CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.

[Ruddervator]

"Mandating indoor masks nationwide in early July could have reduced the weekly number of new cases in Canada by 25 to 40 percent in mid-August, which translates into 700 to 1,100 fewer cases per week."

https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w27891.pdf

I find it funny how many people appreciate being lied to and accept all these deaths.

How many lives would have been saved if we said masks don't really work? Take better action to prevent the spread. Hmmm..
. But no one could function... So maybe the reality is that we are lied to about masks so that we take risk to function without really understanding the risk. Basically manslaughter.

Really? Mask wearing = manslaughter? That's a bit of a stretch.

[photofly]

How many lives would have been saved if we said masks don't really work?

Why would we say that? They do work. By 0.5 to 1.9%.

Not nearly as effective as most people think.

I don't know (or frankly care) how effective people think they are. You presented evidence that they're effective. So you can stop arguing, and put on a mask, because now you know all those people who claimed that masks aren't effective, are wrong.

Thank you for doing your part.

[montado]

"Mandating indoor masks nationwide in early July could have reduced the weekly number of new cases in Canada by 25 to 40 percent in mid-August, which translates into 700 to 1,100 fewer cases per week."

https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w27891.pdf

I find it funny how many people appreciate being lied to and accept all these deaths.

How many lives would have been saved if we said masks don't really work? Take better action to prevent the spread. Hmmm..
. But no one could function... So maybe the reality is that we are lied to about masks so that we take risk to function without really understanding the risk. Basically manslaughter.

Really? Mask wearing = manslaughter? That's a bit of a stretch.

If governments knew masks were not very effective, and the sole reason for having experts say masks will protect you was to get people to go to work and feel safe while not social distancing. Would governments have blood on their hands? And to be devils advocate, maybe the chaos if we didn’t use this would have been more damaging. So maybe convincing people to wear a mask to prevent chaos was the best for the greater good? Anyways I’m thirsty for truth, I don’t care what was done for what reasons, I just like to get to the bottom of it. Masks were a lie... now we have idiot business owners in Texas who want to enforce masks indefinitely even as governments take the mandate away. It’s all idiotic. They don’t realize what masks were really for... not to stop you from spreading covid, masks were to keep people working.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Not nearly as effective as most people think.

So let’s say seatbelts are said to be effective to save your life at very high speeds. Therefore people decide to drive fast because of this. Then you find out you have a 99 percent chance to die driving these speeds even with the seatbelt. Do you think people change their habits and drive slower or do they keep speeding?

Seat belt accidents are not subject to exponential growth. Viral infections are. You cannot compare them.

If people know masks have very limited efficacy would they have changed their habits to better stop the spread? Most likely. So therefore, telling people masks are effective may have actually been more damaging and caused more loss of life. People developed habits on the basis that masks are effective at stopping the spread... some people lived by this, and died of covid 1.5 percent efficacy is not the type of figure you change habits over. If you are high risk, would you do anything with a mask that you would not do without one over 1.5 percent efficacy? I don’t think so...

Again - I have proven with your own argument of masks being 0.5% to 1.9% effective that this results in a massive reduction in the spread of this disease - to the tune of four orders of magnitude after one year. You have ignored this argument. Masks are effective, and your argument proves how effective they are.

Tam was correct in her first statement saying masks are not very effective and not recommended. We were all told to wear a mask because it made the scared people feel safe and it’s the only way many can function normally. Without the mask it would have been utter chaos. We had to convince the dumb the mask protects them or the world would have shut down. The mask is effective at one thing, making people feel safe, and that’s about it. Whatever your take is on masks, the closest thing to the truth is likely that masks were simply a way to keep the economy going. Without a way for people to feel safe, it would be very difficult to get people to go to work. I think we are long enough into this we can start to admit some of these truths.

I'll grant you that we were lied to. I vividly remember being told that if I'm not trained to use a mask properly, it will increase my chances of getting this virus. We were lied to, because the masks were needed for first responders and front line hospital staff, to hopefully avoid a toilet paper-esque run on masks - not because they were ineffective.

[Blueshift]

A lot of incorrect conclusions are being drawn here. For example:

22514/37500000= .06%

22514=COVID deaths in Canada in 2020 AND 2021 (this includes deaths not directly caused by COVID, as per CDC guidance on recording deaths)
37500000=Population of Canada

1.55% of Canadians are fully vaccinated (Google)

A higher percentage (2,700%) of Canadians are fully vaccinated than are at risk of death. (approx. 600000)

You can BS psychology, but you cannot BS math. .

Your math makes sense from a basic standpoint, but you're drawing the wrong conclusion.

As an example, let's assume that 1 in 5 people will die in a car accident. You're saying that if we take those 1 in 5 off the street, there will be no further car accidents. In fact, car accidents will continue to occur, but to a reduced degree proportional to the lesser number of drivers on the street. Now, you can argue we might be able to tell with reasonable certainty which drivers are more likely to get into an accident, perhaps by using their driving record or insurance history. Much like with the vaccines, where we're vaccinating the most vulnerable first, this measure might result in a further reduction in deaths, but there will still be people dying from car accidents. Similarly, there will still be thousands dying from Covid-19 until widespread immunity through vaccines is reached.

My point is that before making such statements, make sure you draw the right conclusions. Despite 1.55% of Canadians being vaccinated, we're still far from the threshold of being without significant risk. And before you draw the wrong conclusion from my car accident statement, realize that from a practical standpoint, the difference between the risk of having a car accidents and contracting covid is the spread; you cannot spread and multiply car accidents.

[Rockie]

Just stop Montado. To consider you anything other than batshit crazy would require many things including the belief that:

1. The planetary scientific and medical community’s conclusions are ideologically driven...and yours aren’t.

2. The pandemic doesn’t exist, and,

3. You know more about infectious diseases than the planetary scientific and medical community.

It just can’t be done so stop embarrassing yourself and the pilot community.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Just stop Montado. To consider you anything other than batshit crazy would require many things including the belief that:

1. The planetary scientific and medical community’s conclusions are ideologically driven...and yours aren’t.

2. The pandemic doesn’t exist, and,

3. You know more about infectious diseases than the planetary scientific and medical community.

It just can’t be done so stop embarrassing yourself and the pilot community.

Pretty much the only reason I'm engaging in this pointless discussion to nowhere. I dread the idea of the general public coming on here and drawing the conclusion, based on a few people's denial of science and evidence, that pilots as a group are science denying selfish conspiracy theorists. I know I can't reason anybody out of believing masks are ineffective, because they were not reasoned into that belief. The picked an already established opinion and looked for evidence to support it, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

[montado]

Ok theres one way I will concede in this debate.

For all those here who support masks, if you will sit next to a covid positive passenger on a plane where you both wear masks for the entire flight I will then accept that you believe in the efficacy of masks.

Redandwhitebaron you fear that other peoples fear will stop the economy and no one can function without a mask? Fear fear fear. Wear your masks and I hope you never take them off. No risk is to big no risk is to small, wear a mask for the rest of life y’all!

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Ok theres one way I will concede in this debate.

For all those here who support masks, if you will sit next to a covid positive passenger on a plane where you both wear masks for the entire flight I will then accept that you believe in the efficacy of masks.

Redandwhitebaron you fear that other peoples fear will stop the economy and no one can function without a mask? Fear fear fear. Wear your masks and I hope you never take them off. No risk is to big no risk is to small, wear a mask for the rest of life y’all!

I have said nothing about being afraid. You assumed. You again are redirecting. You again have failed to explain why your evidence does not prove that masks are effective in spite of my clear analysis that proves just that. This is why you appear to be a nutjob - you ignore any and all evidence contrary to your already established worldview.

To answer your question - no, I would not, because I do not believe masks are 100% effective, and I'm certain that the evidence supports that. However, if I was required to for reasons beyond my control, I would damned sure wear a mask, because it reduces my risk.

Shouting louder from a higher treetop will not convince me.

[Rockie]

“Belief” is for religion Montado. This is science.

[OneYonge]

Scientists themselves could not agree on it.

False statement akin to saying the 3% of scientists who still reject manmade climate change means there’s still a debate. There isn’t.

You don't think there are debates because you don't know the frontiers of the subject. Because you aren't a top scientist.

If the majority of scientists lean one way, and a small number of contrarians go the other....why can't they convince all the other scientists?

Either way, all of them know more than you do. See the previous graph.

This is why it becomes a Risk Management decision, for those of use who are non-scientists.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

You don't think there are debates because you don't know the frontiers of the subject. Because you aren't a top scientist.

If the majority of scientists lean one way, and a small number of contrarians go the other....why can't they convince all the other scientists?

Either way, all of them know more than you do. See the previous graph.

This is why it becomes a Risk Management decision, for those of use who are non-scientists.

That graph implies to me that you consider all scientists useless, which means you cannot be convinced of anything, regardless the merits of the argument.

[OneYonge]

You don't think there are debates because you don't know the frontiers of the subject. Because you aren't a top scientist.

If the majority of scientists lean one way, and a small number of contrarians go the other....why can't they convince all the other scientists?

Either way, all of them know more than you do. See the previous graph.

This is why it becomes a Risk Management decision, for those of use who are non-scientists.

That graph implies to me that you consider all scientists useless, which means you cannot be convinced of anything, regardless the merits of the argument.

Watch the video because you didn't understand the graph. It means Scientist vs Scientist debates are virtually useless to people who are not Scientists.

A Scientist can convince you of something....then another Scientist will come along and say the opposite. The last person you listen to...since they know more than you...will always sound more convincing.

It's a situation where whoever the last person you listen to, becomes your "winner".

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Watch the video because you didn't understand the graph. It means Scientist vs Scientist debates are virtually useless to people who are not Scientists.

A Scientist can convince you of something....then another Scientist will come along and say the opposite. The last person you listen to...since they know more than you...will always sound more convincing.

It's a situation where whoever the last person you listen to, becomes your "winner".

Yeah I watched the relevant part of it. It's not that he doesn't have a point - he does. I've made very much the same point to other people: "No, that's what your expert says. My expert says otherwise.". So yeah, you do have to eventually pick one over the other, or take it all in and wind up somewhere in the middle.

But as for masks, the vast majority of experts think they help. Should I believe the 95% of those who think they work, or the 5% who don't? (I made those numbers up but you get my drift). I'll choose to believe the 95% over the 5%.

But be careful with that graph. Without context, it makes you look like you've got your head in the sand - much like montado's article does if you ignore the context.

[OneYonge]

But as for masks, the vast majority of experts think they help. Should I believe the 95% of those who think they work, or the 5% who don't? (I made those numbers up but you get my drift). I'll choose to believe the 95% over the 5%.

This is an excellent example of decision-making based on Risk Management(not Science). Science does have a long history of getting corrected by “contrarians”....but even if the 5% minority eventually turns out to be right all along.... it’s not a bad idea for a non-scientist to go with the 95% when hindsight is 20/20.

[montado]

Can any of the experts here figure this one out...

Doug Ford owns Deco labels and they have exclusive government contracts... For some reason they didn't have to close even once during the pandemic. (essential stickers ya know! Like them carbon tax stickers we slapped up at the pumps)
I guess the whole point of running for government positions is to funnle money to you and your friends businesses. Looks like it doesn't matter if your leader is a king, a democrat or a communist. . . They all find ways to take money out of your pocket and put it in their family and friends pockets.

Now that I think of it... We should make this pandemic last a little longer! Okay everyone.... Wear a mask for two more weeks and covid will be over!

[Rockie]

Either way, all of them know more than you do. See the previous graph.

This is why it becomes a Risk Management decision, for those of use who are non-scientists.

And all of them know more than you. There are also laws made for people like you because you think it’s a risk management decision for you to make. It is not. You can’t be trusted with that decision so you have to be told. When you’re by yourself in the woods nobody cares what you do. When you’re around other people you do what the law tells you to do. It’s how society protects itself from you.

[OneYonge]

Either way, all of them know more than you do. See the previous graph.

This is why it becomes a Risk Management decision, for those of use who are non-scientists.

And all of them more than you. There are also laws made for people like you because you think it’s a risk management decision for you to make. It is not. You can’t be trusted with that decision so you have to be told. When you’re by yourself in the woods nobody cares what you do. When you’re around other people you do what the law tells you to do. It’s how society protects itself from you.

By "people like me" you mean "people like us". Non-scientists. The laws aren't just for us, it applies to everyone.
The leaders and lawmakers are non-scientists themselves.

Not once did I make arguements FOR/AGAINST mandates. That is politics, not Science.
Flordia has no mask mandates, California does. Politics.

If there is no mandate. Then you get to assess your own risks and act accordingly.

If there is a mask mandate, then the leaders have decided to make the risk management decisions for you. Perhaps they think as you do... "we can't trust you with these decisions, so you have to be forced to do as told"...whether they are right or wrong about that...is irrelevant. But I haven't seen any of them explicitly come out to say that.

[montado]

Either way, all of them know more than you do. See the previous graph.

This is why it becomes a Risk Management decision, for those of use who are non-scientists.

And all of them know more than you. There are also laws made for people like you because you think it’s a risk management decision for you to make. It is not. You can’t be trusted with that decision so you have to be told. When you’re by yourself in the woods nobody cares what you do. When you’re around other people you do what the law tells you to do. It’s how society protects itself from you.

Rockie makes an excellent point. I don't trust any of you with your decisions. I'm all for any rules that protect me from you being dangerous.

OneYoung don't even mention Florida. You're dangerous. Talking about Florida and Texas could trigger a 4th wave. If people here think it's safe because they see Florida doing it, people will die.

[OneYonge]

OneYoung don't even mention Florida. You're dangerous. Talking about Florida and Texas could trigger a 4th wave. If people here think it's safe because they see Florida doing it, people will die.

Yes sir my lips are sealed. Florida might do well to stay out of the limelight and keep their freedoms in the DL. Unless they want a rush of infections from Canadian snow birds when they open their borders.

[Schooner69A]

But the CDC’s study doesn’t say that. Somebody is telling porkies...


In fact, it doesn't study mask efficacy at all. Instead, it links mask mandates to “statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.”


More at:

https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-cdc-s ... 30924.html

[montado]

But the CDC’s study doesn’t say that. Somebody is telling porkies...


In fact, it doesn't study mask efficacy at all. Instead, it links mask mandates to “statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.”


More at:

https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-cdc-s ... 30924.html

In other words, whether or not we have mask mandates will lead to a difference in cases of 0.5 to 1.9 percent.

What does this mean? In Canada we would have had an additional 10k covid cases in an entire year of pandemic?

That's assuming that without masks peoples behaviour doesn't change. But what do I know! You can't even see the stupid look on my face because it's hiding behind a mask.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

But as for masks, the vast majority of experts think they help. Should I believe the 95% of those who think they work, or the 5% who don't? (I made those numbers up but you get my drift). I'll choose to believe the 95% over the 5%.

This is an excellent example of decision-making based on Risk Management(not Science). Science does have a long history of getting corrected by “contrarians”....but even if the 5% minority eventually turns out to be right all along.... it’s not a bad idea for a non-scientist to go with the 95% when hindsight is 20/20.

Especially when you remember that Socrates and Copernicus were both executed for it, and we now revere them as visionaries without equal.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

In other words, whether or not we have mask mandates will lead to a difference in cases of 0.5 to 1.9 percent.

What does this mean? In Canada we would have had an additional 10k covid cases in an entire year of pandemic?

That's assuming that without masks peoples behaviour doesn't change. But what do I know! You can't even see the stupid look on my face because it's hiding behind a mask.

No, no, no, and again, NO!

We would have an additional 0.5 to 1.9 percent every single day. How many times do I have to say it?

By your logic and your argument, montado, we would have TWENTY THOUSAND PERCENT more cases without masks. I fail to understand how you cannot understand that your own argument proves this.

[montado]

In other words, whether or not we have mask mandates will lead to a difference in cases of 0.5 to 1.9 percent.

What does this mean? In Canada we would have had an additional 10k covid cases in an entire year of pandemic?

That's assuming that without masks peoples behaviour doesn't change. But what do I know! You can't even see the stupid look on my face because it's hiding behind a mask.

No, no, no, and again, NO!

We would have an additional 0.5 to 1.9 percent every single day. How many times do I have to say it?

By your logic and your argument, montado, we would have TWENTY THOUSAND PERCENT more cases without masks. I fail to understand how you cannot understand that your own argument proves this.

Ahah so 183 million Canadians would have been infected. Great math... So in other words every Canadian would have been infected many times with no masks.