I’m curious where you get this from because it isn’t exactly accurate. I don’t know about all of Europe but Germany had a patchwork of mask laws at the province level during the first surge, the federal government put in a mask mandate near the beginning of their reopening, not during a rise in cases. Canada doesn’t actually have a nationwide mask law and again, the various local laws came during reopening, not as a reaction to rising cases. The nordic countries in Europe might fit your description but the ones that were enacted were pretty weak - like only mandatory on public transport.
Let me spell this out for you. It’s you vs. thousands of epidemiologists, infectious disease doctors, and public health experts. It’s you versus the many scientific studies and explanations that people have cited in this thread and elsewhere on the SDMB. I don’t know what your motive is in trying to argue that masks don’t work, but you have neither the credentials nor a shred of credible evidence to support your claims. If you’re trying to persuade anyone, it’s not working.
Besides the points others have made, what number of White House cases are you comparing this to? Because I don’t think we really know the total number of cases from people who work at the White House. We know the secret service has had outbreaks, with, recently, 130 agents infected or quarantining. Residence staff have been infected, and at least two super spreader events have occurred, which led to at least dozens of infections.
More importantly, I think you finally clarified that part of your point is that masks can’t totally stop the spread. Can you expand on what your thesis here is? Because everyone arguing against you knows that masks are not the 100% solution. But there is evidence of multiple kinds that they do help. I think you have admitted – correct me if I’m wrong – that they can help, at least to some degree. So is your point only that people are overestimating how much they help? Does that lead you to conclude that people should not wear them, or should not be made to wear them? Is that it?
My post wasn’t as precise as you would like because it was a generalized response to q questions on why Europeans and Canadians didn’t have as high mask compliance as the US. I stated no specific country AND nothing I said contradicts what you just said.
My point was that because of successful and more stringent lockdowns (and more careful reopening) masks were not as essential as in certain places in the US that reopened too quickly.
We studied sources of variation between countries in per-capita mortality from COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Potential predictors of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality in 200 countries by May 9, 2020 were examined, including age, gender, obesity prevalence, temperature, urbanization, smoking, duration of the outbreak, lockdowns, viral testing, contact-tracing policies, and public mask-wearing norms and policies. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed. In univariate analysis, the prevalence of smoking, per-capita gross domestic product, urbanization, and colder average country temperature was positively associated with coronavirus-related mortality. In a multivariable analysis of 196 countries, the duration of the outbreak in the country, and the proportion of the population aged 60 years or older were positively associated with per-capita mortality, whereas duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality (all P < 0.001). Obesity and less stringent international travel restrictions were independently associated with mortality in a model which controlled for testing policy. Viral testing policies and levels were not associated with mortality. Internal lockdown was associated with a nonsignificant 2.4% reduction in mortality each week (P = 0.83). The association of contact-tracing policy with mortality was not statistically significant (P = 0.06). In countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing, per-capita coronavirus mortality increased on average by just 16.2% each week, as compared with 61.9% each week in remaining countries. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.
Bolding mine.
This study is consistent with the other studies that show that mask wearing protects others more than it protects the wearer. That’s the reason for a lot of the political angst about this issue. The policy needs to be more universal because the person wearing the mask doesn’t get the most benefit unless others around the wearer are also wearing masks.
This study reinforces that finding.
Said another way, and I’m sure this is a surprise to some of our vehement objectors …
A policy that is not followed is not effective. But the failure is in the non-following, not in the policy.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/europe/coronavirus-europe-lockdown-tiers-intl/index.html
bold added
Mask wearing is not a panacea. It’s a mitigation effort, along with others, that can help avoid lockdowns. Along with that, for the mask wearing to be effective enough to avoid a lockdown, there needs to be 95% compliance as versus 60% compliance.
An article about that study.
Pretty much what most people in the thread have already posted. It just lays out what the study said and didn’t say in more detail.
To add to the other comments about that study, the authors themselves admit that only 46% wore their masks correctly at all times.
Also, in their own words, “Limitations: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”
This study was done in April - May.
The article also provides this interesting bit of information, " Did they see a small reduction in risk? Impossible to say. The study was powered, in the statistical sense, to detect a 50% reduction in infections between the mask group and the control group. If masks reduced risk by a lower amount—25%? 10%?—the study wasn’t able to detect that."
Only 13 states don’t have a statewide mask mandate. I didn’t look very carefully, so maybe I’m off base here, but I’m guessing most of the 13 states are red states.
Another ‘masks don’t work’ article debunked.
I think I should point out that most of the “objections” to that study noted here are not based on reading the link provided. The study ended up with about 5000 participants, intended to study mask usefulness for the wearer and of course actually followed along with participants as to whether they were complying.
The point Tfletch1 made and that you’re quoting was in the study in the link provided as quoted here:
I know. What do you think leaving out the “47% predominantly as recommended” says about his argument style? What do you think of the JAQing style of “if it was a big enough study” and “they … seemed to not follow up with participants”*
*paraphrased
The study found a reduction in risk to the wearer that was not statistically significantly. The solution to “not statistically significant” is often a larger study.
The study didn’t even look for reduction in risk to others, which is where masks are believed to be most effective.
Yes, I only read the conclusions and the design of the study, I did not read the entire paper. So they did follow up, despite not mentioning that in the design. Cool. And apparently they found adherence to wearing masks properly was low in the “wear masks” group.
This study had 5000 people and was conducted during the early days when mask use wasn’t being recommended for the general public at all.
Eta: so no, it doesn’t take away from the current reasoning behind mask use but some people were/are hopeful that mask use lowers your exposure.
I imagine this would be a very hard study to do.
“Ok, you 3000 people spend a bunch of time around sick people wearing masks in your day-to-day lives. You other 3000 people, spend all your time around people not wearing masks.”
Oh, you want double blind?
“Ok, we’re giving 3000 people masks to hand out to all the people around them, and the other 3000 people fake masks that look just like the real thing, and all the people they interact with need to wear them.”
Yes, that’s why all the data to date is animal data, physical models, and observational studies. All of which are “science”, even if they aren’t double-blinded prospective studies.
You could compare different types of masks that were manufactured to have the same appearance.