Three Month update on Mask Use vs. Death Rates

Note how much higher mask use is in the US and in Spain (compared to Sweden) and also how the higher mask use in this small "sample of 3 nations" is associated with at least 13 times more death. Sources Mask Use: YouGov polls Death Rate: Worldometers website

thumb_up5thumb_down1chat_bubble10

More from Urukagina

Anonymity almost Triples the Evil in the World When researchers invite people to play cooperative games with cash rewards, 92% of people do the right thing and treat others as you'd expect them to want to be treated -- even under conditions of anonymity. When people can be identified after the fact, 97% of people do the right thing. This means there are 5% of us who only do the right thing when others are watching. Looked at the other way, there are 3% of us willing to do "the wrong thing" (treat others unfairly) even if we can be identified as "perps." But under anonymity, over twice as many people are willing to do "the wrong thing" to others. The condition of anonymity almost triples the amount of evil in the world. This is important because the "new normal" being pushed on us ramps up the ability to anonymously practice unfair behaviors. Not able to get your personal ideas shared? A social media "algorithm" is to blame. A nameless, faceless algorithm muzzled you. Not able to get that TV you ordered from Amazon after the Brick & Mortar stores all closed down due to COVID? It must be the computer failed to store your order. Not able to get that web channel you were trying to access? Diminished bandwidth must be to blame. Source Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game. Available: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25113502/ [see Figure 1 at bottom, where City Group was an anonymous survey and where 45% of the 132 offering 0% in Dictator Game also rejected offers below 50% in Ulimatum; but in the Lab (non-anonymous) 30% of the 59 offering 0% also rejected Ultimatum offers of < 50%]
The 3% of us who are total "A-holes" People are on a spectrum of being nice and being cruel to each other -- of being good and of being bad. Game theory research* reveals that 3% of us are RUO's (recalcitrant unprincipled opportunists) dubbed as "spiteful competitors" by the researchers. There are 8% of us who will spitefully compete with others under the condition of guaranteed anonymity (such as behind a computer keyboard), but 3% of us will continue to do it -- "recalcitrant" -- even when anonymity is not guaranteed because you have shown up, personally, to a university lab for testing. Because 3% of us are "jerks" to others, we need objective (same for all) and transparent (short and to the point) law. Only objective and transparent law can save us from being devoured by that 3% of us willing to drive everyone else's nose into the ground. This means laws should not have carve-outs (eg, taxes should not have loopholes) and no law, anywhere, should be over 1000 pages long. Carve-outs and "long laws" are the means by which they devour us. We don't "really" need law for the 97% of us who are "non-jerks" -- but we do need law in societies, as protection from that 3% of us who are not only jerks, but who don't even care if we find out that they are. -------- *Footnote: The two games involved were Dictator Game and Ultimatum Game. In Dictator, you get endowed with credits (exchangeable for actual cash at the end of the study) and you get an option to "share" some with a partner you're paired up with. In Ultimatum, the Proposer makes an offer of a split of the endowed money (eg., a common offer they give you is that: they get 60% of the money, and you get 40%). The Responder in Ultimatum isn't just a passive recipient of free money, but can actually reject offers -- which calls the whole deal off (even the Proposer loses all money during that round). If you reject offers of less than 50% of the pie, there are 2 key reasons: 1) you're super-concerned with principles of fairness and equity 2) you're simply unwilling to take less than half (unwilling to have anyone else doing any better than you in life) Simultaneous behavior in the Dictator Game reveals which motive you had. If you stiff someone in the Dictator Game (ie, share absolutely nothing from your windfall endowment), then you are not someone who is "super-concerned with principles of fairness and equity." Instead, you are an unprincipled opportunist (spiteful competitor), seeking advantage over others at all conceivable costs, even if it makes everyone poor in the process (even if it destroys existing wealth). -------- Source Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game. Available: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25113502/ [see Figure 1 at bottom, where the City group at left was an anonymous survey and where 45% of the 132 offering 0% in Dictator Game also rejected offers below 50% in Ulimatum; but in the Lab group at right (non-anonymous) 30% of the 59 offering 0% also rejected Ultimatum offers of < 50% -- for the greedy, getting ahead is more important than being a jerk, but for these 18 (3%) out of every 639 people, being a jerk is more important than even getting ahead in life]

More from Urukagina

Anonymity almost Triples the Evil in the World When researchers invite people to play cooperative games with cash rewards, 92% of people do the right thing and treat others as you'd expect them to want to be treated -- even under conditions of anonymity. When people can be identified after the fact, 97% of people do the right thing. This means there are 5% of us who only do the right thing when others are watching. Looked at the other way, there are 3% of us willing to do "the wrong thing" (treat others unfairly) even if we can be identified as "perps." But under anonymity, over twice as many people are willing to do "the wrong thing" to others. The condition of anonymity almost triples the amount of evil in the world. This is important because the "new normal" being pushed on us ramps up the ability to anonymously practice unfair behaviors. Not able to get your personal ideas shared? A social media "algorithm" is to blame. A nameless, faceless algorithm muzzled you. Not able to get that TV you ordered from Amazon after the Brick & Mortar stores all closed down due to COVID? It must be the computer failed to store your order. Not able to get that web channel you were trying to access? Diminished bandwidth must be to blame. Source Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game. Available: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25113502/ [see Figure 1 at bottom, where City Group was an anonymous survey and where 45% of the 132 offering 0% in Dictator Game also rejected offers below 50% in Ulimatum; but in the Lab (non-anonymous) 30% of the 59 offering 0% also rejected Ultimatum offers of < 50%]
The 3% of us who are total "A-holes" People are on a spectrum of being nice and being cruel to each other -- of being good and of being bad. Game theory research* reveals that 3% of us are RUO's (recalcitrant unprincipled opportunists) dubbed as "spiteful competitors" by the researchers. There are 8% of us who will spitefully compete with others under the condition of guaranteed anonymity (such as behind a computer keyboard), but 3% of us will continue to do it -- "recalcitrant" -- even when anonymity is not guaranteed because you have shown up, personally, to a university lab for testing. Because 3% of us are "jerks" to others, we need objective (same for all) and transparent (short and to the point) law. Only objective and transparent law can save us from being devoured by that 3% of us willing to drive everyone else's nose into the ground. This means laws should not have carve-outs (eg, taxes should not have loopholes) and no law, anywhere, should be over 1000 pages long. Carve-outs and "long laws" are the means by which they devour us. We don't "really" need law for the 97% of us who are "non-jerks" -- but we do need law in societies, as protection from that 3% of us who are not only jerks, but who don't even care if we find out that they are. -------- *Footnote: The two games involved were Dictator Game and Ultimatum Game. In Dictator, you get endowed with credits (exchangeable for actual cash at the end of the study) and you get an option to "share" some with a partner you're paired up with. In Ultimatum, the Proposer makes an offer of a split of the endowed money (eg., a common offer they give you is that: they get 60% of the money, and you get 40%). The Responder in Ultimatum isn't just a passive recipient of free money, but can actually reject offers -- which calls the whole deal off (even the Proposer loses all money during that round). If you reject offers of less than 50% of the pie, there are 2 key reasons: 1) you're super-concerned with principles of fairness and equity 2) you're simply unwilling to take less than half (unwilling to have anyone else doing any better than you in life) Simultaneous behavior in the Dictator Game reveals which motive you had. If you stiff someone in the Dictator Game (ie, share absolutely nothing from your windfall endowment), then you are not someone who is "super-concerned with principles of fairness and equity." Instead, you are an unprincipled opportunist (spiteful competitor), seeking advantage over others at all conceivable costs, even if it makes everyone poor in the process (even if it destroys existing wealth). -------- Source Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game. Available: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25113502/ [see Figure 1 at bottom, where the City group at left was an anonymous survey and where 45% of the 132 offering 0% in Dictator Game also rejected offers below 50% in Ulimatum; but in the Lab group at right (non-anonymous) 30% of the 59 offering 0% also rejected Ultimatum offers of < 50% -- for the greedy, getting ahead is more important than being a jerk, but for these 18 (3%) out of every 639 people, being a jerk is more important than even getting ahead in life]