posted April 15, 2021 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by placidus_flamingo:
I’m just going to leave these here. I’d love to see the science that contradicts this.

Even if it’s a lie. It’s a lie that’s saving lives.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200526/can-you-catch-covid19-through-your-eyes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7537833/#:~:text=Current%20studies%20suggested%20that%20the,such%20as%20respiratory%20tissues.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

---

The science that contradicts this is the recent study by the CDC that compared counties with mask mandates and those without mask mandates, and it found less than 2% difference in Covid rates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7010e3-H.pdf

posted April 15, 2021 10:48 PM            

Shura- look at the wiki entry where it’s listed as unisex and please re read my comment about an article preceding the word (gendered) or not (gender neutral). My trans friend (they/them), who likes being called dude, once told me that a good rule is to avoid words id use just to refer to males. This is not the case; ie I call
Women dude all the time. The usage is colloquial but not offense. Granted that’s not a one size fits all thing—ie if you have a preference lmk and I’ll adjust. But to say “we must do” anything re: language like this is ignorant at best and hypocritical considering how you used hysterical which is much more gendered and actually has a history of female subjugation behind it, unlike the word dude.

posted April 15, 2021 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by placidus_flamingo:
Belage- I think that study compares counties with mask mandates with counties that allowed restaurants to reopen. That’s not the same as no mask mandates. Ie where I live you can go out to eat but only in outdoor restaurants or in some counties in door but at 50% capacity. The study notes that it generalized all of these varieties into one thing. You’re right 2% doesn’t sound like much but I’d look for more info. Please correct me if I misunderstood, as I only skimmed it.

---

On page 2, column 1, paragraph 3, It addresses mask mandates vs no mask mandates
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.

And on page 2, column 2, paragraph 2, it addresses the restaurant reopening part:
During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant

So it did touch both issues. And then in the Discussion on page 2, column 2, it states:
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

The increase and decrease numbers shown were less than 2 percent.

So when the CDC concludes with assurance and confidence that
Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of
implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates
41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.

We are left scratching our heads and thinking, WHAT?? a difference of less than 2% warrants those recommendations and statements?

And mainstream media has picked up on the conclusion given the CDC without looking at or discussing the numbers. At least you have made the effort to skim the article.

posted April 16, 2021 01:50 AM            

I think that's what they're getting to here:
"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."

There are too many variables here.

posted April 16, 2021 01:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by placidus_flamingo:
I understand the frustration with media especially in the US. My go to is NYT but I've had to supplement it with AP, Al Jazeera and BBC bc of the covid over-coverage (and just lack of global viewpoints in general). I do just want to point out that COVID diagnoses take time to show up: they thought that time from exposure to showing symptoms was less than a week, but now they know it's up to two weeks, you only get tested if you're really sick (especially at the beginning when tests were in short supply) and there is asymptomatic spreading. I do not mean this in a "you're wrong, I'm right" sense, but more that it's complicated and therefore hard to attribute causality or reach a number like 2%.

---

The study was not restricted to 1 or 2 weeks. The time considerations you mentioned were not part of the list of limitations. . The timeline featured in the study was from 60 days before to up to 100 days after. See Table 1 and Table 2.

Yes the study has other limitations, but there should be enough food for thought in there to show that the science on masks and mask mandates is not the slam dunk, settled matter they make it out to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by placidus_flamingo:

I know I'm biased--my best friend's partner almost died and my friends grandfather (who, like some, didn't believe in the severity of the virus) did pass away. That's why it seems so serious and scary to me. Plus I really don't see it as a violation of my civil liberties to wear. I think we're obligated to help each other, to a certain extant. Anyway, I don't want to fight with you guys anymore, so let's just say we'll agree to disagree.

---

I am sorry to hear about those losses, and I perfectly understand that people are afraid. One thing we already know is who is at risk: and the elderly and those with co-morbidities are at greater risks, so these groups should imo have been targeted for special care and precautions, instead of blankets lockdown and mask mandates. We could as a society have found a way to allow the young and healthy to have a life, while making sure the old and sick were taking all precautions. But it's water under the bridge now.