1042 replies to this topic

[smithx]

I expect better source checking of people here. This is a fake article written by a faker:

 

https://www.factchec...-on-face-masks/

 

The paper being referenced was not an original “study,” but one person’s hypothesis — or proposed explanation — based on a review of some previous literature. It was first published online in November by the journal Medical Hypotheses, which describes itself as “a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences.

 

“The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended,” she said in an email. She also noted that “Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19.”

 

 

 

OK, back to the back & forth: 

 

https://americancons...-against-covid/

 

Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid

 

The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot.

 

[smithx]

The largest uncontrolled observational study in the U.S. indicated barely over a 1% difference between mask-mandated areas and non mask-mandated areas.

 

How about this one?

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm6940e3.htm

New cases dropped by 75% after mask mandates were instituted in Arizona.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The report linked to in smithx's post #662 lists the following limitations, which I have reformatted for easier reading:

 

"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. Other factors that might have influenced the rate of change (e.g., travel restrictions, neighboring state mitigation measures, and individual choices to reduce movement before implementation of mandates) cannot be ruled out.

 

Second, health centers run by tribal entities and federal health facilities (i.e., Indian Health Service, Veteran’s Administration, and Department of Defense) in the state are requested but not required to comply with state reporting rules. Many of these health centers and federal health facilities complied with reporting, but the completeness of reporting by these entities is unknown.

 

Third, adherence to mitigation measures was not assessed, nor could the extent to which each individual measure affected the number of incident COVID-19 cases be established.

 

Finally, Arizona might not be representative of other U.S. states, and community mitigation measures might have a different impact in more populous or densely populated states; thus, these findings are not necessarily generalizable to other settings."

 

 

So, unless those limitations are subsequently accounted for, no firm conclusions can be made in general (i.e., effectiveness of masking in the U.S.) they apply to Arizona. In other words, at one point the authors are warning the readers not to employ the fallacy of composition to further a particular bias. Mind's comment was about the U.S. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 24 April 2021 - 03:44 AM.

[smithx]

More actual evidence:
 

https://www.scienced...10414154949.htm

Lower COVID-19 rates seen in U.S. states with higher adherence to mask wearing
New evidence supports mask wearing in public as key to reducing spread of COVID-19
    April 14, 2021
Summary:
    A new state-by-state analysis shows a statistical association between high adherence to mask wearing and reduced rates of COVID-19 in the United States.

 

The eight states with at least 75-percent adherence to mask wearing had a mean COVID-19 rate of 109.26 per 100,000 residents in the subsequent month, while the mean COVID-19 rate was 239.99 for states with less than 75 percent adherence.

 

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

smithx, the article you link concerns a study first cited in this thread by Hebbeh in post #615, and then by Florin in post #639 who cites Hebbeh's post.

 

From the study itself:

"It is worth noting that no states achieved this level of mask adherence in September, which might account in part for the spike in COVID-19 rates in October. Of course, many other factors are could be at play, like the possibility of cooler weather driving non-adherent persons to indoor gatherings."

 

No mention of viral mutations possibly affecting covid-19 test results and how mutations might impact transmission.

 

No average temperature statistics given, although there are significant covid-19 differences  between hot and cold areas. The average October temperature in Phoenix AZ is 86-92F, for example.

 

Dearth of mention of confounders: "Based on CDC at-risk guidelines for COVID-19 [20], we considered non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, age, and population density as potential confounders."  That's it?

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 24 April 2021 - 08:37 AM.

[geo12the]

smithx, the article you link concerns a study first cited in this thread by Hebbeh in post #615, and then by Florin in post #639 who cites Hebbeh's post.

 

From the study itself:

"It is worth noting that no states achieved this level of mask adherence in September, which might account in part for the spike in COVID-19 rates in October. Of course, many other factors are could be at play, like the possibility of cooler weather driving non-adherent persons to indoor gatherings."

 

No mention of viral mutations possibly affecting covid-19 test results and how mutations might impact transmission.

 

No average temperature statistics given, although there are significant covid-19 differences  between hot and cold areas. The average October temperature in Phoenix AZ is 86-92F, for example.

 

Dearth of mention of confounders: "Based on CDC at-risk guidelines for COVID-19 [20], we considered non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, age, and population density as potential confounders."  That's it?

 

With this topic it's impossible to have a perfect study where no other variables are in play. Doing a deep dive into a study to reveal it's limitations is a good thing but you are falling into the trap of "I don't agree with the conclusions, I found these flaws that allow me to entirely discount the results". Problem is do the flaws you found discount the results? I don't think so.

 

FWIW, I did a deep dive looking into this kind of data last December. I posted about it here (#326). No mater how I looked at the data states with less masking had more COVID. Of course people here brought up surges and seasonality, but that does not detract from the fact that if you look states with low masking, per capita COVID is higher. No hand waving can discount that. 

 

Here is my December post, but I looked at the data more extensively after this as well and the results always the same. People here are pretty locked into their anti-mask views and will find ways of discounting any data that shows that masks work. It seems to be a political badge of honor for some people. But it's a badge that comes with a cost: human lives.

 

 

There is an interesting tool at Covid numbers: 

 

https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast

 

With this disease there are of course multiple factors that are contributing to infection and the numbers are not 100%. But this is the data we have to look at. There is no perfect experiment or perfect data to look at. Given that caveat, there is a pretty good correlation between mask wearing and COVID cases per capita. Here is some data:

 

Top graph is mask compliance as of October 1. Darker blue means higher % of people wearing masks. Bottom graph is per capita cases as of November 1. Darker red means more COVID. People can find alternate explanations to the hypothesis that in states with less masking, covid rates per capita are higher. But I believe the simplest explanation: Masks are not perfect but they help keep the spread down.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
•  

 

Edited by geo12the, 24 April 2021 - 05:38 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

 

geo12the writes in post #666:

 

“Doing a deep dive into a study to reveal it's limitations is a good thing but you are falling into the trap of "I don't agree with the conclusions, I found these flaws that allow me to entirely discount the results". “

 

Look carefully through my posts—I have taken no stance on the subject of masking. Then, look up the definition of “Advocatus Diaboli” (devil’s advocate).

 

After having done that, have a look at this article (December 30, 2020) about how “India has brought down its virus numbers”. Then, compare the content of that article with the current situation in India.

 

Consider the article and the current situation in India in concert, and then draw a logical conclusion about the effectiveness of masking in India, assuming that the assertions made in those sources are considered to be axiomatic for purposes of argument.

 

[geo12the]

.

 

After having done that, have a look at this article (December 30, 2020) about how “India has brought down its virus numbers”. Then, compare the content of that article with the current situation in India.

 

Consider the article and the current situation in India in concert, and then draw a logical conclusion about the effectiveness of masking in India, assuming that the assertions made in those sources are considered to be axiomatic for purposes of argument.

 

More recent reports suggest mask compliance there is not so good:

 

https://www.thehindu...cle33796443.ece

https://theprint.in/...-survey/610618/

https://theprint.in/...nds-out/634877/

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: geo12the's post #668

 

 

geo12the, your first link cites a survey conducted in Chennai, India, which reports:

 

“A survey carried out by ICMR-NIE along with the Greater Chennai Corporation during October last year found that nearly 72% of people in slums and 64% in non-slums did not wear a mask covering their noses and mouths. Dr. Kaur noted that a second survey in December found only one-third of people wore masks, though the compliance was better in malls.”

 

India has a population of 1,390,952,684. Chennai has a population of 11,235,018--or about 0.8% of India’s total population. 

 

An attempt to extrapolate findings from Chennai India, to India as a whole, is an example of the fallacy of composition. The authors of the Arizona report  recognized that potential type of fallacy and wrote:

 

“Finally, Arizona might not be representative of other U.S. states, and community mitigation measures might have a different impact in more populous or densely populated states; thus, these findings are not necessarily generalizable to other settings."

 

 

Your second link refers to a survey that reports opinion, not fact:

 

“Only 30 per cent of Indians believe there is mask compliance in their city, district or area they live in while only 12 per cent say social distancing norms are followed, according to a recent survey. “

 

 

Your third link also cites a survey of opinion, not fact:

 

“The survey, conducted by community social media platform Local Circles, received 33,000 responses from residents across 319 districts of India. Of these, only 11 per cent respondents felt there was effective adherence to both social distancing and mask wearing in their area, district or city while 29 per cent said mask compliance was ‘good’.

 

This is a sharp fall from last September, when in earlier Local Circles survey found that 67 per cent respondents reported good mask compliance in their area.”

 

In sum, because of opinion, not fact, and potential fallacy, your links do not support your claim:

 

“More recent reports suggest mask compliance there is not so good:” With “there” referring to India.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 25 April 2021 - 04:35 AM.

[Hip]

Look carefully through my posts—I have taken no stance on the subject of masking. Then, look up the definition of “Advocatus Diaboli” (devil’s advocate).

 

If one were working for a government scientific agency, advising government on policy decisions regarding how to handle the pandemic, then that stance would not be very helpful. 

 

Nearly all the studies on the various viral spread controlling measures have some flaws in them because they were rushed or performed in less than ideal circumstances; and nearly all the studies on controlling measures have question marks associated with them because of the fact that there are multiple factors which affect viral transmission and spread, so there are many confounding factors.

 

If government scientific advisors in this pandemic just threw out every study because it it has some flaws, there would be no data at all to rely on. The skill in these circumstances is being able to offer scientific advice, and arriving at a tentative scientific conclusion and way forward, while using data which is less than perfect.

 

 

 

Fortunately, science is supported by two pillars: one pillar is empirical evidence from studies or observations, the other is theoretical models. We know that nearly all the viral spread controlling measures employed (social distancing, hand washing, lockdowns, masks, etc) have little solid empirical evidence to support them.

 

However, we can also assess these controlling measures by theoretical models, which helps inform our decisions. So for example, theoretically it makes sense that social distancing works, because we know that the virus ejected from the mouth or nose has only a limited range. The optimum social distance has not been determined empirically, but various governments have suggested 1 to 2 meters (although this may only be relevant for outdoor situations; if you are indoors with no air circulation in the room, the virus likely has greater range than just 2 meters).

 

 

One solid empirical fact we do have: this winter influenza was more-or-less entirely abolished in the UK. Thus it is clear that the sum total of the viral spread controlling measures we are using have been very effective. We don't know which particular measures work better than others, but clearly we have got it largely right, given that these measures in toto have had such a dramatic effect in curbing influenza. 

 

 

 

So rather than just trashing studies because they have some flaws or limitations, what a good and highly experienced scientist will do is gauge the validity of a given study. Like they might conclude that study A has some flaws, but still provides useful evidence; study B has more extensive flaws and confounding factors, so is interesting but it's results should be treated with caution; and study C is very flawed, so can be considered unreliable. 

 

That kind of approach to dealing with imperfect data is what scientists of necessity must adopt in this pandemic.

Edited by Hip, 25 April 2021 - 01:42 PM.

[geo12the]

Re: geo12the's post #668

 

 

 

In sum, because of opinion, not fact, and potential fallacy, your links do not support your claim:

 

“More recent reports suggest mask compliance there is not so good:” With “there” referring to India.

 

The WSJ article you originally linked to "Covid-19 Was Consuming India, Until Nearly Everyone Started Wearing Masks", I was not able to read because it's behind a paywall. But what I did read was about politicians telling people to wear masks, not hard statistics about mask use in India. I have looked for stats on mask wearing compliance in India and could not find any. 

 

Here is a link to the actual survey discussed in the second link I posted. It asks peoples opinions on mask compliance. Make of it what you will but to me it casts doubt on the idea that India has high mask compliance.

 

https://www.localcir...y#.YIWZLehKiUm 

 

 

From the survey taken earlier this year:

 

Survey Demographics 8,000+ responses were received from citizens residing in 238 districts of India. 68% respondents were men while 32% respondents were women. 51% respondents were from tier 1, 28% from tier 2 and 21% respondents were from tier 3, 4 and rural districts.

 

 

 

Attached Files

•  Picture1.jpg   13.43KB   0 downloads

Edited by geo12the, 25 April 2021 - 04:05 PM.

[Hip]

Couple of articles I saw today:

 

Six feet apart or 60? New MIT study on risk of being exposed to COVID-19 says it might not make a difference — this article basically says that if you are indoors, you can just as easily catch the virus if someone in the room is infected irrespective of whether you are 6 or 60 feet away from them.

 

Then building on the above MIT result, the next article suggests that since social distancing in unventilated indoor areas has no benefit, we should not limit the capacity of bars and restaurants:

Limiting the capacity of bars and restaurants does NOTHING to cut the risk of catching COVID-19, new research claims

 

 

 

Of course if someone is infected in a bar or restaurant, clearly the more people present in that space, the more people the virus has a chance to pass to. So in that respect limiting numbers does reduce transmission. But according to the study being socially distanced from others in a bar or restaurant does not much reduce you risk of catching the virus from an infected person.

Edited by Hip, 26 April 2021 - 03:13 AM.

[Hip]

India's massive current spike in COVID cases is a salutary reminder of what can go wrong if you suddenly abandon social distancing, wearing masks, and other virus control measures: 

 

This article: Covid-19: How India failed to prevent a deadly second wave details how India thought it had beaten the virus, and so gave up with the social distancing, mask wearing, etc. They are now paying dearly for this grave error of judgment, with daily deaths nearing 3000 — and rising.

 

Edited by Hip, 27 April 2021 - 03:36 AM.

[Florin]

While limiting the number of people indoors (group social distancing) might work to slow transmission, social distancing for individuals probably doesn't work. As long as there's a limit on the number of people that can gather in an indoor space, there's no need for any distance rule.

 

Anyway, the lesson here should be to use respirators, not to double down on stopgap NPIs such as social distancing and masks.

 

 

[pamojja]

They are now paying dearly for this grave error of judgment, with daily deaths nearing 3000 — and rising.

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

I got an idea. Why not you make a poll with two questions:

-did you get COVID19

-were you wearing a mask when you got it

 

[pamojja]

I got an idea. Why not you make a poll with two questions:

-did you get COVID19

-were you wearing a mask when you got it

 

I did wear a FFP2 mask always in public transport and on night-shifts in a homeless shelter. As it is by law here. About 30 hrs a week, didn't get covid.

 

Know only 5 co-workers who got it mildly, all wore FFP2 mask on duty. Don't know anyone hospitalized or death. All my remaining co-workers who meanwhile got mainly the AZ shot, for a larger part had more severe side-effects than the mild covid co-worker cases.

 

Those who sadly indeed died from it wont be able to respond to such a poll, either way.

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 03 May 2021 - 11:22 AM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I didn't get the COVID19 (up to now).

I wear my mask very regularly.

[Florin]

Know only 5 co-workers who got it mildly, all wore FFP2 mask on duty. 

 

On duty but probably not off duty. Do the people they live with wear FFP2s in public? Probably not. Plus, FFP2s often leak around the edges, and when that happens, they're no better than surgical masks.

Edited by Florin, 04 May 2021 - 03:48 AM.

[smithx]

At seivtcho's suggestion, I created a short Covid-19 / Mask Usage poll:

https://www.longecit...ask-usage-poll/

[Mind]

At one point, surveys showed that over 95% of Indians were wearing masks in public...and this was offered as the reason why "India conquered COVID" just a few months ago. 

 

https://www.npr.org/...-covid-19-cases

 

As the rest of the world found out through this whole episode, and was well-known in the literature from prior pandemics AND RCT studies, and as India has now found out, generic masks and face coverings are not a good pandemic response. They barely make a dent in transmission.

 

In contrast, out-patient treatment with multiple therapeutics is proven in dozens of trials around the world to be very beneficial in treating COVID. Yet health authorities continue to rely on mask mandates. It is a world tragedy.

 

 

[Hip]

At one point, surveys showed that over 95% of Indians were wearing masks in public...and this was offered as the reason why "India conquered COVID" just a few months ago. 

 

Yes, and then India made the mistake of thinking they had conquered coronavirus in Feb 2021, and so abandon many controlling measures, including masks, social distancing, etc. Having dropped mask wearing, coronavirus returned with a vengeance. 

 

Although new variants emerging in India may also have played a role in the current spike in cases and deaths. 

[Mind]

Yes, and then India made the mistake of thinking they had conquered coronavirus in Feb 2021, and so abandon many controlling measures, including masks, social distancing, etc. Having dropped mask wearing, coronavirus returned with a vengeance. 

 

Although new variants emerging in India may also have played a role in the current spike in cases and deaths. 

 

So they should just put their masks back on...and boom! Pandemic over....right? This current wave began back in March, with all the precautions going back into place, this wave should have been crushed weeks ago....right?

[Hip]

The people who asked for references for my above post should read my slightly earlier post on this same page, where the reference was provided. 

 

 

 

So they should just put their masks back on...and boom! Pandemic over....right? This current wave began back in March, with all the precautions going back into place, this wave should have been crushed weeks ago....right?

 

Once an exponential explosion in cases has occurred, it takes some time for that to die down again, even if you reinstate restrictions, as anyone versed in mathematics will explain. 

 

However, it's no clear whether this explosion in cases was just due to India just dropping its guard earlier this year, or whether it may also be due to more contagious variants appearing. An Indian variant has appeared in the UK, and seems to be more transmissible.

 

So India may have been hit by two issues at once: they dropped their guard, and unfortunately may have done this at exactly the same time that more contagious variants seem to have appeared. 

 

If these variants are more contagious, it will be a struggle to control them, and India may need to apply even stricter lockdowns to try to contain them.

 

 

Edited by Hip, 12 May 2021 - 11:16 PM.

[Mind]

This is tragic-comedy

 

MIT went looking for the groups of people who question if masking and lockdowns are effective. Based-upon social media and online forums that call these people "covidiots" and all types of other slurs, MIT expected to find a bunch of fake news and ignorant people.

 

Instead they found that these people were using publicly available data and published studies to rigorously debate the issue. They create great visualizations using data in a manner very typical of scientific publications. Even though they could not find fault with the data or methods, they still concluded that these people are somehow wrong. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993.pdf

 

Apparently no one who helped write this paper thought to ask "If there is no fault with the logic, data or methods of the contrarians, maybe masking and lockdowns are not the be-all-end-all best ever pandemic response". Instead, the authors seem to be the ones who are "close-minded".

 

It gets worse....much worse.

 

In a paper where MIT "scientists" claimed that data for mask usage was robust and positive, cited this paper as a reference: https://www.pnas.org...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

 

Look at figure 3. They claimed that masks worked in New York because the rate of daily cases declined slowly after the mask mandate, while cases slowly increased for the rest of the U.S. There are many glaring and obvious problems with this data.

 

First of all, there is no data on actual on the change in habits before and after the mandate.

 

Second of all, New York had a significant first wave which then later spread to the rest of the U.S. That the rate of change in cases across the rest of the U.S. doesn't really look very bad....and less out-of-control than the wave that hit New York, so to use this as an argument that masking is the 100% best ever pandemic response, looks weak.

 

Thirdly, and worst of all, the mask mandate went into effect well AFTER the peak of the first wave in New York. This looks like an amateurish goal-seeking, bias-confirming reading of the data. The cases in New York had already gone down dramatically by the time the mask mandate was issued. If you start from the peak of the wave of infections and do linear fitting up until the mask mandate was issued, then the rate after the mask mandate was issued is WORSE. Is this paper peer-reviewed or just a pre-print? If it was peer-reviewed, the peer-reviewers should be embarrassed. This paper should be on the front page of Retraction Watch.

Attached Files

•  Goal seeked data.jpg   111.14KB   0 downloads

Edited by Mind, 13 May 2021 - 04:37 PM.

[Hip]

In order to get definitive data on the efficacy of mask wearing, why don't we enlist the paid help of lots of COVID deniers and people who think COVID is over-exaggerated. We can place all these deniers in a series of rooms, and then introduce some individuals with a current active coronavirus infection and cough.

 

We can get third of the COVID deniers to wear no mask, another third to wear a standard surgical mask, and the final third to wear N95 or FFP2 respiratory masks. 

 

Then we can see who caught coronavirus in this experiment, and this should help determine the relative efficacy of these two types of mask, compared to wearing no mask.

 

 

 

The COVID deniers should not mind, as they don't even believe COVID is real. And they will get paid for their help in this trial. 

 

Would you be willing to participate in such a trial, Mind? Your view is that the seriousness of COVID is over-exaggerated, and that it is not a problem for young people. So I would guess you would not mind being a guinea pig in such a trial.

 

 

The only problem is that scientific ethics committees may consider this trial ethically suspect; however, even if someone in the trial catches COVID and dies, the data obtained will probably save many more lives in the long run. So let's make use of all these COVID deniers. At least then these deniers will be doing something of value for humanity, in spite of their dubious opinions.

 

 

Edited by Hip, 13 May 2021 - 05:10 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

But surely you've left out one group in your test ..... those that believe that masks do work.  Shouldn't we have a group of pro mask advocates willing to get in room with covid positive patients?  

 

 

[Hebbeh]

Front line health care workers have been doing it every day for the past year+ and it seems to have worked for many of them. And no I don't have links but can you provide links that it didn't work for the majority of them?

[Daniel Cooper]

Front line health care workers have been doing it every day for the past year+ and it seems to have worked for many of them. And no I don't have links but can you provide links that it didn't work for the majority of them?

 

1.) I know a number of front line health care workers that wore masks and got covid. Most were young nurses, they got sick briefly and got over it, as most younger people will.  I'm not sure exactly what that proves one way or the other.

 

2.) The point of Hip's comment and my reply isn't to suggest a real scientific experiment. His point is that most people that say masks don't work would not volunteer to knowingly enter a room for a period of time with covid positive patients maskless. i.e. they aren't willing to back up their rhetoric with real action. True enough. I suspect most anti-maskers would not be willing to sign up for that test. But, by the same token, it's equally valid to point out that most people that praise the effectiveness of masks would likewise be unwilling to knowingly enter a room with covid positive patients even whilst wearing their masks.  That old expression about geese, gander, and sauce comes to mind.

[pamojja]

I suspect most anti-maskers would not be willing to sign up for that test.

Then I must be a real exception. Though I do wear a FPP2 mask where its by law (public transport, shop and working with unprotected clients), in the end that boils down to about 30 hours a week only.

Working nightshifts in a homeless shelter, only 5 of my co-workers did get mild covid (I still know none hospitalized) and really envy them. Since I thought from the beginning its probably most advantagous to train my immunity on this new corona-variant too, for being better prepared in the future.

But no luck for me. If it would be that easy! All with known infections are in quarantine, and hospitals don't let one in.

But, by the same token, it's equally valid to point out that most people that praise the effectiveness of masks would likewise be unwilling to knowingly enter a room with covid positive patients even whilst wearing their masks.

Though I wouldn't be as brave as this poor chap:

Indian Health Ambassador Gets COVID Vaccine Live on TV to Show Everyone How Safe It Is – Dies 2 Days Later:

https://www.thegatew...s-2-days-later/