Let's Keep an Eye on Texas and Mississippi

[probinson]

1. Scientific papers tend to start off with their findings. That's how they work. This isn't a conclusion in search of evidence. It's the opposite. I might have more time for your opinion if you presented a scientific paper that showed masks' ineffectiveness.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....FqfNBxrfxUlsT7LzlZCwtVoU0i5Rr9J9c0pkMy8MhQvHA

"We found little to no association between COVID-19 case growth and mask mandates or mask use at the state level. These findings suggest that statewide mandates and enhanced mask use did not detectably slow COVID-19 spread."​

COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data

2. Kulldorff hasn't been off Twitter for a month. His last Tweet was barely three weeks ago. Facts matter.

Ah. May 9 was his last tweet. Sorry for not being exact.

Take up with Twitter why they banned him, but their house, their rules.

I'm astounded that you think Twitter possesses the ability to objectively determine that what a Harvard trained epidemiologist has to say is "misinformation".

The rest of your paragraph is hyperbolic, insisting that he "dared to say". No. He asserted something that was - if he was wrong - potentially dangerous.

"If he was wrong". There you go again, concluding that masks are beneficial and that it's "dangerous" to say otherwise. Never mind that there are reputable doctors, scientists and epidemiologists that question the efficacy of masks.

3. I could equally say that "the Right" is xxx.

You could, and you'd be accurate in saying so.

It's politicising science.

Well, I would agree that science has been politicized.

5. Did you expect a letter from the CDC to Kulldorff to explain in detail what he shuld have done? You must write odd letters. It set out the behaviors it expects its members to uphold, and says that he didn't uphold them. Too bad. They could have benefited from a critical voice, and even said they welcomed people who had different opinions. You see conspiracy, I see integrity.

The CDC has suffered credibility loss throughout the pandemic, and with good reason. If you think the CDC welcomes different opinions because they said so in a dismissive letter, I have some oceanfront property for you in Arizona.

7. Yes. Let's hear them And then, as required by conventional science, let's synthesise and refine hypotheses and coalesce around the best ones.

Or, let's allow Twitter to censor them because we feel it might be "dangerous".

You seem to have a problem with science flip-flopping.

Not at all. I have problem with science flip-flopping without explanation. There is a marked difference between objectively testing a hypothesis and searching for data that supports your hypothesis. You never even acknowledged the CDC "study" I posted earlier which illustrated the cherry-picking of data to arrive at their conclusions. Why?

But this is all science is.

I would amend that and say that is all science should be. But it's not. THE SCIENCE™ has become nothing more than a way to silence dissenting voices, which is exactly the opposite of what real science does.

You seem to be going down a cul-de-sac because you believe science is being weaponised. That's sad.

Science is being weaponized. And it is sad. As I showed in the article I posted yesterday, trust in public health is declining. And with good reason.

Remember when the Director of the CDC, Dr. Walensky, was predicting "impending doom" just a few short months ago? We know that was not only a hyperbolic statement that doesn't belong anywhere near an objective scientific analysis of data, but that it was also demonstrably wrong. Have you seen or heard any mea-culpas from anyone who has been wrong? Nope. They just move on to their next wrong prediction, with no accountability or even an acknowledgement of their prior failures. That's not "integrity".

Remember when Dr. Fauci admitted that he moved the goalposts on herd immunity from vaccination? Because his "gut" told him to?

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?​

Science, or Dr. Fauci's gut?

What about masking kids, OUTSIDE, at camps this summer? Any data to support that? Nope. And I see the CDC has already amended their recommendations on camps, which they say is based on "evolving science", but is more accurately a response to people calling them out on their BS.

I am concerned for science. As the pandemic begins to fade into the rear-view mirror, it's going to become clear that the guidance and recommendations were not based in science. And that will undermine people's trust in real science.

 

[probinson]

Science?

I live in PA. Our Governor said that he was removing all pandemic restrictions effective yesterday. Except of course masks, because we all know masks are the panacea of the pandemic. But he also originally said that the mask mandate would be lifted when 70% of adults in PA were fully vaccinated. While I disagree with this requirement, I was pleased to at least see some objective measure and metric that was achieveable. But that was short-lived, because last week, they changed that to say that the mask mandate would be lifted when either 70% of the adult population was fully vaccinated, or June 28, whichever comes first. Huh? If we need 70% vaccination to be "safe" enough to take off our masks, how can we be "safe" after June 28 if that vaccination threshold has not been met?

These kinds of arbitrary declarations and flip-flops are why people are rightfully questioning THE SCIENCE™. And let's not even start talking about natural immunity from people who have been infected and recovered. They don't factor in. For some reason. I mean, we all know that natural immunity is a thing and there is decades of science that proves this is the case, and we all know and there is a growing body of evidence that shows natural immunity from COVID is probably just as good and lasts just as long as any vaccine. But don't say that out loud! Someone will accuse you of "misinformation".

 

[Derek1234]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....FqfNBxrfxUlsT7LzlZCwtVoU0i5Rr9J9c0pkMy8MhQvHA

"We found little to no association between COVID-19 case growth and mask mandates or mask use at the state level. These findings suggest that statewide mandates and enhanced mask use did not detectably slow COVID-19 spread."​

COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data


Ah. May 9 was his last tweet. Sorry for not being exact.


I'm astounded that you think Twitter possesses the ability to objectively determine that what a Harvard trained epidemiologist has to say is "misinformation".


"If he was wrong". There you go again, concluding that masks are beneficial and that it's "dangerous" to say otherwise. Never mind that there are reputable doctors, scientists and epidemiologists that question the efficacy of masks.


You could, and you'd be accurate in saying so.



Well, I would agree that science has been politicized.



The CDC has suffered credibility loss throughout the pandemic, and with good reason. If you think the CDC welcomes different opinions because they said so in a dismissive letter, I have some oceanfront property for you in Arizona.



Or, let's allow Twitter to censor them because we feel it might be "dangerous".



Not at all. I have problem with science flip-flopping without explanation. There is a marked difference between objectively testing a hypothesis and searching for data that supports your hypothesis. You never even acknowledged the CDC "study" I posted earlier which illustrated the cherry-picking of data to arrive at their conclusions. Why?


I would amend that and say that is all science should be. But it's not. THE SCIENCE™ has become nothing more than a way to silence dissenting voices, which is exactly the opposite of what real science does.



Science is being weaponized. And it is sad. As I showed in the article I posted yesterday, trust in public health is declining. And with good reason.

Remember when the Director of the CDC, Dr. Walensky, was predicting "impending doom" just a few short months ago? We know that was not only a hyperbolic statement that doesn't belong anywhere near an objective scientific analysis of data, but that it was also demonstrably wrong. Have you seen or heard any mea-culpas from anyone who has been wrong? Nope. They just move on to their next wrong prediction, with no accountability or even an acknowledgement of their prior failures. That's not "integrity".

Remember when Dr. Fauci admitted that he moved the goalposts on herd immunity from vaccination? Because his "gut" told him to?

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?​

Science, or Dr. Fauci's gut?

What about masking kids, OUTSIDE, at camps this summer? Any data to support that? Nope. And I see the CDC has already amended their recommendations on camps, which they say is based on "evolving science", but is more accurately a response to people calling them out on their BS.

I am concerned for science. As the pandemic begins to fade into the rear-view mirror, it's going to become clear that the guidance and recommendations were not based in science. And that will undermine people's trust in real science.

To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic - ScienceDirect

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

etc etc ad nauseam. That's how science works: the more meta the better. Although I applaud your referencing a study as requested, insistence on looking at state-wide mask mandates (which was the main correlation considered in your paper) does not take account of confounders that we have already discussed at length: other behaviours, population density, demographics, compliance and so on.

 

[probinson]

Although I applaud your referencing a study as requested, insistence on looking at state-wide mask mandates (which was the main correlation considered in your paper) does not take account of confounders that we have already discussed at length: other behaviours, population density, demographics, compliance and so on.

"Compliance" is the one that makes me laugh the most. When cases increase, it's assumed because people stopped complying. When cases decrease, it's because compliance improved. There doesn't need to be any objective data. This assumption is just accepted as being true. Something like this;

But here's the thing; even if the studies you cite are correct and there is a moderate benefit to mask wearing, they are completely useless if they are not applicable to real-world scenarios. We should be able to question why California, with its strict lockdowns and masking experienced one of the country's worst outbreaks. This does not comport with what THE SCIENCE™ tells us is true.

If the lab study doesn't show results in the real-world, it's pointless. This is why all of the "models" that were used were so problematic. They weren't even in the ballpark of being correct. Yet people would continually point to the model instead of the real-world results.

Models and lab studies have their place in science, but if the real-world results do not correspond with those studies, they are pointless. As you mention, many confounders apply. And when looked at in that context, it becomes clear that even if masks did have a positive effect, it was incredibly modest at best.

 

[probinson]

Here's an interesting chart I saw today showing deaths/100,000 and cumulative deaths broken down by states that had high, low, or mid stringency in their COVID restrictions;

If there were an unambiguous benefit to masking, social distancing and lockdowns, you would expect to see it clearly here. But there is nothing clear in this data, other than the ebb and flow of deaths hit states the same regardless of the stringency of their mitigation measures. Sometimes stringent states did better. Sometimes, they did worse.

 

[probinson]

Here is an excellent article on the importance of open debate in science. Not only the article, but the comments are quite insightful. This is what I've been saying for the past 2 days. Groupthink and politics have infected and perverted science;

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/92868

 

[probinson]

Here's an oldie but a goodie.

In May 2020, the CDC published an article entitled Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures. In this article, they specifically did a systematic review of face masks by looking at 10 RCTs published from 1946 through 2018. (For those of you keeping score at home, that's 72 years worth of science). You can read the whole article for yourself, but here are some snippets about masks (emphasis added);

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

...

In lower-income settings, it is more likely that reusable cloth masks will be used rather than disposable medical masks because of cost and availability (38). There are still few uncertainties in the practice of face mask use, such as who should wear the mask and how long it should be used for. In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks, but compliance in uninfected close contacts could be a problem (12,34). Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission (39). Thus, education on the proper use and disposal of used face masks, including hand hygiene, is also needed.​

Now I've been told throughout this pandemic, and just recently in this thread, that science evolves, and of course this is true. But for you to believe that masks significantly reduce viral transmission, you have to believe that all 10 of these RCTs spanning 72 years were wrong as was the systematic review that the CDC conducted. Then suddenly in 2020, everything we knew about the efficacy of masking in non-healthcare settings to reduce viral spread was proven wrong.

So what of the historical data and studies? Were they all wrong? The CDC published this article just one year ago, even as they were recommending masks. Is it fair to question why?

 

[Derek1234]

"Compliance" is the one that makes me laugh the most. When cases increase, it's assumed because people stopped complying. When cases decrease, it's because compliance improved. There doesn't need to be any objective data. This assumption is just accepted as being true. Something like this;
View attachment 300032

But here's the thing; even if the studies you cite are correct and there is a moderate benefit to mask wearing, they are completely useless if they are not applicable to real-world scenarios. We should be able to question why California, with its strict lockdowns and masking experienced one of the country's worst outbreaks. This does not comport with what THE SCIENCE™ tells us is true.

If the lab study doesn't show results in the real-world, it's pointless. This is why all of the "models" that were used were so problematic. They weren't even in the ballpark of being correct. Yet people would continually point to the model instead of the real-world results.

Models and lab studies have their place in science, but if the real-world results do not correspond with those studies, they are pointless. As you mention, many confounders apply. And when looked at in that context, it becomes clear that even if masks did have a positive effect, it was incredibly modest at best.

It's clear that you are passionately anti-masks, and that you believe scientific groupthink has silenced debate and dissent. That's one explanation, I guess.

The other is that we're dealing with a pandemic the likes of which we have not had to deal with in a century. Scientists have worked together unprecedentedly fast, using best available evidence, and meta-studies, to develop vaccines and - pending that and a herd immunity or viral adaptation, both of which should emerge - guidance or mandates on how people should behave to protect themselves and others.

There's little point in further discussion of this. You are committed to your view, I am committed to mine. If I may suggest one thing, though, it's that you seem unwilling to believe that the evidence could - in the long term - prove you wrong. As I have repeatedy said, if the evidence shows that masking is ineffective, I'll stop masking.

 

[probinson]

It's clear that you are passionately anti-masks, and that you believe scientific groupthink has silenced debate and dissent. That's one explanation, I guess.

There's no question that groupthink has silenced dissent and debate. The "lab-leak theory", which until just a few short weeks ago was literally banned from discussion on social media, is now suddenly deemed a plausible explanation for the origins of the coronavirus. Had you suggested this just a few short weeks ago, you would have been called a conspiracy theorist or worse. But now, it's socially acceptable again to discuss the possibility that the virus leaked from a lab. Do you honestly think that's the only thing that was silenced?

The other is that we're dealing with a pandemic the likes of which we have not had to deal with in a century. Scientists have worked together unprecedentedly fast, using best available evidence, and meta-studies, to develop vaccines and - pending that and a herd immunity or viral adaptation, both of which should emerge - guidance or mandates on how people should behave to protect themselves and others.

So is it safe to assume that you believe the 72 years worth of RCTs on face masks referenced in the CDC article above and the CDC's systematic review of it was all wrong? How can it be that just because a pandemic emerges, we suddenly determine that all of our historical data and knowledge concerning face mask use in non-medical settings is suddenly null and void?

RCT's are the gold standard for evidence. Everything we have on masking from the pandemic is observational in nature. I'm not sure why you are willing to believe these observational studies over decades of RCT's.

There's little point in further discussion of this. You are committed to your view, I am committed to mine. If I may suggest one thing, though, it's that you seem unwilling to believe that the evidence could - in the long term - prove you wrong.

I suppose so. But, I tend to believe that decades of historical science isn't likely to be proven wrong by just a few hastily thrown together observational studies.

As I have repeatedy said, if the evidence shows that masking is ineffective, I'll stop masking.

There is all sorts of historical evidence in my last post that shows that masks did not significantly reduce viral transmission in RCTs. Heck, even the mask manufacturers include a disclaimer on the box stating that the mask is not indicated to protect from viral spread.

In 2003 during the first SARS epidemic, you could actually be fined up to $110,000 in Australia if you exaggerated the health benefits of masks.
farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html

How is it possible that we got it all wrong for so long?

I don't understand why you're so quick to ignore all of the historical evidence.

 

[probinson]

In the same vein of being quick to ignore historical evidence, you may have seen today one of Dr. Fauci's emails from early in the pandemic getting a lot of press. Here it is;

The relevant portions is underlined in the image above, but I'll re-emphasize it here; The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.

When questioned about this, Dr. Fauci claimed this was early in the pandemic, and his recommendations changed as the science and knowledge changed. But my follow-up question would be, what exactly changed? In this email, Dr. Fauci gave one main reason why masks were not effective; because the virus "...is small enough to pass through the material." So did we learn that the virus was bigger than we originally thought? I don't recall ever seeing any "science" that suggested any such thing.

Taken in conjunction with the CDC's systematic review of 72 years worth of RCT's on mask efficacy (in my post from yesterday) showing no significant reduction in viral transmission, rather than just accepting the empty and meaningless "SCIENCE EVOLVED!" explanation, perhaps some more details should be shared. What exactly evolved?

 

[Sophrosyne]

What they decided was the virus was almost always embedded in water droplets that were large enough to be "caught" by masks. Essentially this thinking rejects a dry cough ejecting virus alone or the water droplets evaporating along the path of ejection. What I find crazy is they were making people sanitize surfaces and suggested the virus can live for days which means masks that capture virus droplets that dry they could be ejected out by air from the mask as dry and easily make it through a mask.
IMO what happened is first they fearmongered the virus as deadly to most people making some think that there is some insane amount of people that both get infected and die from it way beyond a fraction of a percent. With this fear they used it to close down businesses and mandate social distancing and later masking when the SD wasn't "helping". I sort of knew this idea of "flattening the curve" was bogus in that if you give politicians power they don't want to relinquish it and I was right in that most places stayed locked down or greatly restricted businesses that they decided were not essential which IMO made things worse because instead of having a lot of people in/out of small businesses where the amount of contact with the infected would be smaller it all filtered people into very large super stores where there was a huge amount of people going in out of them a wider chance of being infected IMO.
All of this stupidity made things worse as it did slow the virus spread but they tried to keep it slow which ended up dragging the infections on and on till I believed the herd started to be immune enough prior to the vaccines that numbers in most of the more open areas of the country were dropping while the shut down areas were still up there. I think that the vaccine is more icing on the cake than the cake itself for most of the country here numbers were on the decline before less than 5% of the people had one dose of the vaccine and we were still stuck with stupid masks till the governor banned mandatory mask mandates entirely in the state they were voluntary and most cities around here (smaller ones) did not have mask mandates while the major cities did and boy did the head of the health department and the mayor love all the attention on their covid 19 show and wanted to keep it that way trying to get other cities around here to join in the fun. They got a little upset when the governor didn't make masks mandatory in the state also.