4 ms·

> 1) I'm sure the people in Victoria did a lot more things than wear masks. If you throw everything and the kitchen sink at a problem, it's very hard to figure

by flukus 6y ago

> 1) I'm sure the people in Victoria did a lot more things than wear masks. If you throw everything and the kitchen sink at a problem, it's very hard to figure out which of the things you did actually worked. We were. But this was the only significant change during this period until stage 4 of lockdown started which reduced the reproductive rate further. We clearly see the reproduction rate drop just after mandatory masks were introduced, in the absence of a better or even half plausible explanation it certainly looks like masks were the cause. > The mask mandate went into effect on April 16th, and there's just zero correlation between that and the case curve. As I said, they aren't magic, they won't stop the virus by themselves. You can't just wear masks and go about life as normal, but that does not mean that masks don't work at all.

henrikschroder 6y ago
> But this was the only significant change during this period No, there's a very noticeable drop in social mobility as well in mid-July according to: https://covid19.apple.com/mobility https://covid19.apple.com/mobility How do you know which change had the largest effect? Also, if you introduce a mask mandate, people will obviously change their behaviour, they won't just go on and live their lives exactly as before, but with a mask on. Therefore, mask mandates might reduce the spread not because of the masks themselves, but because they cause people to behave differently. > You can't just wear masks and go about life as normal Right, and that's exactly my point, you have no idea how much mask mandates contributes to minimizing spread because it always happen in conjunction with a ton of other restrictions and behaviour changes. Yet you are arguing that masks - in isolation - are so good that it's a no-brainer to mandate them?
- flukus 6y ago
  > No, there's a very noticeable drop in social mobility as well in mid-July according to: https://covid19.apple.com/mobility https://covid19.apple.com/mobility That is when stage 3 of the lockdown started and everyone had to work from home, the next big decline was when stage 4 started and more people had to work from home or not at all. This did have a larger effect as the source I posted indicated. This reduced the reproduction rate to about 1.1 and plateaued at that level, weeks later masks were introduced bringing it under 1. > Yet you are arguing that masks - in isolation - are so good that it's a no-brainer to mandate them? I'm arguing no such thing, the source I posted indicated that masks would at best slow down the spread of the virus without other measures. That doesn't mean they don't work. > Also, if you introduce a mask mandate, people will obviously change their behaviour, they won't just go on and live their lives exactly as before, but with a mask on. Therefore, mask mandates might reduce the spread not because of the masks themselves, but because they cause people to behave differently. This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how they work, as long as they work. The only question that needs to be answered is "do masks reduce the spread of this virus?" Directly or indirectly doesn't matter. Factors like this are a great indication of why real world data trumps controlled studies though, you wouldn't see these effects in controlled studies. Unfortunately I'll have to leave the conversation here because the anti-masker and anti-data crowd on HN have down voted enough to rate limit me.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    > The only question that needs to be answered is "do masks reduce the spread of this virus?" A mask mandate means that police can now force you to wear a mask in various situations, with fines and possibly jail time if you do not comply. For such a drastic measure, we need a lot more evidence that masks are a net positive, and such a large net positive that it warrants such a strong measure of violence. "It can't hurt" is absolutely not enough evidence. "They probably do" is absolutely not enough evidence. Your correlations are absolutely not evidence at all. It's perfectly fine to recommend them, encourage them, or do information campaigns about them. Let people make their own informed choices. And if you think masks are fantastic, and that people who aren't wearing them are assholes, stay away from those people then! It's so simple.

by flukus 6y ago

henrikschroder 6y ago

> But this was the only significant change during this period No, there's a very noticeable drop in social mobility as well in mid-July according to: https://covid19.apple.com/mobility https://covid19.apple.com/mobility How do you know which change had the largest effect? Also, if you introduce a mask mandate, people will obviously change their behaviour, they won't just go on and live their lives exactly as before, but with a mask on. Therefore, mask mandates might reduce the spread not because of the masks themselves, but because they cause people to behave differently. > You can't just wear masks and go about life as normal Right, and that's exactly my point, you have no idea how much mask mandates contributes to minimizing spread because it always happen in conjunction with a ton of other restrictions and behaviour changes. Yet you are arguing that masks - in isolation - are so good that it's a no-brainer to mandate them?

flukus 6y ago
> No, there's a very noticeable drop in social mobility as well in mid-July according to: https://covid19.apple.com/mobility https://covid19.apple.com/mobility That is when stage 3 of the lockdown started and everyone had to work from home, the next big decline was when stage 4 started and more people had to work from home or not at all. This did have a larger effect as the source I posted indicated. This reduced the reproduction rate to about 1.1 and plateaued at that level, weeks later masks were introduced bringing it under 1. > Yet you are arguing that masks - in isolation - are so good that it's a no-brainer to mandate them? I'm arguing no such thing, the source I posted indicated that masks would at best slow down the spread of the virus without other measures. That doesn't mean they don't work. > Also, if you introduce a mask mandate, people will obviously change their behaviour, they won't just go on and live their lives exactly as before, but with a mask on. Therefore, mask mandates might reduce the spread not because of the masks themselves, but because they cause people to behave differently. This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how they work, as long as they work. The only question that needs to be answered is "do masks reduce the spread of this virus?" Directly or indirectly doesn't matter. Factors like this are a great indication of why real world data trumps controlled studies though, you wouldn't see these effects in controlled studies. Unfortunately I'll have to leave the conversation here because the anti-masker and anti-data crowd on HN have down voted enough to rate limit me.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  > The only question that needs to be answered is "do masks reduce the spread of this virus?" A mask mandate means that police can now force you to wear a mask in various situations, with fines and possibly jail time if you do not comply. For such a drastic measure, we need a lot more evidence that masks are a net positive, and such a large net positive that it warrants such a strong measure of violence. "It can't hurt" is absolutely not enough evidence. "They probably do" is absolutely not enough evidence. Your correlations are absolutely not evidence at all. It's perfectly fine to recommend them, encourage them, or do information campaigns about them. Let people make their own informed choices. And if you think masks are fantastic, and that people who aren't wearing them are assholes, stay away from those people then! It's so simple.