3 ms·

it absolutely cannot show that masks are or are not effective at reducing covid transmission. There are so many confounding factors, the results are basically m

it absolutely cannot show that masks are or are not effective at reducing covid transmission. There are so many confounding factors, the results are basically meaningless. It can show that. If masks were effective there would be visible inflection points in the data that correlate with mandates being added and removed, as those make a huge difference to mask wearing. Where I lived before the first mask mandate, almost nobody was wearing them. The day the law changed, nearly 100% were wearing them and it remained that way until the mandates were removed. We're not talking tiny effect sizes here. These were massive, overnight changes. To justify the impositions on people, there should have been correspondingly massive effects. There were none. The most obvious confounding factor is of course that as covid rates rise, people are more likely to wear a mask. Why people wear them is irrelevant to the question of whether they work or not.

manwe150 4y ago
There should be an inflection in the exponent of the rate (eg changing only the magnitude of the peak), not necessarily in the direction of the graph, and not necessarily even changing the timing (aka flatten the curve). The difficulty of analyzing the data is what makes studies and articles like this still interesting and relevant to consider.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  There's also a long delay between any actions taken and the actual effect on infection rates, and especially hospitalisation and death rates, which makes analysing it even more tricky.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    The serial interval of SARS-CoV-2 is/was claimed to be at the start ~3 days. So the delay is very short and this is one reason why we can be so sure masks had no effect. If they did, you would expect to see a sharp and visible inflection point in the graph three days later. However no such inflection points are visible and this happens repeatedly.
    - manwe150 4y ago
      Why do you expect an inflection point? At steady-state, there should be a change of that sort described. But the hypothetical intent was to establish these masking policies while still in the early, exponential portion of the graph. When the spread is doubling every 3 days, shouldn’t we expect it to be hard to visually observe a change to the number of days it takes to double the cases? That thus rhetorically leaves us stuck with a significant difference between “no effect” and “moderate-but impossible-to-quantify effect” however
      - native_samples 4y ago
        The serial interval is/was three days, that's not the same thing as doubling time. Serial interval is how long it takes someone who just got infected to become infectious and pass it on. Regardless, the answer is no. Inflection points should be clearly visible because the underlying dynamic is organic, and mass-scale human intervention is inorganic/synchronized. Remember - the policy is justified exclusively on the basis of creating those inflection points. Nothing else. If no such points are visible the policy is a failure and we're left with only the downsides (of which there are many!).
        manwe150 4y ago
        I think you are thinking of the term discontinuities? Inflection points are notoriously not easily visible in graphs. Here’s an inflection point for example: https://www.calculushowto.com/inflection-point/ https://www.calculushowto.com/inflection-point/

manwe150 4y ago

There should be an inflection in the exponent of the rate (eg changing only the magnitude of the peak), not necessarily in the direction of the graph, and not necessarily even changing the timing (aka flatten the curve). The difficulty of analyzing the data is what makes studies and articles like this still interesting and relevant to consider.

mnw21cam 4y ago
There's also a long delay between any actions taken and the actual effect on infection rates, and especially hospitalisation and death rates, which makes analysing it even more tricky.
- native_samples 4y ago
  The serial interval of SARS-CoV-2 is/was claimed to be at the start ~3 days. So the delay is very short and this is one reason why we can be so sure masks had no effect. If they did, you would expect to see a sharp and visible inflection point in the graph three days later. However no such inflection points are visible and this happens repeatedly.
  - manwe150 4y ago
    Why do you expect an inflection point? At steady-state, there should be a change of that sort described. But the hypothetical intent was to establish these masking policies while still in the early, exponential portion of the graph. When the spread is doubling every 3 days, shouldn’t we expect it to be hard to visually observe a change to the number of days it takes to double the cases? That thus rhetorically leaves us stuck with a significant difference between “no effect” and “moderate-but impossible-to-quantify effect” however
    - native_samples 4y ago
      The serial interval is/was three days, that's not the same thing as doubling time. Serial interval is how long it takes someone who just got infected to become infectious and pass it on. Regardless, the answer is no. Inflection points should be clearly visible because the underlying dynamic is organic, and mass-scale human intervention is inorganic/synchronized. Remember - the policy is justified exclusively on the basis of creating those inflection points. Nothing else. If no such points are visible the policy is a failure and we're left with only the downsides (of which there are many!).
      - manwe150 4y ago
        I think you are thinking of the term discontinuities? Inflection points are notoriously not easily visible in graphs. Here’s an inflection point for example: https://www.calculushowto.com/inflection-point/ https://www.calculushowto.com/inflection-point/