Their efforts are appreciated.
Usual problem... Bad / incompetent parent(s) leads to struggling kids... Pandemic or no pandemic.
mask mandates matter not
No one ever said masks STOP the virus totally, especially when a bunch of deniers run around without them.
At SD's peak about ~30 people were dying each day.
At Colorado's peak about ~90 people were dying each day.
Now 3 times sounds pretty bad until one remembers that Colorado has 7+ times more people living there.
Now CO had 6129 deaths, which is terrible. But if they had followed SD's model, it would have been ~12,000...
Not sure why you want to argue with the medical research. I assume it is a political thing.
Amazing. I find myself taking the Al Gore position on Global warming-- looking at the graph of 800,000 years of CO2 and temperature: "Doesn't it look like these things go up and down together?" You continue to assume that South Dakotans and Minnesotans (and Coloradans) are exactly equal in every way-- age distribution, contact frequency, ethnicity, general health, and on and on-- except for mask mandates which are CLEARLY irrelevant, as shown by the chart. Just notice the obvious that those states with early mask mandates, like Minnesota, still had HUGE increases in cases with the arrival of autumn. I don't argue with medical research. I argue that the obvious fact beats ivory-tower research every time.
Oh well...
I love it! Thanks. It is, of course, just a variation of the old attorney's creed. "If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law [logic] is on your side, argue the law [logic]. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table."
I am not pounding the table. I am just giving up on you and your lack of data, sources, etc.
You repeatedly state opinions as fact, with NOTHING to back it up. It is a pretty poor use of my time.
The chart I sourced and cited is a FACT. It is not an opinion, unless you consider the IOTTMCO conclusions drawn from that chart to be an opinion. It is indeed very curious as to why you would waste your time debating the opposite. BTW, "IOTTMCO"= Immediately Obvious To The Most Casual Observer.
Your chart that I saw showed that a non mask midwest state incurred 3 times the number of cases and deaths per capita as compared to a mask mandated midwest state.
Demographics may be slightly different, but not that different.
As I said, it is a pointless discussion.
For your convenience..
"No one ever said masks STOP the virus totally, especially when a bunch of deniers run around without them.
At SD's peak about ~30 people were dying each day.
At Colorado's peak about ~90 people were dying each day.
Now 3 times sounds pretty bad until one remembers that Colorado has 7+ times more people living there.
Now CO had 6129 deaths, which is terrible. But if they had followed SD's model, it would have been ~12,000...
Not sure why you want to argue with the medical research. I assume it is a political thing."
You need to decide what statistic you want to lie about-- total deaths, deaths/day, deaths per capita, % of deaths, deaths by demographic group, case fatality rate, whatever. THEN you have to explain how, regardless of any of those numbers, the relative number of infections in those three states (and I would be surprised if it weren't more) as a function of time was almost identical, DESPITE the mask mandates being imposed at significantly different times. Not only did masks not "stop the virus totally" but apparently did absolutely NOTHING significant to alter the course of the pandemic. You are trying to defend a government mandate which, at BEST, could have been accomplished through voluntary health measures.
You apparently completely ignored the latest scientific research showing that asymptomatic spread, the kind supposedly stopped by mass public masking, almost doesn't happen. And in this case, reality confirms the research.
Let me try again:
At American Thinker, Spike Hampson applies a simple test. He compares the combined covid death rates of the ten states that have never had mask mandates with the combined death rates of the 40 states that do have mask mandates. The result:
States with a mask mandate: 13.0 deaths per 10,000 population.
States with no mask mandate: 12.6 deaths per 10,000 population.
I think I will trust these folks... You can trust Spike...
"Summary
What is already known about this topic?
Universal masking and avoiding nonessential indoor spaces are
recommended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
What is added by this report?
Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily
COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of
implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was
associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates
41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily
death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Mask mandates and restricting any on-premises dining at
restaurants can help limit community transmission of COVID-19
and reduce case and death growth rates. These findings can
inform public policies to reduce community spread of COVID-19"
Here is an interesting map
Please note that ND, SD and IA are all in the 17 to 26 dead per 10,000...
Where as MN is in the 10 to 13 dead per 10,000...
Here is an interesting map
Please note that ND, SD and IA are all in the 17 to 21 dead per 10,000...
Where as MN is in the 10 to 13 dead per 10,000...
To be more precise.
MN: 12.1 per 10K
WI: 12.4 per 10K
IA: 18.0 per 10K
ND: 19.6 per 10K
SD: 21.7 per 10K
Still not sure why you are fighting science. If you do not think surgical masks work, next time tell your surgical team to skip wearing their masks when they cut you open.
An interesting map which tells you almost nothing. If you want to prove that correlation equals causation, in re: state mask mandates, then you have the one statistic you need to prove that it does not-- i.e. comparing the ten states without vs the forty states with. Any other statistic you quote is simply confusing the question by adding in population density, lifestyle, general healthiness of the population, and on and on, everything that might make one state different than another. I could probably make a better case for number of Congressional seats as being the driving factor. I don't accuse you of fighting science. I accuse you of ignoring the clear science you don't like, and preferring to muddy the issue.
"The question I have is...
Has he somehow convinced himself that masks do not work?
or
Is he really that selfish and unconcerned about spreading a killer virus to the old and infirm?" -- John
The question I have is, why are those the only two choices? And why would he be not be just as "selfish and unconcerned" if he DID wear a mask, to protect himself?
Really, at some point you have to rely on your own common sense rather than government. Right now, 100 million vaccinated people who are incapable of getting or spreading the disease are told to wear a mask, or even two. Does not compute.
Masks
MN: 12.1 per 10K
WI: 12.4 per 10K
No Masks
IA: 18.0 per 10K
ND: 19.6 per 10K
SD: 21.7 per 10K
Cherry picking your data again?
Ten states that have never had mask mandates --12.6 deaths per 10,000 population.
40 states that do have mask mandates -- 13.0 deaths per 10,000 population.
You WANT to believe mask mandates matter, and refuse to accept any information which disproves that notion. Just like you want to believe man-made CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe a hundred years from now, despite the lack of actual data proving it. And always yelling "science denier" is not a persuasive argument.
Jerry,
You were the one concerned about a difference in demographics and yet you want to average the whole USA. Really?
As I said earlier... Oh well...
I think our midwest group is a better comparison.
When seeking statistical significance in a multivariate environment, it is always best to aggregate data over the largest possible sample. 50 is greater than 5. QED.
Since most of the poor red states did not get hit by the first wave, we will need to disagree.
One blessing of being rural with no International airports, low population density and little mass transit.
Yes, you are describing a multivariate environment, then turning around and suggesting that one single factor is the only variable that matters in all cases. The data clearly indicates that single factor is NOT determinant. Were it so, the implementation of many mask mandates would not predate massive surges in cases and deaths, as they clearly do. It's class A baloney.
Believe as you will.
"Believe"??? I choose to believe the actual data. On what are you basing your obsessively-held opinion?
I trust medical experts and verify through data review.
I don't look for a random meaningless average that supports my belief like some here...
OK, do the data review comparing 40 states with mandates and 10 states without. Explain to me exactly why that proves your contention that mask mandates are the principal determinant of the pandemic's damage.
Or take the data showing that the path of the pandemic-- cases over time-- shows no significant difference regardless of the date of mask mandates (for three states). I can't accept your belief in "data" and science when data and science so clearly disproves that belief. It is unfounded and not anchored in reality.
Yawn...
Run! Run! Real data alert! Protect your preconceived fantasies!
I am pondering what it must be like to be in your head and to interact with you regularly?
To believe that one is smarter than experts in many different fields is definitely unique character trait...
And to stubbornly believe "experts" when they are clearly in error, or pursuing some political or self-serving agenda, is a sign of mental weakness. It's a unique form of confirmation bias.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. :-)
It seems much more likely that you just have a huge ego and a hard time acknowledging that many experts are smarter, more capable and less biased than yourself.
Being a Project Mgr, I rely on people smarter than me in their area of expertise every day. I am okay with that... :-)
Being a project manager myself, I like to track whether my selected "expert" seems to be performing up to expectations set in the project. That is--real performance rather than imagined competence.
It's not that hard to find an "expert" that agrees with you-- you do it all the time. Dr. Fauxci, I'm sure, agrees with you and he is fully vaccinated but running around with two masks on. A mummer leading a parade of fools.
Well I am still waiting for you to identify one respected infectious disease expert who agrees with your position...
Or you acknowledging that surgery teams wear surgical masks to keep patients safe.
OK, suppose I tell you one "expert" and you deny his/her expertise? We are nowhere, back to bickering over your opinion or mine. Suppose instead that I offer you real data, without regard to any expert or experts? Unless the data is "inconclusive" (and why would I consider it if not) then your "expert" is WRONG.
I'll admit, surgical teams wear masks for a reason-- to protect patients from bacterial (not necessarily viral) complications. So what? They also wear gloves and gowns and disposable shoes. Do you want to suggest every one of us do likewise? BTW, we now have a study out of California that 8% of people have tested positive for the virus, but that 48% have the natural immunity antibodies. And overall, cases are down 95% from the recent peak. How long does Walz's "emergency" last?
You have only cited one "expert" and he has nothing to do with medicine.
"Spike Hampson is a retired academic. After earning a Ph.D. in geography at the University of Hawaii, and acquiring a Certificate in Population Studies at the associated East-West Center, he worked for a few years as a consultant on socio-economic consequences of proposed development projects. From the late 1980's until 2016, he was employed as a Professor Lecturer in the geography department at the University of Utah. He taught courses on many different subjects and was also one of the very early experimenters in the realm of online coursework. In the final decade of his time there he taught nothing but online courses. "
Data is nice... But misusing the data leads to incorrect information... And I sure am not going to repeat the work of experts?
Maybe we can lower our guard if the case and death rate drops.
Here are the recent COVID deaths in MN
3/19/21 9 6,771
3/20/21 6 6,777
3/21/21 5 6,782
3/22/21 0 6,782
3/23/21 7 6,789
3/24/21 9 6,798
3/25/21 16 6,814
And the pre-cautions have been relaxed for better or worse.
Now we will see if another spike results.
It looks like they are rising again already.
Hmmm, I guess you are right. Data is untrustworthy depending on the source and the political motivation, if any.
That said, the data look reasonable, but I am not sure you can draw reasonable conclusions from that. For example, if mask mandates work, what accounts for the massive spike in cases in the 4th quarter? What explains the massive drop in cases since January? The same mechanism can not be the cause of both.
Also, while you are looking at an increase in cases, it appears that the trend in deaths is leveling off.
From above...
"No one ever said masks STOP the virus totally, especially when a bunch of deniers run around without them.
At SD's peak about ~30 people were dying each day.
At Colorado's peak about ~90 people were dying each day.
Now 3 times sounds pretty bad until one remembers that Colorado has 7+ times more people living there.
Now CO had 6129 deaths, which is terrible. But if they had followed SD's model, it would have been ~12,000...
Not sure why you want to argue with the medical research. I assume it is a political thing."
I could do the same for MN, though since you are resistant to data it is not worth my time.
And I sure hope the death rate keeps dropping as folks get vaccinated. :-)
Oh, so now it isn't masks causing the death rate to drop, but increasing vaccinations? Please, do share the data which shows the vaccination rate CAUSING that drop. Is the drop consistent with the percent of population immunized? I'm just asking, because you seem to like moving the goalpost of what causes and what prevents the illness.
Again, medical research is academic. An autumn surge and January drop (as well as a spring drop last year) are real data. You seem to be saying that if the data doesn't match the theory, change the data. Or at least draw a largely unsupportable conclusion from the data. Do you remember the "science" that said Minnesota would have 50,000 deaths from the disease WITH the mandates? How are we doing?
Now you are denying that vaccines save lives
Are you losing your mind? :-)
MN Vaccine Dashboard
That is a large part of why the Governor started to open things up. Most of our elderly and infirm are much safer now.
I am saying that you have been saying mask mandates are necessary to save lives. Now you are saying that vaccines save lives. One of those two statements is erroneous. The question is still, can you prove that the drop in cases was due to vaccinations? Can you prove that the autumn rise in cases was due to (lack of) mask mandates?
I'll take some time to answer, so I hope you actually want a useful dialogue.
Prior to the vaccines, the virus was fairly deadly for the old and infirm. (ie severe consequences ~550,000 citizens dead)
Therefore social distancing, masks and hand washing were the best way to slow / control the spread of the virus. And save the lives of the elderly and infirm.
Now as the old, infirm and general population get vaccinated, the likelihood of transmission and death is dropping. Thankfully.
No, vaccines were not the primary cause of case reduction so far. Social distancing and masks were. Even stubborn states like ND, IA and many cities in SD finally instituted mask mandates in Nov. Also, having record case / death rates in Nov/Dec finally scared even the most ardent COVID deniers.
No, but I can show you that non-mask mandate states experienced a much bigger autumn surge and therefore more deaths.
"No, but I can show you that non-mask mandate states experienced a much bigger autumn surge and therefore more deaths."
Interesting, since I have already shown you exactly the opposite.
I will even concede that masking and other mandates work to protect confined elderly. So why do all the rest of us have to have our businesses, families, and educations destroyed by one-size-fits-all imperial decree?
You keep citing what you THINK should happen. Then you cherry-pick data to show that it IS happening. Now I've asked if you can actually chart the vaccination rate and show a direct correlation to the drop in cases/deaths. Certainly there is a correlation. At the point of 100% vaccination we should see an "equilibrium" rate of cases/deaths. But to show causation you would need to show a substantial correlation all the way there. I don't think you can.
Swaying your opinion over the years has never worked...
You will believe whatever you believe no matter what experts or myself prove.
Definitely not a productive use of my time.
From above...
"No one ever said masks STOP the virus totally, especially when a bunch of deniers run around without them.
At SD's peak about ~30 people were dying each day.
At Colorado's peak about ~90 people were dying each day.
Now 3 times sounds pretty bad until one remembers that Colorado has 7+ times more people living there.
Now CO had 6129 deaths, which is terrible. But if they had followed SD's model, it would have been ~12,000...
Not sure why you want to argue with the medical research. I assume it is a political thing."
I could do the same for MN, though since you are resistant to data it is not worth my time.
And I sure hope the death rate keeps dropping as folks get vaccinated. :-)
Except that you have "proved" nothing at all. You keep telling me that I am not allowed to believe those things which my facts and logic clearly tell me. In a highly heterogeneous, multivariate environment, you keep insisting that one single variable-- mask mandates-- make all the difference. I have offered data which clearly shows the opposite. Feel free to keep trying, but just repeating that you are right and I am wrong, you are right, will not sway my "opinion."
And I am still waiting for you to show that the progress of vaccinations was sufficient to explain the "drop." Seems to me the drop started prior to any significant vaccinations. It's more in line with a hidden herd immunity, found in recent studies by "experts."
I will never do this...
"you keep telling me that I am not allowed to believe those things"
This is America, you have the right to believe whatever you want. Even if it is incorrect. :-)
Ah. So you admit you cannot prove me incorrect. It's only incorrect according to YOUR belief. You want to tell me that an "expert" study that finds a hidden herd immunity that explains the recent drastic drop in deaths is what? Unreal? Or you simply refuse to believe it?
Post a Comment