|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On November 20 2020 06:19 Hondelul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 05:12 Vivax wrote:On November 19 2020 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 18 2020 17:38 Elroi wrote:
We have mask debates every ten pages or so here and it always goes something like this:
1) someone claims that it is beyond absurd to think that masks doesn't help against the virus.
2) he gets called out and provides some sources.
3) Other people claim that those tests are from laboratory settings and we still don't know how that pans out in real society.
4) we end up with two (imo pretty reasonable) opposing claims: we should try masks anyway because we
really think it works and it isn't so bad to use masks; or, we can't ask people to use masks because we don't know that it helps in this setting (and if it doesn't it will hurt the credibility of the authorities) and it's a real intrusion into people's lives. No, this is pure ignorance. We have plenty of studies that have made it abundantly clear that masks help outside of laboratory settings and specifically with covid. The other perspective is not reasonable and does not deserve attention. Oh and the guy in Travis video conference vid is called Dr. Robert Hodgkinson apparently, so he's not a random dude spreading misinfo (though he has a bit of an extreme opinion). Show nested quote +On November 18 2020 14:28 RenSC2 wrote:
"no evidence of masks being useful" - except all the evidence of masks being useful against airborne viruses.
"social distancing is also useless" - except all the evidence of it being useful.
"the risk of death under 65 in this province is 1 in 300,000" - Blatantly wrong. Breakdowns are by 10s, so under 60, the deaths in Alberta are 16 out of 35,291 or about 1 in 2200 die, not 1 in 300,000. He's off by a factor of more than 100.
At the moment Alberta puts it at 35939 cases to 17 death. https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htmSo it is not "a bit of of an extreme opinion" but just blatant lying. You should rethink your opinion or be truthful about your position.
I think I've made my position clear. Mask wearing is a small hassle compared to being subjected to restrictions with a possible immunity after an infection. Laws that had bars/restaurants closed after 8 PM while during the day we had bustling malls also are devoid of logic. It just shifted the action towards private parties.
In that I agree that many of the measures are implemented by flailing legislators without supportive scientific evidence, in Austria at least.
|
On November 20 2020 06:14 Nevuk wrote:The reason for the huge CI range is the very low rate of COVID in the participants overall. 1.8% vs 2.1% is incredibly small as a difference, and the study didn't happen in a covid hot zone (Denmark in april + may). Future mask studies are going to be better, because COVID is more prevalent. (We can make some guesses based on mask mandates, but unless they're very strictly enforced we won't really have good data). Show nested quote +
I wouldn’t say the sample size is too small when that’s the largest mask study to date and isn’t a junky n<1000 one. The “compatible with” is an awkward way of stating the limits of studies in general observing minor impact factors. IE statistics students are more commonly taught to observe that they fail to reject the null hypothesis, rather than opine on which variety of possibilities could be concealed by random chance (see also someone claiming that the study shows masks might have increased covid spread among wearers).
Not just commonly taught, exclusively taught. Every stats textbook in English says to phrase it that way. If you see it phrased any other way it's being written to be presented for a non-stats audience. edit: The studies showing masks have an effect are the different, non stats ones: they're the ones that show how significantly fluid spray is reduced by a mask. We know that for sure, and it just seems insane that it wouldn't translate into an overall reduction of spread. CDC has changed their stance btw, and said it reduces risk of getting infected as well now (in addition to reducing risk of asymptomatic spread).
It's like studying how condoms are effective birth control, but failing to account for the fact that people don't know how to use them. Properly used masks are effective, but at least where I live most people put them on as they're walking into the door of the grocery store and take it off when they leave without washing hands or anything. I don't think that usage is being simulated in your lab experiments.
|
|
|
On November 20 2020 06:19 Hondelul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 05:12 Vivax wrote:On November 19 2020 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 18 2020 17:38 Elroi wrote:
We have mask debates every ten pages or so here and it always goes something like this:
1) someone claims that it is beyond absurd to think that masks doesn't help against the virus.
2) he gets called out and provides some sources.
3) Other people claim that those tests are from laboratory settings and we still don't know how that pans out in real society.
4) we end up with two (imo pretty reasonable) opposing claims: we should try masks anyway because we
really think it works and it isn't so bad to use masks; or, we can't ask people to use masks because we don't know that it helps in this setting (and if it doesn't it will hurt the credibility of the authorities) and it's a real intrusion into people's lives. No, this is pure ignorance. We have plenty of studies that have made it abundantly clear that masks help outside of laboratory settings and specifically with covid. The other perspective is not reasonable and does not deserve attention. Oh and the guy in Travis video conference vid is called Dr. Robert Hodgkinson apparently, so he's not a random dude spreading misinfo (though he has a bit of an extreme opinion). Show nested quote +On November 18 2020 14:28 RenSC2 wrote:
"no evidence of masks being useful" - except all the evidence of masks being useful against airborne viruses.
"social distancing is also useless" - except all the evidence of it being useful.
"the risk of death under 65 in this province is 1 in 300,000" - Blatantly wrong. Breakdowns are by 10s, so under 60, the deaths in Alberta are 16 out of 35,291 or about 1 in 2200 die, not 1 in 300,000. He's off by a factor of more than 100.
At the moment Alberta puts it at 35939 cases to 17 death. https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htmSo it is not "a bit of of an extreme opinion" but just blatant lying. You should rethink your opinion or be truthful about your position.
Pretty much nothing in that video is accurate. E.g. the claim that masks are useless because SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted via aerosols. In reality, such transmission is merely possible, but not actually common:
Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur under special circumstances. (...) These transmission events appear uncommon and have typically involved the presence of an infectious person producing respiratory droplets for an extended time (>30 minutes to multiple hours) in an enclosed space. Enough virus was present in the space to cause infections in people who were more than 6 feet away or who passed through that space soon after the infectious person had left.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/scientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html
|
On November 20 2020 08:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 07:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 20 2020 06:14 Nevuk wrote:The reason for the huge CI range is the very low rate of COVID in the participants overall. 1.8% vs 2.1% is incredibly small as a difference, and the study didn't happen in a covid hot zone (Denmark in april + may). Future mask studies are going to be better, because COVID is more prevalent. (We can make some guesses based on mask mandates, but unless they're very strictly enforced we won't really have good data).
I wouldn’t say the sample size is too small when that’s the largest mask study to date and isn’t a junky n<1000 one. The “compatible with” is an awkward way of stating the limits of studies in general observing minor impact factors. IE statistics students are more commonly taught to observe that they fail to reject the null hypothesis, rather than opine on which variety of possibilities could be concealed by random chance (see also someone claiming that the study shows masks might have increased covid spread among wearers).
Not just commonly taught, exclusively taught. Every stats textbook in English says to phrase it that way. If you see it phrased any other way it's being written to be presented for a non-stats audience. edit: The studies showing masks have an effect are the different, non stats ones: they're the ones that show how significantly fluid spray is reduced by a mask. We know that for sure, and it just seems insane that it wouldn't translate into an overall reduction of spread. CDC has changed their stance btw, and said it reduces risk of getting infected as well now (in addition to reducing risk of asymptomatic spread). It's like studying how condoms are effective birth control, but failing to account for the fact that people don't know how to use them. Properly used masks are effective, but at least where I live most people put them on as they're walking into the door of the grocery store and take it off when they leave without washing hands or anything. I don't think that usage is being simulated in your lab experiments. People choosing to use them improperly is not the fault of the mask or the policy. The same way it wouldn't be the condoms fault if people opened them by poking them with pins. The condom is still effective. Normally you would run a education campaign but the problem is most people are missing the mask because they are mad at the mask and want it to not work, or because they don't belive in Covid, even to the point where they will call it a hoax as they die. So the problem is not the mask it is convincing people this is a real problem and proper use is important. How you do that with so many, including many powerful people with big platforms are actively trying to give out the opposite message.
No, its still a problem with the policy. For example, a hospital I went to has a policy that eliminates those problems. Surgical mask issued at entry, new.ones issued every 6 hours, hand wash, hand sanitizer, and wastebasket right outside the exit.
But, really that doesn't likely help much even if you make that policy at stores, because there's not much evidence for stores being big troubles (plus store employees are actually the ones with the worst mask discipline). So, you get the null results, and a null result is actually an anti-mask result, because.masks have costs. For example, in my city armed robbery is up and clearance rates are down.
|
|
|
On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance.
I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread.
No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time).
So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen).
|
Prior to the coronavirus outbreak the common wisdom was that masks by themselves don't reduce (flu) infections, but the combination of disinfecting your hands and wearing a mask does reduce them.
Well, a lot of people (I mean a lot) aren't using the disinfectant that's freely available in the supermarket.
Whatever happened to that? Why is the claim now suddenly that masks alone reduce infections?
|
On November 20 2020 07:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 06:14 Nevuk wrote:The reason for the huge CI range is the very low rate of COVID in the participants overall. 1.8% vs 2.1% is incredibly small as a difference, and the study didn't happen in a covid hot zone (Denmark in april + may). Future mask studies are going to be better, because COVID is more prevalent. (We can make some guesses based on mask mandates, but unless they're very strictly enforced we won't really have good data).
I wouldn’t say the sample size is too small when that’s the largest mask study to date and isn’t a junky n<1000 one. The “compatible with” is an awkward way of stating the limits of studies in general observing minor impact factors. IE statistics students are more commonly taught to observe that they fail to reject the null hypothesis, rather than opine on which variety of possibilities could be concealed by random chance (see also someone claiming that the study shows masks might have increased covid spread among wearers).
Not just commonly taught, exclusively taught. Every stats textbook in English says to phrase it that way. If you see it phrased any other way it's being written to be presented for a non-stats audience. edit: The studies showing masks have an effect are the different, non stats ones: they're the ones that show how significantly fluid spray is reduced by a mask. We know that for sure, and it just seems insane that it wouldn't translate into an overall reduction of spread. CDC has changed their stance btw, and said it reduces risk of getting infected as well now (in addition to reducing risk of asymptomatic spread). It's like studying how condoms are effective birth control, but failing to account for the fact that people don't know how to use them. Properly used masks are effective, but at least where I live most people put them on as they're walking into the door of the grocery store and take it off when they leave without washing hands or anything. I don't think that usage is being simulated in your lab experiments.
I don't see why the behavior you describe would render masks ineffective? While in the enclosed space people are covering their nose and mouth, thus reducing the chances that they will spread the virus to others through breathed water droplets.
|
Our "lockdown light" in Germany is starting to really affect my mood.
It was succesful in keeping the numbers constant, but on such a high level (~18-20k cases per day), that the moment you open up again (sports centers, restaurants, culture), within two weeks you are going to have an ungodly amount of increase in cases.
From my point of view, if you continue the status quo, it has to stay like this for the next 4 months, without cases dropping significantly. I fail to see how there can be enough acceptance for this strategy in the general population. So many businesses won't be able to survive this and mental health of people will become a much larger issue than it is already.
I'd much rather have a 2nd full blown lock-out for 2 months, during that control/traceability is gained back and afterwards sensible restrictions are put in place and the vaccine starts to be distributed.
With the current strategy, I basically see myself locked up at home for the next 6 months.
|
On November 20 2020 07:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 06:14 Nevuk wrote:The reason for the huge CI range is the very low rate of COVID in the participants overall. 1.8% vs 2.1% is incredibly small as a difference, and the study didn't happen in a covid hot zone (Denmark in april + may). Future mask studies are going to be better, because COVID is more prevalent. (We can make some guesses based on mask mandates, but unless they're very strictly enforced we won't really have good data).
I wouldn’t say the sample size is too small when that’s the largest mask study to date and isn’t a junky n<1000 one. The “compatible with” is an awkward way of stating the limits of studies in general observing minor impact factors. IE statistics students are more commonly taught to observe that they fail to reject the null hypothesis, rather than opine on which variety of possibilities could be concealed by random chance (see also someone claiming that the study shows masks might have increased covid spread among wearers).
Not just commonly taught, exclusively taught. Every stats textbook in English says to phrase it that way. If you see it phrased any other way it's being written to be presented for a non-stats audience. edit: The studies showing masks have an effect are the different, non stats ones: they're the ones that show how significantly fluid spray is reduced by a mask. We know that for sure, and it just seems insane that it wouldn't translate into an overall reduction of spread. CDC has changed their stance btw, and said it reduces risk of getting infected as well now (in addition to reducing risk of asymptomatic spread). It's like studying how condoms are effective birth control, but failing to account for the fact that people don't know how to use them. Properly used masks are effective, but at least where I live most people put them on as they're walking into the door of the grocery store and take it off when they leave without washing hands or anything. I don't think that usage is being simulated in your lab experiments.
How easy it is to educate people to use face masks properly has to be part of the equation. If people are not able to use condoms effective, then it is a bad kind of birth control.
In my own experience, the more you force people to wear them, you just stop caring in the end. You just put them on because you are afraid of social stigma or a fine, so it is not really about fighting the virus anymore.
Everyday I see absolute bullshit like people holding their masks on their face because the earstraps are iching, people rapidly putting on masks while watched etc. Holding conversations with a proper distance can be very difficult with masks on.
Maybe not the most important point, but one of the few excuses to take them off is smoking, which is actually much more dangerous for your health than catching covid.
|
On November 20 2020 13:35 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance. I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread. No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time). So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen).
I don't think that pointing out the near-irrelevancy of masks when it comes to eating makes you anti-mask. After all, when it comes to restaurants, the issue there is that masks can't be consistently worn. That isn't so much an issue with the efficacy of the masks, as it is an issue with the context where people simply aren't keeping their mask on (because they're eating). I agree with you that having a policy about mask-wearing in an establishment that requires *not* wearing a mask (e.g., to put food in your mouth) is pretty silly, and obviously these establishments (e.g., restaurants) will have to explore other options because of their specific contexts. (And, of course, they have been finding alternatives to actually keep things reasonably safe, such as outdoor dining, pick-up service, delivery service, greatly spreading apart tables of customers, etc.)
Obviously, when it comes to large, packed gatherings, that's just a numbers game: are masked people also social distancing, how many people are they coming into contact with, etc. We know that masks help, and we also know that masks aren't 100% perfect at preventing the spread of coronavirus.
|
|
|
On November 20 2020 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 13:35 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance. I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread. No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time). So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen). I don't think that pointing out the near-irrelevancy of masks when it comes to eating makes you anti-mask. After all, when it comes to restaurants, the issue there is that masks can't be consistently worn. That isn't so much an issue with the efficacy of the masks, as it is an issue with the context where people simply aren't keeping their mask on (because they're eating). I agree with you that having a policy about mask-wearing in an establishment that requires *not* wearing a mask (e.g., to put food in your mouth) is pretty silly, and obviously these establishments (e.g., restaurants) will have to explore other options because of their specific contexts. (And, of course, they have been finding alternatives to actually keep things reasonably safe, such as outdoor dining, pick-up service, delivery service, greatly spreading apart tables of customers, etc.) Obviously, when it comes to large, packed gatherings, that's just a numbers game: are masked people also social distancing, how many people are they coming into contact with, etc. We know that masks help, and we also know that masks aren't 100% perfect at preventing the spread of coronavirus.
But that is the *fallacy of the mask* as it were. Its sold as part of a package of things that will "help us reopen" where reopening basically means restaurants, bars, concerts, and everything else the urban upper class love to do in groups. But masks aren't effective for those things, and aside from transport, transmission is pretty low for a lot of the other things masks are mandated for, like a plumber coming to repair a pipe. But the plumber is forced to wear the mask with the fruitless idea that it means brunch can return.
|
|
|
On November 21 2020 02:25 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2020 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2020 13:35 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance. I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread. No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time). So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen). I don't think that pointing out the near-irrelevancy of masks when it comes to eating makes you anti-mask. After all, when it comes to restaurants, the issue there is that masks can't be consistently worn. That isn't so much an issue with the efficacy of the masks, as it is an issue with the context where people simply aren't keeping their mask on (because they're eating). I agree with you that having a policy about mask-wearing in an establishment that requires *not* wearing a mask (e.g., to put food in your mouth) is pretty silly, and obviously these establishments (e.g., restaurants) will have to explore other options because of their specific contexts. (And, of course, they have been finding alternatives to actually keep things reasonably safe, such as outdoor dining, pick-up service, delivery service, greatly spreading apart tables of customers, etc.) Obviously, when it comes to large, packed gatherings, that's just a numbers game: are masked people also social distancing, how many people are they coming into contact with, etc. We know that masks help, and we also know that masks aren't 100% perfect at preventing the spread of coronavirus. But that is the *fallacy of the mask* as it were. Its sold as part of a package of things that will "help us reopen" where reopening basically means restaurants, bars, concerts, and everything else the urban upper class love to do in groups. But masks aren't effective for those things, and aside from transport, transmission is pretty low for a lot of the other things masks are mandated for, like a plumber coming to repair a pipe. But the plumber is forced to wear the mask with the fruitless idea that it means brunch can return.
But wearing masks in other contexts reduces prevalence of disease in the population, and prevalence is what determines the risk level of other activities, even if those activities’ risks can’t themselves be reduced by masks. That’s not a fallacy.
If we idealize the problem a bit, imagine we list all interventions we can think of, and assign them a benefit (amount of disease prevented) and a cost (economic, social, etc. - all the reasons we don’t do this thing normally). Then rank the interventions in decreasing order of benefit per cost. At that point we can just start from the top of the list and implement each intervention until we think the benefit is not worth the cost.
Obviously the complexity comes in applying the idealized scenario to reality. People argue about the correct values for both cost and benefit for different interventions. Some people thing HCQ is an effective intervention, others still insist masking isn’t. They also argue about what point on the list the interventions flip to not “worth it.” There’s also coordination/free rider problems with people refusing to make sacrifices themselves that are mostly for the benefit of others, and inventing increasingly complex ideologies and mythologies to justify this.
But this overall framework is what everyone is working within, and saying “let’s do this intervention so we don’t have to do that one” is perfectly rational. And it’s hard to imagine masking not being toward the top of that list, considering the benefit seems to be somewhere between moderate and huge, and the cost rarely rises above annoyance. If people really don’t like the intervention of closing the (enjoyed by lots of non-upper class people) bars and restaurants, saying “okay, well let’s do more on less onerous interventions like masking so we don’t have to do that one” is perfectly reasonable, bordering on obvious enough it shouldn’t have to be said.
|
On November 21 2020 03:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 02:25 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2020 13:35 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance. I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread. No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time). So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen). I don't think that pointing out the near-irrelevancy of masks when it comes to eating makes you anti-mask. After all, when it comes to restaurants, the issue there is that masks can't be consistently worn. That isn't so much an issue with the efficacy of the masks, as it is an issue with the context where people simply aren't keeping their mask on (because they're eating). I agree with you that having a policy about mask-wearing in an establishment that requires *not* wearing a mask (e.g., to put food in your mouth) is pretty silly, and obviously these establishments (e.g., restaurants) will have to explore other options because of their specific contexts. (And, of course, they have been finding alternatives to actually keep things reasonably safe, such as outdoor dining, pick-up service, delivery service, greatly spreading apart tables of customers, etc.) Obviously, when it comes to large, packed gatherings, that's just a numbers game: are masked people also social distancing, how many people are they coming into contact with, etc. We know that masks help, and we also know that masks aren't 100% perfect at preventing the spread of coronavirus. But that is the *fallacy of the mask* as it were. Its sold as part of a package of things that will "help us reopen" where reopening basically means restaurants, bars, concerts, and everything else the urban upper class love to do in groups. But masks aren't effective for those things, and aside from transport, transmission is pretty low for a lot of the other things masks are mandated for, like a plumber coming to repair a pipe. But the plumber is forced to wear the mask with the fruitless idea that it means brunch can return. The problem is that people think no masks will mean those businesses will not suffer, which has been shown to be false. Because a huge % of people are not going to go out regardless because of their own choices on personal safety. People who think masks have hurt the economy are just silly, Covid has.
Its more like lockdowns have hurt the economy. Because most mayors and governors are not very competent at selecting the right businesses to shut down. Also they've hurt public health and education more than needed because of things like school and hospital restrictions (all my doctors appointments ended up having 2+ month delays, for example), that, in hindsight (and foresight if you are from a certain subset of people) were bad value judgements. Shutdowns of public parks, fields, and courts were obvious overreactions that had both mental and physical health effects, with likely ~0 benefit. Some are still in effect, like our playground ban in Chicago.
There is also a social problem with people who are mask zealots, we just got yelled at by a crazy lady in the park for not wearing masks. I don't get it.
On November 21 2020 03:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 02:25 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2020 13:35 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance. I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread. No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time). So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen). I don't think that pointing out the near-irrelevancy of masks when it comes to eating makes you anti-mask. After all, when it comes to restaurants, the issue there is that masks can't be consistently worn. That isn't so much an issue with the efficacy of the masks, as it is an issue with the context where people simply aren't keeping their mask on (because they're eating). I agree with you that having a policy about mask-wearing in an establishment that requires *not* wearing a mask (e.g., to put food in your mouth) is pretty silly, and obviously these establishments (e.g., restaurants) will have to explore other options because of their specific contexts. (And, of course, they have been finding alternatives to actually keep things reasonably safe, such as outdoor dining, pick-up service, delivery service, greatly spreading apart tables of customers, etc.) Obviously, when it comes to large, packed gatherings, that's just a numbers game: are masked people also social distancing, how many people are they coming into contact with, etc. We know that masks help, and we also know that masks aren't 100% perfect at preventing the spread of coronavirus. But that is the *fallacy of the mask* as it were. Its sold as part of a package of things that will "help us reopen" where reopening basically means restaurants, bars, concerts, and everything else the urban upper class love to do in groups. But masks aren't effective for those things, and aside from transport, transmission is pretty low for a lot of the other things masks are mandated for, like a plumber coming to repair a pipe. But the plumber is forced to wear the mask with the fruitless idea that it means brunch can return. But wearing masks in other contexts reduces prevalence of disease in the population, and prevalence is what determines the risk level of other activities, even if those activities’ risks can’t themselves be reduced by masks. That’s not a fallacy. If we idealize the problem a bit, imagine we list all interventions we can think of, and assign them a benefit (amount of disease prevented) and a cost (economic, social, etc. - all the reasons we don’t do this thing normally). Then rank the interventions in decreasing order of benefit per cost. At that point we can just start from the top of the list and implement each intervention until we think the benefit is not worth the cost. Obviously the complexity comes in applying the idealized scenario to reality. People argue about the correct values for both cost and benefit for different interventions. Some people thing HCQ is an effective intervention, others still insist masking isn’t. They also argue about what point on the list the interventions flip to not “worth it.” There’s also coordination/free rider problems with people refusing to make sacrifices themselves that are mostly for the benefit of others, and inventing increasingly complex ideologies and mythologies to justify this. But this overall framework is what everyone is working within, and saying “let’s do this intervention so we don’t have to do that one” is perfectly rational. And it’s hard to imagine masking not being toward the top of that list, considering the benefit seems to be somewhere between moderate and huge, and the cost rarely rises above annoyance. If people really don’t like the intervention of closing the (enjoyed by lots of non-upper class people) bars and restaurants, saying “okay, well let’s do more on less onerous interventions like masking so we don’t have to do that one” is perfectly reasonable, bordering on obvious enough it shouldn’t have to be said.
The delta of masks is not nearly enough to make up for it though. There are people who are deceived into thinking that (like the lady in the park, who was a classic "brunch is my jesus" type. But its just not true. No amount of doing anything, other than a huge lockdown that gets R0<.1 for several weeks, followed by contact tracing gets you to brunch.
We've never got R0<.5 in the US, even in small geographies, outside of rural/ruralish, homogeneous places. We have consistently demonstrated incompetency in track and trace.
|
|
|
considering the benefit (of wearing masks) seems to be somewhere between moderate and huge
What makes you say that? I have yet to see a single place on earth where obliging people to wear masks in isolation has had any significant statistical effect on the spread of covid-19.
Sure, many countries have had near universal masks as a part of an over-all successful strategy, but there are equally many dumpsterfire overall strategies which include widespread use.
It is all common sense. If you keep 1m distance and you are especially careful during conversations, there is not much left for the masks to do. In tight, crowded spaces with bad ventilation, the masks are not that effective anyway, (depending on the type.)
|
On November 21 2020 03:34 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 03:05 JimmiC wrote:On November 21 2020 02:25 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2020 13:35 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance. I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread. No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time). So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen). I don't think that pointing out the near-irrelevancy of masks when it comes to eating makes you anti-mask. After all, when it comes to restaurants, the issue there is that masks can't be consistently worn. That isn't so much an issue with the efficacy of the masks, as it is an issue with the context where people simply aren't keeping their mask on (because they're eating). I agree with you that having a policy about mask-wearing in an establishment that requires *not* wearing a mask (e.g., to put food in your mouth) is pretty silly, and obviously these establishments (e.g., restaurants) will have to explore other options because of their specific contexts. (And, of course, they have been finding alternatives to actually keep things reasonably safe, such as outdoor dining, pick-up service, delivery service, greatly spreading apart tables of customers, etc.) Obviously, when it comes to large, packed gatherings, that's just a numbers game: are masked people also social distancing, how many people are they coming into contact with, etc. We know that masks help, and we also know that masks aren't 100% perfect at preventing the spread of coronavirus. But that is the *fallacy of the mask* as it were. Its sold as part of a package of things that will "help us reopen" where reopening basically means restaurants, bars, concerts, and everything else the urban upper class love to do in groups. But masks aren't effective for those things, and aside from transport, transmission is pretty low for a lot of the other things masks are mandated for, like a plumber coming to repair a pipe. But the plumber is forced to wear the mask with the fruitless idea that it means brunch can return. The problem is that people think no masks will mean those businesses will not suffer, which has been shown to be false. Because a huge % of people are not going to go out regardless because of their own choices on personal safety. People who think masks have hurt the economy are just silly, Covid has. Its more like lockdowns have hurt the economy. Because most mayors and governors are not very competent at selecting the right businesses to shut down. Also they've hurt public health and education more than needed because of things like school and hospital restrictions (all my doctors appointments ended up having 2+ month delays, for example), that, in hindsight (and foresight if you are from a certain subset of people) were bad value judgements. Shutdowns of public parks, fields, and courts were obvious overreactions that had both mental and physical health effects, with likely ~0 benefit. Some are still in effect, like our playground ban in Chicago. There is also a social problem with people who are mask zealots, we just got yelled at by a crazy lady in the park for not wearing masks. I don't get it. Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 03:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 21 2020 02:25 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2020 13:35 cLutZ wrote:On November 20 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:
It is working in places where they trust masks because they work and its not that hard. But sadly we have way too many people who don't want them too.
The science explains why they work, the testing shows they work, places with the most and best uptake have better performance. I don't want to be the full anti-mask guy, but I think I feel I have to explain something about them: They never actually work for the things that people want/need them to work for in an American context, mainly restaurants, large gatherings, and reducing party superspread. No mask policy will help you open bars and restaurants because then you get the insane instances where you are supposed to "put your mask on between bites" as California tried to advise (given their governor's love of eating out we now know why this was a priority). What a surgical mask + hand hygiene system does enable you to do is to allow basically all the normal, non-food, work to proceed. To the extent people want/need in person work, they will help you do that. It actually will help you with schools (and places like NYC fucked over their schools in the desperate attempts to have restaurants for a time). So either way you are best off just giving the finger to restaurants and concert venues, and letting the rest of the economy do what they think is best, otherwise you end up in the situation we are in now where you did extra damage to the economy, have renewed spikes, and are relying on unrealistic vaccine timetables (even after the miraculous development we've already seen). I don't think that pointing out the near-irrelevancy of masks when it comes to eating makes you anti-mask. After all, when it comes to restaurants, the issue there is that masks can't be consistently worn. That isn't so much an issue with the efficacy of the masks, as it is an issue with the context where people simply aren't keeping their mask on (because they're eating). I agree with you that having a policy about mask-wearing in an establishment that requires *not* wearing a mask (e.g., to put food in your mouth) is pretty silly, and obviously these establishments (e.g., restaurants) will have to explore other options because of their specific contexts. (And, of course, they have been finding alternatives to actually keep things reasonably safe, such as outdoor dining, pick-up service, delivery service, greatly spreading apart tables of customers, etc.) Obviously, when it comes to large, packed gatherings, that's just a numbers game: are masked people also social distancing, how many people are they coming into contact with, etc. We know that masks help, and we also know that masks aren't 100% perfect at preventing the spread of coronavirus. But that is the *fallacy of the mask* as it were. Its sold as part of a package of things that will "help us reopen" where reopening basically means restaurants, bars, concerts, and everything else the urban upper class love to do in groups. But masks aren't effective for those things, and aside from transport, transmission is pretty low for a lot of the other things masks are mandated for, like a plumber coming to repair a pipe. But the plumber is forced to wear the mask with the fruitless idea that it means brunch can return. But wearing masks in other contexts reduces prevalence of disease in the population, and prevalence is what determines the risk level of other activities, even if those activities’ risks can’t themselves be reduced by masks. That’s not a fallacy. If we idealize the problem a bit, imagine we list all interventions we can think of, and assign them a benefit (amount of disease prevented) and a cost (economic, social, etc. - all the reasons we don’t do this thing normally). Then rank the interventions in decreasing order of benefit per cost. At that point we can just start from the top of the list and implement each intervention until we think the benefit is not worth the cost. Obviously the complexity comes in applying the idealized scenario to reality. People argue about the correct values for both cost and benefit for different interventions. Some people thing HCQ is an effective intervention, others still insist masking isn’t. They also argue about what point on the list the interventions flip to not “worth it.” There’s also coordination/free rider problems with people refusing to make sacrifices themselves that are mostly for the benefit of others, and inventing increasingly complex ideologies and mythologies to justify this. But this overall framework is what everyone is working within, and saying “let’s do this intervention so we don’t have to do that one” is perfectly rational. And it’s hard to imagine masking not being toward the top of that list, considering the benefit seems to be somewhere between moderate and huge, and the cost rarely rises above annoyance. If people really don’t like the intervention of closing the (enjoyed by lots of non-upper class people) bars and restaurants, saying “okay, well let’s do more on less onerous interventions like masking so we don’t have to do that one” is perfectly reasonable, bordering on obvious enough it shouldn’t have to be said. The delta of masks is not nearly enough to make up for it though. There are people who are deceived into thinking that (like the lady in the park, who was a classic "brunch is my jesus" type. But its just not true. No amount of doing anything, other than a huge lockdown that gets R0<.1 for several weeks, followed by contact tracing gets you to brunch. We've never got R0<.5 in the US, even in small geographies, outside of rural/ruralish, homogeneous places. We have consistently demonstrated incompetency in track and trace.
The experts have squandered their public faith in disparate treatment. "Targeted" closures, like indoor bars and restaurants, while letting parks and schools remain open would've preserved their public trust, and compliance with mandates. We already had enough data from when schools were open to demonstrate that it isn't a place of high spread.
The difference between 15 days to slow the spread, into masks and social distancing to slow the spread, into lockdowns to slow the spread, into lockdowns until there's a vaccine was a big deal too. It's the major cause of lowered compliance.
Local context:
California just had a major controversy after Governor Newsom. He announced caps on thanksgiving party size and number of households present. He mandates outside only, two hours or less. Governor Newsom was then spotted in an upscale restaurant with many other people. He claimed it was outdoors and offered a half-hearted apology. Then photos surfaced showing it was indoors.
And it was held with people including members of the California Medical Association. CEO & lobbyist. They represent California physicians. And are meeting indoors in a large party at a restaurant with the governor as he issues orders restricting regular Californians conducting their Thanksgiving celebrations.
So if you want to know what's coming for California, people will generally not be restricting their Thanksgiving gatherings. Or probably Christmas either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
