4 ms·

It's really hard to make conclusion based on mask usage not accounting for many other factors such as population density. You have places like Finland with 5 m

It's really hard to make conclusion based on mask usage not accounting for many other factors such as population density. You have places like Finland with 5 mil people and minimum contact vs. Netherlands with 1/8 of the area and 4 times the population. Then you have France, Italy where all people kiss to greet each other and Germany where they barely shake hands etc. So don't think this is very productive study and I'm generally not in favour of mask mandates (sentiment-wise for we have yet to see reliable data) especially for recent variants.

belorn 4y ago
The alternative to mask mandates was selective use of mask in situation of high risk. If Netherlands is generally a high risk area while Finland is a low risk area, then that would illustrate a failure of mask mandates in favor of selective use. If that is what this study demonstrate then that is an important finding.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
To make it even harder, population density is itself not easy to interpret correctly. For instance, a naïve comparison on the population densities of England (432 people/km²) and Spain (94 people/km²) could lead one to believe that England would have a much tougher time than Spain at containing the spread of a contagious disease. However, the population density surrounding the average Spaniard is much higher than the density surrounding the average English person, as Spanish population tends to be much more densely urbanised into flats than the population of England.
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  The keyword is population-weighted population density: https://www.worldpop.org/methods/pwd https://www.worldpop.org/methods/pwd
  - Mordisquitos 4y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know there was an explicit term for this (though I should have guessed). It is a pity though that the map that they use to illustrate the data is divided into administrative divisions that are not really comparable: England, Wales and Scotland for Great Britain, but all 17 autonomous communities for Spain.
alkonaut 4y ago
Population density doesn’t work that way. Viruses don’t care about how much empty area there is in a country. Take Greenland for example. Population density is.. zero. But zoom in and you’ll see they live quite densely. The number of contacts matter. This comes down to many factors like urbanization, how advanced the economy is (how large fraction can isolate and work?), family sizes/structures etc. Raw density is correlated to this, but on a country level it’s almost useless because some countries have all their people in a few areas. Netherlands is pretty special in not having vast wilderness and that’s why it’s dense. But that doesn’t change the fact that a Dutch city looks and functions like almost other European cities. If I were to guess I’d say a bigger differentiator between (say) Amsterdam and most other comparable cities in regards to diseases would be the bike culture that means thousands get to work without having to use public transport.
archi42 4y ago
Thanks, I thought the same. Population density/distribution have a huge impact on the transmission. Without adjusting for that, the analysis needs to assume good uniformity either within each single country or that the error is the same for each country.

belorn 4y ago

The alternative to mask mandates was selective use of mask in situation of high risk. If Netherlands is generally a high risk area while Finland is a low risk area, then that would illustrate a failure of mask mandates in favor of selective use. If that is what this study demonstrate then that is an important finding.

Mordisquitos 4y ago

To make it even harder, population density is itself not easy to interpret correctly. For instance, a naïve comparison on the population densities of England (432 people/km²) and Spain (94 people/km²) could lead one to believe that England would have a much tougher time than Spain at containing the spread of a contagious disease. However, the population density surrounding the average Spaniard is much higher than the density surrounding the average English person, as Spanish population tends to be much more densely urbanised into flats than the population of England.

iggldiggl 4y ago
The keyword is population-weighted population density: https://www.worldpop.org/methods/pwd https://www.worldpop.org/methods/pwd
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  Thanks, I didn't know there was an explicit term for this (though I should have guessed). It is a pity though that the map that they use to illustrate the data is divided into administrative divisions that are not really comparable: England, Wales and Scotland for Great Britain, but all 17 autonomous communities for Spain.

alkonaut 4y ago

Population density doesn’t work that way. Viruses don’t care about how much empty area there is in a country. Take Greenland for example. Population density is.. zero. But zoom in and you’ll see they live quite densely. The number of contacts matter. This comes down to many factors like urbanization, how advanced the economy is (how large fraction can isolate and work?), family sizes/structures etc. Raw density is correlated to this, but on a country level it’s almost useless because some countries have all their people in a few areas. Netherlands is pretty special in not having vast wilderness and that’s why it’s dense. But that doesn’t change the fact that a Dutch city looks and functions like almost other European cities. If I were to guess I’d say a bigger differentiator between (say) Amsterdam and most other comparable cities in regards to diseases would be the bike culture that means thousands get to work without having to use public transport.

archi42 4y ago

Thanks, I thought the same. Population density/distribution have a huge impact on the transmission. Without adjusting for that, the analysis needs to assume good uniformity either within each single country or that the error is the same for each country.