Confidence intervals measure correlation, not causation.
I know. You take it on faith.
I know. It assumes causation.
Sure, but thatās not the point, so you donāt get it.
I would have said āincompleteā.
I get that you are against science because you donāt like the results of a couple of mask studies.
I see faith as what people use when they donāt have evidence.
It is important to remember that statistical analysis can be very subjective in the choice of sample data to use for analysis. As Iāve stated in the past I can, and have, used statistical data tell any story I choose to tell.
1 Like
Of course you do. Easy enough when you turn a blind eye to the evidence.
1 Like
Not all evidence is equal.
What does that even mean?? 
The results do not confirm my bias therefore the process is junk and its being done wrong
1 Like
Are you suggesting that only CONs select analysis from like-minded sources?
Not at all
Faith?
Weak evidence versus strong evidence.
Who gets to decide what is weak analysis versus strong analysis?
Wouldnāt it make sense that LIBs would find evidence from like-minded CONs sources to be weak and vice versa?
So then you agree both CONs and LIBs select analysis from like-minded sources.?
I tend towards the folks who took blood oxygen levels of people with and without masks and found NO DIFFERENCE.
Well clearly there is some subjectivity but one would hope that some level of science is brought to bear on that evaluation.
Faith
