The graph of Texas infections shows the curve is descending very slowly.
OTOH with Vermont, which has far more vaccinations than Texas, the curve is descending rapidly.
Texas Covid cases going down after relaxing mask law coupled with multiple factors
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
OTOH with Vermont, which has far more vaccinations than Texas, the curve is descending rapidly.
Still living rent free inside their heads. Its hilarious
Some buttons are just too easy to push. And I love the predictability of the auto-responses.
Why are you guys so sensitive? Why does it bother you so much whenever trump is mentioned? Learn to just let it go.
BTW, it is a perfect analogy to Phil's fantasy of winning the debate.
Reason has an interesting piece on this.
I would want to dig into the original study of course.
reason.com
The core of the argument is that people didn't change their behavior much after the opening.
I would want to dig into the original study of course.
A New Study Confirms That Reopening Texas '100 Percent' Had No Discernible Impact on COVID-19 Cases or Deaths
After Texas became the first state to eliminate both its face mask mandate and its business occupancy limits in early March, President Joe Biden said the
reason.com
The core of the argument is that people didn't change their behavior much after the opening.
That article is not good news for Dr Phil Nastys theories in this thread.
"Dave et al. suggest several possible reasons why the Texas reopening did not have the impact that its opponents anticipated. First, increasing vaccination (a trend that Abbott's critics surely were aware of) "may have mitigated the contagion effects of interactions" between members of different households. Second, "it may be that there was limited compliance with and enforcement of mask mandates or capacity constraint requirements prior to the March 10 reopening." Third, removing occupancy limits, which were previously 75 percent of capacity for most businesses and 50 percent for bars and professional sports, may have been too minor a change to "affect net population-based social mobility and statewide spread of COVID-19."
"Finally, the authors say, "it may be that the types of individuals who were affected by the policy" were "those least likely to affect the trajectory of COVID-19 growth." Or perhaps "any increase in social mobility or COVID-19 caused by such individuals was offset by others in the community who engaged in risk avoiding behaviors in response to the reopening."
"It should have been clear when Abbott announced the reopening on March 2 that the changes he planned were unlikely to have much of a direct impact on virus transmission. While he said face masks would no longer be legally required, he urged Texans to continue wearing them in public, and businesses remained free to require them. In Dallas (which may or may not be representative of the state as a whole in this respect), I have not observed any change in business mask policies or customer compliance. And it seemed implausible that removing the 75 percent occupancy cap (the one that applied to most businesses) would have a medically significant effect even in businesses that were frequently butting up against that limit."
reason.com
"Dave et al. suggest several possible reasons why the Texas reopening did not have the impact that its opponents anticipated. First, increasing vaccination (a trend that Abbott's critics surely were aware of) "may have mitigated the contagion effects of interactions" between members of different households. Second, "it may be that there was limited compliance with and enforcement of mask mandates or capacity constraint requirements prior to the March 10 reopening." Third, removing occupancy limits, which were previously 75 percent of capacity for most businesses and 50 percent for bars and professional sports, may have been too minor a change to "affect net population-based social mobility and statewide spread of COVID-19."
"Finally, the authors say, "it may be that the types of individuals who were affected by the policy" were "those least likely to affect the trajectory of COVID-19 growth." Or perhaps "any increase in social mobility or COVID-19 caused by such individuals was offset by others in the community who engaged in risk avoiding behaviors in response to the reopening."
"It should have been clear when Abbott announced the reopening on March 2 that the changes he planned were unlikely to have much of a direct impact on virus transmission. While he said face masks would no longer be legally required, he urged Texans to continue wearing them in public, and businesses remained free to require them. In Dallas (which may or may not be representative of the state as a whole in this respect), I have not observed any change in business mask policies or customer compliance. And it seemed implausible that removing the 75 percent occupancy cap (the one that applied to most businesses) would have a medically significant effect even in businesses that were frequently butting up against that limit."
A New Study Confirms That Reopening Texas '100 Percent' Had No Discernible Impact on COVID-19 Cases or Deaths
After Texas became the first state to eliminate both its face mask mandate and its business occupancy limits in early March, President Joe Biden said the
reason.com
So you admit you are just trolling then.
Well now we're getting somewhere. Admittance is halfway to recovery as they say.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a hard one to kick but I'm optimistic you can get there.
"In early march, Texas became the first state to abolish its mask mandate and lift capacity constraints for all businesses.
"... Nine weeks later, the result seems to be less than catastrophic. In fact, in a new paper, economists at Bentley University and San Diego State University found that Abbott’s order had practically no effect on COVID-19 cases.
[One] "...possibility is that Abbott’s decision didn’t matter very much because other factors—such as weather, accelerating vaccinations, and a bit of luck—mattered more at the time. The coronavirus seems to spread less efficiently in hot and humid environments, which could partly explain why states such as Texas and Florida have managed to avoid higher-than-average COVID-19 deaths, despite their governors’ famous aversion to restrictions. Add this to the pace of vaccinations in March, and it’s possible that Abbott just got lucky, by lifting restrictions at a time when cases were destined to decline, no matter what.
"Yet another explanation is that Abbott’s decision didn’t matter because nobody changed their behavior. According to the aforementioned Texas paper, Abbot’s decision had no effect on employment, movement throughout the state, or foot traffic to retailers. It had no effect in either liberal or conservative counties, nor in urban or exurban areas. The pro-maskers kept their masks on their faces. The anti-maskers kept their masks in the garbage. And many essential workers, who never felt like they had a choice to begin with, continued their pre-announcement habits.The governor might as well have shouted into a void.
"Across the country, in fact, people’s pandemic behavior appears to be disconnected from local policy, which complicates any effort to know which COVID-19 policies actually work.
"... Decrees from the federal government may not affect Americans any more than local rules do. In a recent announcement, the CDC reversed its guidance for vaccinated individuals in a manner so dramatic that it struck some as the V-E Day of the pandemic. But survey results from The Economist and YouGov show that the big pivot hasn’t dramatically changed people’s masking behaviors. The main drivers of mask wearing have been ideology, partisanship, and vaccination status—which is itself highly, if imperfectly, correlated with ideology. Most people aren’t waiting on the CDC.
" Governors don’t reopen or close economies. The CDC doesn’t put masks on or take them off citizens’ faces. A small number of elites don’t decide when everyone else feels safe enough to shop, eat inside, or get on a plane. People seem to make these decisions for themselves, based on some combination of local norms, political orientation, and personal risk tolerance that resists quick reversals, no matter what public health elites say.
www.theatlantic.com
"... Nine weeks later, the result seems to be less than catastrophic. In fact, in a new paper, economists at Bentley University and San Diego State University found that Abbott’s order had practically no effect on COVID-19 cases.
[One] "...possibility is that Abbott’s decision didn’t matter very much because other factors—such as weather, accelerating vaccinations, and a bit of luck—mattered more at the time. The coronavirus seems to spread less efficiently in hot and humid environments, which could partly explain why states such as Texas and Florida have managed to avoid higher-than-average COVID-19 deaths, despite their governors’ famous aversion to restrictions. Add this to the pace of vaccinations in March, and it’s possible that Abbott just got lucky, by lifting restrictions at a time when cases were destined to decline, no matter what.
"Yet another explanation is that Abbott’s decision didn’t matter because nobody changed their behavior. According to the aforementioned Texas paper, Abbot’s decision had no effect on employment, movement throughout the state, or foot traffic to retailers. It had no effect in either liberal or conservative counties, nor in urban or exurban areas. The pro-maskers kept their masks on their faces. The anti-maskers kept their masks in the garbage. And many essential workers, who never felt like they had a choice to begin with, continued their pre-announcement habits.The governor might as well have shouted into a void.
"Across the country, in fact, people’s pandemic behavior appears to be disconnected from local policy, which complicates any effort to know which COVID-19 policies actually work.
"... Decrees from the federal government may not affect Americans any more than local rules do. In a recent announcement, the CDC reversed its guidance for vaccinated individuals in a manner so dramatic that it struck some as the V-E Day of the pandemic. But survey results from The Economist and YouGov show that the big pivot hasn’t dramatically changed people’s masking behaviors. The main drivers of mask wearing have been ideology, partisanship, and vaccination status—which is itself highly, if imperfectly, correlated with ideology. Most people aren’t waiting on the CDC.
" Governors don’t reopen or close economies. The CDC doesn’t put masks on or take them off citizens’ faces. A small number of elites don’t decide when everyone else feels safe enough to shop, eat inside, or get on a plane. People seem to make these decisions for themselves, based on some combination of local norms, political orientation, and personal risk tolerance that resists quick reversals, no matter what public health elites say.
The Texas Mask Mystery
When the governor lifted the state’s mandate, liberals predicted disaster. But it never came. Why?
www.theatlantic.com
Not really. It was not an attempt at trolling. As I'd said, it was an analogy (and an apt one) comparing Phil's fantasy of winning the mask debate with trump's fantasy that he won the election.
As it turned out, it got you guys all riled up without me trying.
So once again, why are you guys still so upset? I know it's hard to let go from the trump Devotee Cult Syndrome. He is no longer president and never will be again. Accept it. Free your souls.
Nice try.......But no cigar.
You are the one that keeps bringing him up. Beating the proverbial dead horse and all.
I have no problems ever mentioning him again......Let's see if the non trolling you can do the same thing.......I'm guessing not.
Prove me wrong........
You can believe me or not, but teasing Phil was the prime objective, not trolling tDSers.
I ask again, why so sensitive? Why do you have to respond every time trump's name come up? It's like you can't lose your devotion to him and have to stand up to and attack every perceived slight? It's almost what somebody in a cult would do?
Of course you wouldn't want to ever mention him again. You followed a failed, flawed, loser, liar who has been exposed to the world as such. I wouldn't mention him either if I were you. It'd be a bit embarrassing.
A better challenge would be for you to not whine and get butt hurt if I do mention his name again because there will be times that bringing his name up in certain discussions will be appropriate. Let's see if you can just let it pass. I'm guessing not.
So once again you admit your obsession. Because the reality is that he is only relevant to those who want him to be.
The rest of us rational folk moved on a long time ago......Cause that's what sane people do.
I'll let you have the last word now because I know how important that is to you.....
Except you're not really teasing me, dude. Your posts are generally boring, unfunny, tedious and repetitive.
You're actually getting dangerously close for me to put you on ignore, even though I dont really like to do that
Last edited:
Your posts suck as bad as the face you're trying to hide behind your surgical mask
Why are you so sensitive?
BTW, trump is in the news everyday. You held this loser up as some sort of saviour. Deal with it.
