6 ms·

> Mask use is nowhere near what it should have been All available evidence shows that you’re wrong. Self-reported mask usage rates are over 90%, nationwide.

by irq11 6y ago

> Mask use is nowhere near what it should have been All available evidence shows that you’re wrong. Self-reported mask usage rates are over 90%, nationwide. Moreover, many of the places with the highest compliance rates (e.g. Los Angeles) have the fastest-growing case counts: https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?date=20201018&signalType=value&mode=overview&sensor=fb-survey-smoothed_wearing_mask&level=state https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?date=20201018&signalType=v... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/23/pandemic-data-chart-masks/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e4.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e4.htm

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Because population density and culture are the other factors. In most cases, combined with limiting large groups and reducing the frequency of meetings, it is doing what it is intended to do - reduce the R0 factor. Even in LA. Every Internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another, announces they have proven something or other. Give it a rest.
- irq11 6y ago
  There’s always an excuse, but there’s never any data backing your claims. Provide even a single shred of evidence that masks affect the R0 of the virus in the real world. Modeling studies and correlations observed in April don’t count: most of the papers published this year looked at areas where case counts subsequently skyrocketed in the fall. My personal favorite is the mask study from Jena, Germany in the spring, which only made it into a journal right as cases were reaching an all-time high in the same area: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus
  - jiofih 6y ago
    From the first link you mention: > we conclude that 20 d after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45% A later increase in infections does not invalidate statistical significance for earlier studies. It’s just math, not “an excuse”. You’ll never see the data for how many cases would have been recorded without the measures in place. You can see the full paper here: http://ftp.iza.org/dp13319.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp13319.pdf The second link you posted earlier also says conclusively that higher reported mask usage correlated with lower reports of symptoms. Are you even reading your own sources? Or maybe you just have very skewed expectations of the impact? The Jena study estimates a 0.23 reduction in R rate. It is nowhere close to eliminating the disease, but this small reduction in transmission rate has an outsized effect on the total number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and that is what really matters (roughly, a 50% increase in transmission would result in 10x more deaths). The inconvenience of wearing a mask is an insignificant price to pay even if the numbers are off by an order of magnitude.
    - irq11 6y ago
      > A later increase in infections does not invalidate statistical significance for earlier studies. It’s just math, not “an excuse”. So your theory is that masks worked then, but stopped working now? Convenient! > You’ll never see the data for how many cases would have been recorded without the measures in place. Well, yes, exactly...these are uncontrolled studies. Which is why they’re such garbage. You can see that in the title of the paper you posted: “a synthetic control study”. That means they didn’t have a control. Which means all they can do is squint at correlations and try to claim they prove cause. (oh also: the WaPo “data” is from a phone survey...so yeah: people who say they wear masks a lot claim they have fewer “symptoms”. Whatever that means.)
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > So your theory is that masks worked then, but stopped working now? This doesn't follow. It's completely believable that masks have continued to be effective at curbing spread by 40% continuously. However increased holiday travel, as well as colder weather and people hanging out more in doors caused an increase in spread that wasn't present in the summer.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 Read that, chase down all the study links therein, and come back a week after you've found out you're wrong.
pmiller2 6y ago
You believe self reported data? Self reported data is among the least reliable forms of evidence there is.

by irq11 6y ago

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Because population density and culture are the other factors. In most cases, combined with limiting large groups and reducing the frequency of meetings, it is doing what it is intended to do - reduce the R0 factor. Even in LA. Every Internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another, announces they have proven something or other. Give it a rest.

irq11 6y ago
There’s always an excuse, but there’s never any data backing your claims. Provide even a single shred of evidence that masks affect the R0 of the virus in the real world. Modeling studies and correlations observed in April don’t count: most of the papers published this year looked at areas where case counts subsequently skyrocketed in the fall. My personal favorite is the mask study from Jena, Germany in the spring, which only made it into a journal right as cases were reaching an all-time high in the same area: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus
- jiofih 6y ago
  From the first link you mention: > we conclude that 20 d after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45% A later increase in infections does not invalidate statistical significance for earlier studies. It’s just math, not “an excuse”. You’ll never see the data for how many cases would have been recorded without the measures in place. You can see the full paper here: http://ftp.iza.org/dp13319.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp13319.pdf The second link you posted earlier also says conclusively that higher reported mask usage correlated with lower reports of symptoms. Are you even reading your own sources? Or maybe you just have very skewed expectations of the impact? The Jena study estimates a 0.23 reduction in R rate. It is nowhere close to eliminating the disease, but this small reduction in transmission rate has an outsized effect on the total number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and that is what really matters (roughly, a 50% increase in transmission would result in 10x more deaths). The inconvenience of wearing a mask is an insignificant price to pay even if the numbers are off by an order of magnitude.
  - irq11 6y ago
    > A later increase in infections does not invalidate statistical significance for earlier studies. It’s just math, not “an excuse”. So your theory is that masks worked then, but stopped working now? Convenient! > You’ll never see the data for how many cases would have been recorded without the measures in place. Well, yes, exactly...these are uncontrolled studies. Which is why they’re such garbage. You can see that in the title of the paper you posted: “a synthetic control study”. That means they didn’t have a control. Which means all they can do is squint at correlations and try to claim they prove cause. (oh also: the WaPo “data” is from a phone survey...so yeah: people who say they wear masks a lot claim they have fewer “symptoms”. Whatever that means.)
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > So your theory is that masks worked then, but stopped working now? This doesn't follow. It's completely believable that masks have continued to be effective at curbing spread by 40% continuously. However increased holiday travel, as well as colder weather and people hanging out more in doors caused an increase in spread that wasn't present in the summer.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 Read that, chase down all the study links therein, and come back a week after you've found out you're wrong.

pmiller2 6y ago

You believe self reported data? Self reported data is among the least reliable forms of evidence there is.