XFool wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:XFool wrote:Or to put it simply (as I have previously): "No controlled population here".
Who said anything about a controlled population?
You seem to have strange ideas about what makes a control group: something that can exist in a laboratory, but not in a population. Trouble there is, laboratory studies are often at odds with population realities. Controlling your samples as you seem to expect eliminates the realities of diverse populations.
Let me see...
You originally made a prediction about rising infection rates(?) caused by wearing masks.
You then denied you'd made a prediction about rising infection rates caused by wearing masks.
Whoosh. As explained
ad nauseam.
You spoke about how Wales and England provided us with an effective control population for your prediction.
You now deny that you ever said anything about a control population.
Wrong twice over.
First: despite all the subsequent changes, it is still as I originally said
as near as we're going to get to a control population.
Second: I may have spoken of a control population, a control sample, or a controlled experiment. Your bizarre idea was a controlled population, something you won't find even in a compliant society like Singapore, let alone Blighty. The word "control" has a well-defined meaning in statistics, that is understood by scientists, and is entirely different to your "controlled population".
When are you going to deny you ever posted anything on this thread at all?
You seem intent on erecting and demolishing irrelevant strawmen (from which I infer such profound ignorance of science and statistics that you're probably unaware of it). Other posters here have had interesting things to say.
