5 ms·

Where the control group of no one wearing masks had an infection rate of...?

by FiReaNG3L 6y ago

snorrah 6y ago
That sounds like an unethical control test and would therefore not be considered.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  That’s basically why all studies on whether masks are useful (this is not a first epidemic, not even a first coronavirus epidemic) are inconclusive.
  - irq11 6y ago
    Not really. Randomized controlled trials have been done. The experiment isn’t unethical - it’s just that it hasn’t been done often because all of the other, less-complicated experiments, also show very little effect.
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      >Randomized controlled trials have been done. Do you have any examples?
- Symmetry 6y ago
  And would probably require a BSL 3 facility anyways and I don't think you could find one set up for hairdressing. The shortage of BSL 3 facilities that can do science on SARS-2 is one of the things really slowing down our understanding of many aspects of this virus.
jussij 6y ago
I don't think the CDC is looking at this as some sort of controlled test requiring scientific vigor with peer reviewed results. Instead I think the CDC is trying to understand why US COVID-19 cases are growing at 70 thousand cases a day and trying to find ways to slow that growth. Because without some sensible control measures that daily number is going to continue to grow and the final number will be end up being much larger than it is today.
- meddlepal 6y ago
  You can’t control something that requires people to cooperate if people refuse to cooperate.
  - jussij 6y ago
    I don't doubt the problem is difficult and it has only been made more difficult by the fact what is a public health issue has somehow morphed into a party political issue. But I'm not sure just giving and not trying to do anything is the answer? That approach will only end badly.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    The state can compel cooperation. Non-compliance == fines. Repeated non-compliance == jail or forced quarantine. Hair salons that don't comply == revocation of license.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      I am not sure the US actually can, given the current legal and political landscape. Masks are "mandatory" where I'm at, and I walked into a multi-billion dollar business the other day with a sign that literally said "if you are not wearing a mask we will respectfully assume it is due to a medical condition". "Mandatory" in the US effectively means "strongly suggested". There's literally zero effective way to enforce it.
      - Spooky23 6y ago
        Some states with incompetent governance allow nonsense like that. A local retailer was telling people that they wouldn't enforce mask use once you entered the building. Someone called the health department, and they were shut down within 3 hours.
        kube-system 6y ago
        Yes, but that is very different than the sign I posted above. Businesses generally do not have the authority nor capability to judge anyone's medical conditions.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Symmetry 6y ago
It can be evidence without being conclusive evidence. The virus may have a moderately high R0 but a large majority of the spread is driven by a small minority of spreaders. Most people who have it don't end up infecting anybody else even if they don't take sensible precautions. Now, dressing the hair of 100 people is a lot worse than a normal person's not taking precautions but it might be that they just weren't shedding enough virus to infect anyone in the length of a normal appointment while only talking at a normal volume. Again, this isn't convulsive evidence but it is evidence and generally all the evidence looks to be stacking up on the pro-mask side.
ceejayoz 6y ago
> Where the control group of no one wearing masks had an infection rate of...? Florida?

Where the control group of no one wearing masks had an infection rate of...?

snorrah 6y ago

That sounds like an unethical control test and would therefore not be considered.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
That’s basically why all studies on whether masks are useful (this is not a first epidemic, not even a first coronavirus epidemic) are inconclusive.
- irq11 6y ago
  Not really. Randomized controlled trials have been done. The experiment isn’t unethical - it’s just that it hasn’t been done often because all of the other, less-complicated experiments, also show very little effect.
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    >Randomized controlled trials have been done. Do you have any examples?
Symmetry 6y ago
And would probably require a BSL 3 facility anyways and I don't think you could find one set up for hairdressing. The shortage of BSL 3 facilities that can do science on SARS-2 is one of the things really slowing down our understanding of many aspects of this virus.

jussij 6y ago

I don't think the CDC is looking at this as some sort of controlled test requiring scientific vigor with peer reviewed results. Instead I think the CDC is trying to understand why US COVID-19 cases are growing at 70 thousand cases a day and trying to find ways to slow that growth. Because without some sensible control measures that daily number is going to continue to grow and the final number will be end up being much larger than it is today.

meddlepal 6y ago
You can’t control something that requires people to cooperate if people refuse to cooperate.
- jussij 6y ago
  I don't doubt the problem is difficult and it has only been made more difficult by the fact what is a public health issue has somehow morphed into a party political issue. But I'm not sure just giving and not trying to do anything is the answer? That approach will only end badly.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  The state can compel cooperation. Non-compliance == fines. Repeated non-compliance == jail or forced quarantine. Hair salons that don't comply == revocation of license.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    I am not sure the US actually can, given the current legal and political landscape. Masks are "mandatory" where I'm at, and I walked into a multi-billion dollar business the other day with a sign that literally said "if you are not wearing a mask we will respectfully assume it is due to a medical condition". "Mandatory" in the US effectively means "strongly suggested". There's literally zero effective way to enforce it.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      Some states with incompetent governance allow nonsense like that. A local retailer was telling people that they wouldn't enforce mask use once you entered the building. Someone called the health department, and they were shut down within 3 hours.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        Yes, but that is very different than the sign I posted above. Businesses generally do not have the authority nor capability to judge anyone's medical conditions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Symmetry 6y ago

It can be evidence without being conclusive evidence. The virus may have a moderately high R0 but a large majority of the spread is driven by a small minority of spreaders. Most people who have it don't end up infecting anybody else even if they don't take sensible precautions. Now, dressing the hair of 100 people is a lot worse than a normal person's not taking precautions but it might be that they just weren't shedding enough virus to infect anyone in the length of a normal appointment while only talking at a normal volume. Again, this isn't convulsive evidence but it is evidence and generally all the evidence looks to be stacking up on the pro-mask side.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> Where the control group of no one wearing masks had an infection rate of...? Florida?