3 ms·

I suspect that in locations with a higher prevalence of masking the population is generally more vigilant: more hand washing, more social distance, stay at home

I suspect that in locations with a higher prevalence of masking the population is generally more vigilant: more hand washing, more social distance, stay at home when ill, avoid obviously ill people, and so on. May be a case of correlation, not causation. It would be interesting to have a trial where everyone was wearing N95s, but we're not likely to see that.

carlmr 5y ago
>It would be interesting to have a trial where everyone was wearing N95s, but we're not likely to see that. Bavaria and Austria had FFP2/KN95 only while the rest of Germany had the choice of surgical masks or FFP2, where almost everybody picked surgical masks (cheaper, not as annoying to wear). Now the rest of Germany switched to only FFP2 in public transport. So we do have some population studies. It didn't seem to make much of a difference. I'd say the factor overwhelming almost every other measure is the weather. More people outside means dropping case numbers. More people at home means rising case numbers. It's been true for influenza and cold, and it's still holding up for Corona. If any measure would make sense it would be to allow people to meet outside while forbidding it at home. They only forbade at home without allowing outside meetups, which made home parties more likely.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Ventilation could also be a factor. You're more likely to open the window when the air outside is pleasant.
  - carlmr 5y ago
    True, which is why it's even more important to get people to meet outside. If you forbid inside and outside meetups, people will meet in secret, even closing their Windows so the neighbors don't snitch (this is Germany after all, the nation of snitches, historically :D). A little bit of basic human psychology could have prevented some of these waves.
asabjorn 5y ago
> I suspect that in locations with a higher prevalence of masking the population is generally more vigilant: more hand washing, more social distance, stay at home when ill, avoid obviously ill people, and so on. May be a case of correlation, not causation. The states with the highest mask use (NYC, CA) has some of the highest covid positive rates, so the data does not seem to back up your assertion.
- kelnos 5y ago
  You seem to be repeating this in several comments, but that's just not true. CA's total per-capita case counts and recent new-case rate is lower than, say, both Texas and Florida. NYC is not a state, so you can't directly compare it.
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    The confirmed cases to population is 10.3% for NY (not NYC- 2.08m cases to 19.4m population), 9.5% for CA (3.77m cases over 39.5m population), 10.1% for texas (2.93m cases over 29m population), 10.6% for Florida (2.29/21.48). Deaths to confirmed cases is about 1.6% for all except NY. NY death to cases is 2.6% (52k deaths over 2m cases). However, this way of computing deaths is only indicative as you do not capture untested cases. > Florida 2.3M cumulative cases & 3,007 case/day 7-day average vs 21.5M population. That's about 10.6%. > FL and TX are worse on per capita cumulative cases, and much worse on current per capita new cases than California. With the total cases being about the same so this does not support your conclusion that masks "drastically reduce spread".

carlmr 5y ago

>It would be interesting to have a trial where everyone was wearing N95s, but we're not likely to see that. Bavaria and Austria had FFP2/KN95 only while the rest of Germany had the choice of surgical masks or FFP2, where almost everybody picked surgical masks (cheaper, not as annoying to wear). Now the rest of Germany switched to only FFP2 in public transport. So we do have some population studies. It didn't seem to make much of a difference. I'd say the factor overwhelming almost every other measure is the weather. More people outside means dropping case numbers. More people at home means rising case numbers. It's been true for influenza and cold, and it's still holding up for Corona. If any measure would make sense it would be to allow people to meet outside while forbidding it at home. They only forbade at home without allowing outside meetups, which made home parties more likely.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
Ventilation could also be a factor. You're more likely to open the window when the air outside is pleasant.
- carlmr 5y ago
  True, which is why it's even more important to get people to meet outside. If you forbid inside and outside meetups, people will meet in secret, even closing their Windows so the neighbors don't snitch (this is Germany after all, the nation of snitches, historically :D). A little bit of basic human psychology could have prevented some of these waves.

asabjorn 5y ago

> I suspect that in locations with a higher prevalence of masking the population is generally more vigilant: more hand washing, more social distance, stay at home when ill, avoid obviously ill people, and so on. May be a case of correlation, not causation. The states with the highest mask use (NYC, CA) has some of the highest covid positive rates, so the data does not seem to back up your assertion.

kelnos 5y ago
You seem to be repeating this in several comments, but that's just not true. CA's total per-capita case counts and recent new-case rate is lower than, say, both Texas and Florida. NYC is not a state, so you can't directly compare it.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  The confirmed cases to population is 10.3% for NY (not NYC- 2.08m cases to 19.4m population), 9.5% for CA (3.77m cases over 39.5m population), 10.1% for texas (2.93m cases over 29m population), 10.6% for Florida (2.29/21.48). Deaths to confirmed cases is about 1.6% for all except NY. NY death to cases is 2.6% (52k deaths over 2m cases). However, this way of computing deaths is only indicative as you do not capture untested cases. > Florida 2.3M cumulative cases & 3,007 case/day 7-day average vs 21.5M population. That's about 10.6%. > FL and TX are worse on per capita cumulative cases, and much worse on current per capita new cases than California. With the total cases being about the same so this does not support your conclusion that masks "drastically reduce spread".