Study; non pharmaceutical interventions in general haven't had an impact. Analysis;

Quote:

---

New findings reported Tuesday in a University of Louisville study challenge what has been the prevailing belief that mask mandates are necessary to slow the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus. The study notes that "80% of US states mandated masks during the COVID-19 pandemic" and while "mandates induced greater mask compliance, [they] did not predict lower growth rates when community spread was low (minima) or high (maxima)." Among other things, the studyconducted using data from the CDC covering multiple seasonsreports that "mask mandates and use are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states."

"Our findings do not support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates decrease with greater public mask use," notes the U of L report. Researchers stated that "masks may promote social cohesion as rallying symbols during a pandemic, but risk compensation can also occur" before listing some observed risks that accompany mask wearing:

Quote:

---

Prolonged mask use (>4 hours per day) promotes facial alkalinization and inadvertently encourages dehydration, which in turn can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk. British clinicians have reported masks to increase headaches and sweating and decrease cognitive precision. Survey bias notwithstanding, these sequelae are associated with medical errors. By obscuring nonverbal communication, masks interfere with social learning in children. Likewise, masks can distort verbal speech and remove visual cues to the detriment of individuals with hearing loss; clear face-shields improve visual integration, but there is a corresponding loss of sound quality.

---

The study also noted that the mandates put in place by many states in line with CDC guidance at the time were "poor predictors of COVID-19 spread," according to the research:

Quote:

---

In summary, mask mandates and use were poor predictors of COVID-19 spread in US states. Case growth was independent of mandates at low and high rates of community spread, and mask use did not predict case growth during the Summer or Fall-Winter waves. Strengths of our study include using two mask metrics to evaluate association with COVID-19 growth rates; measuring normalized case growth in mandate and non-mandate states at comparable times to quantify the likely effect of mandates; and deconvolving the effect of mask use by examining case growth in states with variable mask use.

---

---

Your thread title is inaccurate.

The study was regarding mask mandates not masks.

I do think this is an important thing to look at, but *******it if everyone in this country doesn't just blow by the facts on their way to blasting out any story they think scores them partisan internet points.

Lol, speaking of rushing to comment for internet blue stars before actually reading the post:

Quote:

---

"Our findings do not support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates decrease with greater public mask use," notes the U of L report.

---

This refers to greater mask use, not just mandates. They mention mandates because mandates lead to greater compliance. This shouldn't be surprising considering you can observe actual hospitalization and fatality rates across states/countries/regions with varying levels of mask use and see little variance.

RockOn said:

---

The study was regarding mask mandates not masks.

---

Quote:

---

"mask mandates and use are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states."

---

Masks are a charade. Read the article/study. Please don't respond emotionally/based on past beliefs. Fauci 1.0 was correct on masks.

"They mention mandates because mandates lead to greater compliance."

See, here is actually where it falls apart. There was a great article last week on what happened after Texas dropped its mask mandates. The answer: nothing really changed. People who were wearing masks kept them on, the maskless people already weren't wearing them.

Mask mandates were completely useless as far as I can tell. But that only answers half the question.

amercer said:

---

I do think this is an important thing to look at, but *******it if everyone in this country doesn't just blow by the facts on their way to blasting out any story they think scores them partisan internet points.

---

It's like 1998 again, where you can't go to bed because somebody is wrong on the internet. Lotta 50 year olds acting like they're 25 again and just using the web for the first time. Hey, did you know you can argue with people on this thing, and they can't even tell who you are?

If we are being honest about it, every week following the lifting of the mandate more and more were going maskless. So while not all totally quit masking, there has been a trend away from masks.

Mask mandates can be studied from many different perspectives, i.e.;

-Did the mandate drive greater mask usage?
-Did mask usage drive greater NPI practices (sanitation/distancing etc.)
-Is there correlation between a mandate (and/or usage) and infection rates?

And on and on. But if mask usage ultimately has no impact on upper respiratory viral spread, then tracking only mandates won't show a correlation. That's not what this study did though.

The bottom line is that this study speaks for itself. More should read it, I can see. The side effects of mask usage/mandates are great, and I think more should study those as well, before we go back into flu season in 4 or so months (depending on where one is).

amercer said:

---

"They mention mandates because mandates lead to greater compliance."

See, here is actually where it falls apart. There was a great article last week on what happened after Texas dropped its mask mandates. The answer: nothing really changed. People who were wearing masks kept them on, the maskless people already weren't wearing them.

Mask mandates were completely useless as far as I can tell. But that only answers half the question.

---

There is no question mandates have lead to higher compliance. Without a mandate do you think all of those people would have been wearing them?

ORAggieFan said:

---

amercer said:

---

"They mention mandates because mandates lead to greater compliance."

See, here is actually where it falls apart. There was a great article last week on what happened after Texas dropped its mask mandates. The answer: nothing really changed. People who were wearing masks kept them on, the maskless people already weren't wearing them.

Mask mandates were completely useless as far as I can tell. But that only answers half the question.

---

There is no question mandates have lead to higher compliance. Without a mandate do you think all of those people would have been wearing them?

---

Even assuming you are right in your premise, the science/statistics don't back up that 'more people wearing masks' lead to lower cases. That's the point.

Quote:

---

A recent study found that at 292 typical respiratory fluence rates, medical masks decrease airway deposition of 10-20m SARS-CoV-2 293 particles but not 1-5m SARS-CoV-2 aerosols [41]. Aerosol expulsion increases with COVID-19 disease 294 severity in non-human primates, as well as with age and BMI in humans without COVID-19 [42]. 295 Aerosol treatment by enhanced ventilation and air purification could help reduce the size of COVID-19 296 outbreaks.

---

If covid is transmitted in 1-5um particles, which is highly plausible, masks are essentially useless.

Exactly, making the point that if the CDC/mandate folks had just insisted everyone with an unhealthy BMI go on a diet it might have been a lot more effective vs. insisting the public writ large wear paper masks.

Quote:

---

Even assuming you are right in your premise, the science/statistics don't back up that 'more people wearing masks' lead to lower cases. That's the point.

---

It is potentially a point . . . I think that Mercer is right that you can't just cherry pick one study that fits your pre-conceived beliefs and then come in screaming "Case Closed!" and proceed straight to grumbling about political overreach of foul minded bureaucrats. For every Louisville study that gets right leaning places like Townhall readers a flutter, you can source five studies saying the opposite. Here you go . . . example

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Quote:

---

An increasing number of ecological studies have also provided persuasive evidence that universal mandatory mask wearing policies have been associated with reductions in the number or rate of infections and deaths

---

Here you go . . .example

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30293-4/fulltext

Quote:

---

378 207 individuals responded to the survey between June 3 and July 27, 2020, of which 4186 were excluded for missing data. We observed an increasing trend in reported mask usage across the USA, although uptake varied by geography. A logistic model controlling for physical distancing, population demographics, and other variables found that a 10% increase in self-reported mask-wearing was associated with an increased odds of transmission control (odds ratio 353, 95% CI 203643). We found that communities with high reported mask-wearing and physical distancing had the highest predicted probability of transmission control.

---

I say all the above believing mask mandates probably did not help and are definitely not needed for the vaccinated and recovered but I choose to keep an open mind on the subject.

The silliness of those studies, which were often very early on in the pandemic, is notable.

You can denigrate the study/methodology/commentary/site/me or whatever with snark but we now have the benefit of over a year of data globally, and not just a few hair salon/one ship's studies early in the pandemic.

Quote:

---

The silliness of those studies, which were often very early on in the pandemic, is notable.

---

So . . . .

1) I did not denigrate or even snark . . . not sure where you got that. I just said you can't say case closed based on one study when others are contradictory.

2) You then proceed to ignore your own advice and denigrate the other studies without even scanning them or understanding what they are saying. If you actually read the post, the studies referenced in many cases spanned citywide, state, and national populations.

I am guessing there is not much of a discussion to be had here.

Quote:

---

I say all the above believing mask mandates probably did not help and are definitely not needed for the vaccinated and recovered but I choose to keep an open mind on the subject.

---

Agree, if we completely discount results and studies that are counter to our hypothesis then we are no different than these deranged people driving alone with a mask on.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

The silliness of those studies, which were often very early on in the pandemic, is notable.

---

So . . . .

1) I did not denigrate or even snark . . . not sure where you got that. I just said you can't say case closed based on one study when others are contradictory.

2) You then proceed to ignore your own advice and denigrate the other studies without even scanning them or understanding what they are saying. If you actually read the post, the studies referenced in many cases spanned citywide, state, and national populations.

I am guessing there is not much of a discussion to be had here.

---

I've read the other studies (almost all of which are laughable from a 'peer reviewed' or science-based perspective), and been on discussions on this very forum about many of them (including the Kansas one, which neglected the impact for instance of high density urban counties vs. non etc).

If you'd like a discussion, it is best to in fact work toward that, but this forum is/has been specifically moderated to allow a space for the 'mask-believers' to express their thoughts/opinions, so I am quite skeptical of the real intent.

I didn't assert 'case closed' but yes I think it really just about is at this point regarding paper masks and upper respiratory viruses, coronaviruses specifically.

No country on earth, to my knowledge, used/mandated medical grade surgical masks, widespread in public life, and also ensured they were fitted/changed every two hours. Without such a comparison (to a nearby peer) it is difficult to find any scientific study showing efficacy of widespread mask usage. Your snippet of other studies (again, many quite old/non-scientific) does not rebut the OP here, nor the greater message/point.

My only question is why did I get banned for posting the same premise you did?

Weird

Have also discovered you are never going to change anyone's minds on this.

And you can not do the necessary studies to actually confirm one side or the other due to ethical concerns.

So this is a fruitless discussion imho.

dermdoc said:

---

My only question is why did I get banned for posting the same premise you did?

Weird

---

Timing most likely. Allot of opinions have done a 180 over the last few months.

Sure would be nice to have a couple "hey my bad's", from the covidians.

Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

My only question is why did I get banned for posting the same premise you did?

Weird

---

Timing most likely. Allot of opinions have done a 180 over the last few months.

Sure would be nice to have a couple "hey my bad's", from the covidians.

---

Yep. Not holding my breath.

It will be very interesting to see who was right about IFRs, ACTUAL deaths caused by COVID alone. overwhelming of hospitals and ICUs, lack of ventilators, effectiveness of closing down schools, strategies of protecting nursing homes and other hospital patients, etc. when this is completely over.

And effectiveness of masks.

Of course, the truth will never come out completely.

dermdoc said:

---

It will be very interesting to see who was right about IFRs, ACTUAL deaths caused by COVID alone. overwhelming of hospitals and ICUs, lack of ventilators, effectiveness of closing down schools, strategies of protecting nursing homes and other hospital patients, etc. when this is completely over.

And effectiveness of masks.

Of course, the truth will never come out completely.

---

Agreed 100%. But there were some great TikTok videos made.

rudy99 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It will be very interesting to see who was right about IFRs, ACTUAL deaths caused by COVID alone. overwhelming of hospitals and ICUs, lack of ventilators, effectiveness of closing down schools, strategies of protecting nursing homes and other hospital patients, etc. when this is completely over.

And effectiveness of masks.

Of course, the truth will never come out completely.

---

Agreed 100%. But there were some great TikTok videos made.

---

And I got banned for speaking truth.

Tiktok

Quote:

---

And I got banned for speaking truth.

---

I thought you got banned for the nearest thing I have seen to suicide by cop that you would find in TexAgs, You posted at least 4 threads in a row calling out the mods and criticizing them and demanding that they cancel your premium membership.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

And I got banned for speaking truth.

---

I thought you got banned for the nearest thing I have seen to suicide by cop that you would find in TexAgs, You posted at least 4 threads in a row calling out the mods and criticizing them and demanding that they cancel your premium membership.

---

Fair enough. Brought on because I was deleted and reprimanded for posting the same thing that is posted here, correct?

The mod and I both had a bad day that day.

Maybe, as I explained to Brandon, because I found out that morning somebody had stolen 10k from our checking account.