4 ms·
As for restrictions, I can point out two things we know. Let's start with masks. First, we know that masks help to reduce spread. There have been large-scale s
by tunesmith 5y ago
As for restrictions, I can point out two things we know. Let's start with masks.
First, we know that masks help to reduce spread. There have been large-scale studies that show conclusive results along these lines. Like https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask... .
Second, we know that to some degree, mandates affect compliance levels. Here I think the data is less clear. One study (can't find link) showed that a mask mandate was something that just lagged a population increasing mask usage on their own. And it's imaginable that for some populations, a mandate might decrease compliance, when they might have otherwise masked up voluntarily. But for other populations, mandates increase compliance.
But the point is separate from mandates: "mitigation" works. Meaning, social practices like mask use and distancing, whether mandated or not. Those practices drive down disease prevalence.
So does vaccination.
And people are Really bad at visualize exponential growth. Here's an example: Given the current understanding of mRNA effectiveness against Delta infection, you can even estimate counterfactual Rt. For instance, right now in Portland OR, regional Rt is around 0.91. So there's a halving rate of a few weeks. But given Portland's vaccination rate, if we had the exact same mitigation levels other than the vaccination rate, but if no one in this region were vaccinated, regional Rt would be around 2, meaning a doubling rate of 1-2 weeks. That is a huge difference in amount of suffering. And estimates of R0 for Delta (absent any mitigation) range from 5-9, so by that measure, current mitigation levels are saving a lot of suffering and a lot of lives.
- spookthesunset 5y ago> current mitigation levels are saving a lot of suffering and a lot of lives. Explain Florida. Explain Sweden. When we jumped into this hot mess back in March of 2020 there was not a shred of evidence that any of these mitigations worked. To date, there still isn't--I wouldn't trust any research conducted in the heat of the moment. People don't have a level head right now. It will take decades to fully determine what worked and what didn't. I bothers me greatly that we are all unconsenting participants in an uncontrolled experiment. When you call all this it for what is, people gaslight you and bully you. All these "experts" are no better than witch doctors or rain dancers. They are making all these mandates with zero clue as to their efficiency. It's highly immoral and unethical.
- specialist 5y agoSweden's strategy was a disaster. IIRC, their excess death rate was 4x the other nordics. (Prior to delta. I have no idea where they stand now.) Unless you're using a different metric?
- spookthesunset 5y agoThey are middle of the pack as far as I know. Same with Florida.
- specialist 5y agoOr. You could just find out. Sweden did much worse than the other nordics. Who are very similar. The only difference being mandates. Therefore: mandates saved lives. https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-covid-no-lockdown-strategy-failed-higher-death-rate-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-covid-no-lockdown-str... Middle of the pack? 145th out of 185. Worse than Russia, better than USA. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
- jwommack 5y agoThe Stanford study here cites an 11% reduction from ~8% to ~7%. This is purely for surgical masks, it found no impact from cloth. By far most mandate compliant masks even in high mask populations are cloth. There might be a conflation going on here.