normm

sdw2001 said:

georgie01 said:

seanj said:

sdw2001 said:

I can't put this any more diplomatically:  I call bullsh*t.  

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections.  What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive.  Was that helpful?  Possibly.  How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive?  How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk."   There are so many factors and questions here.  What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more?  What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial.  Common sense would dictate that it is.  But that's not evidence.   

Unbelievable.

Random bloke on internet thinks he knows more than the researchers at Oxford University and the Alan Turing Institute. I know who I’d place my money on being right 

While what you say seems correct in theory, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who is able to think for themselves that there has been very little public expression of science regarding the coronavirus. Debate is an essential part of science, but despite that there is much conflicting information surrounding the ‘accepted’ perspective (and no concrete information supporting it), nearly all public debate is silenced. Silencing debate is not science.

The reason most debate is silenced is because managing the population is considered more important than being truthful. So we receive a narrative, not science, which we’re told is science in order to make us obedient. But in reality it’s just the latest ‘thing’ to keep us as pacified as possible.

As a result there’s plenty of reason to question any study by any group that conveniently aligns with the narrative. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist who can think for myself.

This. All of this.  Scientific debate has been squashed on coronavirus.  We have medical professionals being banned for YouTube from discussing possible treatments.  We have those who question lockdowns and masking (based on the data) being silenced and ostracized.  This thing has been political since the start, and I don't just mean domestic U.S. politics.  As you said, it's about control.  The virus is very real and represents a serious threat.  But our response has overall not been based on science.  There are countless examples, starting with the fact that the concepts of "lockdown" and "social distancing" do not appear in medical literature for infectious diseases.  And masking?  There is very little data to show that universal masking has reduced transmission. Here again though...I can't make that statement without it being turned into a giant straw man, or me being labeled some kind of anti-maskhole.  Notice what I did not say:  I didn't claim "masks don't work."  Or that I don't wear one.  The point is we can't even debate and discuss the data, which is a real problem.