Quote:
Originally Posted by NoWhErE
Other people in this thread have tried to explain why, but you failed to understand.
But here's a really simple synopsis:
Masks help prevent the spread. Social distancing also helps prevent the spread. Both combined are not 100% effective, but it's much better than no preventative measures at all.
In any given scenario, regardless of whatever source of stats you look at, the brief moments where you feel uncomfortable wearing a mask or social distancing are nothing compared to the effects of not doing anything to help prevent the spread. Don't believe me? Look at China and Italy. They were the first to be hit and they took heavy losses.
Fortunately, we had more time to prepare. That's why it doesn't SEEM as bad here. But it could get worse if we stop preventative measures.
|
You said I was bad at interpreting stats. I asked you to explain why.
I gave you dates for mask mandates vs case increases + incidence of other countries with high mask usage and high case spikes.
Here in your paragraph above, you are not telling me why I am bad at interpreting stats.
You are telling me that masks + social distancing works. That isn't really a counter argument. That's just you telling me what you think is true.
Then you go on to tell me about 2 hard hit
areas of countries (not countries - Wuhan + Lombardy), after telling me, "compared to the effects of not doing anything" ... I don't follow this? They did do something.
Then you said we had time to prepare and that's why we're not as bad off as those 2 hard hit areas. Well NY and NJ were hit hard and so was Quebec and it had nothing to do with being prepared or not.
And none of that explains why I am bad at interpreting stats.