Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

1,043 Excellent

About provoman

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

1,729 profile views
  1. Thank for your time and for the explanation, I do appreciate your explanations and time. I understand what you are saying. However, if we take the researchers to mean the words they published, then case decrease entirely, thus they suggest mask mandates are surge proof. I know you addressed the decrease entirely langauge with figure 3, and again thank you. However decrease entirely is the researchers explanation of their figures, so I think they actually ment the words they used in plain understanding of the use of those words. Again I appreciate your time in expl
  2. How so? Again Salt Lake County, September 24 is the mask mandate. From late September cases were an upward trend with per 100,000 also increasing. The 7 day average in Salt Lake County is 1200. With a 60 day upward trend and per 100,000 increasing how would the U of U show reduction in growth for Salt Lake County? Or just about any State since late september; late September/October starts the Natiowide upward trend of cases.
  3. The study I linked that was withdrawn because case increased in the areas that the researchers claimed reduction, is the same reason why the U of U professors should not have published and should withdrawn and revaluate their claims based on the last three months. Put simply it certainly appears the U of U study is not supported by current data.
  4. Thanks for the response. But the September to present data do not reflect the claims made in that study.
  5. you posted these two links https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818 Each look at data after a mask mandate. For comparison, Salt Lake County established a mask mandate on September 24. Since Sep 24 cases in Salt Lake County increased daily, from less than 1,000 to peaking at 1,600 just a few days ago. My point is that current data does not support claims made using data from march 2020 - September 2020. And becuase current data does not support the claims; the U of U economist paper is doin
  6. CFR. I have peovided a quote wherein the U of U researchers claim cases reduced entirely.
  7. CFR, please provide the page number of the paper supporting this.
  8. This is from page 12 of the 64 page paper "we show that after the mandate, new cases appear to stop increasing entirely, suggesting that the mask mandate reduces the spread of the disease." It is clear they are referring to total case count. And based on that statement they are not saying "cases will rise". Data from September to shows increase growth of cases. And again, it seems clear that they are referring to total case count. The paper should not be used to promote reduced case growth. It is an economic paper, created by economist; it is not a medical pap
  9. Do you have a page reference for their claim that cases will rise. Here is direct quote from the 64 page paper "We document that state mask mandates during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic reduced case growth ..." It just seems irresponsible to promote "reduced case growth" when there has been increases for 3 months. With total case having increased over the past 3 months, it sure appears disingenious to claim "reduced case growth". A claim of "reduced case growth" is incapatible with "well cases will increase."
  10. Ok. Just for reference, I quoted your response to Juliann Key Point # 1 "Covid 19 casess decrease after the implenetation of a mask requirement." That is claim that cases of covid 19 decrease following the implementation of a mask mandate. If it does not refer to total case what other explanation could there be? The infection data from September to today shows daily rise in cases in almost every State. If Key Point 1 was correct as to current status of infection cases, there would not be a 3 month long daily increase in almost every Stat
  11. The study claims decrease but september through todays data shows increases. Data from September to present shows increases in cases in nearly every State, including States with State wide mask mandates. On one of the researchers website, is map of the US with each showing a graph of cases, the graph line in most of the States (to include mask madate States) go up almost vertical or seemingly upward trend. graph is from http://nathanseegert.com/corona.
  12. So I ask this question on this forum as I have learned much from the vast collective knowledge. So the question goes to fallacies, and a particular situation that I cannot seem to identify. The situation is essentially "If x had been different, then y would not have occurred" An example I can think of is "If I had left for work 5 minutes earlier, I would not have gotten in the wreck"; is this type of statement valid or is it some sort of fallacy based statement?
  13. Status quo isn't a basis necessarily a basis for current situations; time and time again the Courts have gone against status quo.
  14. Except prohibitions against religious gatherings are an infringement. Now, many of us may like Church at home and sacrament at home, and are therefore not concerned about government actions, that does not change that religious liberties are being infringed....it just that many people do not care.
  15. I question whether this should be used to promote "being crammed like sardines in a tin can with 301 to 368 others is safe if people are infected with covid19 and everyone wears a mask 100% of the time" (we know people wont wear a mask 100% of the time - snacks, drinks, mask below their nose, temporary removal for adjustment.) The study itself presents the shortcomings, so I think that was good of the researchers to acknowledge that it was calculated with 1 person infected and the air flow does not represent the airflow on a full flight. And to my understanding the study ONLY was about
  • Create New...