Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

Then wear your mask...why do you care if I do or anyone else does? I am still shocked by all of the Karen's that care if I do or not...for the record I got Covid, didn't know I had it, and I WAS wearing a mask diligently.

I wouldn't trust anything from the cdc. Are there any current premed students on this board that know science like the back of their hand that can offer some actual expert opinions?

waitwhat? said:

---

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that report. When they say mask mandates correlated with a 0.5% decrease in the daily case growth rate, does that mean that rather than 1,000 new cases in a given day there was 995?

I simply can't imagine that being something they would trot out as evidence of mandates being necessary.

---

wouldn't that still be 1000 new cases?

Icecream_Ag said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that report. When they say mask mandates correlated with a 0.5% decrease in the daily case growth rate, does that mean that rather than 1,000 new cases in a given day there was 995?

I simply can't imagine that being something they would trot out as evidence of mandates being necessary.

---

wouldn't that still be 1000 new cases?

---

According to my 5th graders math home work, he would have to compare 995 to 1000 and whether it was reasonable enough to round up to 1000 or down to 900. Then he would need to right 1 sentence to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, another sentence to say how he felt about that decision, and under Biden he would then need to apologize for his white privilege in how he felt about the conclusion.

To add that I apologize for the use of the male pronoun but he does identify as a boy so I feel like I should support his decision.

Gumby said:

---

Illuminaggie said:

---

That is terrible news. If the masks work, we could probably adapt with minor adjustments... much like the past year.

It looks like the only effective method of fighting the bioweapon is the Aussie/Kiwi route.

---

Pretty sure social distancing and vaccines are the only things that work. Masks are pretty much worthless as Fauci stated at the very beginning of the pandemic.

---

But if it's defeating N-95 masks, unlike its weak-ass contemporary influenza, like some ninja-virus... that means it's airborne.

This means the 6ft rule is BS. Which means 15% capacity and the like, if one is seeking measures to severely interrupt transmission of the virus. i.e. the Aussies and the Kiwis. I have some hope for the vaccines (Novavax in particular), though I wish their backers were a little less "hedgey" in their claims.

But such, admittedly harsh, steps would only be taken if there was some significant issue that took a while to show up. Thankfully this bioweapon was designed and released by the Chinese, a people famous for their brazen short-term antics as opposed to long-term, well-disguised plans.

deddog said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

What?
That's nonsensical.
If you have the China virus, STAY home.
If you don't have the China virus, you aren't "spreading" anything with or without a mask.

Congrats on the virtue signaling though

---

I really hope this is wrong because if isn't, 500,000 Americans are dead because people got sick and were selfish and spread it.

Magic City Wings said:

---

deddog said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

What?
That's nonsensical.
If you have the China virus, STAY home.
If you don't have the China virus, you aren't "spreading" anything with or without a mask.

Congrats on the virtue signaling though

---

I really hope this is wrong because if isn't, 500,000 Americans are dead because people got sick and were selfish and spread it.

---

Not even sure where this is going anymore.

Maybe it's too early for that comment to make sense.

Magic City Wings said:

---

deddog said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

What?
That's nonsensical.
If you have the China virus, STAY home.
If you don't have the China virus, you aren't "spreading" anything with or without a mask.

Congrats on the virtue signaling though

---

I really hope this is wrong because if isn't, 500,000 Americans are dead because people got sick and were selfish and spread it.

---

Stop being intentionally obtuse

Your boys at the CDC have already admitted masks are a farce and don't work

Gumby said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

0.5% is likely within the margin of error for a study like this. I know they claim statistical significance but I work with data and you can manipulate the source data to create a statically significant but practically meaningless result.

In other words, it's very likely that mask mandates have no impact whatsoever on the spread of COVID. It should also be stated that this study looked at mask mandates NOT mask wearing. A proper study would look at actual mask wearing. There are 2 studies I know of that did that and found no measurable impact of mask wearing.

https://www.ormanager.com/briefs/marine-study-shows-covid-19-transmission-despite-public-health-measures-strict-quarantine/

---

Here's a bunch more;
https://swprs.org/covid-masks-evidence-review/

Magic City Wings said:

---

deddog said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

What?
That's nonsensical.
If you have the China virus, STAY home.
If you don't have the China virus, you aren't "spreading" anything with or without a mask.

Congrats on the virtue signaling though

---

I really hope this is wrong because if isn't, 500,000 Americans are dead because people got sick and were selfish and spread it.

---

500,000 people have not died of covid.

The daily rate the CDC is talking about is a bit tricky and I think it's tripping some people up:

" The daily growth rate was defined as the difference between the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on a given day and the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on the previous day, multiplied by 100."

I have no idea why they are taking the natural log of cumulative cases, but the .5% decrease isn't comparing 995 new daily cases to 1000.

Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

deddog said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

What?
That's nonsensical.
If you have the China virus, STAY home.
If you don't have the China virus, you aren't "spreading" anything with or without a mask.

Congrats on the virtue signaling though

---

I really hope this is wrong because if isn't, 500,000 Americans are dead because people got sick and were selfish and spread it.

---

Not even sure where this is going anymore.

Maybe it's too early for that comment to make sense.

---

Don't worry. It makes no sense.

What is the saddest part is you don't give shat about the other 2.6 million people who passed away in 2020. You and your kinds show no remorse for everyone else. Y'alls only concern is pushing a political narrative for a gain.

Well done on capturing that article.

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

Go with a full body condom. One cannot be too safe.

Illuminaggie said:

---

Gumby said:

---

Illuminaggie said:

---

That is terrible news. If the masks work, we could probably adapt with minor adjustments... much like the past year.

It looks like the only effective method of fighting the bioweapon is the Aussie/Kiwi route.

---

Pretty sure social distancing and vaccines are the only things that work. Masks are pretty much worthless as Fauci stated at the very beginning of the pandemic.

---

But if it's defeating N-95 masks, unlike its weak-ass contemporary influenza, like some ninja-virus... that means it's airborne.

This means the 6ft rule is BS. Which means 15% capacity and the like, if one is seeking measures to severely interrupt transmission of the virus. i.e. the Aussies and the Kiwis. I have some hope for the vaccines (Novavax in particular), though I wish their backers were a little less "hedgey" in their claims.

But such, admittedly harsh, steps would only be taken if there was some significant issue that took a while to show up. Thankfully this bioweapon was designed and released by the Chinese, a people famous for their brazen short-term antics as opposed to long-term, well-disguised plans.

---

I haven't heard that it's defeating N-95 masks. If so it seems like everyone treating COVID patients would have contracted it. I'm talking about cloth masks and the like.

It depends on what you define as "significant". Yes the study results were statistically significant

Ag$08 said:

---

The daily rate the CDC is talking about is a bit tricky and I think it's tripping some people up:

" The daily growth rate was defined as the difference between the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on a given day and the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on the previous day, multiplied by 100."

I have no idea why they are taking the natural log of cumulative cases, but the .5% decrease isn't comparing 995 new daily cases to 1000.

---

When I did the math, it came out to be approximately the same. It's almost as if they did the funky analysis to make themselves look smarter.

If you are comparing the difference in total cases from one day to the next day, the solution is linear (2 points define a line). Taking the natural log doesn't seem to make sense other than creating unnecessary complexity.

Perhaps someone who is more of an expert in statistics can explain why they needed to use [ln(x2) -ln(x1)]*100 instead of the standard definition of [(x2-x1)/x2]*100.

All the proof you need is your own eyes and ears

If masks worked then the draconian mask cities would be doing SIGNIFICANTLY better than those without them and the media would be trumpeting it all day long

But they aren't so they don't

Ag$08 said:

---

The daily rate the CDC is talking about is a bit tricky and I think it's tripping some people up:

" The daily growth rate was defined as the difference between the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on a given day and the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on the previous day, multiplied by 100."

I have no idea why they are taking the natural log of cumulative cases, but the .5% decrease isn't comparing 995 new daily cases to 1000.

---

Ok, so I found a natural log calculator and this makes more sense: https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Ln_Calc.html

They defined the daily growth rate as:

Quote:

---

The daily growth rate was defined as the difference between the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on a given day and the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on the previous day, multiplied by 100.

---

Let's say today a given county has 98,000 cumulative cases and tomorrow it has 100,000 cumulative cases.

Natural log of 98,000 is 11.49272275765271
Natural log of 100,000 is 11.512925464970229
Difference between them is 0.020202707317519
Multiplied by 100 for % is ~ 2.02%

Here are the results they mention:

Quote:

---

Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 120 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 2140, 4160, 6180, and 81100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure).

---

So I'm pretty confident they're saying that with a mask mandate the daily growth rate drops from 2.02% to 1.52% 1-20 days after the mandate, which is obviously pretty significant. And then it drops by 1.8 points to 0.22% after 81-100 days.

And it also seems like some bulls*** considering this wasn't witnessed anywhere at all.

Any stat experts want to chime in on the significance of the p-value being less than 0.01?

This is how I read it too. It also makes sense to me to talk about growth rate vs absolute numbers. It seems that globally daily growth rates go between -10% and +10%.

Reading what they did, it doesn't look like there is cherry picking of data. They took the date that the mask mandate started, took county level results before and after. But they used whatever date the mandate was, so it isn't like they picked a particular week or 100 days to look at - any period from March to December in 2020.

There are obviously lots of things that could confound something like this, and correlation isn't causation. The timing is also suspect, but they didn't start this study last week and it may just be unfortunate.

They did get a statistically significant result, and it seems like the correlation they show would also be a significant positive outcome - if reliable. It would be really interesting to look at each state, though. There may be a lot of variance that comes out in the wash.

Quote:

---

And it also seems like some bulls*** considering this wasn't witnessed anywhere at all.

---

Not sure how you can say this. It was witnessed, they're showing you what was witnessed. There could be a thousand other explanations to it, and a thousand other causes, but this is what happened relative to the date of mask adoption in a state.

And it could be a coincidence.

For example, every state may be using similar CDC guidance for when they issue a mask mandate. That guidance could be woefully behind the curve, so that by the time the guidance starts, the peak has already passed.

Or another possibility is the masks themselves may be completely and totally ineffective, but the mask mandate may not be. By issuing it you may cause an effective change in people's behavior that has nothing to do with the mask.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

And it also seems like some bulls*** considering this wasn't witnessed anywhere at all.

---

Not sure how you can say this. It was witnessed, they're showing you what was witnessed. There could be a thousand other explanations to it, and a thousand other causes, but this is what happened relative to the date of mask adoption in a state.

---

I'm more saying that the decrease in the growth rates are almost certainly due to a number of other factors, considering states without mask mandates did not experience some massive spike in cases or deaths that states with mandates didn't.

The entire study is correlation and nothing more. And not even very good correlation since they didn't show what the growth rates in the 25%+ of counties without a mandate looked like.

This study is propaganda.

Quote:

---

I'm more saying that the decrease in the growth rates are almost certainly due to a number of other factors, considering states without mask mandates did not experience some massive spike in cases or deaths that states with mandates didn't.

---

You'd have to test those factors for statistical significance, which would each be another paper.

What's a "massive spike"? This is saying the mask mandate seems to go along with a ~2% reduction in daily growth. Is +2% daily growth rate a massive spike? How do you even "prove" that? All you can do is observe.

Quote:

---

The entire study is correlation and nothing more. And not even very good correlation since they didn't show what the growth rates in the 25%+ of counties without a mandate looked like.

This study is propaganda.

---

Of course its correlation. How could it be anything else? That's all they are saying it is. There's a statistically significant correlation between two things.

It's also really difficult to compare a non-action to an action. How would you compare the growth rate of a state without a mask mandate to one with? You'd open up the study to all kinds of selection bias, period-specific issues, and simple differences between the dates.

I think people are pushing this beyond the scope. All it says is when a mask mandate went out, there was a statistically significant change in growth rates at the county level in 36 different states. That's all.

That's not propaganda. The study could be distorted, and that could be propaganda. That cuts both ways, by the way (see: OP title)

I am critical of a lot of information but that website looked seedy. This was the wiki page on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

Well, if we made the maximum speed limit 10 mph we would save 100's of thousands of people every year.......this is getting ridiculous.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Leftists just need an excuse to justify a couple more trillion dollar stimulus packages where 90% of the money goes to DNC politicians and allies

---

Bingo, more control means more power and money and these mindless idiots are willingly giving it to them. They actually think those idiots care about them!!! All they want is your vote, nothing more nothing less.

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

So their efficacy is a non-zero number?

Post source pls.

---

So even 0.5% is worth it to you people.

---

Wearing masks yes, closing businesses, no. It's not that complicated.

---

No one is stopping you from wearing a mask

---

Rocking the KN-95 when out and about to try to not spread anything from everything else I do.

---

Will you wear this forever? It will always help (at least marginally) keep you from spreading cold, certain stomach bugs, flu etc to other people who could be more vulnerable than you.

You and others who say masks are worth it even if just 2-3% effective are outright hypocrites if you don't wear masks in perpetuity any time you are out and about for the rest of your lives.

Quote:

---

The current study builds upon this evidence by accounting for county-level variation in state-issued mitigation measures

---

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 1December 31, 2020 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

The CDC's study looked at blocks of time up to 100 days post implementation of state level mandates. LA County has a population as large as Georgia. It's mandates went into effect in April for masks and July for dining. A county only study would end in July for masks and October for dining, but the CDC keyed off of a June state level date presuming the statewide mandate made the difference, shifting relevant mandate timing/action by a month and a half.

But even there, they studied the pregame warm up and missed the actual game.

LA County had a very minor wave in the summer, but skyrocketed in November to the point that if it were its own state, LA would be 7th overall in deaths per 100K. Northern California never really had a wave at all. Southern California restricted earlier and was hit so hard that it pushed the entire state's overall stats to be consistent with other populous states.

For the most restricted and post populous county in the country, the data pulled for this study pulled it from a pointless time period when the virus was not doing what the restrictions were meant to mitigate.

Given the lack of efficacy overall in preventing spread or any consistent outperformance compared to jurisdictions without restrictions, I would like to see the data on the impact of masks/restaurant closures held through the upslope in the fall when they should have mattered (if they worked) without noise from the coincidental timing of the mandates in the early hit states that were meeting their peak and declining before their mandates were in force.

Norton_12 said:

---

I am critical of a lot of information but that website looked seedy. This was the wiki page on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research

---

. All they present on the web site is data (RE masks). I don't see any political "propaganda" as wiki claims.