3 ms·

>But then why do masked populations end up with the same maximum growth rate? There is no such thing in this study as a "masked population". The authors catego

>But then why do masked populations end up with the same maximum growth rate? There is no such thing in this study as a "masked population". The authors categorized the states based on the percentage of mask-wearers, according to the IHME data. But the reported infection rates don't distinguish between masked and unmasked. Your reference [0] looked at whether masks protect the wearer, and explicitly did not study whether masks on the infected protected others: "...no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others." (From the Limitations section.) Your other references do not pertain to covid. The CDC changed their recommendation regarding masks for the vaccinated originally because they were satisfied that the vaccine provided sufficient coverage against serious illness to make unmasked, vaccinated individuals a very low public health risk. That changed when the Delta variant emerged and it became clear that vaccinated and infected individuals could spread the virus as readily as the unvaccinated infected, making them a potential vector and therefore a public health threat. As has been repeatedly reported, masks are primarily to keep the infected from infecting others, and again, there is a mountain of evidence that this is the case. As an aside, I upvoted your comment because even though I disagree, you presented an argument and provided references to support it.

mikem170 5y ago
> As has been repeatedly reported, masks are primarily to keep the infected from infecting others, and again, there is a mountain of evidence that this is the case. I might not be seeing the same mountain of evidence that you are. The first couple studies I looked at in the metastudy you linked to in the original comment in this thread (hairdressers and navy ship) were not convincing (they were quite loose, as I commented on) and the second study you linked to seemed to assume that stopping droplets slows the spread, but doesn't offer evidence of how relevant stopping droplets actually is (there's data saying that covid spreads through aerosols just as well if not more than droplets [0], like in restaurants where people were not seated closely, etc.) I just don't see the effectiveness of cloth masks as proven. Where am I going wrong in my thinking? [0] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-aerosol-droplets-airborne-evolution https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-aeroso...
- vannevar 5y ago
  Even the article you cite above has a subtitle that literally says "The virus appears to spread through the air, but masks reduce the amount of infectious virus." With respect to type of mask, another metastudy looks at different types of masks, and concludes: "...correctly wearing masks of all kinds, despite their different designs, functions and effectiveness, will to a large degree reduce the overall risks of COVID‐19 infection and enhance general protection from coronavirus." Like global warming, you can always dig up a handful of studies to support a contrary conclusion, such as the originally posted article appears at first glance to be. The point of my response was to reconcile the observations made in that article with the effectiveness of masks, to show that masks could be 100% effective and still not sufficient to suppress a covid maximum, if the percentage of people wearing them falls below some threshold. So whatever you may think of masks, the posted article isn't necessarily evidence that they aren't effective.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    You asked why you got downvotes. I offered my perspective. You seem to be overreaching with your conclusions. You accuse me of the same, but I didn't say anything was conclusive, I pointed out contradictory evidence, that the issue of whether cloth masks are effective looks unsettled. You are saying that I was selective with the studies I looked at. But it sure seems like you are doing the same. Or worse by saying that this is conclusive when it sure doesn't look it. Not just the studies, which vary in quality, but wave after wave of covid in states and countries with mask mandates.
    - vannevar 5y ago
      I can only tell you that there are many more studies indicating masks work than studies showing their effectiveness is inconclusive. And again, even if masks are 100% effective, there are so many people not wearing them even in jurisdictions that have mandates that there is a limit to their overall impact. Whether masks work is one thing, whether mask mandates work is an entirely different question.

mikem170 5y ago

> As has been repeatedly reported, masks are primarily to keep the infected from infecting others, and again, there is a mountain of evidence that this is the case. I might not be seeing the same mountain of evidence that you are. The first couple studies I looked at in the metastudy you linked to in the original comment in this thread (hairdressers and navy ship) were not convincing (they were quite loose, as I commented on) and the second study you linked to seemed to assume that stopping droplets slows the spread, but doesn't offer evidence of how relevant stopping droplets actually is (there's data saying that covid spreads through aerosols just as well if not more than droplets [0], like in restaurants where people were not seated closely, etc.) I just don't see the effectiveness of cloth masks as proven. Where am I going wrong in my thinking? [0] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-aerosol-droplets-airborne-evolution https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-aeroso...

vannevar 5y ago
Even the article you cite above has a subtitle that literally says "The virus appears to spread through the air, but masks reduce the amount of infectious virus." With respect to type of mask, another metastudy looks at different types of masks, and concludes: "...correctly wearing masks of all kinds, despite their different designs, functions and effectiveness, will to a large degree reduce the overall risks of COVID‐19 infection and enhance general protection from coronavirus." Like global warming, you can always dig up a handful of studies to support a contrary conclusion, such as the originally posted article appears at first glance to be. The point of my response was to reconcile the observations made in that article with the effectiveness of masks, to show that masks could be 100% effective and still not sufficient to suppress a covid maximum, if the percentage of people wearing them falls below some threshold. So whatever you may think of masks, the posted article isn't necessarily evidence that they aren't effective.
- mikem170 5y ago
  You asked why you got downvotes. I offered my perspective. You seem to be overreaching with your conclusions. You accuse me of the same, but I didn't say anything was conclusive, I pointed out contradictory evidence, that the issue of whether cloth masks are effective looks unsettled. You are saying that I was selective with the studies I looked at. But it sure seems like you are doing the same. Or worse by saying that this is conclusive when it sure doesn't look it. Not just the studies, which vary in quality, but wave after wave of covid in states and countries with mask mandates.
  - vannevar 5y ago
    I can only tell you that there are many more studies indicating masks work than studies showing their effectiveness is inconclusive. And again, even if masks are 100% effective, there are so many people not wearing them even in jurisdictions that have mandates that there is a limit to their overall impact. Whether masks work is one thing, whether mask mandates work is an entirely different question.