Anniversary of "15 days to Stop the spread"

[probinson]

Well, let's take a look again...

Discussion

Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with increases in county-level case and death growth rates within 41–80 days after reopening. State mask mandates and prohibiting on-premises dining at restaurants help limit potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2, reducing community transmission of COVID-19.

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19. Mask mandates are associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and hospitalization growth rates, whereas reopening on-premises dining at restaurants, a known risk factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, is associated with increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, particularly in the absence of mask mandates.
Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing ...

Turns out, there are "statistically significant decreases."

Wait, what exactly is the CDC examining here? The effect of mask mandates, or the effect of closing dining establishments? From your link;

The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, although models controlled for mask mandates, restaurant and bar closures, stay-at-home orders, and gathering bans, the models did not control for other policies that might affect case and death rates, including other types of business closures, physical distancing recommendations, policies issued by localities, and variances granted by states to certain counties if variances were not made publicly available. Second, compliance with and enforcement of policies were not measured. Finally, the analysis did not differentiate between indoor and outdoor dining, adequacy of ventilation, and adherence to physical distancing and occupancy requirements.​

So to summarize, the "study" did not account for all measures that might have had an effect on case and death rates, didn't consider whether people were actually complying with the mandates, nor did they even bother to differentiate between indoor or outdoor dining.

Secondly, I can see why you chose to leave the actual data out of your copy and paste, as it's not very compelling;

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.​

So after 100 days, case growth rates were associated with a decrease in 1.8 percentage points. But don't forget that there are any number of other reasons that decrease might have happened.

We really should expect better from the CDC than throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 406.9, 879.2 and 62.9 cases; CI = 12.6, 113.1, respectively). Excess cases after 6 weeks could have been reduced by 90% from 576,371 to 63,062 and excess deaths reduced by 80% from 22,851 to 4858 had states implemented mask mandates prior to reopening. Over 50,000 excess deaths were prevented within 6 weeks in 13 states that implemented mask mandates prior to reopening.
Comparing Associations of State Reopening Strategies with COVID-19 Burden

Really no point in denying these facts.

Oy.

From your link on how this study was designed;

We used an interrupted time series (ITS) to compare the rate of growth in COVID-19 cases and deaths after reopening to growth prior to the reopening. Because all states reopened, each state serves as its own control.12 To estimate what the case rate would have been if the state had not reopened, we assume the state-specific trend in cases prior to reopening would have continued to be the same if the state had not reopened. State fixed effects controlled for state characteristics associated with outcomes that did not change over the study period. Our sample included 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Daily COVID-19 confirmed case counts were obtained from the New York Times database from January 21 through July 16, 2020.​

Can I ask you why more than a year into this pandemic that NOT ONE of these studies looks at the explosion of cases that occurred in the 4th quarter last year? Where are these studies? I mean, I've already asked you this question numerous times, and you continue to ignore it. Because if you ran this same study from October 2020 - January 2021, the results would be COMPLETELY. DIFFERENT.

Secondly, there is an assumption that the trend in cases would have stayed the same if the state had not opened. That's not a valid assumption, as current data shows. You can't just assume infection rates will stay the same. In some cases, they increase. In others, they decrease. The assumptions and modeling that has been done in the name of science have been demonstrably and repeatedly wrong.

Sheesh. These "studies" make me weep for science.

Yes. I didn't think it would be a surprise to anyone that reducing the number of people infected, would reduce number of deaths.

But it matters WHO is infected. If a teenager or child, or even a young adult is infected, they have a very low chance of death. If a senior citizen or a person with co-morbidities is infected, their risk of death is substantially higher.

This is why last year when an overnight camp in Georgia had an outbreak, nothing came of it. Not one death despite 260 people being infected. An attack rate of 44%, and not one death. Those 260 people developed natural herd immunity and are fine today.

On the other hand, it takes just one person at a long-term care facility to unleash a torrent of death throughout the facility. So there is not a direct correlation between number of infections and number of deaths.

Your error, of course, was incorrectly calculating the percent difference. As you now understand, the difference is 23%, not 0.0094%.

And 23% is significant.

In the case of Alaska about 70 deaths that would have been prevented.

In the case of Hawaii, about 130 deaths that were prevented. About what you'd expect from the crash of an airliner. Does that matter? I think so.

So you think we can control EVERY COVID infection down to the number? Not likely.

And why are you so very opposed to letting each individual take whatever measures they deem necessary to protect themselves? If someone is compromised and concerned about catching COVID, they can take measures. They can wear a mask. They can stay home. They can get curbside pickup. But people whose risk profile is exponentially lower should be able to decide for themselves if they also want to take those same measures, especially since the mitigation measures have immense collateral damage, which we've not even begun to realize yet.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wait, what exactly is the CDC examining here? The effect of mask mandates, or the effect of closing dining establishments?

From my link:
On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases;

Apples to apples. The uncontrolled variable was masks.

So to summarize, the "study" did not account for all measures that might have had an effect on case and death rates

Right. It merely looked at the effects of mask mandates. In a study like this, one tests one variable at a time.

Because if you ran this same study from October 2020 - January 2021, the results would be COMPLETELY. DIFFERENT.

So your position is that the data is unreliable, because it covered recent conditions? That seems completely backwards to me.

Should our goal be to reduce infections

Yes.

or to save lives?

Yes. I didn't think it would be a surprise to anyone that reducing the number of people infected, would reduce number of deaths. But I guess it is to some.

But it matters WHO is infected. If a teenager or child, or even a young adult is infected, they have a very low chance of death. If a senior citizen or a person with co-morbidities is infected, their risk of death is substantially higher.

Since younger people can be easily infected and spread the virus, it's not surprising that reducing the infection rate generally also reduces the death rate. Again, this doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to understand.

Now I know you've been told that herd immunity can only occur with a vaccine

You know lots of things that aren't true. That's yet another one.

while there is in fact a 23% difference between 0.0319% and 0.0413% (something I've never denied)

Well, let's take a look...

probinson said: ↑
You also play up differences that are insignificant "Hawaii is better than Alaska" is a prime example. Hawaii's death rate is currently 0.0319%. Alaska's is 0.0413%. So even if your assertion is correct, there is a delta of 0.0094%.

Your error, of course, was incorrectly calculating the percent difference. As you now understand, the difference is 23%, not 0.0094%. I'm not the only one who noticed.

And 23% is significant.

that absolute difference is not significant. It's 3/100 of a percent vs. 4/100 of a percent.

In the case of Alaska about 70 deaths that would have been prevented.

In the case of Hawaii, about 130 deaths that were prevented. About what you'd expect from the crash of an airliner. Does that matter? I think so.

So you think we can control EVERY COVID infection down to the number?

The data show that we could prevent many of them. Another problem you have with the data, is assuming that if protection is not perfect, it isn't effective. Which is like refusing to wear seat belts because some people wearing them die anyway. Pretty foolish, isn't it?

And why are you so very opposed to letting each individual take whatever measures they deem necessary to protect themselves?

Why am I opposed to letting each individual decide whether he deems it necessary to avoid driving a car on the street after heavy drinking? You really don't know? Risky behavior that endangers others is not a matter of personal choice.

 

[probinson]

From my link:
On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases;

Apples to apples. The uncontrolled variable was masks.

Nope. Your study's title even makes clear there are 2 variables being examined to the exclusion of all others.

Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020​

Right. It merely looked at the effects of mask mandates. In a study like this, one tests one variable at a time.

Nope. It looked at the effects of on-premises restaurant data (without distinguishing between indoor or outdoor dining) also. It also patently ignored other factors that absolutely could have affected the growth rates. Basically, it ascribed causation to something that they admitted they can't even be sure of themselves.

So your position is that the data is unreliable, because it covered recent conditions?

No, my position is that the data is unreliable because if you run the same study in a different time period, you get different results. If masks help, they help all the time, not just in the period from January 21 - July 26, 2020. Use the same study design and evaluate the same data but do so from October 2020 - January 2021 and, as I'm sure you know, you would get VERY different results.

Since younger people can be easily infected and spread the virus, it's not surprising that reducing the infection rate generally also reduces the death rate. Again, this doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to understand.

Except there's not any data to support that premise either. Open schools have not led to higher infection rates. Heck, even the Director of the CDC said back in January that we could safely open schools before teachers were vaccinated. That is, until the Biden administration threw her under the bus and she changed her stance based on political pressures and not science, which is pretty much what the CDC has been doing this entire pandemic.

The data show that we could prevent many of them. Another problem you have with the data, is assuming that if protection is not perfect, it isn't effective. Which is like refusing to wear seat belts because some people wearing them die anyway. Pretty foolish, isn't it?

Apples to oranges.

Your own statement is contradictory here. You admit that the protection is not perfect, but then you allege that you could undoubtedly prevent deaths with this imperfect protection. This isn't even logical, much less scientific.

Why am I opposed to letting each individual decide whether he deems it necessary to avoid driving a car on the street after heavy drinking? You really don't know? Risky behavior that endangers others is not a matter of personal choice.

This is really the crux of where you and I absolutely disagree. While you view simple human interactions as "risky behavior" and liken it to drunk driving (a laughable comparison), I do not. A person simply shopping in Walmart or dining out with their loved ones is not inherently risky behavior.

We are being conditioned to see others not as human beings, but merely as vectors of infectious disease. We are told we should fear everyone and every interaction. Heck, Andy Slavitt likened children attending school to "mosquitos carrying a tropical disease". All in the name of "public health" while the collateral damage piles up. This myopic view of the suppression of COVID to the exclusion of all other public health outcomes is incredibly damaging. And the "experts" will try to lay the blame at the foot of the virus as it becomes clear that people are suffering mental health problems as a result of the fear and isolation foisted upon them. But the blame for the damage isn't because of the virus, but rather because of the ill-advised policies imposed by our government officials at the behest of "experts" who have completely lost sight of all public health outcomes.

 

[The Barbarian]

On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases;

Apples to apples. The uncontrolled variable was masks.

Nope. Your study's title even makes clear there are 2 variables being examined to the exclusion of all others.

I would hope so. Hence the finding:
On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases;

They wanted to see what differences there were, re-opening with and without masks. Thought that was clear from the paper. (Edit: I see your confusion, now. All the states in the study had re-opened. That was the controlled variable. The study then looked for infection rates in states with or without mask mandates to see if there was a difference. There was.)

No, my position is that the data is unreliable because if you run the same study in a different time period, you get different results.

But you can't post any studies confirming that assumption? I think I know why.

If masks help, they help all the time, not just in the period from January 21 - July 26, 2020.

That, so far, is what the data show.

Since younger people can be easily infected and spread the virus, it's not surprising that reducing the infection rate generally also reduces the death rate. Again, this doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to understand.

Except there's not any data to support that premise either.

No, you're wrong about that, too:

• Up to 50% of people who had COVID-19 in Iceland were asymptomatic after health officials did broad lab testing of the population there.
• Nearly 40% of children ages 6 to 13 tested positive for COVID-19, but were asymptomatic, according to just published research from the Duke University BRAVE Kids study. While the children had no symptoms of COVID-19, they had the same viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal areas, meaning that asymptomatic children had the same capacity to spread the virus compared to others who had symptoms of COVID-19.
• And, a study from Singapore early in the COVID-19 pandemic showed that people who were asymptomatic still were spreading SARS-CoV-2 to others.

The truth about asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 | UCHealth Today

Turns out, COVID-19 infection rates, death rates, and (no surprise) republican governors are correlated.
States with Republican governors had highest Covid incidence and death rates, study finds
The study found that states with Democratic governors had higher death rates early on in the pandemic, but that trend was reversed by the Fourth of July.
States with Republican governors had highest Covid incidence and death rates, study finds

Heck, even the Director of the CDC said back in January that we could safely open schools before teachers were vaccinated. That is, until the Biden administration threw her under the bus and she changed her stance based on political pressures and not science, which is pretty much what the CDC has been doing this entire pandemic.

Funny you should mention CDC and political pressure....
Political Appointees Meddled in C.D.C.’s ‘Holiest of the Holy’ Health Reports

October 1, 2020 Christi A. Grimm Principal Deputy Inspector General Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 330 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20201

Dear Principal Deputy Inspector General Grimm:We are writing to express our alarm regarding reports of widespread and ongoing political interference in our nation’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Last week, many of us introduced the Science and Transparency Over Politics (STOP) Act in order to ensure a thorough investigation into this political interference, a bill that must be swiftly enacted. In the interim, however, we ask that you immediately investigate whether, and to what extent, political interference has undermined the scientific and public health processes at theoperating divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the COVID-19 response, particularly CDC and FDA
...
Numerous public reports have revealed that political appointees at HHS and the White House have repeatedly interfered with, undermined, and even overruled career experts. In August, HHS Secretary Azar reportedly overruled the FDA when he revoked the agency’s ability to regulate lab-developed diagnostic tests, including COVID-19 tests, potentially undermining the accuracy of the results that patients receive from these tests.2 Also in August, the FDA paused its review of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in response to requests from the National Institute of Health to continue looking at the data, but then rushed to issue an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the treatment following consistent and direct pressure from the President and White House officials, raising concerns that issuance of the EUA was premature and motivated by political pressure.3 That same month, guidance reportedly developed by HHS and the White House Coronavirus Task Force was published to the CDC’s website—seemingly without approval from the CDC—recommending that asymptomatic individuals do not need to be tested, even after exposure to someone with COVID-19.4 This guidance contradicted clear advice from career CDC officials and other public health experts. Following public outcry, this guidance was reversed, but only after nearly a month during which COVID-19 may have further spread through our communities after the CDC appeared to be discouraging testing.5 We have now also learned that the White House may have pressured the CDC to “play down” the risk of bringing children back to school for in-person learning, including attempts to influence both CDC guidance and reports.
...
The consistent pattern running through these reports of political interference is the ongoing effort to minimize the seriousness of the virus. This message directly harms millions of Americans and jeopardizes public trust in science and our COVID-19 response. To safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans during this ongoing pandemic, we ask that you immediately open an investigation into political interference with the scientific work done by experts at HHS.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/201001_Letter_ PetersMuarryWarrenSchumerHHS Political Interference Letter.pdf

The data show that we could prevent many of them. Another problem you have with the data, is assuming that if protection is not perfect, it isn't effective. Which is like refusing to wear seat belts because some people wearing them die anyway. Pretty foolish, isn't it?

This is really the crux of where you and I absolutely disagree. While you view simple human interactions as "risky behavior"

Spreading COVID-19 virus is a risky behavior, yes. If you disagree, I can only again cite the data that say otherwise.

and liken it to drunk driving (a laughable comparison)

If you think so, you don't have any idea of risk and probability. Most people who drive drunk never actually kill anyone. It merely greatly increases the odds that they will. Likewise, a person who is not wearing a mask in public may never actually infect anyone. It merely greatly increases the odds that they will.

If you don't get that, we've found the problem.

We are being conditioned to see others not as human beings, but merely as vectors of infectious disease.

If you think so, there's another weird idea you've made up.

Your own statement is contradictory here. You admit that the protection is not perfect, but then you allege that you could undoubtedly prevent deaths with this imperfect protection.

As you learned, researchers have found that to be true. Just as seat belts save lives every year, even if they don't offer perfect protection. This shouldn't be a difficult concept.

Arguing that unless protection is perfect, it won't save any lives, isn't even logical, much less scientific.

 

[probinson]

On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases;

Apples to apples. The uncontrolled variable was masks.

I would hope so. Hence the finding:
On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases;

They wanted to see what differences there were, re-opening with and without masks. Thought that was clear from the paper. (Edit: I see your confusion, now. All the states in the study had re-opened. That was the controlled variable. The study then looked for infection rates in states with or without mask mandates to see if there was a difference. There was.)

This "study" doesn't even pretend to be an RCT, so I'm not sure why you're trying to present it that way. It admits there were all sorts of other factors that may or may not have affected the infection rates. But because you want to believe it was MASKS! you have no issue with that. Must be masks, because that's what we thought it was before we ever started the "study". SCIENCE!

But you can't post any studies confirming that assumption? I think I know why.

Because none have been done. All of the studies that you've posted were done last year, during a time of decreasing infection rates. Run the same studies with the same design during the fall/winter and you will not see decreasing infection rates in states with mask mandates.

That, so far, is what the data show.

Funny you should mention CDC and political pressure....

Nice deflection and spin. This has nothing to do with the last administration. So back to the topic at hand...

Dr. Rochelle Waslnsky is the CDC director under the Biden administration. On February 3, 2021 she said this;

“There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told reporters during a White House news briefing on Covid-19.

“Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools,” she added.​

That's a definitive statement from the Director of the CDC under the Biden administration. Then later that same day, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki decided that was wrong, and said this;

During a press briefing later Wednesday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki walked back Walensky’s comments, saying that they were not “official guidance” from the CDC.

If Walensky were here, she would say “that they have not released their official guidance from the CDC yet on the vaccination of teachers and what would be needed to ensure the safe reopening of schools,” Psaki said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/cdc...2wGkhB8XU1DOm0ojTWcvbXnTYus3xuoFh5dYXD9ySibD8​

Well thank goodness the press secretary was able to correct the good doctor. And then just a few short days later, the CDC released their official guidance that would've kept 99% of schools in the nation closed, despite the fact the CDC Director had just said that they could reopen safely.

Even Jake Tapper on CNN pressed Director Walensky on this inconsistency. It's pretty obvious from this interview that she doesn't even believe what she's saying, and Jake Tapper continually calls out the fact that she's not following the science (as the Biden administration said they would), and she can't explain it.

Jake Tapper presses CDC director on reopening schools - CNN Video

You don't have to convene a special investigation to see the political pressures driving COVID policy. You just have to open your eyes.

Spreading COVID-19 virus is a risky behavior, yes. If you disagree, I can only again cite the data that say otherwise.

I'm sure you will, once again ignoring the fact that the risk of COVID-19 is greatly influenced by your age and other co-morbidities. The risk of death from COVID-19 in children carries about as much risk as them being killed in a bicycling accident. I guess we should never let children ride bicycles again! If we can prevent even one death...

Here is the reality of who dies when they contract COVID-19;

It's very obvious from this data that there are VASTLY different risk profiles associated with different age groups.

If you think so, you don't have any idea of risk and probability. Most people who drive drunk never actually kill anyone. It merely greatly increases the odds that they will. Likewise, a person who is not wearing a mask in public may never actually infect anyone. It merely greatly increases the odds that they will.

Nope. Not even your studies show that. With the virus being endemic, it is near impossible to determine the source of someone's infection.

But even if that were true, everything we do carries risk. As I walk down the stairs, I could slip and fall. As I drive my car, I could lose control and crash, or someone else could lose control and crash into me even though I'm driving perfectly. Each day I walk. There aren't sidewalks where I walk in some places, so I must walk along the edge of the road. A car could hit me. While working the yard, I could throw my back out or be otherwise injured. You could get a cramp and drown while swimming.

Most people don't think about these things, because it would be incredibly detrimental to your mental health to live in constant paranoia and fear that something might get you.

Life is all about risk mitigation. And until this pandemic, we were all allowed to determine our own risk taking thresholds. Now, people like you and the "experts" want to dictate who can do what and when based on when they decide it's OK. Even though, as the chart above clearly shows, the risk of death from COVID-19 for a great many people is no greater (and in many cases quite a bit less) than other activities.

If you think so, there's another weird idea you've made up.

Not an idea I've made up. As I showed, Andy Slavitt likened children attending school to "mosquitos carrying a tropical disease". It is unhealthy to think of human beings as simply dangerous vectors of disease transmission.

Arguing that unless protection is perfect, it won't save any lives, isn't even logical, much less scientific.

Do you have original thoughts of your own, or do you just parrot the things I say? I guess it really shouldn't be all that surprising, since you parrot exactly what the "experts" tell you without any critical thought, but it would be nice to hear your thoughts rather than taking everything I say and repeating it back to me.

And also, you might want to re-read my statement. What I said was;

You admit that the protection is not perfect, but then you allege that you could undoubtedly prevent deaths with this imperfect protection. This isn't even logical, much less scientific.​

The key word in this statement is undoubtedly. You are continually overselling the efficacy of masks and playing up their capability to prevent infections. But you don't even believe that yourself. You just believe it lessens the chances.

The paradigm of what is "normal" has been flipped on its head, and this is where we find ourselves today;

 

[The Barbarian]

This "study" doesn't even pretend to be an RCT, so I'm not sure why you're trying to present it that way.

Notice that the two variables are re-opened state (all of them in the study) and mask mandates (some had them, and some did not)

And the results were pretty much what you'd expect:
On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks

It admits there were all sorts of other factors that may or may not have affected the infection rates.

Weren't you the one that was shocked when I pointed out other factors in death rates, because early on, doctors weren't as effective in dealing with the virus? (Barbarian checks) Yes, it was you. As you probably now realize, that was the cause for higher death rates initially; the evidence clearly shows this. So what is your evidence that some other factor than masks is responsible for the lower infection rates?

Funny you should mention CDC and political pressure....(inspector general finds Trump administration used political pressure to "downplay" COVID-19 data)

Nice deflection and spin.

If you didn't want to talk about it, it was probably a mistake to bring it up.

I'm sure you will, once again ignoring the fact that the risk of COVID-19 is greatly influenced by your age and other co-morbidities.

You're a little confused here. I showed you that younger people are at lower risk. As you learned, that's not the major concern with younger people being infected. They are often asymptomatic and pass the virus on to others who are at higher risk.

(denial that not wearing masks is risky)

If you think so, you don't have any idea of risk and probability. Most people who drive drunk never actually kill anyone. It merely greatly increases the odds that they will. Likewise, a person who is not wearing a mask in public may never actually infect anyone. It merely greatly increases the odds that they will.

Nope. Not even your studies show that.

As you learned, studies show that wearing masks greatly reduce the amount of virus an infected person emits. And as you just learned, where masks are not worn, infection rates are much higher. No point in denying these facts.

But even if that were true, everything we do carries risk. As I walk down the stairs, I could slip and fall. As I drive my car, I could lose control and crash, or someone else could lose control and crash into me even though I'm driving perfectly.

And yet we still punish people for driving while intoxicated. For the same reason we have mask mandates. You might go a whole lifetime driving drunk and never kill anyone. But the odds are much higher when you drive drunk. You might never infect anyone if you don't wear a mask, even if you are infected. But the odds are much higher if you don't wear a mask. As those studies show.

Life is all about risk mitigation.

I'm guessing you're neither a CSP nor have any credentials in risk management. I had both before I retired. So trust me, you're missing some important things in your dismissal of the risks. You wouldn't see much call for masks if the risk was to the person refusing to wear one. But the risk to others is much greater.

But even if that were true, everything we do carries risk. As I walk down the stairs, I could slip and fall. As I drive my car, I could lose control and crash, or someone else could lose control and crash into me even though I'm driving perfectly. Each day I walk. There aren't sidewalks where I walk in some places, so I must walk along the edge of the road. A car could hit me. While working the yard, I could throw my back out or be otherwise injured. You could get a cramp and drown while swimming.

All your choice, with no one causing you additional risk (unless we should decide that every motorist should decide for himself if driving sober is necessary). You're maybe starting to catch on?

Not an idea I've made up. As I showed, Andy Slavitt likened children attending school to "mosquitos carrying a tropical disease".

So Andy Slavitt is what you meant by "we." Now it makes sense. Or actually, it doesn't. It is unhealthy to think of one person as representative of all of us, particularly with such an outlying idea. What Andy did, was focus on one thing an infected human is. Yes, any infected organism would be a vector. When you get on an airplane, the airline people note the total load of mass on the plane to consider fuel and other things. Your idea would be that therefore the airlines think of you as nothing but additional load, and not as a human being. That's more than weird.

You admit that the protection is not perfect, but then you allege that you could undoubtedly prevent deaths with this imperfect protection.

As you learned, researchers have found that to be true. Just as seat belts save lives every year, even if they don't offer perfect protection. This shouldn't be a difficult concept.

Arguing that unless protection is perfect, it won't save any lives, isn't even logical, much less scientific.

Do you have original thoughts of your own, or do you just parrot the things I say?

If you had said that, I wouldn't have to point it out to you.

The key word in this statement is undoubtedly. You are continually denying the efficacy of masks to prevent infections because they don't offer perfect protection. You're struggling with the reality that nothing is really perfect at keeping us safe, but that doesn't mean it's useless to prevent drunk driving, wear seatbelts, or wear masks in the pandemic.

You and many others let yourselves be policicized, and this is where we find ourselves today;

 

[probinson]

So trust me, ...

 

[probinson]

One day (soon I hope), sanity will return. Once we are removed from the societal and political pressures and groupthink of an active pandemic, it will be glaringly obvious just how ineffective these mitigation measures were in stemming the pandemic. It will also be glaringly obvious that the collateral damage that resulted from these measures is immense (you can read about the collateral damage here: Collateral Global)

We'll hopefully go back to the pandemic preparedness plans that were all tossed aside in the last year and realize that the panic and hysteria driven plan that was implemented in its place was a disastrous failure.

 

[probinson]

You and many others let yourselves be policicized ...

How do I know you've been politicized? Because this has absolutely nothing to do with Trump. You are the one that keeps trying to insert political affiliation into this discussion.

FTR, I'm a registered independent and I didn't vote for Trump in either election. On December 19, 2019 I changed my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent. I did this because I could no longer pretend like the Republican Party represented the values that are important to me. Things like truth, respect, dignity, integrity... these things were washed away by a Trumpian tidal wave of deception, disrespect and immorality that I simply could not identify with any longer.

The Democratic Party is no better. Hypocrisy abounds in both parties. Tribalism is the name of the game. Neither party cares for their constituents. They care only for power and pandering to their base to keep that power at all costs.

From a Christian perspective, it boggles my mind what professing Christians are willing to excuse/ignore/equivocate regarding Trump and the Republicans. I truly believe Christians are harming their witness in a big way by applauding and endorsing the types of behavior from our President that would get our kids sent to their room without dessert or their mouths washed out with soap.

And so that is why I am now officially an Independent. I am left without a party that truly represents my beliefs, values and ideals.

So you can stop pretending like my position is driven by Trump and/or Fox News. And the fact that you can't even accurately judge that and draw this assumption about me tells me all I need to know about how much you have politicized the pandemic response.

 

[probinson]

Check out this fairly standard mask warning tag. Not even the manufacturers of the masks will tell you that their product protects you.

 

[VladTheEmailer]

Dr. Rochelle Waslnsky is the CDC director under the Biden administration. On February 3, 2021 she said this;

“There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told reporters during a White House news briefing on Covid-19.

“Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools,” she added.​

That's a definitive statement from the Director of the CDC under the Biden administration.

There is nothing definitive in that statement and she contradicts herself. Why wouldn't the White House clarify it? If the data only suggests, why would she definitively state that teachers don't need to be vaccinated?​

 

[VladTheEmailer]

Check out this fairly standard mask warning tag. Not even the manufacturers of the masks will tell you that their product protects you.

View attachment 296503

Of course not, they would have already been sued of existence if they did.

 

[The Barbarian]

Check out this fairly standard mask warning tag. Not even the manufacturers of the masks will tell you that their product protects you.

It says that it won't prevent or eliminate any exposure to disease.

You're back to thinking that if it isn't perfect, it doesn't protect you.

 

[The Barbarian]

You and many others let yourselves be policicized

How do I know you've been politicized?

Because that's one way you can deny the science.

Because this has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

It was the IG that uncovered political pressure on CDC by the Trump administration. You and I were just observing the fact.

But I suppose you'd rather talk about the politics than the science.