2 edits
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea
Prove it.
-in the data table in that link it shows;
country | case notification rate per 100 000 inhabitants
United_Kingdom | 720.70
Sweden | 814.99
Thus your claim that UK has "a worse problem" than Sweden is too simplistic. And the fact remains the data in your OWN link appears to contradict your claim.
@humy saidSweden is trying to let low risk people get infected to hasten herd immunity. That makes the case rate irrelevant.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea
-in the data table in that link it shows;
country | case notification rate per 100 000 inhabitants
United_Kingdom | 720.70
Sweden | 814.99
Thus your claim that UK has "a worse problem" than Sweden is too simplistic. And the fact remains the data in your OWN link appears to contradict your claim.
Now the death rate:
UK - 10.41
Sweden - 3.44
@metal-brain saidPart of your claim was masks don't help slow the spread. Have you now suddenly changes your claim on that now I showed you the data that appears to contradict that claim?
EXACTLY!
DUH!
1 edit
@humy saidI was going by the death rate, but the UK has a worse infection problem than the Netherlands which proves my point. Again. Sweden wants people to get infected to hasten herd immunity, therefore Sweden's infection rate is irrelevant.
Part of your claim was masks don't help slow the spread. Have you now suddenly changes your claim on that now I showed you the data that appears to contradict that claim?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/
I didn't only prove you wrong. Since the Netherlands is 15th on this list it seems to indicate wearing masks does more harm than good. Belgium and the UK made masks wearing mandatory and they have more deaths.
@metal-brain saidIn other words, the answer is yes. Thank you for finally admitting when you are wrong.
I was going by the death rate, but the UK has a worse infection problem than the Netherlands which proves my point. Again. Sweden wants people to get infected to hasten herd immunity, therefore Sweden's infection rate is irrelevant.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/
@humy saidSWEDEN WANTS A HIGHER INFECTION RATE! DUH!
In other words, the answer is yes. Thank you for finally admitting when you are wrong.
I didn't only prove you wrong. Since the Netherlands is 15th on this list it seems to indicate wearing masks does more harm than good. Belgium and the UK made masks wearing mandatory and they have more deaths.
@metal-brain saidDennis Rancourt eh. Now he's on about masks? A lot of what he says is accurate, but there is one logical leap I don't follow (maybe you can help me, Metal Brain?).
https://www.globalresearch.ca/science-conclusive-masks-respirators-do-not-prevent-transmission-viruses/5718934
He writes in all BOLD that " if anything gets through [the mask](and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work."
This statement seems to be premised on the idea that masks don't stop everything and only one droplet is enough to cause infection. While he admits that masks do stop droplets from getting into the air he uses this premise of 1 droplet and you're infected to discount all the important data on the stopping power of masks.
But, if you were allergic to bees, would you rather be in a room with 100 bees or only 10?
You are not infected by the presence of a viral droplet, you are infected when you come in contact with it and inhale that droplet. And the fact is you are less likely to inhale a droplet if there are fewer of them. Right?
Also, he ignores the dozens of epidemiological studies that show masks are effective at slowing the spread.
Also, what's his beef with the lamestream media? They're not the ones interpreting data or issuing public health recommendations. This seemed distracting in a supposedly scientific article.
@wildgrass said"Also, he ignores the dozens of epidemiological studies that show masks are effective at slowing the spread."
Dennis Rancourt eh. Now he's on about masks? A lot of what he says is accurate, but there is one logical leap I don't follow (maybe you can help me, Metal Brain?).
He writes in all BOLD that " if anything gets through [the mask](and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work."
This statement seems to ...[text shortened]... r issuing public health recommendations. This seemed distracting in a supposedly scientific article.
Do your dozens of epidemiological studies acknowledge the Netherlands has a much lower death rate than Belgium? You can't ignore common sense forever. Nations with mandatory mask wearing have the worst death rates. Do your dozens of epidemiological studies say any different?
Have you read any epidemiological studies? Do you even know what they say? Do they show the data? Is it cherry picked data?
@metal-brain saidWhaddaya mean cherry picked? Isn't that what you're doing with your Netherlands data?
"Also, he ignores the dozens of epidemiological studies that show masks are effective at slowing the spread."
Do your dozens of epidemiological studies acknowledge the Netherlands has a much lower death rate than Belgium? You can't ignore common sense forever. Nations with mandatory mask wearing have the worst death rates. Do your dozens of epidemiological studies say ...[text shortened]... miological studies? Do you even know what they say? Do they show the data? Is it cherry picked data?
I listed 8 or so studies on page 7 of this thread with a brief explanation of each. Yes, I read all of those studies. One study looked at data from more than 200 countries. Others were more focused on the differences in COVID risk between mask and non-mask wearers in a defined geographical area.
There is also a link on page 7 of this thread to 89 additional studies if you are interested. Let me know what you think of the data.
It seems like the most cited paper in the group is this one, a systematic review of over 100 observational studies in 16 countries.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429
2 edits
@wildgrass saidThat's exactly what he is doing no matter how you look at it.
Whaddaya mean cherry picked? Isn't that what you're doing with your Netherlands data?
Why only look at that Netherlands data as opposed to ALL the data? Its collectively ALL the data that counts. You cannot validly just select the data that by itself appears to support what you want while ignore all other data just because you don't like what it shows and because it contradicts what you want.
2 edits
@metal-brain saidYes to all those 3 stupid questions.
Have you read any epidemiological studies? Do you even know what they say? Do they show the data?
Is it cherry picked data?No.
Its called 'science'.
Next stupid question...
@wildgrass saidWhich countries?
Whaddaya mean cherry picked? Isn't that what you're doing with your Netherlands data?
I listed 8 or so studies on page 7 of this thread with a brief explanation of each. Yes, I read all of those studies. One study looked at data from more than 200 countries. Others were more focused on the differences in COVID risk between mask and non-mask wearers in a defined geographi ...[text shortened]... tional studies in 16 countries.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429