Let us talk about pandemic science

So just monitoring the disinformation machine "CNN". They just said this "The CDC has a study that says that mask mandates and limiting seating capacity "MAY" reduce COVID cases and deaths"

Since when did "MAY" become a scientific metric?

I may get hit by a bus when I drive to work today. I may drop dead from a stroke today. I may be struck by lightening playing golf today. I may shart my pants today. I may call this kind of "science" complete and utter horse crap.

www.cdc.gov...
"The more an individual interacts with others, and the longer that interaction, the higher the risk of COVID-19 spread. Masks mayreduce the risk of COVID-19 spread when they are consistently used by customers and employees, especially when social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. The risk of COVID-19 spread increases in a restaurant or bar setting as interactions within 6 feet of others increase, as described below. Masks mayreduce the risk of COVID-19 spread when worn in any of these risk scenarios."

Correct me if I'm wrong but may is a synonym for might and could. This is the new "science".

Words? Yeah they have different meanings these days

Like “voting”

Or “vaccine”

Or “quarantine”

Or “Free World”

NewSpeak is tough to learn if you think for yourself

It's not a "new science", it's just a "Different kind of Science" (to coin a phrase from Biden)

"May" can make anything possible, it's like magic. Eating Frootloops "May" limit the spread of covid, wearing PJs in public settings "May" limit the symptoms of covid, but my favorite is the facts that antibiotics "May" limit the spread of the covid.

Frootloops = maybe since kids are less likely to get the covid

PJs in public = sure why not nobody wants to stand next to a person that is wearing the same sleep attire for the last week while also at the store

Antibiotics = huh? So is the covid a virus or a bacteria? I thought SARS Corona Type viruses are well viruses, and not a bacterial infection like say the Plague is.

If you add the word "May" to the sentences being used anything is possible.


By the way Bubonic Plague is on it's way, just watch and see, and due to the stupid people behind the covid crap, people aren't going to take proper precautions to protect themselves against it. Bye-bye society.

Definition of may (Entry 1 of 4) 1a —used to indicate possibility or probability
"you may be right"
"things you may need"
—sometimes used interchangeably with can,
"one of those slip ups that may happen from time to time" — Jessica Mitford
—sometimes used where might would be expected, "you may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods" — Robert Frost

www.merriam-webster.com

It's possible or probable that masks reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread is the likely meaning here, not like that nails anything down. Possible is a roll of the dice, like winning the lottery. Probable makes it sound likely to be true, but not all that certain either. "Can" is more positive but conditional, as with "It can happen, but doesn't always happen." "Might" is no better than "can".

That use of words could be used in an almost exactly opposite manner and still have just as much truth.

Masks may not reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread. It is possible or probable they don't or they might not reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread. However, if you said it can't reduce the risk, you have to have solid evidence to back that up with every situation possible, not so much with "can" reduce the spread. You would have to say it can reduce the spread if this or that is true, but it can't is rather a final statement, like a proven fact.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

Definition of may (Entry 1 of 4) 1a —used to indicate possibility or probability
"you may be right"
"things you may need"
—sometimes used interchangeably with can,
"one of those slip ups that may happen from time to time" — Jessica Mitford
—sometimes used where might would be expected, "you may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods" — Robert Frost

www.merriam-webster.com

It's possible or probable that masks reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread is the likely meaning here, not like that nails anything down. Possible is a roll of the dice, like winning the lottery. Probable makes it sound likely to be true, but not all that certain either. "Can" is more positive but conditional, as with "It can happen, but doesn't always happen." "Might" is no better than "can".

That use of words could be used in an almost exactly opposite manner and still have just as much truth.

Masks may not reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread. It is possible or probable they don't or they might not reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread. However, if you said it can't reduce the risk, you have to have solid evidence to back that up with every situation possible, not so much with "can" reduce the spread.

You may be right.

Actually, real science says may a lot of times. Or it says there is a relationship. Real science rarely says definitive things, it just supplies information and data. You need to look at the reason the research was created, the parameters of the research, who funded the research and what possible financial gain would be gained by a party. Or if it just increases the prestige or belief in a group or path of thinking. You also must look at the relavence of what it is being applied towards. Then you must compare it to other research and look at differences of conclusions to figure why the opposite conclusions exist.

Interpretation of the evidence should never be definitive, and somewhere in the research you must observe what the evidence applies to and interpretation often goes outside of what it is supposed to be concluding. This irrational interpretation has been going on for a long time, and people of prestige have made things up for centuries without even looking at the evidence, their beliefs steer their interpretations very often.

I do not have much faith in the heads of the CDC and NIH, they are generalizing things and fauchi is not scientific. He is touting his personal opinion. He is pushing his beliefs.

Are masks effective at slowing this viruses progression...yes, but to a point. common sense and assessment of the situation is important. Just because you are wearing a mask does not mean you are not going to get this illness, try to do risk assessment with whatever you do....but do not get crazy and paranoid either. This disease is easily transmitted, it is a good thing that for the vast majority of people it is not worse than a cold or a flu, but how do you know if you are included in that group....unknown health conditions can compound this illness and take a seemingly healthy person down too.

So remember this when looking at scientific research and interpretations....the bull crap we are hearing now with the vaccines being safe and effective is not science, because true science is never that definitive. Same with masks, they have good points and bad points, but masks when used in high risk situations for short periods of time is not a problem for most people....but some people cannot wear masks, the side effects can be bad. For the vast majority of people...as far as they know...the vaccine is safe and effective, but for maybe three percent of people the vaccine can be bad. For about three percent of mask wearers the same could be the case...bad. Also remember, sheltering ourselves from this virus can backfire in the end because once we quit wearing them other microbes are also eliminated from the air we breath while we wear them. We have to consider, our immunity towards these common diseases will be reduced, taking off the masks might lead to susceptability to microbes we used to have immunity to because our immune system does not recognize them as fast anymore and quickly disable them so they are not a threat.

I see the news and some political oriented individuals spreading deceit and some times they do not even know they are spreading their beliefs instead of proper interpretations of the science they are reading.

"You May Be Right" by Billy Joel:

a reply to: panoz77

'May' can mean a lot of things. In real science it's more something like...

'There's an X% chance of Y at 95% confidence.'

When you say something like 'may' X can be any number greater than zero.

Then, there's also sample size, there's a big difference in the implications if X comes from a sample size of 10, or say 50 or 100 or 1000.

How you sample makes a difference. Is it a sample representative of the population? There's many methods for sampling a population different methods may be more or less representative of a population depending on different variables and the type of population.

The problem with terms like 'may' and the general vagueness of most science reporting by media, is that they tend to treat all those things the same. They typically don't report anything about methodology. Results and data lose a lot of meaning without knowing how the results were achieved and how the data were collected.

A study with a sample size of 10 selected biasedly will be presented as equally valid alongside studies where sample sizes were chosen relevant to the population size using methods appropriate for the kind of study and population being studied by the media.

They will present them as equally correct, whereas any results in the first study should obviously be looked at with more scrutiny.

The thing about a lot of studies is, there's not much choice. They're locked behind insane paywalls, $30 or more per article, that no reasonable person will likely pay. So unless you're one of the few people in university where your school pays for bulk journal subscriptions, you'll probably never have access to the important part of most scientific studies...

That is, if we didn't live in a world where scihub exists...there's a reason the founder faces massive piracy charges that would put her behind bars for a long, long time and why Aaron Swartz killed himself rather than face the sentence he got for pirating journals from mit.

a reply to: dug88

9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest toothpaste.
nypost.com...
study.com... 22-out-of-27-dentists-prefer-crest.html

a reply to: panoz77

And 27 out of 27 dentists received free samples and other gifts from crest, were paid to be in the study and or received some other kickback. 5 out of 27 dentists preferred colgate's perks.

Because...in the end...who cares which fluoride based, flavour paste people use to clean their teeth?

The rest of the dentists, not part of the study, will tell you...it's all the same #....just clean your #ing teeth regularly.