What I have is good enough for Nature, so I'm fine with my position.
www.nature.com
Why? Made sense to me.
"Hypothesis"What I have is good enough for Nature, so I'm fine with my position.
The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know
Nature examines arguments that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab in China, and the science behind them.
This article basically says it very well could have came from a lab. Yet you completely dismiss itWhat I have is good enough for Nature, so I'm fine with my position.
The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know
Nature examines arguments that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab in China, and the science behind them.
It is unfortunate that some of the branches are ignoring the advice of the NEA and the AFT.
You mean, the data from this table (which is the only place I saw with confidence intervals:
Characteristic | No. (%) of schools | No. of enrolled students | No. of cases§ | Cases per 500 students enrolled (95% CI) | RR¶ (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | 169 (100) | 91,893 | 566 | 3.08 (2.84–3.34) | — |
Mask requirements for teachers and staff members¶¶ | |||||
Optional | 57 (33.7) | 29,881 | 264 | 4.42 (3.92–4.98) | Ref |
Required | 110 (65.1) | 61,190 | 298 | 2.44 (2.17–2.73) | 0.63 (0.47–0.85) |
Mask requirements for students | |||||
Optional | 82 (48.5) | 42,761 | 326 | 3.81 (3.42–4.25) | Ref |
Required | 87 (51.5) | 49,132 | 240 | 2.44 (2.15–2.77) | 0.79 (0.50–1.08) |
Masks aren't suppose to replace vaccines. Your comparison here is bordering on misinformation. Looking at the above, I see circa 150 kids who didn't get covid19 in the mask requirement schools. I'm pretty sure you're not OK with those kids getting not getting covid19.
IN A PETRI DISH, AT LEVELS THAT WOULD POISON A HUMAN BEING. It has no effect at all in clinical trials.
No, I think humans should receive the very best of care possible, and it's irresponsible to sacrifice human health for the sake of forming control groups. This goes for masking as well as vaccines.
Exactly. One with no good evidence behind it.
Except, I don't. I said, "We have a pretty good guess at the origin, but no certainty. I don't see how that changes our behavior or the efficiency of vaccines."
Evidence like extremely poor safety conditions at Wuhan? A level 2 security in which only eyeglasses were required? Wuhan studying rat to human covid transmission? The supposed origin(Wuhan Market)being literally less than a block away? Doctors supposedly getting sick?
All of which is consistent with covid19 having a natural origin.
Just recently, SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc., were all from natural sources. Natural sources are the most common origin of these diseases, so you need good evidence to say that was not the case here.
The numbers in the brackets are the margin of error. If a thing had an effect of 10% with a margin of error of +/- 5%, it would say 0.90 (0.85-0.95). When the high side is higher than 1 it means the margin of error is larger than the observed effect.
In what? In clinical trails you say? On people? You think the information from the tests on people is more telling than what happened in a lab? Me too! The CDC thinks that and the FDA thinks that. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Right, this data would only pass a 90% confidence interval, not a 95%. I suppose those extra live pale in camparison to the superiority of the 95% CI over the 90% CI, even when there is no significant downside to the mask mandate.The numbers in the brackets are the margin of error. If a thing had an effect of 10% with a margin of error of +/- 5%, it would say 0.90 (0.85-0.95). When the high side is higher than 1 it means the margin of error is larger than the observed effect.
| Mask requirements for teachers and staff members¶¶ | |||||
| Optional | 57 (33.7) | 29,881 | 264 | 4.42 (3.92–4.98) | Ref |
| Required | 110 (65.1) | 61,190 | 298 | 2.44 (2.17–2.73) | 0.63 (0.47–0.85) |
Me too. Of course, the CDC and FDA also think that we don't sacrifice giving people the best known care during clinical trials whether in the control group or not, which would include requiring masks, while you seem to disagree, so perhaps it's not as clear as you claim.
