If the video authors don’t know, perhaps they too are sharing misleading information at 50%. Using your own logic, and by extension, you also may be sharing misleading videos.
The author’s calculator at 10% effectiveness on exhale and inhale results in a disease transmission drop of 9.8%. Why is 10% any less arbitrary than 50%?
Again, it’s an assumption until better information becomes available, if it ever becomes available. Preliminary assumptions are often necessary in science for complex, real-world systems like this, which depend on numerous interacting factors as stated above in addition to other things like distancing, hand washing, etc.
Your focus on knowing the exact number here, with the implication that no models/videos should be made and no information should be shared until this number can be precisely stated, which will probably never happen, is baffling. All that’s available here is estimates, so the authors used an estimate.
The inherent ambiguity of estimates in science, when they’re properly used and pointed out as estimates, is in a completely different league to deliberately presenting misleading information like in your original video. Why are you so insistent on precision here, but willing to let the completely misleading statements pass by without skepticism?
I’m not insistent on precision. I’m questioning the validity of the video’s assumptions. The video was produced by what appear to be non-scientists, using questionable assumptions and referencing non peer-reviewed articles. Hardly something anyone should put a lot of faith in.
OAN states there is no longer a pandemic, which seems to hold true. The ratio of case numbers to deaths should be enough proof that this is indeed the case, especially in Europe. The pandemic has passed, it’s the weakest pandemic in the past century. Official WHO numbers show it was slightly worse than a bad flu season.
The median age of COVID-19 death is in the 80s in many countries. In VIC Australia the median age of death for COVID-19 is 83, in the average age of death is 82.5 in Australia (link).
Yes it bloody well is. Stop being so contrary.
and for a reference, search PubMed. Why do we always have to do your hard work for you?
My dead-horse-flogging stick is indeed almost worn out for today, but you’re either intentionally lying here to deflect the discussion or just throwing out ignorant guesses to see what sticks. What’s your definition of a “non-scientist”?
The guy who produced the website and model seems to be someone called Aatish Bhatia, who according to his homepage is a scientist, physicist, and science educator, with a PhD in physics. The Minute Physics YouTube channel seems to be run by a guy called Henry Reich, a science educator who apparently has a BA in math and physics and an MS in theoretical physics. There are links to preprints of academic articles on the website. It took me about 2 mins to find that information, from the info under the video.
These count as “scientists” to me. On what basis do you think they should be considered “non-scientists”, and what are your qualifications/experience to be able to adequately judge that? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m operating on the assumption that your scientific knowledge/experience is a bit limited, judging from what you’ve been posting.
There are probably different definitions of a pandemic. The dictionary definition from Google is “prevalent over a whole country or the world”, which seems to still apply. “OAN states” doesn’t really mean anything here, I’m afraid.
counter-argument on what? You want to understand the scientific bases of wearing masks, and for me, it seems rational explanations are already given by @Andrew. @olm may have nothing to add except for the meme.
What relationship does physics and math have with epidemiology?
I don’t expect it does, and I’m sure you are. But many of the doctors’ arguments are still valid.
Andrew already explained the video is to make people understand the concept of wearing masks, and very simplified. It is explained in the video and you can try different numbers by yourself. What part of it is not rational?
Physics and math are very important for epidemiology. Off the top of my head:
Math: networks, statistics, probability
Physics: fluid dynamics, particle dynamics, biophysical properties of viruses
We covered the doctors’ arguments above - do we really need to go back to the beginning again? The part where I said you were talking shit and you said it was the video - now it seems to be you, as well. Which of the doctors’, if we can call them that, arguments, if we can call them that, do you consider valid, specifically?
Are you gonna answer the rest, especially about your own scientific experience/credentials, or was that it?
it is about mask wearing, so maybe
statistics, fluid mechanics, etc.?
The part where the arbitrary 50% effectiveness of disease transmission is used. It doesn’t even seem like a valid estimate based on anything substantive. What if masks are only 15% effective at preventing disease transmission, then there’s really no practical benefit to wearing them, and it may even be counterproductive when all the negative impacts are considered.
Yes, I can play with their numbers. It’s cute but not convincing.
Yeah, I don’t think so. That’s really stretching it.
You glossed over them with some sarcastic and snide remarks.
please explain more.
15% effective at preventing disease transmission means it reduces disease transmission to 85%?
If you use 3 measures with 15% effectiveness, it reduces disease transmission to 60%.
It really isn’t. These factors are crucial is assessing how masks work, whether you understand enough to realize that or not. Even from one of the links you posted above, as I pointed out above, the average filtration rate was 52.5%.
But again, you’re somehow able to endlessly criticize the validity of some estimated value, but repeat stuff like “OAN states” without question. What would it actually take to convince you? I suspect there’s nothing?
I’ve been giving detailed remarks on one particular part of them over the last several hours. Some of the comments you posted don’t warrant anything more than a laugh, and I don’t want to repeat this for each one, especially when you seem to be trying to deliberately mislead.
Speaking of snide remarks and glossing over stuff, if we’re going to continue with this, could you please properly answer the other points I made?
I understand what your saying. And those guys are obviously intelligent. However they study different disciplines that don’t have a huge overlap with epidemiology.
Does a 52.5% filtration rate mean a 50% reduction in disease transmission? Source?
Specifically which points?
scientists always simplify complex conditions to understand concepts. Unrealistically simplified conditions still useful to understand concepts.
They categorically do. Covered above. If you can’t understand that, it’s fine, but these fields are crucial in epidemiology.
I suspect you’re being disingenuous, again. The filtration rate, not the disease transmission, is essentially what’s being estimated in the video as 50% for the “mask effectiveness”, as I’m sure you’re aware. (If you’re not aware, you didn’t properly understand the video.)
In particular, your scientific experience/credentials. The ones that make you qualified to judge that the people who made the video are “non-scientists” and determine that their model isn’t reliable. Please note here that a YouTube subscription to OAN doesn’t count.