We’re counting a surge, at a moment in time, as the compelling evidence of how something physically works? If it physically works in a certain way, it always works in that way. It seems entirely useless to limit the analysis to one specific window of time and ignore the rest. Like, very patently obviously wrong.
Do I think the surges are random? Of course not. I think it’s evidence of what we know about how viruses spread. Yes, the science! They don’t jump around through hyperloops or something. It takes them a little while to move from one place to another.
My understanding is that the WHO offices themselves have more spread than the White House does. Were you aware of that? If it is indeed true, do you count that as any sort of evidence?
The World Health Organization has recorded 65 cases of the coronavirus among staff based at its headquarters, including at least one cluster of infections, an internal email obtained by The Associated Press shows, despite the agency’s public assertions that there has been no transmission at the Geneva site.
The revelation comes amid a surge of cases in Europe, host country Switzerland, and the city of Geneva, in particular, and the email said about half of the infections were in people who had been working from home. But 32 were in staff who had been working on premises at the headquarters building, indicating that the health agency’s strict hygiene, screening and other prevention measures were not sufficient to spare it from the pandemic.
"“To my knowledge, the cluster being investigated is the first evidence of potential transmission on the site of WHO,” Dr. Michael Ryan, the agency’s chief of emergencies, told reporters Monday after the AP reported on the internal email.
The email said about half of the infections recorded so far were in people who had been working from home. But 32 were in staff who had been working on premises at the headquarters building, where more than 2,000 people usually work and the agency says it has put in place strict hygiene, screening and other prevention measures."
Are you seriously comparing this to what has happened/is still happening in the White House?
Where did you get moment in time? Did you think the article was referring to surges on election day?
To be clear, are you saying that the level of masking has no effect when the virus arrives at a location due to visitors or super-spreader events?
As other examples, BLM marches where people were mostly masked (and were outside) did not seem to have caused surges. Care to predict whether the celebration rallies the Saturday after the election are going to cause a surge? Most people in the videos I saw were masked, so I’m predicting they won’t.
It’s not like we don’t understand the mechanisms by which masks reduce the spread of the virus.
We’re talking mask usage, not mask mandates, since a mandate in an area where people can ignore the mandate without repercussions is not all that useful. Where I live the social pressure to mask is probably far more important than the mandate.
For all the talk about ‘knuckle-dragging science-deniers’, there seems to be little respect for how science actually works. Experiments, control groups, efforts to identify causation. Observational studies do not normally qualify as rigorous science.
So, here we would seem to have two groups using two different protocols. You might think of one as the experimental arm and one as the control arm. Yes, you should compare those two arms, if you want to look at it scientifically.
I wouldn’t call the third wave (or increase in the first wave) a moment in time. However, do you doubt that the same correlation could be found if we tracked surges after the first, when we admittedly didn’t know what we were doing?
And I’m sure that mask usage is correlated with effective shutdowns, and so cannot be viewed in isolation.
The only thing that study can show (even if it’s large enough, rigorous, etc.) is whether a mask protects the wearer, not whether it protects the other people when the wearer is sick. So it doesn’t seem to tell us much of use.
Plus, were the mask-wearers who actually got sick infected while wearing masks, or when they weren’t?
It’s an unfortunate result, but far from as conclusive as the article would like it to be, I’m afraid.
So… half of those are CERTAINLY not from behaviors at the WHO premises, and the rest seem to be scattered, and probably aren’t, either? There is one cluster of 5 cases that might be related to being on the premises. How does the incidence of covid compare between the people who work at the WHO headquarters and the people in Geneva as a whole? The article reported how many “usually work there” but not how many are on-premise now, which is too bad.
But one cluster of 5 cases, which might be related to external exposure is a FAR lower rate of transmission than what we see in the White House.
Almost all science starts with observational studies, and god observational studies can absolutely qualify as rigorous science. In case you haven’t noticed, there are lots of prospective studies that aren’t performed due to ethical and/or logistical concerns.
Here, we have a solid theory, that is consistent with normal medical practice, for how masks work.
We have controlled studies with caged animals suggesting masks work in this specific case.
We have a plethora of observational data supporting the theory.
At this point, I think pretty much every doctor and medical researcher believes that masks work to reduce the spread of covid. Because… you know, the evidence is overwhelming. Even if we haven’t locked a bunch of people in rooms with a covid-positive person for a measured amount of time, and compared whether the masked or unmasked prisoners were more likely to become infected.
So… They encouraged one group to wear masks, and handed them a stack of surgical masks. They didn’t do that for the control. That was the only intervention. They don’t seem to have even ASKED people whether they wore masks. A rather large fraction of the people enrolled in the study dropped out.
Even so, the results were compatible with masks reducing the risk. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.
This is an interesting data point, but it is frankly less persuasive than some of the large observational studies. And it doesn’t even contradict them to any significant degree.
Masks are a very simple and low-cost tool in the fight against COVID. The better they work, the better off we all are. The less effective they are, the worse off we all are.
Remember, I’m the OP of this thread. I asked the question because I wasn’t sure we had strong evidence that masks work. This particular study is far from conclusive for the reasons puzzlegal and I pointed out, but if masks don’t protect the wearer that is unfortunate (though hardly surprising).
I have no agenda other than wanting effective anti-covid tools.