The complete article is here. Here are some of the graphs:
Go read the article and see all the graphs.
I don't need to be a "medical professional" to analyze numbers and know that masks are useless against viruses--especially when such is stated on the boxes of the masks so many people buy and wear! As I've said before: Science would indicate that you should believe the data, not your intuition.
Oh, and here's more data.
11 comments:
Didn't anyone ever teach you that correlation does not imply causation?
Actually, yes. But this is not a case of correlation/causation.
We *expect* the masks to make a difference. They didn't. You could argue that there's a confounding variable here, but even that wouldn't change the fact that masks aren't doing anything except pissing people off.
If you don't trust the data, why do you trust a mask that won't stop viruses? That doesn't sound very science-y to me.
In this case, the confounding factor is that western nations didn't initiate mask mandates until after they had failed to control the virus by other means. This is a common problem. For example, in areas where the local health department mandates the boiling of water, there is a higher incidence of water born diseases than in areas without such a mandate. This does not mean that boiling water does not prevent water born diseases. In Asian countries, where mask use was initiated early on, mask use was successful in preventing transmission without shutting down the economy.
We have allowed mask use to become politicized. The Trump white house has been encouraging mask use since early April. This is not a left/right issue.
So if we're too late, shouldn't we just *stop* the mask theater?
It's not a matter of being "too late". During a cholera outbreak, people who boil their water are still safer than people who don't. Think of a nurse who comes into a hospital room and forgets to wash her hands. After a few minutes, she realizes her mistake. It would not be Ok for her to continue to put dirty hands on her patient. Although it would have been better if she washed her hands before entering the room, it is still a good idea for her to wash her hands as soon as she remembers.
A good example is the airlines before and after they began requiring masks. Transmission went way down. In requiring masks, they were doing exactly what President Trump had asked them to do. The white house is right on this issue.
The data don't support your hypothesis. If masks worked, we should see a decrease in cases after mask mandates were imposed--that's why they were imposed. We don't see such a decrease, therefore, the mask mandates don't work. IF transmission went down on airlines (do we know that it did?), we'd see that on a graph--we're not seeing it in the public at large.
Unless you want to try to convince me that the rates would be higher without the mask mandates, and again, I'd say the trendlines of the graphs don't support that conclusion.
Furthermore, there are no RCTs (zero, zip, nada) demonstrating that mask-wearing results in a statistically significant reduction in the transmission of viral infections. You're just as likely to contract Covid when wearing a mask as when going unmasked.
Like the CYA disclaimer on the boxes state: Masks will not provide any protection against Covid 19 or other viruses/contanimants.
Have you looked at what is going on near your alma mater? It appears that the positivy rate is 4x in those areas where people aren't masking and social distancing compared to the areas where they are.
There is also the problem that people with low cost subsidized care are out and about spreading the disease. The pocketbook hit to the others is pretty high. Even with pinkeye we had families remove their children from public school while the staff got the cleaning done and the disease traveled thru the classrooms....many private industry workers have high deductibles, so getting everyone in to the doctor is way too much burden for a young family's budget. Right now lots of seniors are doing their usual....out and about coughing without covering, spreading flu and pneumonia because they 'they just have to get out of the house'. I won't be voting live any more - too many ill amongst the poll workers who weren't social distancing.
In Ohio we have approximately 220,000 cases of a population of over 11 million. That is about a 2.7% infection rate of a virus that has over 98% recovery rate. I am over 65 and refuse to give up my freedoms for this type of risk. Too many people think it is possible to control a virus...it is not. It is only possible to assess the risk and determine whether you are willing to continue to live your life or hide from it. We are and have raised a generation of bubble-wrap citizens who believe you must hide from all risks. In that case, stay home and off the roads because there is a much greater risk of an auto accident than there is of contracting this virus. Caution...YES. Fear...NO.
The virus can continue to spread even with a mask mandate for a number of reasons. The masks do not filter out all particles. They simply diminish the numbers. Also, compliance is not going to be 100%, and viruses can be spread through contact. The reason that a spike can occur even though masks are effective is because the spread of infections is exponential. To make the numbers simpler, suppose that without masks a typical infected person will infect 3 other people, while with masks a typical infected person will infect 2 other people. Infections would continue to rise even with the masks, but that would not mean that masks were ineffective.
The white house guidance for masks on planes has been effective.
https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/Airline-passenger-face-masks-harvard-15575531.php
Anonymous--you keep saying what *should* be happening, I say look at the graphs and see if the mask mandates made any changes in the graph at all. Science would indicate that you look at the data, not your intuitions.
Post a Comment