It’s interesting. I made a bunch of fabric masks for the family (and others) back at the beginning, but now, with greater reopening, and fewer supply problems, I’ve ordered KN95s, to be more protected.
This really nice summary article has just appeared in Nature, addressing a lot the stuff discussed up thread. Its not paywalled.
I like the mask you’re wearing in your avatar!
Oh the shame, the shame of it all…
According to a CDC report, mask wearing and closures led to a 75% decrease in Covid-19 cases.
It took two months to see the decrease according to the report from the CDC.
Um, that’s not exactly what it says. This is what it says:
The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, the relationship between mitigation measures and changes in case counts are temporal correlations and should not be interpreted to infer causality.
And of course it does. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be anything even remotely approaching science.
You forgot the next sentence.
What they’re saying is that more than one factor might explain the change.
It’s still true that mask wearing and closures led to a 75% decrease in Covid-19 cases. It might not have been the cause or the only cause but the policy led to a decrease in Covid-19 cases.
This study taken by itself may not prove that mask wearing is decreasing the cases of Covid-19, but there are more and more studies which are leading in that direction.
It also says this
No, it is not. That statement is not at all true. At least, not under any definition of truth that would remotely qualify as science. Or, not as real and genuine science, the kind that isn’t politicized, argued from emotion, and practiced in the realms of media and public opinion.
What can be said, and what the paper says, is that mask wearing and closures preceded a 75% drop. Other potentially related things also preceded the drop. It is not proven that any of those factors are causative, but it is useful to know that the data appears to be consistent with masks and closures having a positive effect.
A correlation can be significant if there is a scientific basis and it can be replicated. Both of these are supported by data. There are several studies out there demonstrating the main route of transmission (respiratory droplets and aerosols), who is most contagious, and the environments that promote spread. There is also tons of data out there showing how masks work. There is also correlations outside of Arizona showing that mitigations that follow science (mask mandates, closing bars and closing or reducing loads in restaurants) result in large drops in cases. This is well known. I don’t know why you’re saying that something doesn’t qualify as science. Aren’t you keeping up with the literature on this?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
Of course I’m keeping up with the literature on it. And of course, as I know you know, there are many, many other examples of places with different interventions that have experienced essentially the same trajectory of disease. I’m glad that you yourself mentioned that we should take into account those other examples, natural experiments or not, but you will note that the study didn’t. Nor did it mention compliance, in this specific case, to any of the intervention measures in Arizona. Nor did it mention scope of testing, at all, alongside its use of case counts as ‘evidence’.
It’s junk science. Junk science. Over and over and over again. Parading on a very high horse of morality at the moment, else it would never – never, ever, ever – be accepted, in the least, in any legitimate scientific discussion on any other issue (save a very notable few) at any other time. It’s junk. It’s bordering very closely on propaganda. And I’m sick of it. This is from people who have a professional obligation to know better.
I don’t think you’re keeping up with the literature because, if you did, you’d know that the interventions used successfully throughout the US have been pretty much the same. They’re the same because they were based on science. These are the following: 1) mask mandates, 2) shutting down bars, 3) restricting large gatherings, and 4) reducing restaurant capacities. This is exactly what Arizona did. San Antonio, Dallas and Houston did pretty much the same interventions a little before the state followed suit. Cases followed the same trajectory as Arizona. They peaked about two weeks after mask mandates. Closing bars and reducing restaurants actually came about a week after the mask mandates. Two months later, they’re back to where they started before the surge without a need for a lockdown.
The data comes from the Arizona Department of Health which is linked in the CDC article. You can also see all their data on the ADHS dashboard. So they don’t have to “mention” certain things in the article because the data is easily available at the link.
Regarding compliance, that’s the whole point of a mandate. A business that doesn’t comply with mask mandates or 25-50% capacity (for restaurants) can be closed down by the health department. Individuals were either fined or sent to jail in Arizona depending on the county. It states this in the CDC article.
Regarding testing and case definitions, this all came from the state which is linked in the CDC article. I don’t know what you mean by ‘scope’ of testing but test positivity rates tell you if there’s more cases out there than they’re catching. This is also available at ADHS. The positivity rates timeline in Arizona follow exactly the confirmed cases timeline peaking at the end of June at 20%. That means that at the peak, there were probably many more cases out their than they knew about. Again, this is exactly what happened in San Antonio except we got as high as 24%.
And climate change isn’t real either, so nyahh!
I suppose just because prosecuting drunk drivers doesn’t lead to totally accident-free highways we should leave them alone than, right?
To mask definitely for me. You can get infected just for one minidrop of spit from someone. I think is responsible to wear ir.
More mask reports and studies.
Kansas mask wearing communities had less of a rise in infection rates than non-mask wearing communities.
Tennesse mask wearing communities experienced less of a spread of infection than non-mask wearing communities.
A model shows that universal mask wearing could save 130K lives.
A study shows that people who refuse to wear masks show a higher level of antisocial traits.
The New York Times has a cool interactive on the physics behind masks.
Here’s also a nice video on the physics of N95 masks.
Here’s another video. “Why Masks Work BETTER Than You’d Think.”
More places are making masks mandatory.
This applies to indoor and outdoor public setting where social distancing can’t be applied.
The fines have some teeth. People can be fined up to $1,000 for a first offense, although the governor is stressing education and reserving fines for the most egregious offenses.
This one only applies to indoors in public buildings.
Since the South Dakota gov made lots of silly noises over the last few months it will be awfully hard for her to institute any mask mandates. It’ll be interesting to see if she does.
I’m also wondering if the Presidential election has changed anything for any of the states.
I’m hearing from experts on the news that either the state and local governments institute mask mandates or they will have to lockdown at some point because of all of the hospital overruns that will be happening.