UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

Link: https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1628427962243481601?s=46&t=vI6WQKdEDjsVbVDk-pIlrA

There are tens of thousands of studies out there. This one is a meta-analysis, which are often more useful than others, but it remains one study.

If indeed the evidence shows that masks didn't help stop the spread, then the scientific community will embrace that evidence.

How do I know that? Because (1) they are scientists, and (2) no gigantic conspiracy exists to squash the data.

Every goddam thing with you simpletons is a conspiracy. Every. Goddam. Thing.

The noble search for truth! Inspirational.

Fauci et al had no evidence themselves for the basis of their recommendations while claiming that they did, and while shutting down everyone who opposed their version.

for 'Who', 'How' 'Where' 'How Long' and 'How Much'...the GBD signors want to implement a never before used 'Herd Immunity' trial...are you kidding me? Dr. Collins, et al couldn't shut that bizarre 'Pipe Dream' down fast enough...thank heaven.

Thanks for clearing that up. I had forgotten about that. Is there any particular process for shutting discourse down, or does the NIH director get to use it where he wants, double-secret-like?

strategy would be carried out?...remember the context/timing of this Declaration...what right minded leader would take a 'Flyer' on an untested theory in the middle of a raging pandemic?...was there any 'Downside' evaluated by that group?...most momentous decisions include such considerations...even vaccines get evaluated for serious side effects.

Dr. Collins, et al made the right decision...

They should be ripped and replaced.

But wait, the head of the NIAID did tell us in 2020 that masks don't work. Before he told us to start wearing them. It's not like no one is getting paid to study this stuff. It's not like we don't have multiple entities focused on preventing and dealing with disease outbreaks.

They failed and lost all credibility and that is really not a good thing.

later....evidence that 40-45% of transmission due to asymptomatic transmission...ergo, public needs to wear masks...very simple...go back a read all my posts on this.

Ty makes shit up and then tries to support his false narrative by posting links to flawed opinions from other people. It'll take between 8 and 36 hours before he concedes that he's full of shit and in less than 2 weeks he'll deny that any of it happened.

(no message)

- You saying that Desantis demeans and persecutes marginalized people.

You know what isn't documented on this board?

- A single reason for that statement.

You know what else is documented on this board?

- You admitting that Fauci "downplayed" the effectiveness of masks.

You know what isn't documented on this board?

- A single good post from you.

Youth and Turning Back the Clock on Equality"...if you don't like my words describing RDS' law...use these...
-------------------
Joni Madison, Interim President of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:

“School policy should focus on education, NOT DISCRIMINATION. Governor DeSantis’s ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law is a SHAMEFUL ATTACK on students already struggling with the weight of discrimination. It is a slapdash, MEAN-SPIRITED, impossible-to-comply-with law designed to make LGBTQ+ students feel shame and isolation at school, a place where every child deserves a chance to learn and succeed. The Human Rights Campaign strongly CONDEMNS these discriminatory policies taking effect on Friday and will continue fighting for Floridians who deserve to exist freely, proudly, and to have their stories shared.

“Parents, teachers, doctors, business and faith leaders, and countless others in communities across the country are increasingly standing up and uniting to speak out against these VICIOUS EFFORTS to MARGINALIZE LGBTQ+ students. SHAMEFUL efforts to replicate DeSantis’ ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law in other states are being pursued by extremist legislators trying to rile up a small but radical base, who foolishly believe PEDDLING HATE against children will win them support at the ballot box come November. We have a message for them: The country is tired of watching you use the lives of our children for personal political power. And come November, we’ll make sure you hear that message from all of us, loud and clear.” (emphasis mine)
------------------

I'm just letting everyone know that RDS isn't kidding anyone with his pandering and he's going to have to face the music when he steps out of Florida...the question for this board is...do you side with RDS in this campaign of his?


Link: https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-on-desantiss-dont-say-gay-or-trans-law-going-into-effect-targeting-lgbtq-youth-and-turning-back-the-clock-on-equality

The fact is, there is nothing discriminatory in the bill. If there was you'd have found something in the bill to point to.

This is a bill that gives parents a choice in what their 7 years are learning in schools. Its unacceptable for you to phrase it as anything else and it puts into question you motives. Do you want small children to feel comfortable talking to unrelated adults about sex?

simple as that.

You know 7 year olds don't talk about their sexual and gender identities in their own, right?

(no message)

I'm a serious mother fucker, that's for sure. Too serious though? There's no such thing as too serious when you are talking to someone that wants to talk to kids about sex without the kids parents knowing.

from that article....
------------------
As stakeholders in the school system and simply as citizens, parents should participate in deciding how schools are run. Their voices deserve to be heard alongside the expert judgment of principals, teachers, and librarians. But to use legislation and mandates to declare certain stories and ideas off-limits violates the compact underpinning public education. Parents who opt for public schools, rather than private academies or homeschooling, are signing up for a system designed to serve entire communities and general interests; they are pooling their resources with other families to raise future generations. It is one thing to believe that parents have the right to forego regular schooling in favor of imparting an individual belief system to children at home; it is quite another to insist that public school curricula and libraries be remade to match those predilections.
-----------------

As for sex education in particular, by definition, ALL material presented to children, be it reading, writing, math, or sex/sexuality learning is designed to be "Age Appropriate", and parents already do have input. We're talking about PUBLIC education and one group does not have sole control over all others...any problem with that?


Link: https://time.com/6215119/parents-rights-education-gone-too-far/

So they want to prove that masks don't work as an attack on that policy.

The discussion about the effectiveness of masks is unfortunate because it distracts from a more important discussion about the appropriateness of mandates and other covid era policies; particularly the policies that were maintained long after people had the option to protect themselves with vaccination.

(no message)

Seems like a similar effort would have been done before imposing such a dangerous mandate. The Left's argument would be that there just weren't such studies at that time which, of course, means that they did not have the "science" behind their recommendation from the start....which is what I have been saying all along.

from the attached critique of the Cochrane Review...
----------------
Epidemiologists Raina MacIntyre, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, David Fisman, and primary health care professor Trish Greenhalgh detailed the multiple limitations of the Cochrane review in an article for The Conversation. One of these limitations was that most trials included in the review “addressed only half of the question” on mask effectiveness:

"Face masks and respirators work in two ways: they protect the wearer from becoming infected and they prevent an infected wearer from spreading their germs to other people. Most RCTs in this Cochrane Review looked only at the former scenario, not the latter.”

N95/P2 respirators are designed to prevent airborne infections, like COVID-19 and flu, by filtering infectious particles and preventing the wearer from breathing them in. By contrast, surgical face masks mainly work by physically blocking the release of infectious particles from infected individuals into the air (source control)[2], as Health Feedback explained in an earlier review. However, most trials only tested mask effectiveness at preventing infection in the wearer, ignoring the potential benefit of face masks in source control.
---------------
As the authors of the Cochrane review explained in the Discussion, the available RCTs evaluating mask effectiveness were of “variable quality”. For example, some of the trials lacked blinding, while others used unclear randomization methods or poorly defined outcomes to assess the impact of the intervention. Each of these factors increases the risk of bias, reducing the reliability of the meta-analysis’ conclusions. In addition, while some studies confirmed the type of infection by a laboratory test, many others relied on self-reporting to assess both mask-wearing and infection, further increasing the risk of bias.
---------------
Another important limitation of the review is that the RCTs included in the analysis evaluated the effect of face masks on several respiratory viruses in different populations and multiple settings with variable risks of transmission. This variability is already made clear at the beginning of the review:

“[The studies] took place in low-, middle-, and high-income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non-epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
But pooling data from such heterogeneous studies together increases the likelihood that any effect gets diluted in the overall variability of the data.
-----------------
Further complicating the question is the fact that most of the participants in the individual RCTs didn’t wear face masks consistently during the trial. Instead, most wore masks occasionally or in specific settings, like working places, university residences, or when in contact with people with respiratory infections.
-------------------

Better yet, read the attached critique...then read my link of the study published in the NEJM...there is NO QUESTION that masking works...or Baron wouldn't have used them in his work.


Link: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/multiple-studies-show-face-masks-reduce-spread-of-covid-19-cochrane-review-doesnt-demonstrate-otherwise/

less vulgar than yr usual slurs, Mr
I'm the smartest guy in the ROOM. GFY

The mandate was so invasive that the burden of proof was on them to do this. Now after the fact, they are trying to make others prove that what they did is wrong rather than them prove ahead of time that it was the correct thing to do. It was not. And the evidence is mounting.
Fauci himself gave hisopinion on the topic to 60 Minutes which then changed 180 degrees after being called in for a meeting at the WH.

masking works...YOU USE THEM all the time yourself...the only questions are 1) which masks are being used, and 2) how well they are used...for those who don't know how to use them most effectively, you do the right thing as a medical professional and TEACH THEM...not deny their usefulness.

The NEJM study proves masking's effectiveness beyond the shadow of a doubt...and in a mandated circumstance within school environments...case closed.

The little kids you guys forced to mask in school for two years (totally uselessly) sneezed all over them and had their noses poking out roughly 96.3% of the time.

Well done taking your twelve pre-thanksgiving tests and all your other bullshit!

crisis periods...and the all the kids in my G-kids school had zero problem with them...also the NEJM study report is rock solid proof that they do indeed "MITIGATE" transmission. So Simple...So Easy...only fools don't use them.

Are all still alive, too. Huh

(no message)

(no message)

Flawed as the approach was, it got businesses reopened and kids back in school. We were all mostly happy with that approach. We didn't know any better at that point.

The mandates that were in place in the summer months were mostly theatre. Politicians had to show they were doing something to protect people. By then we mostly knew it was a farce; especially when those same politicians kept getting caught in public places without masks on.

The mandates that were in place after the vaccines had become widely available, were in place to try to incentivize people to go get vaccines (we won't need masks if we can reach herd immunity). They were about control.

step forward for them.

advises you to use masks...listen to them.

Link: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

(no message)

(no message)

This morning, in fact. So the answer is yes.

I answered your question, but you refuse to answer mine. Why?

(no message)

by passing discriminatory laws. You have not attempted to point to any piece of any law that is discriminatory. All you have done is linked to mischaracterizations and definitions. You have not answered the question.

disagree and my link explains in detail why they feel that way...i.e. it's discrimination and persecution...I agree with them...you don't like that and have no response to their specific concerns which identify specific sections of he law. If you can refute their specific concerns, then we can continue.

I have answered your question...you just don't like the response....sorry about that.

The can feel that way, but that doesn't mean that the law that was passed is discriminatory. The law is only discriminatory if it actually discrimates against someone.

Telling me about feelings doesn't tell me what needs to be changed to eliminate the discrimination. You haven't answered the question.

What in the bill specifically discriminates against a group of people? What language should not be included in future bills to ensure we are not discriminating in those new bills?

(no message)

Link: https://www.eqfl.org/florida-dont-say-gay-bill

I'll add that Jon Harris Maurer did a terrible job defending your position. Did you watch those videos? The questioners completely dismantled his argument. Despite that, you'll note that he really didn't make a single case for discrimination (he does make a weak argument for prejudice...which is not discrimination), yet you are.

The only valid point, which I've acknowledged, is the vagueness of the bill. I would be fine if your stance, like that of Harris Maurer was that clarification is needed, but that's not the argument you are making.

Per your link...
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or
third parties on sexual orientation or gender
identity may not occur in kindergarten through
grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate
or developmentally appropriate for students
in accordance with state standards."

Who is that discriminating against and how?

I live by the fundamental Christian principle of "Loving One Another"...this bill does not express love for those who, through no fault of their own, are not "Straight"...therefore, I'm against it.

It's about letting parents talk to their 7 year old about sexual and gender identity rather than letting a stranger do it.

But that's not the conversation we've been having. You said Desantis demeans and persecutes marginalized people by passing discriminatory bills.
- Nothing we've discussed thus far has shown that Desantis demeans and persecutes marginalized people.
- Nothing we've discussed thus far has shown that Desantis passes discriminatory bills.

of reporting me to medical boards for speaking this truth when it was not poltiically acceptable? Liberals are fascists.

Fauci should face charges for his actions. He was nto supposed to be a politician, he was supposed to be a doctor.

don't you remember the "NEJM" Editorial 'Hill' you died on?...that was in response to "The Cochrane Report" that Nigel is referring to...old and debunked news...good grief.

(no message)

...his opinions are his own, not the NYT's...they're just doing their part in promoting "Free Speech".

As for Mr. Stephens' opinion on masks, I've just recently demonstrated to Baron how he lied when he claimed that the New England Journal of Medicine Editorial...which contained a full report with data...did not clearly show the benefit of masking in Massachusetts schools...and the same admonition applies to Mr. Stephens' claim.

Looks like you either haven't seen that thread, or have a memory retention issue.


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)