ᐅ Installation of a Gas Heating System in New Construction 2023/2024

How can one methodically demonstrate that masks "do not work in reality" when they clearly do under controlled conditions?

Specifically: What defines a test group and what defines a control group?

There are peer-reviewed studies supporting the flat Earth theory as well – they now even have their own journals worldwide.

What I am asking for is probably impossible: nuanced thinking.

Because there is peer-reviewed poor science, it does not mean the opposite is true: that peer review cannot ensure quality.

Back to the point: Just because some sociological statistical analyses are contradictory, even though all are peer-reviewed, does not mean non-statistical physics must suffer from the same problem of ambiguity!

NO!

Sometimes a thought experiment helps – for the third and final time, very concretely:
If masks did not work, then in full classrooms with 30 children per room, each spaced 0.5m (1.5 feet) apart, we could expect the same infection dynamics in Case A (everyone wears masks) versus Case B (no one wears masks).
Do we know this? Not really, because the control group is missing.
Would that be a plausible assumption? No, absolutely not, because we know for certain masks are effective under controlled conditions. Why then would they not be in other real but still controlled settings like schools, nursing homes, trains, or waiting rooms?

Anyone who claims something "doesn't work in reality," despite it being proven effective under controlled conditions, MUST answer this question. Even "in reality," there are pockets of controlled conditions; these are simply part of reality.
By the way, I have not found an answer to this because this kind of high-quality contradictory evidence simply does not exist. And I have seriously looked.

So much for the alleged proof of masks' ineffectiveness.

Well, common sense already tells us that two people wearing masks exchange fewer aerosols/droplets/germs/viruses than two people without masks. I don’t need studies to confirm that, do I?

How much less, of course, is open to debate. Saying "none" is simply wrong.

It really seems difficult to understand. It’s not just about wearing the mask incorrectly (by the way, even the wrong face shape or a nose clip not pressed properly is enough), so about 90% do not wear it correctly and the mask is almost ineffective. Additionally, people wearing masks tend to keep less distance or ventilate less because they believe they are protected.

The data on this is clear. We had regions with and without mask mandates. There were no differences in infection rates or the course of illness. There are also data from Asia, Sweden, and other countries on this.

You can argue all you want, but the fact is masks were ineffective as a measure in real-world conditions.

chand1986 schrieb:

Let’s be clear: Science shows that human CO2 emissions have caused the temperature to rise rapidly in historic terms. Correct? Incorrect?

This is supported by knowledge about the properties of the CO2 molecule, direct temperature measurements, and atmospheric spectroscopy from both the ground and above (weather balloons, satellites).

Up to this point, it’s purely measurements, no models yet.

Then there is the assumption that the first law of thermodynamics will hold...

Models are used for something else: to present IF-THEN scenarios for the future—with uncertainty ranges.

Regarding dissenting opinions within the scientific community: they are not heard because they often repeat claims that were disproven decades ago.
It’s the misconception that freedom of opinion is lost in science: NO. Well-demonstrated false claims are discarded. That’s why they carry no weight—they have no supporting evidence, but plenty against them.

It’s good that you can measure that it’s getting warmer. But that still doesn’t explain why.

Recently, there was a report about the fall of the Romans. In a side note, it mentioned that it was 2 degrees warmer back then.

@Bookstar87 are you arguing against masks because you misunderstood the Cochrane review?
And again, what does that have to do with heating systems?

It makes sense that climate change deniers lose one argument against gas heating. Although I can’t understand how anyone can still deny it nowadays. What remains then is the argument about dependence on other countries?

Bookstar87 schrieb:

It really seems hard to understand. It’s not just about the effect of incorrect wearing (for example, the wrong facial shape or the straps not being tight enough), which means about 90% do not wear masks properly and the mask is almost ineffective. On top of that, people wearing masks tend to keep less distance or ventilate less because they think they are protected.

The analyses are clear on this. We had regions with and without mandates. There were no differences in infection rates or disease progression. There is also data from Asia, Sweden, and other countries on this.

You can argue all you want, but the fact is masks were useless as a measure in practice.

Regarding your post, the following should be noted:

a) There were no regions with and without mandates. Controlled environments with mask requirements in schools, hospitals, nursing homes existed nationwide. This was real and simultaneous.

b) You do not actually know what a “fact” is. Studies make clear statements that the question under investigation cannot be answered due to various factors. How do I know this? I read the studies instead of just believing the simplified (social) media version.

c) There are studies that clearly show that masks, under controlled conditions, slow infection spread. Controlled conditions were attempted in the facilities mentioned in point a). Is the success methodologically proven there? No, because a test group is missing, as mask-wearing was implemented everywhere.

-> From points a) to c), it logically follows that your statement “the fact is...” is factually incorrect. This fact is simply unknown. While it is not impossible that the statement is true, it is entirely implausible. What you are really claiming is that it makes no difference—whether someone wears a mask or not—in a room with 30 people talking, laughing, etc., and only about 0.5 meters (20 inches) apart, with regard to droplet infections.

If you suggest that and simultaneously call others “conspiracy theorists”… in my opinion, you have already strongly confined your own thinking so that it leads you nowhere.