Just started a translation of a Quebecois book. It's called The Little Girl who was Too Fond of Matches.

Its supposed to be quite a mind twister.

Smack, no spoilers if you've read it.

I guess it was in the running to be a Canada Reads book.

JiffyLong said

the_patriot_smack said
I'll tell you what I am not doing

and that's wearing a fucking mask  

Damn straight... the people wearing masks are the same people who believe that 9/11 was done by terrorists.   

I mean, no matter who you think did it, I think it can be argued that it was done by terrorists.

Slumerican502 said
Jesus fucking Christ. Conservatives have to be the dumbest mother fuckers alive. Wearing a mask aint a political issue. Keep looking like the jackassess you are and toe that party line stooges.  

I wear a mask. I will wear one whenever ordered, required, or asked.

BUT, I also know that if it was really an issue, they would have Biowaste disposal for the masks when you leave the store. I also know that when you read the side of the box that the masks come in it says "This product is an ear loop mask, this product is not a respirator and will not provide any protections against COVID-19 (coronavirus) and other viruses or contaminants. Wearing an ear loop mask does not reduce the risk of contracting any disease or infection."

And yes, I've heard the argument that it is not about contracting the virus but to prevent spread from asymptomatic infected individuals based on the compilation studies of mask effectiveness. The studies that are being used for policy decisions on the effectiveness of the masks come from the compilation done by Cambridge, WHO, and PNSA. Holger Schunemann, who compiled the studies, recommends masks but said he and his colleagues have "low certainty" in their findings due to the "poor research methods" used to collect the data.  

The studies are based on numbers of the amount of positive antibody tests results. The issue is that with those tests you have around a 90% Sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result for people who have the condition that’s being tested) and a 95% Specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result for people who don’t have the condition that’s being tested) with a Pervasiveness of 2% the actual PPV (Positive Predictive Value - Percentage of Positive Results actually being Positive) is less than 20% meaning reported numbers are over 5 times higher than actual positive results. I showed the math in another thread about this. I didn't make up the math, I took it from several virologists and statisticians who do these calculation all the time and produced papers and videos explaining this. 

It's kind of neat to see how a test that is rated at 90% Sensitivity and 95% Specificity has only a 16.24% Accuracy of positive results actually being positive. Now the NPV is much better in this case, 99.89% of negative results actually being negative. So if you are tested and have a Negative result, it is highly likely that you do not have the virus. But if you get a positive result, it is only 16.24% likely you actually have contracted the virus. 

Yes, I will wear, and do wear, a mask. But I also know the numbers do not match the hysteria. People say that this is way worse than the flu. Maybe. But we won't know that while the reported numbers are not being adjusted for PPV as they are in every other virus statistics. Covid-19 is unique in that aspect. The numbers are not adjusted as all other virus are. Why is that? Several virologists have attempted to come out and state their issues with the way the reporting is done for this virus but have had their academic papers removed and any videos on the subject taken down. 

I am completely fine with the masks but I want to know why this virus is not being reported statistically like every other virus reported. 

Not that it matters, the pandemic will be over on November 4th, one way or the other.