DDM, I'm not sure why you intentionally ignored me when I said I didn't want to listen to an audio response because it's a pain in the ass but, if you'd like to continue this discussion, it involves us agreeing on the medium in which we'd like to mutually communicate, which is why I stated this:
Originally posted by Gehenna
Man, I ain't listening to a ****ing audio response lmao. If you want to continue, just let me know when you have time and we can pick it back up via text. If you do audio, I gotta listen and then write your shit down, which sounds a lot like work.
If it takes you three to four hours, like you said in the video, that's not something I can really change or account for. There are things I'm listening to whilst having this discussion and responses don't nearly take me as much time. Sure, you can argue copy+pasting the transcript but I still have to sit there and listen (and repeat sections perhaps) to contextualize your recorded statements.
If you want, there's two options.
1. We can either continue this conversation via a text-exchange.
2. We can stop.
It's your decision.
Moving on,
Originally posted by dadudemon
let's start it out citation needed about india in the philippines well other than my employees who actually worked in those locations reporting exactly what's going on nearly a day-to-day basis to me there's also this
Obviously ignoring the irrelevant anecdotes, this says nil about mask enforcement.
Originally posted by dadudemon
masks okay so i'm noticing a theme here it doesn't look like you've read anything recent that we talked about with related to masks
This doesn't refute any of my statements.
You cited some research regarding N95 usage and surgical masks within hospital settings and we agreed this wasn't applicable across-the-board. A consensus exists that masks are effective in preventing droplet emission, which is relevant due to asymptomatic cases, so the question concerns whether they mitigate oncoming droplets and it appears that, for public civilians in crowded areas/settings, the evidence points to yes, even though we cannot be certain. Even if this was utterly wrong, it would still be sensible to wear masks for the initially stated reason.
Originally posted by dadudemon
we've already covered this quite thoroughly so anything you mentioned about masks it just doesn't matter
A non-sequitur, especially considering you linked a post about the Indian lockdown when I asked about Indian mask enforcement.
Originally posted by dadudemon
you catch up with a thread catch up with the research if you've already caught up to it and you're still making these arguments you're not being honest
If the implication here is that I'm supposed to scour through a 200+ page thread to have a conversation, it's an absurd one. So, stick to the conversation. Summarizing points you've previously made that are relevant to this conversation should not be challenging.
With that said, link me something. This is from April: http://spinup-000d1a-wp-offload-media.s3.amazonaws.com/faculty/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2020/05/masks_final_040620_reformat_final.pdf
It states: https://i.imgur.com/lealYie.png
So, perhaps things have changed astronomically? Perhaps you think the info on the CDC page as of right now isn't correct? If the latter is the case, on what basis? I can't do anything if you won't say anything.
Originally posted by dadudemon
so the lockdowns didn't actually do anything for california other than delay the deaths
What you're citing doesn't demonstrate that. It does not give us anything regarding the counter-factual. We know that lockdowns saved lives. California has had almost eight-thousand (7700) deaths: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26992
The ordered lockdown reduced cases quite significantly and had the potential to save upwards of sixteen-hundred lives March 20th-April 20th. This is an approximately 20% reduction relative to the vaguely approximate counterfactual, which is obviously significant. Here's more recent evidence from July: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30201-7/fulltext
The implication? The Italian lockdown had a huge effect on the spreading of the virus. Italy is essentially done with the virus, largely due to an enormous reduction in mobility.
Originally posted by dadudemon
we knew it would spread there's no stopping it
Fuck no.
There was multiple proposals to curtail the spreading and a plethora of policy instruments, such as test and trace. You have to demonstrate that what has happened in every country? This is the same as what would have happened if they "protected the vulnerable and did nothing else."
As of yet, this has not been demonstrated by you.
Originally posted by dadudemon
it flat out is correct let me show you why the when you experience economic ruin when you go through recessions and depressions what ends up happening is you have a massive spike in stress-related deaths
This doesn't demonstrate what I asked for at all. The link claims that austerity, in regards to health care spending, was responsible for a portion of those deaths. There's no healthcare spending austerity in essentially any country. A great deal of countries are stimulus spending. Unemployment is shit, but the majority of countries in the developed world have had solid responses and even in America? The juiced UI has been substantial.
You have to showcase that, not only the same thing is happening, but also that there are more deaths due to this phenomenon than there are lives saved from any intervention, save from protecting vulnerable individuals.
Originally posted by dadudemon
ah what was this one taking part about proof uh i don't think any of that matters skip all that
As long as you don't make claims barren of evidence.
Originally posted by dadudemon
okay lockdowns caused lockdowns are not as effective as not locked outs that's my argument that's pretty much my argument you can dress up my argument any way you like to you can say i worded it wrong that's actually what i really intend to say is the lockdowns are not as effective as not locking down that's always going to be my argument and here's why R0 value decreases when you don't have lockdowns that's it that's all we need to talk about on that
The screencaps don't support this claim, DDM. Figure 2 says that, after a lockdown, R0 decreased. This does not mean that no lockdown would result in a parallel decrease in R0. The direct implication is that R0 dropped as a result of the lockdowns. Estimates for R0 in a majority of states is just over 1 (https://rt.live/).
However, in Figure 1, the same comment applies (even though it doesn't show every state). These graphs imply that the lockdowns contributed to an R0 reduction, not that no lockdown is what causes the R0 reduction so that interpretation doesn't make a lick of sense.
