Not at all. I know his mind is lost to his conviction. dropdeadfred loves misinformation arising from misreading, or misrepresentation of study data, chiefly, i guess, because that's one of the chief sources of the misinformation he parades. Reading his stuff often leads me to articles i would otherwise miss. And to fact checks which include interesting, often new, information for me. One latest below.
Importantly for you to understand is that there in none at all of your "change the hearts and minds of people who don't agree with you?" in it, for me. Except, of course, if one or two or some latch on to some factual stuff from mine they might otherwise have missed that would be a positive. Or onto a different idea. Whatever. For me though changing minds is definitely not ever a distinct objective. Anyway, enjoy:
Here’s Where The President Got His Latest Dumb Anti-Mask Talking Point
US President Donald Trump holds masks before throwing them to supporters as he arrives to hold a Make America Great Again rally as he campaigns at Orlando Sanford International Airport in Sanford, Florida, October 12... MORE
President Donald Trump on Thursday night cocked his head and spewed viral misinformation all over the American people, potentially infecting millions with a bit of anti-mask propaganda completely void of scientific substance.
On two separate occasions Thursday night, the President said that the CDC reported “that 85% of the people that wear masks catch it” — that is, catch COVID-19. He made the same claim earlier Thursday, telling a largely maskless rally crowd that “85% of the people wearing the masks catch it.”
That statistic and similar ones have gripped the COVID truther community in recent days, and, as has often been the case during this pandemic, emerged from a wildly misconstrued real report.
[Insert: Trump would pick up much of his bs from similar sources to those dropdeadfred gets his from. Either directly or indirectly. Study results are published. An anti-vaxxer misrepresents the data on facebook or twitter, wherever. It goes viral in conservative circles. Trump and or dropdeadfred jumps on to it.]
What the report really emphasized — shocker — is that people were more likely to have tested positive for COVID-19 if they 1) went out to eat or drink at a restaurant or bar, and 2) were in close contact with someone else who has COVID-19.
“Findings from a case-control investigation of symptomatic outpatients from 11 U.S. health care facilities found that close contact with persons with known COVID-19 or going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were associated with COVID-19 positivity,” the report noted.
“Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.”
The mask disinformation comes from distorting some numbers that were also included in the report. Specifically, this bit:
The column on the left represents those who tested positive for COVID, the column on the right is the control group.
There are some inherent flaws in relying on responses to small surveys like this, specifically that people feel social pressure to lie and report wearing a mask more often than they did. But even accounting for that, the data in fact show that the non-COVID control group wore masks “always” and “often” in greater numbers than COVID patients surveyed: 88.7% versus 85%.
Nonetheless, anti-maskers in recent days have used these numbers to tell a different story: 85% of the infected respondents wore masks “always” or “often,” they say — so what good are masks!
And yet, here we are: The only way to conclude from this report that mask wearing is ineffective is through a misreading of the numbers. And boy, the Internet is chock full of that.
One Facebook post on Monday .. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10224115197886612&set=a.10200959846577301&type=3 .. that was shared nearly a thousand times claimed of the report, “This means that people who wear masks, are actually ‘collecting’ the virus in their masks” and “A clear indication there is a correlation to more infected people wearing masks than those who do not.”
Facebook flagged the post as “false information,” but it was hardly the only one.
Former TV journalist Ben Swann, for example, falsely said on his platform Truth In Media .. https://ise.media/video/new-cdc-study-70-always-3-never-wore-face-masks-contracted-covid-43.html .. Tuesday that “that’s what this study seems to be showing, that those who always wear the face masks or often wear the face masks seem to be putting themselves at more of a risk for contracting a virus. The study does not explain to us why this is.”
“We know the masks don’t protect you…” said popular anti-masker Justin Hart of the report, “but at some point you have to wonder if they are PART of the problem.” --- So the CDC just reported that 70% of those who came down with #COvId19 symptoms had been wearing a mask. We know the masks don’t protect you… but at some point you have to wonder if they are PART of the problem. pic.twitter.com/jknfZBqGxC .. https://t.co/jknfZBqGxC
— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) October 11, 2020 --- Some just selectively left out the crucial context in the report: Non-COVID patients reported more mask-wearing, but more importantly, less attendance at restaurants and proximity to sick people!
“There’s a tremendous amount of conflicted data there, including one that just came from the CDC, that identifies — this is their own report — that 70-plus percent of the people who died always wore masks in public!” he said.
For all of the nonsense surrounding this report, its conclusion is simple, and the exact opposite of what Trump and others have cited it to say: “Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking, might be important risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection.” 169
Matt Shuham(@mattshuham) is a reporter in TPM’s New York office. Prior to joining TPM, he was associate editor of The National Memo and an editorial intern at Rolling Stone.
"So, you figure you're here to change the hearts and minds of people who don't agree with you? How's that going for ya? Let me know when you feel you've accomplished your goal. P - These are called discussion boards. Not seeing too much discussion these days."
There is plenty of discussion about lots of different things on the non-conservative iHub discussion boards. And some on the odd say conspiracy minded board i know of.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
