Africa travel ban

[probinson]

Actually I spent my time on Scholar.google and ensured that the sources were legitimate high level medical sources.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really mean much any more.

They all said that masks were effective. The fact that you wish to quibble with one paper's estimate of "how" effective doesn't really change the fact of the matter that masks are effective.

Yes, a less than 10% risk reduction in the one RCT you cited.

Isn't all empirical science "observational"?

No.

Almost every study you've posted sits at the very bottom of the evidence pyramid, with the one exception being the RCT from Bangladesh, which has some issues that are outlined in the link I posted. Not all evidence is equal in quality.

On the other hand, I posted a meta-analysis from the CDC showing that masks were not found to be effective to control influenza spread. While I realize COVID is not influenza, they are both viruses, and what we've learned from decades of RCTs cannot be undone by a few expert opinions based on observation alone.

There's obviously a role for theory but studies like these are by nature observational.

Proper studies of interventions have a control group. The vast majority of the studies you've posted don't even have that.

It is highly unlikely that they "confounded" any variables. That's usually something that is parsed out relatively quickly with stats through leverage plots.

Actually, it's an almost certainty that there are confounders that would be near impossible to account for. Age, health, geographic region, climate, co-morbidities, mobility, behavioral patterns and choices... all of this factors into viral spread.

I am curious about your claim of underpowered. Can you give me the citation you are talking about? I would be surprised that a major medical research facility like Johns Hopkins or those folks who publish in Nature would wind up with a power problem in their stats. But I'd be interested in seeing specifically what you are referring to.

I'll use the hairdresser "study", because it was so often referenced, and the CDC thought it so compelling that they made an infographic out of it;

Absence of Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists...

139 clients visited a hair salon where 2 symptomatic stylists worked on them. None of these people contracted COVID. All of these clients wore masks. So the CDC concludes, MASKS WORK! because no one got COVID. But anyone who understands even a teensy bit about the scientific method knows this is completely nonsensical. There is no control group to verify this hypothesis. What would have happened if someone wasn't wearing a mask? Would they have contracted COVID? What about the air ventilation in the building, or the fact that hairstylists aren't working on you face-to-face? Would people have been infected if they weren't wearing masks? There's no way to know, because EVERYONE was wearing masks. This isn't "science". It's wishful thinking. Someone really should tell all of the people that referenced this "study" that correlation != causation.

Just how much did people rely on this "study"? Way too much;

So here we have an underpowered "study" (139 people) of the lowest quality evidence that was repeatedly referenced as if it were the gospel truth. It'd be like me putting a sign in my front yard that says "NO ELEPHANTS" and then trying to convince people the reason there are no elephants in my front yard is because I put a sign there. Ridiculous? Of course. But that's what passes as "science" from the CDC.

This is not at all uncommon in the sciences. There's always studies and counters to those studies. Thankfully Bangladesh is not the ONLY study I've referenced so far.

True. It's the only RCT you've referenced. Most of the studies you've posted are of the lowest quality of scientific evidence.

Think of it like this:

You have two competiting hypotheses:

Ho: there is no beneficial effect from masking
Ha: there is a beneficial effect from masking

If I go with the variety of studies which indicate that, indeed, there IS an effect and I wish to reject the null (Ho) but I am making a Type I error in my rejection of Ho the downside is "Meh, some folks were annoyed to wear a piece of cloth on their face."

What if the effect is worse than that? What if all of the "experts" at the beginning of the pandemic that warned us improper handling of masks could actually increase our risk of infection were right? What if overselling people on the efficacy of a mask causes them to engage in riskier activities because we've told them that "masks work"? What if masking every face on the planet has a real and dire effect on children's language learning? What if the environmental impact of BILLIONS of masks being discarded daily is greater than we realize? Perhaps there is more at stake here than people being annoyed by a piece of cloth on their face.

IF, however, YOU are wrong and in your rejection of Ho you have made an error the downside can be quite dire. People can get hurt even die.

Given that neither you nor I are medical experts on this topic may I ask why you wish to go with the view that, if in error, is much more dangerous than the other way 'round?

That's only your opinion. As I just pointed out, there are very real consequences to you being in error also. If you tell an elderly, at risk person that a mask will protect them, perhaps they will venture out more than they should because they feel safe. It's like sending someone into a minefield and saying, here, this pool noodle will keep you safe.

Just look at the data. This was perhaps one of the most egregious examples of the CDC cherry-picking data to support their hypothesis. The CDC studied the effects of masking in multiple states, and claimed that case counts were kept low by people wearing masks. They studied the time period between March-October 2020. But remarkably, at the exact conclusion of the study period, cases sky-rocketed;

So the question would be, if masks worked so well and were the cause of lower infection rates in the summer, what on earth happened in the winter? Just look at those spikes! No one stopped wearing masks. In fact, mask wearing and adherence to mask mandates was at an all-time high during those spikes. And there was no delta variant to blame either. Yet no one has even tried to explain these increases. We're just supposed to accept the gaslighting because the "experts" at the CDC say "MASKS WORK!" even though if they had run the same study from October through February, they would have come to a completely different conclusion.

Perhaps you can accept that as "experts" doing science, but I can't. It's cherry-picking data to arrive at a predefined conclusion, and it is the antithesis of science.

 

[Parmallia]

Unfortunately, that doesn't really mean much any more.

Yes it does. For instance I specifically selected known sources like PNAS, Nature, Johns Hopkins.

Almost every study you've posted sits at the very bottom of the evidence pyramid, with the one exception being the RCT from Bangladesh, which has some issues that are outlined in the link I posted. Not all evidence is equal in quality.

Given that COVID is less than 2 years "old" now it would be nearly impossible to have extensive studies. Indeed the studies I did quote showed that what is known is that masks are largely effective. Not perfect, but effective.

The PNAS article leverages earlier respiratory-borne diseases as well as physical features of aerosols etc.

PNAS notes "Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high." which makes it more imperative that more people wear the masks.

Actually, it's an almost certainty that there are confounders that would be near impossible to account for. Age, health, geographic region, climate, co-morbidities, mobility, behavioral patterns and choices... all of this factors into viral spread.

Confounding variables should be quite easy to see with a leverage plot. To simply wave one's hands as if this isn't a SIGNIFICANT CONCERN of anyone embarking on a study is to beggar the imagination.

139 clients visited a hair salon where 2 symptomatic stylists worked on them. None of these people contracted COVID. All of these clients wore masks. So the CDC concludes, MASKS WORK! because no one got COVID. But anyone who understands even a teensy bit about the scientific method knows this is completely nonsensical.

Why is it non-sensical? Not all science has a control group. The entire field of geology and the field of forensics lacks a "control" group. There is a significant role for observational science.

I will gladly agree that it is not as SOLID as if there is a control group, but lacking a control group in early studies in an area of investigation where controls may be hard to find is not a killer for the science.

So here we have an underpowered "study" (139 people)

139 is underpowered? I don't think you are necessarily correct here. I'm not saying you are for sure wrong, but you cannot simply point to a small number and declare it is "underpowered". Statistical power is a bit more detailed than that. It is not simply a small number of samples...it is more related to the minimum effect

of the lowest quality evidence that was repeatedly referenced as if it were the gospel truth. It'd be like me putting a sign in my front yard that says "NO ELEPHANTS" and then trying to convince people the reason there are no elephants in my front yard is because I put a sign there. Ridiculous? Of course. But that's what passes as "science" from the CDC.

Are you of the opinion that YOU do science better than the CDC? I hope not.

True. It's the only RCT you've referenced. Most of the studies you've posted are of the lowest quality of scientific evidence.

You keep talking about this "lowest quality of scientific evidence" as if it is somehow a major issue. To be quite honest I've never heard anyone talk like that and I've been doing R&D science for 30+years now. I have no doubt it is quite a rational breakdown of relative merit, but it hardly acts as an indicator that everyone's OPINION is somehow superior.

Remember: this is a new disease and, yes, things are still being learned.

Right now, as is proper in science, the most likely hypothesis is that masks work. Sure maybe one day a real solid study will show something else, but right now, ceteris paribus, masks are an effective adjunct to deal with the virus.

What if the effect is worse than that? What if all of the "experts" at the beginning of the pandemic that warned us improper handling of masks could actually increase our risk of infection were right? What if overselling people on the efficacy of a mask causes them to engage in riskier activities because we've told them that "masks work"? What if masking every face on the planet has a real and dire effect on children's language learning? What if the environmental impact of BILLIONS of masks being discarded daily is greater than we realize? Perhaps there is more at stake here than people being annoyed by a piece of cloth on their face.

This is a reasonable question to ask and a reasonable set of situations to hypothesize. I assume you have zero evidence to support this hypothesis being real. It's a just-so guess. A reasonable thing to guess but not necessarily shown in any of the data so far.

That's only your opinion. As I just pointed out, there are very real consequences to you being in error also.

Right now there is no real evidence that masks will make things worse. You are free to find that data but so far you have provided no evidence in support of it.

Perhaps you can accept that as "experts" doing science, but I can't.

It sounds like you have some scientific background, but I suspect you are not a medical expert. I know I'm not a medical expert. Far from it. As such neither of us really can speak against what the experts say since for us it is nothing more than slightly informed opinion.

The real sign of desperation is when someone starts suggesting that the CDC is doing science badly. If that someone is not a trained epidemiologist it is unlikely to be accurate.

It's cherry-picking data to arrive at a predefined conclusion, and it is the antithesis of science.

That is HIGHLY unlikely. The real antithesis of science is to assume experts in a field you are not an expert in are doing science badly when they arrive at a conclusion you disagree with.

 

[KCfromNC]

There are plenty of "experts" that have questioned the efficacy of masks. Dr. Marty Makary

Isn't that the guy who said we'd have herd immunity by last April? I mean, I'm sure the guy is a fine surgeon, but his track record making guesses about the trajectory of the pandemic seems spotty at best. If that is the kind of expert we're talking about here, no wonder they're being ignored.

 

[probinson]

Are you of the opinion that YOU do science better than the CDC? I hope not.

I am of the opinion that elementary school students can do better science than the CDC.

This is really where the crux of the disagreement lies. You accept all of these sources as trustworthy. While I used to, nearly 2 years of garbage science has changed my opinion. I see the CDC and the FDA as little more than political pawns.

This is also really where the problem lies. The CDC has a trust problem. So does the FDA. And not just with non-medical professionals;

Poll Finds Public Health Has A Trust Problem

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic

Here's a great article talking about the noble lies of COVID;
The U.S. Government’s Noble Lies About COVID-19

Sure, there are conspiracy nuts out there that concoct all kinds of scenarios that are completely nonsensical. But there is also a large group of people that aren't buying the gaslighting any more. As one example, yesterday I read an article in the WaPo where the very first sentence declared that demand for vaccines in the US had "spiked" in recent weeks.

Actually, vaccine demand kind of took a precipitous plummet, it would appear, with a slight rebound and is currently on its way back down again.

The media uncritically repeats anything THE SCIENCE™ tells them to, whether it's demonstrably false or not, which contributes to the distrust in science. This will have real and lasting consequences far beyond the pandemic.

Without public trust, public health cannot be effective.

 

[probinson]

So, back to the OP...

How's that Africa travel ban working out? At last count, there are 19 states that have confirmed cases of Omicron;

19 U.S. states now have detected the omicron COVID-19 variant

Yet another super-effective mitigation measure brought to you by the US public health braintrust. Was almost worth punishing Africa for alerting the world of its existence. I mean, it probably delayed the introduction of Omicron into the US by at least 3 or 4 hours.

 

[Pommer]

So, back to the OP...

How's that Africa travel ban working out? At last count, there are 19 states that have confirmed cases of Omicron;

19 U.S. states now have detected the omicron COVID-19 variant

Yet another super-effective mitigation measure brought to you by the US public health braintrust. Was almost worth punishing Africa for alerting the world of its existence. I mean, it probably delayed the introduction of Omicron into the US by at least 3 or 4 hours.

The horse being gone doesn’t mean you cannot still close the barn door.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

No Goading​

MOD HAT OFF​