Illinois Road Videos

[paulthemapguy]

It should be worth noting that a liberal is the one who made masks political by accusing me of making that thread political. I just was adding a further bit of levity to a silly thread -- or as I said, adding clarity and context. I didn't politicize the subject in any way.

Yes, the guy whose profile image politically shits on the largest city in his state, whose signature somehow both politically shits on trans people and politically shits on anyone trying to survive coronavirus by getting vaccinated, can't possibly be the one making things political.  And as a sidenote, the need to put on a mask comes from science; the choice of whether we have the right to deny science is what makes things political.  Acceptance of reality (read: science) isn't a political issue until a sect of people splinters off and decides they aren't willing to do so.

So yes, rules are rules, until they aren't. And like in many spheres unfortunately, extended tenure and deeper roots in a community will often excuse people from facing any consequences for breaking the rules.

[hbelkins]

For your information, the image came from a T-shirt being marketed to University of Kentucky sports fans.

[thspfc]

For your information, the image came from a T-shirt being marketed to University of Kentucky sports fans.

And you've loudly announced your disdain for present-day sports . . . I don't think you put that as your PFP for sports reasons.

[abefroman329]

For your information, the image came from a T-shirt being marketed to University of Kentucky sports fans.

Sweetie, you're hearing false witness right now. On a Sunday, no less. I don't think your God is going to be very happy.

[Crash_It]

Another achievement for Illinois.

https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/best-small-town-for-adventure/

Nothing in Wisconsin or Michigan were even in the top 10!

I did a drive to this town in both 2019 and 2020 and filmed it.

https://youtu.be/5JfStEIkWZo

And here's the 2019 filming

https://youtu.be/TY8gomHWraE

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Another achievement for Illinois.

https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/best-small-town-for-adventure/

Nothing in Wisconsin or Michigan were even in the top 10!

Heh, these articles are a dime a dozen. Here's one with Traverse City, MI as #1, and Illinois nowhere to be found.

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/best-small-towns-america

Here's one with MN/WI/MI all represented, and again Illinois entries all failing to make the cut.

https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/best-small-towns-in-america

[Max Rockatansky]

What the fuck is 10best.com?  Sounds like some sort of discount Wallethub...

[TheHighwayMan3561]

What the fuck is 10best.com?  Sounds like some sort of discount Wallethub...

Maybe Crash made it himself so he could make a list to put some random Illinois city on top of?

[Flint1979]

Another achievement for Illinois.

https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/best-small-town-for-adventure/

Nothing in Wisconsin or Michigan were even in the top 10!

I did a drive to this town in both 2019 and 2020 and filmed it.

https://youtu.be/5JfStEIkWZo

And here's the 2019 filming

https://youtu.be/TY8gomHWraE

This is no achievement because you'll be hard pressed to find someone who actually cares. Once again Illinois doesn't even come close to comparing with Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota for outdoor life. You seem to comment an awful lot about a state that you admitted you have only been to a city that is less than 5 minutes from the border. So really how much of Michigan have you seen that you think you know so much about the state? A state that I travel around in frequently and have seen every corner of.

[jeffandnicole]

What the fuck is 10best.com?  Sounds like some sort of discount Wallethub...

Per the article, it is "A panel of experts", providing "users with original, unbiased and experiential travel coverage".

Who are the unbiased experts?  5 white women.  Clearly a representative sample of travelers in the US. 

Another achievement for Illinois.

https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/best-small-town-for-adventure/

Nothing in Wisconsin or Michigan were even in the top 10!

Well, if it's a 'Top 10', it stands to reason that 40 states won't be represented.

And what is Savanna, IL famous for? 

"Savanna, hugging the Mighty Mississippi and along the Bluffs of the Driftless area in Northwest Illinois, is the starting point for 60 miles of bike trails — the Great River Bike Trail — but it is also a favorite stop for motorcyclists..."

Apparently, it's claim to fame is nothing more than a meeting point for people to *leave* Savanna, and a Biker Bar called "Poopy's".   Again, to simplify this for Crash_it:  This town is important because it offers a parking lot to meet to go trail riding, and a bar, which also has a tattoo parlor.  To its credit, it also offers free tent camping.

And here's the 2019 filming

https://youtu.be/TY8gomHWraE

Can you explain, around the 6:30 mark, the tailgating that you did before you passed someone in a downtown area?  Sure, it appears you did have a passing zone, but I doubt you were doing under 30 mph.  There's a bit more tailgating just after that pass...the same tailgating you cry about in many of your other videos. 

[Max Rockatansky]

What the fuck is 10best.com?  Sounds like some sort of discount Wallethub...

Per the article, it is "A panel of experts", providing "users with original, unbiased and experiential travel coverage".

Who are the unbiased experts?  5 white women.  Clearly a representative sample of travelers in the US. 

So basically the paragons of "basic"  travel blogging.  Jackson Hole in particular was probably ever only enjoyed by middle class white women. 

[Crash_It]

What the fuck is 10best.com?  Sounds like some sort of discount Wallethub...

Per the article, it is "A panel of experts", providing "users with original, unbiased and experiential travel coverage".

Who are the unbiased experts?  5 white women.  Clearly a representative sample of travelers in the US. 

Another achievement for Illinois.

https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/best-small-town-for-adventure/

Nothing in Wisconsin or Michigan were even in the top 10!

Well, if it's a 'Top 10', it stands to reason that 40 states won't be represented.

And what is Savanna, IL famous for? 

"Savanna, hugging the Mighty Mississippi and along the Bluffs of the Driftless area in Northwest Illinois, is the starting point for 60 miles of bike trails — the Great River Bike Trail — but it is also a favorite stop for motorcyclists..."

Apparently, it's claim to fame is nothing more than a meeting point for people to *leave* Savanna, and a Biker Bar called "Poopy's".   Again, to simplify this for Crash_it:  This town is important because it offers a parking lot to meet to go trail riding, and a bar, which also has a tattoo parlor.  To its credit, it also offers free tent camping.

Oh it is much more than that, it's like a mini-Galena, you should actually visit sometime.

And here's the 2019 filming

https://youtu.be/TY8gomHWraE

Can you explain, around the 6:30 mark, the tailgating that you did before you passed someone in a downtown area?  Sure, it appears you did have a passing zone, but I doubt you were doing under 30 mph.  There's a bit more tailgating just after that pass...the same tailgating you cry about in many of your other videos.

They were drivers from Iowa that were doing half the speed limit, if that. I don't consider the distance I was following them at to be tailgating at such a slow speed. I was trying to hurry and finish the route as I was running out of daylight and the camera I had at the time was really bad at night. It's why I replaced it and had to refilm that whole video.

[kphoger]

It should be worth noting that a liberal is ...

A true liberal believes that everyone's voice should be heard, that everyone has a place at the table.  Figures.  In that sense, you may be one of the most liberal members on here, by virtue of resisting censorship and heavy moderation.

I just was adding a further bit of levity to a silly thread -- or as I said, adding clarity and context. I didn't politicize the subject in any way.

Not explicitly political, as I said, but you were basically putting a bucket of paint up on top of the door, waiting for someone to walk through it–then exclaiming, I wasn't even in the room when that happened!

And as a sidenote, the need to put on a mask comes from science; the choice of whether we have the right to deny science is what makes things political.

The scientific studies that have shown a strong correlation between masks and curbing the spread of the virus are those that were conducted in close-proximity environments:  classrooms, prisons, an aircraft carrier, etc.  The correlation is much weaker when it comes to broader, real-world environments.  For example, the largest such real-world study done that I've looked through–the one conducted among 340,000 adults in 600 villages in Bangladesh–was hailed as proof that masks prevent the spread, but the reality is that it was only an 11% difference.  Surgical masks provided slightly better numbers than that average, but non-surgical masks were only found to curb transmission by around 7%.

Of course, all these studies didn't exist yet back when mask mandates were being put into effect.  All we really had to go on were things like water droplets and petri dishes, and we used them as a proxy for the spread of the disease itself.  The two things that really prevent the spread are (1) staying away from other people and (2) vaccination.  Assuming that (1) isn't sustainable and (2) has already been achieved by those who want it, it's fitting to reduce our emphasis on a measure that really does quite little to prevent the spread of the disease–widespread mask usage.  I'd prefer that an emphasis be placed on specific types of situations:  whipping out your surgical-grade face mask when you visit a family with a newborn or an elderly person with health concerns or seeing your brother in the hospital, encouraging their continued use in classroom settings and on crowded transit, etc.–but stopping the dream that wearing a mask to Wal-Mart does any good at all.

[Rothman]

It should be worth noting that a liberal is ...

A true liberal believes that everyone's voice should be heard, that everyone has a place at the table.  Figures.  In that sense, you may be one of the most liberal members on here, by virtue of resisting censorship and heavy moderation.

I just was adding a further bit of levity to a silly thread -- or as I said, adding clarity and context. I didn't politicize the subject in any way.

Not explicitly political, as I said, but you were basically putting a bucket of paint up on top of the door, waiting for someone to walk through it–then exclaiming, I wasn't even in the room when that happened!

And as a sidenote, the need to put on a mask comes from science; the choice of whether we have the right to deny science is what makes things political.

The scientific studies that have shown a strong correlation between masks and curbing the spread of the virus are those that were conducted in close-proximity environments:  classrooms, prisons, an aircraft carrier, etc.  The correlation is much weaker when it comes to broader, real-world environments.  For example, the largest such real-world study done that I've looked through–the one conducted among 340,000 adults in 600 villages in Bangladesh–was hailed as proof that masks prevent the spread, but the reality is that it was only an 11% difference.  Surgical masks provided slightly better numbers than that average, but non-surgical masks were only found to curb transmission by around 7%.

Of course, all these studies didn't exist yet back when mask mandates were being put into effect.  All we really had to go on were things like water droplets and petri dishes, and we used them as a proxy for the spread of the disease itself.  The two things that really prevent the spread are (1) staying away from other people and (2) vaccination.  Assuming that (1) isn't sustainable and (2) has already been achieved by those who want it, it's fitting to reduce our emphasis on a measure that really does quite little to prevent the spread of the disease–widespread mask usage.  I'd prefer that an emphasis be placed on specific types of situations:  whipping out your surgical-grade face mask when you visit a family with a newborn or an elderly person with health concerns or seeing your brother in the hospital, encouraging their continued use in classroom settings and on crowded transit, etc.–but stopping the dream that wearing a mask to Wal-Mart does any good at all.

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

[kphoger]

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

Of course.  I'm just some guy on the Internet.  Take a look at the studies yourself.  The link below is straight from the CDC.  Granted, it hasn't been updated since December, but I assume it's about as definitive of a list of scientific studies as you're going to find.  Maybe there's a more up-to-date list of studies out there.  If so, please let me know, and I'd be interested to look through them.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454

The Bangladesh study I mentioned is the only one listed that was a cluster-randomized trial.  If you're looking for scientific studies that don't just rely on (1) self-reporting, (2) general trend lines without cause-and-effect certainty, or (3) very small population sizes, then the pickings are quite slim indeed.

The Bangkok study from April—May 2020 was a case-control study of more than 800 people showed strong correlation, but it was only studying known close contacts of infected individuals.  (Not the type of contact one commonly encounters while shopping for colored pencils in Wal-Mart.)

Larger-scale studies from later in 2020 tend to show declines in transmission ranging from around 25% down into the single digits.

[Max Rockatansky]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

[kphoger]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Well, it isn't a video.  He only claimed he was making a video.

But the comment is golden.

[Crash_It]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Well, it isn't a video.  He only claimed he was making a video.

But the comment is golden.

It's a video too. Premieres in 10 minutes

https://youtu.be/IMYaiKUrTjM

[kphoger]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Well, it isn't a video.  He only claimed he was making a video.

But the comment is golden.

For what it's worth, here is a view looking back toward the precipitous, mountainous, dizzyingly steep hill:  https://goo.gl/maps/EzcwPD5PfDEwW7iY9

[JayhawkCO]

We aren't going to talk about this one?

https://www.facebook.com/471696313008593/posts/pfbid0nKDcBviJTmH6JexwA74mVXARgGFzsgVoyoCcn6zt7KoCCMUUaBpguFpG4JdEqf7gl/?d=n

Well, it isn't a video.  He only claimed he was making a video.

But the comment is golden.

For what it's worth, here is a view looking back toward the precipitous, mountainous, dizzyingly steep hill:  https://goo.gl/maps/EzcwPD5PfDEwW7iY9

I was unaware the force of friction on tires would actually scale such a massif without sliding down.

[kphoger]

I was unaware the force of friction on tires would actually scale such a massif without sliding down.

I've only peeled rubber by simply driving up a hill one time–on Mountain Street, heading north from Cliff Street (and Main Street), in Eureka Springs (AR).

https://goo.gl/maps/nxP1K8BR6yTNtfAy7
https://goo.gl/maps/XiVj4L8f5TVWWvWd6

[Rothman]

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

Of course.  I'm just some guy on the Internet.  Take a look at the studies yourself.  The link below is straight from the CDC.  Granted, it hasn't been updated since December, but I assume it's about as definitive of a list of scientific studies as you're going to find.  Maybe there's a more up-to-date list of studies out there.  If so, please let me know, and I'd be interested to look through them.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454

The Bangladesh study I mentioned is the only one listed that was a cluster-randomized trial.  If you're looking for scientific studies that don't just rely on (1) self-reporting, (2) general trend lines without cause-and-effect certainty, or (3) very small population sizes, then the pickings are quite slim indeed.

The Bangkok study from April—May 2020 was a case-control study of more than 800 people showed strong correlation, but it was only studying known close contacts of infected individuals.  (Not the type of contact one commonly encounters while shopping for colored pencils in Wal-Mart.)

Larger-scale studies from later in 2020 tend to show declines in transmission ranging from around 25% down into the single digits.

It's not about cherrypicking studies, but listening to scientists that are reviewing the entire state of the art and not just Googling for what's publicly available.

CDC's mask recommendations are based on such.  That's what I follow.

[kphoger]

cherrypicking studies

Not what I've done.

It started when my best friend was insisting that anything less than an N95 mask is basically worthless against the spread of COVID, and that mask mandates have been implemented without scientific studies backing up their efficacy.  It was really starting to irritate me, but then he moved out of the country shortly after that so I calmed down.  Before that happened, he issued a challenge to show him a scientific study showing that regular old facemasks inhibit the spread of COVID–not the spread of water droplets in a controlled environment, but the spread of the actual disease in the real world.  Several months ago, because I discovered he was still prepared to die on that hill, I decided to send him the links to as many studies as I could find.  You know, to show him just how wrong he was.

And I couldn't find any.  The CDC list I linked to is the most comprehensive list I've come across.  I've already outlined my take on those studies.  But, in the end, I ended up with nothing to send my friend.  I have to agree with him now, as much as I didn't want to:  there is apparently a lot less of of "the science" backing up the efficacy of face masks than we're led to believe.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't consider you an expert on the state of the art and I instead rely upon those that actually are.

Of course.  I'm just some guy on the Internet.  Take a look at the studies yourself.  The link below is straight from the CDC.  Granted, it hasn't been updated since December, but I assume it's about as definitive of a list of scientific studies as you're going to find.  Maybe there's a more up-to-date list of studies out there.  If so, please let me know, and I'd be interested to look through them.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454

The Bangladesh study I mentioned is the only one listed that was a cluster-randomized trial.  If you're looking for scientific studies that don't just rely on (1) self-reporting, (2) general trend lines without cause-and-effect certainty, or (3) very small population sizes, then the pickings are quite slim indeed.

The Bangkok study from April—May 2020 was a case-control study of more than 800 people showed strong correlation, but it was only studying known close contacts of infected individuals.  (Not the type of contact one commonly encounters while shopping for colored pencils in Wal-Mart.)

Larger-scale studies from later in 2020 tend to show declines in transmission ranging from around 25% down into the single digits.

It's not about cherrypicking studies, but listening to scientists that are reviewing the entire state of the art and not just Googling for what's publicly available.

CDC's mask recommendations are based on such.  That's what I follow.

Anyone remember when the CDC was actively not recommending cloth masks indoor or otherwise?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

I want to say that recommendation flipped during April/May 2020 after it became apparent the recommended N95s were going to be well short of anticipated supply demand. 

Even now the CDC is way more about recommending N95s over anything else:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

[Rothman]

cherrypicking studies

Not what I've done.

It started when my best friend was insisting that anything less than an N95 mask is basically worthless against the spread of COVID, and that mask mandates have been implemented without scientific studies backing up their efficacy.  It was really starting to irritate me, but then he moved out of the country shortly after that so I calmed down.  Before that happened, he issued a challenge to show him a scientific study showing that regular old facemasks inhibit the spread of COVID–not the spread of water droplets in a controlled environment, but the spread of the actual disease in the real world.  Several months ago, because I discovered he was still prepared to die on that hill, I decided to send him the links to as many studies as I could find.  You know, to show him just how wrong he was.

And I couldn't find any.  The CDC list I linked to is the most comprehensive list I've come across.  I've already outlined my take on those studies.  But, in the end, I ended up with nothing to send my friend.  I have to agree with him now, as much as I didn't want to:  there is apparently a lot less of of "the science" backing up the efficacy of face masks than we're led to believe.

Because you couldn't Google studies up?  That's a nonrepresentative sample, given how many studies are not available publicly.  That's the definition of cherrypicking, however unintentional.

Instead of trying to be an expert, like an armchair quarterback, trust the experts.