To Mask or Not To Mask, that is the question

[Mayacaman]

Study: Mask Mandates Increase Rates of COVID
Compared to States with No Mask Mandates

Mask Mandates Seem to Make CCP Virus Infection Rates Climb, Study Says


By Matthew Vadum
The Epoch Times <sup>[1]

December 23, 2020</sup>

Excerpts:

Protective-mask mandates aimed at combating the spread of the CCP virus ^[2] that causes the disease COVID-19 ^[3] appear to promote its spread, according to a report from RationalGround.com, a clearinghouse of COVID-19 data trends that’s run by a grassroots group of data analysts, computer scientists, and actuaries.

Researchers examined cases covering a 229-day period running from May 1 through Dec. 15 and compared the days in which state governments had imposed mask mandates and the days when they hadn’t.

In states with a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed COVID-19 cases, which works out to an average of 27 cases per 100,000 people per day. When states didn’t have a statewide order—including states that never had mandates, coupled with the period of time masking states didn’t have the mandate in place—there were 5,781,716 cases, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day.

In other words, protective-mask mandates have a poor track record so far in fighting the coronavirus. States with mandates in place produced an average of 10 more reported infections per 100,000 people per day than states without mandates.

“The reverse correlation between periods of masking and non-masking is remarkable,” RationalGround.com co-founder Justin Hart tweeted ^[4] on Dec. 20.

The 15 states that went without a statewide mask mandate for the duration of the analysis were Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming, Daniel Horowitz notes in an explainer at Conservative Review ^[5].

The analysts allowed the mandate states a 14-day grace period from the time of implementation in order to begin counting cases against mask efficacy in order to arrive at accurate results.

Supporters of the protective-mask mandates might say that the mandates were often imposed once cases already spread quickly, so there’s a negative bias of increased cases in those areas (or times) that had mandates in place, but there was “no evidence of any reduction in cases or even better outcomes many weeks later,” Horowitz writes.
RationalGround.com researcher Ian Miller discovered that three counties in Florida—Manatee, Martin, and Nassau—that let their mandates expire, had fewer cases per capita than those counties that kept the mandate.


Miller tweeted ^[6] sarcastically on Dec. 20 that it was “extremely confusing how this could happen, considering” the pro-mandate side’s claim that protective masks ^[7] “are the single most important public health tool we have” and that masks “provide protection for the wearer, too.”

“The mask religion will have a number of inaccurate excuses ready to go, but of course, they’re obscuring and ignoring that this should not be possible, no matter what the mitigating circumstances, if masks were as effective or important as we were told,” Miller wrote.

Nor, according to Miller, has the protective-mask mandate worked in states such as California, where it was imposed long before the surge in cases began.

“The simple reality is that there is no legitimate data showing the mandates worked,” Horowitz concludes.

There are those who might question the findings, arguing that population density skews the results. The study looked at Florida using county data and found no correlation between mask mandates and fewer cases, even adjusting for population density, Horowitz notes.

While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, was attacked vigorously by the mainstream media for refusing to impose a statewide protective-mask mandate, counties in the state that avoided mandates performed well in the study.

Of the state’s 67 counties, 22 imposed an executive mandate at some point during the period examined.
When counties did enforce a mandate, there were 667,239 cases, for an average of 23 cases per 100,000 people per day. When counties didn’t have a mandate, there were 438,687 cases, for an average of 22 cases per 100,000 people per day.

“When you isolate only the top 12 most populous counties in the state … eight of them had effective mask orders implemented at some point during the study period, and four never had a countywide order (Brevard, Lee, Polk, and Volusia),” Horowitz writes.

Read the full article at The Epoch Times

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com

[spam1]

Obviously, teachers are drunkards.

My wife's a teacher, my mother-in-law was a teacher, my daughter is a teacher. Many of their friends are teachers. In this case, correlation does mean causation. Your statement is true.

()

[Valley Oak]

[phredo]

I take it that one point you're making is that telling people to wear masks does not guarantee that they will comply. To my mind that still leaves it an open question whether the various mandates are worthwhile or not.

[podfish]

I take it that one point you're making is that telling people to wear masks does not guarantee that they will comply. To my mind that still leaves it an open question whether the various mandates are worthwhile or not.

I agree, it does. But I think the simple answer is sure, they are. The other binary choice, don't mandate, seems worse.

The real problem is that our culture - and maybe most cultures - don't shape our behavior in ways that prevent spreading communicable diseases. It also doesn't really give us tools to deal with climate change. There are lots of problems that in abstract could be addressed rather easily if there weren't a bunch of us monkeys charged with identifying and implementing solutions. Some are unhelpfully nitpicking the details of whether it really exists, not particularly interested in pragmatic ways of limiting its impact; others use their intuitive rather than analytic math skills to make risk vs. reward judgments. Apparently this isn't all that different than the other pandemics in history - people fall into their groove.

[phredo]

"The other binary choice, don't mandate, seems worse."

Well, I mostly agree. But there is another factor to add, which is that many of the effects of the mandates are indirect, such as jobs lost, economy decimated, and in general a whole slew of economic and social costs that would be much less severe if the mandates were never dictated or followed.

One of my favorite sites for seeing how Covid is effecting us is at https://covid19.healthdata.org, from the Univ. of Washington. Let me call attention to one of their graphs in particular, https://covid19.healthdata.org/unite...hs&tab=compare , where you can compare deaths per thousand, past and projected for California vs other states. Pulling your mouse over a line on the graph identifies the state name, although it's hard to find a particular state that might interest you. But if you mouse into the box that says "compare California to", you can first "x" out all the other states and then individually select the ones you are interested in (or, in fact, anywhere else in the world). I did that, adding back North Dakota , New York, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Sweden. I found that California still has fewer total deaths per 100,000 than all of the others, but projecting into April, that California will surpass (based on the U of W projections) Texas and Florida, and none of them will ever be as great as New York.

So, I don't really have a solid opinion about all that, but I think it is possible to have pro and con views about masks et. al. that have validity, when one looks at the total effect. Even at North Dakota's projected high of about 270 deaths per 100,000, equivalent to 0.27% of their population, Covid is not quite up to Black Death proportions, and perhaps we should not be reacting as if it were, given the other costs to society.

[phredo]

I'm not really questioning so much whether masks "work" or not, more whether the mandates are a good idea.

[patnicholson]

There is a huge disconnect , folks don't know or care or both and it's killing people. Talk about Russian roulette .
will you be the one who dies or will you kill people because you're spreading the virus?

[podfish]

I'm not really questioning so much whether masks "work" or not, more whether the mandates are a good idea.

yeah, I riffed a little bit off that - not directly responding to the mandate idea itself, but to the fact that there's almost no idea that will work, at least here. I don't think avoiding a mandate will encourage more people to act with a responsible level of precaution. Sure, people sometimes resent an order and will accept a request. I don't think that applies here.
now this is true of mask mandates. The shutdown-type orders are harder, you're right. I think there I take a little different view. There, we probably would do better with some more targeted constraints. It's a hard line, though, because too broad constraints hit too hard but narrow ones bring out the barracks lawyer instincts and people just work around them.

[M/M]

Here is one article looking at that very thing...
Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates

[wisewomn]

Some info about The Blaze:

The Blaze - Media Bias Fact Check

[Jude Iam]

so, Politifact's review of The Blaze is:

• Overall, we rate The Blaze strongly Right Biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks and loaded emotional headlines."

designation of right/left is of lesser import to me and others less concerned with surface dichotomies than substance.

as far as "a few failed fact checks", i thought to check the Politifact New York Times review:

Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks that occurred were on Op-Ed’s and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 07/15/2020)

BUT - in contrast - here's wikipedia on the NYT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times
not impeccable by any means.

finding/knowing truth does require time and thinking, on going openness and willingness to change.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Here is a new paper on non-pharmaceutical interventions NPI's), from the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

In this study, social distancing comes up as best, but masks also reduce exposure, by, on average, 15%. Recommendation is to do both if you wish to contain COVID-19.

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission in 190 countries from 23 January to 13 April 2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01971220322700

Methods
This study included 1,908,197 confirmed COVID-19 cases from 190 countries between 23 January and 13 April 2020. The implemented NPIs were categorised into four types: mandatory face mask in public, isolation or quarantine, social distancing and traffic restriction (referred to as mandatory mask, quarantine, distancing and traffic hereafter, respectively).

Results
The implementations of mandatory mask, quarantine, distancing and traffic were associated with changes (95% confidence interval, CI) of −15.14% (from −21.79% to −7.93%), −11.40% (from −13.66% to −9.07%), −42.94% (from −44.24% to −41.60%) and −9.26% (from −11.46% to −7.01%) in the Rt of COVID-19 when compared with those without the implementation of the corresponding measures. Distancing and the simultaneous implementation of two or more types of NPIs seemed to be associated with a greater decrease in the Rt of COVID-19.


Conclusion
Our study indicates that NPIs can significantly contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Distancing and the simultaneous implementation of two or more NPIs should be the strategic priorities for containing COVID-19.

[geomancer]

I suspect that all types of masks are grouped together in this study, and that better quality masks will increase your odds from 15%. KN95 masks are available at Ace Hardware. I used one when I saw my chiropractor.

A good mask can lower the dose level and the duration if you do get infected, which apparently will reduce the severity of the disease.

Results
The implementations of mandatory mask, quarantine, distancing and traffic were associated with changes (95% confidence interval, CI) of −15.14% (from −21.79% to −7.93%), −11.40% (from −13.66% to −9.07%), −42.94% (from −44.24% to −41.60%) and −9.26% (from −11.46% to −7.01%) in the Rt of COVID-19 when compared with those without the implementation of the corresponding measures. Distancing and the simultaneous implementation of two or more types of NPIs seemed to be associated with a greater decrease in the Rt of COVID-19.

[pamelaL]

Zeno, that was an elaborate study done by the Chinese that seems to validate social distancing and face covering. Personally, I cannot look at this without thinking about the communist goals for social control.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Can your thinking be improved? You say “The Chinese” and that you cannot "look at this without thinking … communist goals for social control.”


Thinking in broad generalities, and an impulsive reaction you can’t control.


Just as happiness, conscious thinking I believe depends on paying attention to more details.


The editor-in-chief of the journal this study was published in, The International Journal of Infectious Diseases, is a citizen of Denmark. The members of the editorial board come from Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the Republic of South Africa, Hong Kong, and, di meliora!, Texas. The publishing house is Dutch.


The peer reviewers are anonymous (!!!) The data used in this meta-study "was extracted from a data repository sourced from Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering and the Wind Financial database, which archive data from the official websites of health ministries worldwide.”


Next time think: the Danes, the Nigerians, the Ivory Coasters, the South Africans, the Texans, the Dutch, the Americans, the capitalist, the Portuguese, the Icelanders,… A true exercise in world geography.


And think, the Nordic Socialists, the Republicans, the 1%, the QAnons, the Democrats, the Africans, the Normans, the people that are associated with Christopher Columbus, …


Or not, and try to pause, and consider more and different details, and be aware of our limited understanding of the strange and beautiful world.

[RaphaelA]

This conversation and back and forth is actually more complicated than it seems in knowing what the truth is. Zeno is trying to bring some nuance defending this China study but it is true that the Chinese (like the Americans who may be paid by God-knows-who for studies and are known for bias as well) may be questionable if their interest is somehow related to a totalitarian position. There may be no bias or not but I agree that just because it comes from China one should not discount it.

The reason this subject is complicated is that there are so many factors in trying to understand what is going on and what to do. If you watch right-wing propaganda you will not see it as propaganda but as "the truth." If you watch MSNBC or CNN, there are alot of not too bright journalists who have no science background. One example in another country is in Sweden and what they did (and did not do) in the pandemic. Even today, many do not wear masks but fortunately (although belatedly) they are starting to see reality with their hospitals filling up. I am hoping that they have enough humility to admit that their unwise past actions were based on a false belief in a supposed scientist named Anders Tegnell (the health minister) who was basically winging it and experimenting on the population and trying to spread it (sound familiar?). Swedes felt special not having to take precautions and seemed unconcerned about the several thousand older people who were given palliative care and let die versus trying to save them. Swedes are supposedly smart, rational people but were essentially looney tunes when it came to the science of this pandemic. And there was no propaganda to speak of there but just a cultural inability to question authority and an underlying feeling of being better than others.

It is easy to see people as stupid when things seem so clear to us. It is harder to put ourselves in their position when we just cannot do so as hard as we try. I see this as a main factor in the animosity that always seems to seep into these discussions.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Questioning someone's motives, like calling it a "China study," in publishing an analysis or study is a no-no in science, It's comitting the ad hominem fallacy.

And it's irrelevant. In this meta-analysis all the data are availiable to other researchers and the reasoning is very detailed and explicit, to someone who learned the field of study.

In theoretical work the details of the reasoning speak for themselves. In the publication of experimental results, methods are described so the experiment can be replicated; lab notes are readily made available,

The gradual development of these norms of scientific communication goes back a long time, at least to Francis Bacon in England and Marin Mersenne in France.

If you can't understand the details of a new publication I think its best to wait and sit back to see how the experts work it out in robust discussions. Second guessing motives is descending in a never ending pit of snakes

[RaphaelA]

Zeno,

You could be right and the experts probably are to be trusted. You mention that second guessing motives is not a good idea. Are you saying that we should never question motives?

If so, I just wanted to clarify. If not, please let me know who we should trust and who not to trust. This is a serious and difficult question which I think is very important and relevant.

Do you have parameters for the more trustworthy sources and less trustworthy ones? If we are not as well-versed in a particular area, where would we go to know who to trust?

The reason I find this important is that this discussion is much of what this forum is about. Someone puts a link of an article from, for instance, The Blaze and others shoot it down as being a right-wing shill. Another puts one from the New York Times and the same thing. Don't we have to have a way of determining trustworthy people and sources in order to be talking about the same facts?

My personal experience in looking at scientific studies is that there are many variables and it is easy to come to different conclusions especially since, as a rule, studies are not replicated. There is little incentive in fact to do so.

This has nothing to do with the particular study you are referencing. I have no opinion on this study and my rule is to just take the proper precautions (proper mask, distancing, no shared air, etc) so I am all in on this.

[podfish]

your post describes perfectly the nature of the posts that draw my opposition. I often agree with the underlying skepticism about convention that they express. It's the centrality of the role of motive in their conclusions, and the speed that they get there, that I find off-putting. It seems like several people on this site and elsewhere, especially on the right-wing political sites, find these pyramiding towers of inference really compelling.

A long time ago there was a quite interesting show called 'Connections', where some PBS brit, I forget which one, showed how this discovery and that development led to these cultural changes. Really compelling and fascinating, but as I learned more about the history of tech and science I saw how arbitrary those chains were, and how alternative explanations were perfectly possible. As someone said, we're rationalizing, not rational animals, really good at weaving ideas together into cohesive but perfectly fictitious stories.

[M/M]

The so called 'experts' - those given a voice in mainstream media and not suppressed - are representing a model that is quite antithetical to caring for humans, 'doing no harm' etc.
Neil Ferguson: China's totalitarian lockdown 'changed what was possible' in the West

March 8th, Expert Fauci Says No Masks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LScH...ture=emb_title

'Expert' Fauci - under 1-1/2 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-O-...ature=youtu.be

Mission creep; another step towards Reset: Sacrificing freedom for the environment? German MP suggests restrictions 'similar' to Covid-19 lockdowns to fight climate change

Opinions we have plenty of. What we rarely find now - other facets of complex issues, informed discussions:
1976 journalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFg3...ture=emb_title

2009 journalism: https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-...ildren/5711540

[podfish]

You could be right and the experts probably are to be trusted. You mention that second guessing motives is not a good idea. Are you saying that we should never question motives?

If so, I just wanted to clarify. If not, please let me know who we should trust and who not to trust. This is a serious and difficult question which I think is very important and relevant.

I think you misread his words, and missed his point. I don't see him claiming the experts are to be trusted. He explicitly says motives are not particularly relevant, given that the data itself is available. When you see critics honing in on motive, it's a sign of unseriousness.

There's got to be some aphorism for this, but I don't know it. some more pithy way to express this: -- Like "what is the meaning of life?", there are phrases that take the form of questions but aren't, really, in the sense that it's not a statement that comes with an answer. "Who should we trust" ??? well, no-one, in the way you seem to be asking it. People offer information and interpretation, of varying credibility and levels of confidence. None are dropping incontrovertible pearls of knowledge, though it's true, some are dropping completely untrustworthy lumps of merde. Some experts are more likely than others to be worth listening to, but that's as far as it's safe to categorize.

[RaphaelA]

Hi!

I was looking at M/M's post and noticed that a number of the sources were related to conspiracy theories.

Is this OK? If so, what is the point of this forum and why are we posting?

My understanding is that we are looking to understand the science which would seem to preclude posting from sketchy sites.

Is there any parameter or rules for the sources we can post and is anyone actually reviewing their sources (doing a web search) to find out more about their source?

If I can just throw anything out there, what is the point?

[viajera]

Unfortunately Wacco has really gone wacko with all kinds of conspiracy theory postings over the last several months. Fear creates irrational behavior and beliefs. It's good to know that there are some of us who are checking the sources of these postings.

[podfish]

If I can just throw anything out there, what is the point?

point? it's whatever you want it to be. Welcome to the interwebs. Come on in, the water's fine.

[Finell]

Denigrating widely recognized experts, all of whom have education and experience in their field, by calling them "so called experts," is merely your opinion. Unlike those you denigrate, however, you have no education or experience that qualifies you to have an opinion about their expertise. Furthermore, you choose to accept and promote the opinions of POV-pushers that lack professional qualifications, who are promoting their own goods and services, and who spew patent nonsense like, for example, colloidal silver to prevent or cure disease.

Likewise, you assert that anyone with genuine qualifications is "representing a model that is quite antithetical to caring for humans, 'doing no harm' etc." Again, the is merely your opinion.

Looking at the broader history, from the discovery of microorganisms through the present, the success of medicine and public health measures (along with the biological sciences that underlie modern medicine) in preventing and curing disease and in prolonging active life is astonishing. We have the eradication of polio, smallpox, tuberculosis, syphilis, and measles (what remains of these killers afflicts those in poverty and without access to modern medicine) and treatment of AIDS. Cancers that previously were death sentences are now cured or controlled. The death of mothers and infants during or soon after childbirth has plummeted. In the United States, life expectancy at birth has increased from 42 in 1900 to a bit over 78 since 2010. And the rate of improvement is accelerating—which is how science usually advances.

Your promotion of contra-factual crackpot sources and crazy ideas is a page out of the playbook of Trump and his ultra-right-wing white supremacist supporters. They are the ones that are "antithetical to caring for humans".

The so called 'experts' - those given a voice in mainstream media and not suppressed - are representing a model that is quite antithetical to caring for humans, 'doing no harm' etc.
·

[Finell]

We have a handful of participants who believe that recognized authorities persistently lie, that the truth must be the opposite of whatever experts say. These same individuals accept any nonsense by any crackpot that speaks against authorities. If these participants evaluated all sources of information by the same standard, they would either believe nothing or they might come to a more rational understanding of the facts.

Reasonable skepticism toward authorities, of course, good. That kind of skepticism is the heart of the scientific method. It is why science works. But skepticism carried to irrational extremes is just noise.

Unfortunately Wacco has really gone wacko with all kinds of conspiracy theory postings over the last several months.·

[M/M]

You assume or presume that I am not qualified, am not a professional (for over 40 years), am anti-vaccine. All are erroneous.

[wisewomn]

Originally and not too long ago, Barry created 2 categories/threads: "Coronavirus" for more generally accepted info, and "Corona virus conspiracy theories" or words to that effect. The separation worked well for a while but then the conspiracy theorists began submitting their posts to the Coronavirus thread. For whatever reasons, Barry did not block the flow. That has brought us right back to where we began, with people seeking more "mainstream" virus info being drawn into back-and-forth with the conspiracy folks.
Frankly, I preferred the separation. I wasted less time slogging through posts that really held very little interest for me.

[Finell]

Please list your post-high school degrees, professional certifications, and any other qualifications that you believe constitute the education and experience to evaluate Dr. Fauci's ability to analyze and advise concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, or that qualify you to assess the state of medical practice in the United States.

By the way, Dr. Fauci's statements, early in the pandemic, that the general public should not be wearing masks was to preserve the limited supply of masks for the medical personnel that needed them. If masks were useless reducing the spread of infectious disease—which is the subject of this thread,

• Why would Dr. Fauci want to keep masks available for medical personnel treating COVID-19 patients?
• Why do physicians and other support personnel wear them in surgery?
• Why are physicians and other medical personnel wearing masks during the pandemic?

You assume or presume that I am not qualified, am not a professional (for over 40 years), am anti-vaccine. All are erroneous.·