Masks in the Mountains

Colorado peak questions, condition requests and other info.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
    For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Locked

Will you wear a mask on your next 14er ascent?

Yes. I will wear 2 masks until told otherwise.
3
2%
Yes. My mask shows that I care for your health.
13
8%
Yes. I don't know up from down, but it is important to signal virtue.
3
2%
Maybe, depends on what the person in front of me is doing.
14
8%
No. My face is too pretty to hide.
12
7%
No. The mask thing is so 2020.
6
3%
No. I read the science and masks outside are absurd.
111
64%
No. I voted for Trump and I don't think he would approve.
11
6%
 
Total votes: 173
User avatar
rijaca
Posts: 3387
Joined: 7/8/2006
14ers: 58  4 
13ers: 244 1 2
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by rijaca »

crossfitter wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:16 pm As an ex academic, I can attest that academia is full of people who are shockingly less intellectually developed than the plebs of society would like to believe.
In the real world, I did spend some time studying the efficiencies of respirators at a uranium processing facility.
"A couple more shots of whiskey,
the women 'round here start looking good"
User avatar
crossfitter
Posts: 902
Joined: 7/7/2009
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by crossfitter »

rijaca wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:24 pm
crossfitter wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:16 pm As an ex academic, I can attest that academia is full of people who are shockingly less intellectually developed than the plebs of society would like to believe.
In the real world, I did spend some time studying the efficiencies of respirators at a uranium processing facility.
I'm going to go out on a wild limb and speculate that you didn't suggest they were good to go with a surgical mask or a buff, did you?
- A mountain is not a checkbox to be ticked
- Alpinism and mountaineering are not restricted to 14,000 foot mountains
- Judgment and experience are the two most important pieces of gear you own
- Being honest to yourself and others about your abilities is a characteristic of experienced climbers
- Courage cannot be bought at REI or carried with you in your rucksack

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 2390
Joined: 6/14/2010
Trip Reports (9)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by Dave B »

crossfitter wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:16 pm
Notice the specific language that these authors use: "is likely" "may not". These are weasel words used to arrive at a conclusion that was never actually tested or measured by the paper. The only thing this paper actually shows is that there are [much] fewer water droplets transmitted on inhalation through an N95 style mask than a cloth mask. There isn't even a control group to compare the homemade masks to baseline. It doesn't say anything about the actual transmissibility of droplets vs aerosols or what the exposure threshold is. Attempting to abstract these results to impacts on infectivity is pure speculation and abstraction, and outside the bounds of this study.

If you have ever spent any time reading academic literature, you will often notice a trend that the conclusions of the author do not follow from the methodology and data that they provide. You can only realize this by applying your own critical analysis to the paper, and not simply parroting what the author concludes absent of your own thoughts and critiques. As an ex academic, I can attest that academia is full of people who are shockingly less intellectually developed than the plebs of society would like to believe.
You're an ex academic and you don't understand why scientific papers are written in ways that avoid making definitive statements?

Either you were a s**t academic, or you didn't pay attention in stats... or at all during your training. Hypothesis testing returns probabilities that support or refute a hypotheses, not binary conclusions. Any scientific paper that doesn't use those "weasel words" gets rejected during review for drawing conclusions the data and analyses don't support, because they are literally incapable of it.

For all of the self-back-patting you do, you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
Make wilderness less accessible.
User avatar
crossfitter
Posts: 902
Joined: 7/7/2009
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by crossfitter »

Dave B wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:37 pm
You're an ex academic and you don't understand why scientific papers are written in ways that avoid making definitive statements?

Either you were a s**t academic, or you didn't pay attention in stats... or at all during your training. Hypothesis testing returns probabilities that support or refute a hypotheses, not binary conclusions. Any scientific paper that doesn't use those "weasel words" gets rejected during review for drawing conclusions the data and analyses don't support, because they are literally incapable of it.

For all of the self-back-patting you do, you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
Notice that whenever we have these threads, I post arguments and you attack me personally. Says a lot about which of us has the better argument. Especially when you consider what happened in this thread the one and only time you attempted to submit an argument that wasn't an ad-hominem attack. Do better, Dr. ScienceGodKing.

Speaking of hypothesis, check out mask compliance vs cases in the united states. I bet you that 3 months from now, cases are going to be lower. If masks are so important and seasonality doesn't matter, surely you'd be willing to take the counter hypothesis. Care to bet on it?

Image
- A mountain is not a checkbox to be ticked
- Alpinism and mountaineering are not restricted to 14,000 foot mountains
- Judgment and experience are the two most important pieces of gear you own
- Being honest to yourself and others about your abilities is a characteristic of experienced climbers
- Courage cannot be bought at REI or carried with you in your rucksack

User avatar
mtnkub
Posts: 415
Joined: 8/7/2009
14ers: 58  1  7 
13ers: 116 4 4
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by mtnkub »

crossfitter wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:43 pm Speaking of hypothesis, check out mask compliance vs cases in the united states. I bet you that 3 months from now, cases are going to be lower. If masks are so important and seasonality doesn't matter, surely you'd be willing to take the counter hypothesis. Care to bet on it?
If this was the way I proposed to test my hypotheses, I would be an ex-academic too.
Last edited by mtnkub on Tue May 11, 2021 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 2390
Joined: 6/14/2010
Trip Reports (9)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by Dave B »

crossfitter wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:43 pm
Dave B wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:37 pm
You're an ex academic and you don't understand why scientific papers are written in ways that avoid making definitive statements?

Either you were a s**t academic, or you didn't pay attention in stats... or at all during your training. Hypothesis testing returns probabilities that support or refute a hypotheses, not binary conclusions. Any scientific paper that doesn't use those "weasel words" gets rejected during review for drawing conclusions the data and analyses don't support, because they are literally incapable of it.

For all of the self-back-patting you do, you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
Notice that whenever we have these threads, I post arguments and you attack me personally. Says a lot about which of us has the better argument. Especially when you consider what happened in this thread the one and only time you attempted to submit an argument that wasn't an ad-hominem attack. Do better, Dr. ScienceGodKing.

Speaking of hypothesis, check out mask compliance vs cases in the united states. I bet you that 3 months from now, cases are going to be lower. If masks are so important and seasonality doesn't matter, surely you'd be willing to take the counter hypothesis. Care to bet on it?
Sorry, can't help myself, your special brand of obnoxious arrogance grates my nerves, especially when you grandstand like you know what you're talking about but clearly don't. It's a pet-peeve of mine.

I'm not going to respond to anymore of your libertarian blog graphs. If you can pull together data from the US or the globe, defend an unbiased sampling strategy, control for confounding factors (population age, health, access to health care, existing healthcare infrastructure, testing, contact-tracing, cultural norms, mask compliance, etc) and show a clear difference in areas that were heavily mask mandated versus those that weren't, I'll happily concede that you're right.

I'm pretty good with statistics and population modeling, so let me know if you need any help with getting the models setup.
Last edited by Dave B on Tue May 11, 2021 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Make wilderness less accessible.
User avatar
Somewhat of a Prick
Posts: 745
Joined: 8/4/2012
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 84
Trip Reports (17)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by Somewhat of a Prick »

Raw data put on a timeline is libertarian. lol
User avatar
crossfitter
Posts: 902
Joined: 7/7/2009
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by crossfitter »

Dave B wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:53 pm Please provide a peer reviewed population and healthcare access controlled study to make your point. Also, here's a doll with a spritz bottle, masks work. The end.
If you want to complain about obnoxious arrogance, you really ought to look in a mirror. You're always the first one to make things personal and act like you are the sole science god on this forum.

Can you provide anything remotely close to what you are demanding from me? By all means, demonstrate where I am wrong. Telling me that I am wrong and stupid because I won't parrot the party line, while contributing no independent thought of your own isn't gonna cut it.

I notice that you declined to take my bet. Guessing that means you aren't nearly as confident in your hypothesis as you act.
Last edited by crossfitter on Tue May 11, 2021 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- A mountain is not a checkbox to be ticked
- Alpinism and mountaineering are not restricted to 14,000 foot mountains
- Judgment and experience are the two most important pieces of gear you own
- Being honest to yourself and others about your abilities is a characteristic of experienced climbers
- Courage cannot be bought at REI or carried with you in your rucksack

User avatar
mtnkub
Posts: 415
Joined: 8/7/2009
14ers: 58  1  7 
13ers: 116 4 4
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by mtnkub »

crossfitter wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:43 pm Notice that whenever we have these threads, I post arguments and you attack me personally. Says a lot about which of us has the better argument. Especially when you consider what happened in this thread the one and only time you attempted to submit an argument that wasn't an ad-hominem attack. Do better, Dr. ScienceGodKing.
There once was a time when Dave B and a few others patiently pointed out specific errors and fallacies in your interpretation of data. Instead of attempting to refute these points, you instead came up with new mislead/misleading graphs. Throw enough bullsh*t at a wall, and some will stick. But it will still be bullsh*t.
User avatar
crossfitter
Posts: 902
Joined: 7/7/2009
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by crossfitter »

mtnkub wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 2:04 pm There once was a time when Dave B and a few others patiently pointed out specific errors and fallacies in your interpretation of data. Instead of attempting to refute these points, you instead came up with new mislead/misleading graphs. Throw enough bullsh*t at a wall, and some will stick. But it will still be bullsh*t.
No, what happened is that I inferred these trends early on and posted that and got smited by the branch covidians for heresy. Now a year later, I have a complete data set to beat you over the head with, and you all cry foul because you can't stand to admit that you have been wrong this entire time. You'd think a year into this you guys would have something to prove your point, but you are still clinging to studies with a doll and a spritz bottle, while hanging onto every world that Dr. Fauci says. You know, the same guy that is fully vaccinated and double masks in a room with other fully vaccinated people, because Science.
Last edited by crossfitter on Tue May 11, 2021 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- A mountain is not a checkbox to be ticked
- Alpinism and mountaineering are not restricted to 14,000 foot mountains
- Judgment and experience are the two most important pieces of gear you own
- Being honest to yourself and others about your abilities is a characteristic of experienced climbers
- Courage cannot be bought at REI or carried with you in your rucksack

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 2390
Joined: 6/14/2010
Trip Reports (9)
 

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by Dave B »

crossfitter wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 pm
Dave B wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:53 pm Please provide a peer reviewed population and healthcare access controlled study to make your point. Also, here's a doll with a spritz bottle, masks work. The end.
If you want to complain about obnoxious arrogance, you really ought to look in a mirror. You're always the first one to make things personal and act like you are the sole science god on this forum.

Can you provide anything remotely close to what you are demanding from me? By all means, demonstrate where I am wrong. Telling me that I am wrong and stupid because I won't parrot the party line, while contributing no independent thought of your own isn't gonna cut it.

I notice that you declined to take my bet. Guessing that means you aren't nearly as confident in your hypothesis as you act.
You're god dammed right I'm arrogant, at least I know what I'm talking about.

And, your bet was stupid and impossible to interpret. If you can reframe it in a logical fashion that is falsifiable I'll reconsider.
Last edited by Dave B on Tue May 11, 2021 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Make wilderness less accessible.
User avatar
justiner
Posts: 4397
Joined: 8/28/2010
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 138
Trip Reports (40)
 
Contact:

Re: Masks in the Mountains

Post by justiner »

Find this on a person's profile, click it, confirm, and move on. Life is too short for pointless internet arguments.
block_list.gif
block_list.gif (7.88 KiB) Viewed 1888 times
Locked