3 ms·
I feel like we are in complete agreement on the facts, but are somehow coming to opposite conclusions. Slide 21, bold red text, surrounded by a red box: "Given
by sbierwagen 5y ago
I feel like we are in complete agreement on the facts, but are somehow coming to opposite conclusions.
Slide 21, bold red text, surrounded by a red box: "Given higher transmissibility and current vaccine coverage, universal masking is essential to reduce transmission of the Delta variant"
If this is supposed to imply that restaurants need to be closed, I feel like it should instead actually explicitly say that, because it means firing a million people, again. If universal masking requires restaurant closing, then masking by itself won't do anything!
If masking by itself does nothing, then why dedicate two slides to just masking? If masking does nothing, why give it 40-60% effectiveness? If the graph is totally worthless and means nothing useful, why put it in the presentation?
If closing restaurants is mission critical, absolutely required for any other NPI to have any effect at all, then why hide it inside "Reconsider other community mitigation strategies" on the last slide?
- mafuy 5y agoI think you've misunderstood the slide. It says: If we do no other mitigations other than wearing masks (3 variants in the graph), this is what happens. If additional stuff is done, then the risk goes down. It does not say how much, maybe a little, maybe a lot. But such other mitigations are unlikely to happen if the easiest, most effective and most accepted way, wearing masks, is not enforced already. That's why it makes sense to look at the case of masks-only.