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

[montado]

mm7010e3-H.pdf

(225.16 KiB) Downloaded 323 times

Study has been released.

Mask mandates were shown to curtail the growth in daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% to 1.9% after they were implemented.

Imagine all the pissing matches over masks. Dr Robert redfield even said he thought masks were more effective than vaccines. Remember, trust the experts. Imagine trusting experts when they say such idiotic things. Now we have the divide in Texas where some businesses want to keep masks mandatory.

I think it's ridiculous... But to each their own... Some people think masks should be mandatory even with little evidence to support they have much effectiveness at all. I have always said I thought masks were pretty much useless and whether you believe in masks or not you should treat it as if they don't really work.

CDC still recommends mask wearing. I guess even a small amount of effectiveness means we should all mask up right?

[photofly]

CDC still recommends mask wearing. I guess even a small amount of effectiveness means we should all mask up right?

Yes, 100%. Add together a few items each with a small amount of effectiveness and that's a lot of sickness prevented. Thank you for doing your part.

[ReserveTank]

CDC still recommends mask wearing. I guess even a small amount of effectiveness means we should all mask up right?

Yes, 100%. Add together a few items each with a small amount of effectiveness and that's a lot of sickness prevented. Thank you for doing your part.

We're in the age of outliers. Make sure we sacrifice everything for the 1%.

[photofly]

If wearing a mask is a sacrifice for you then your life is too soft.

[Jet Stream]

We're in the age of outliers. Make sure we sacrifice everything for the 1%.

It is worth the sacrifice if you are the 1%.

[OneYonge]

mm7010e3-H.pdfStudy has been released.

Mask mandates were shown to curtail the growth in daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% to 1.9% after they were implemented.

Imagine all the pissing matches over masks. Dr Robert redfield even said he thought masks were more effective than vaccines. Remember, trust the experts. Imagine trusting experts when they say such idiotic things. Now we have the divide in Texas where some businesses want to keep masks mandatory.

I think it's ridiculous... But to each their own... Some people think masks should be mandatory even with little evidence to support they have much effectiveness at all. I have always said I thought masks were pretty much useless and whether you believe in masks or not you should treat it as if they don't really work.

CDC still recommends mask wearing. I guess even a small amount of effectiveness means we should all mask up right?

Your scientist will have to convince the other scientists who say the opposite.

For rest of us who are not scientists, the decision to wear masks is based on risk management, not science.




Here's Scott explaining this diagram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-eI23lTeRY&t=1560s

[ReserveTank]

If wearing a mask is a sacrifice for you then your life is too soft.

Baseless statement.

[montado]

Risk management... We should ban flying airplane at night and in IFR conditions because science shows its not as safe as day VFR. Humans can't tolerate risk. It's poor risk management to think otherwise and therefore I'm right even if you prove later it's only marginally more dangerous to fly in night IFR conditions.

Where does risk management meet reasonable measures of safety? Do we have no limit on what we will give up in the name of risk management? Most of us were sold on an idea that masks work better than they actually do... And now what keep double down on masks to save face? I think it's idiotic that masks get 90 percent of the attention for being responsible for 2 percent of prevention. But that's the bias engrained into society now.

[ReserveTank]

mm7010e3-H.pdfStudy has been released.

Mask mandates were shown to curtail the growth in daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% to 1.9% after they were implemented.

Imagine all the pissing matches over masks. Dr Robert redfield even said he thought masks were more effective than vaccines. Remember, trust the experts. Imagine trusting experts when they say such idiotic things. Now we have the divide in Texas where some businesses want to keep masks mandatory.

I think it's ridiculous... But to each their own... Some people think masks should be mandatory even with little evidence to support they have much effectiveness at all. I have always said I thought masks were pretty much useless and whether you believe in masks or not you should treat it as if they don't really work.

CDC still recommends mask wearing. I guess even a small amount of effectiveness means we should all mask up right?

Your scientist will have to convince the other scientists who say the opposite.

For rest of us who are not scientists, the decision to wear masks is based on risk management, not science.




Here's Scott explaining this diagram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-eI23lTeRY&t=1560s

Yes, it is very low risk to go without a mask. It is also an extremely low risk to die of COVID.

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.

But by all means, keep up the restrictions. Our group is pushing to end EI payments.

[ReserveTank]

Risk management... We should ban flying airplane at night and in IFR conditions because science shows its not as safe as day VFR. Humans can't tolerate risk. It's poor risk management to think otherwise and therefore I'm right even if you prove later it's only marginally more dangerous to fly in night IFR conditions.

Where does risk management meet reasonable measures of safety? Do we have no limit on what we will give up in the name of risk management? Most of us were sold on an idea that masks work better than they actually do... And now what keep double down on masks to save face? I think it's idiotic that masks get 90 percent of the attention for being responsible for 2 percent of prevention. But that's the bias engrained into society now.

Agreed and amplified.

We can make even more aviation analogies:

Engine on-condition programs
Decreased maintenance frequencies (think AS261)
Max duty days
Multiple MELs
Standard weights
Non-radar IFR
Piston aircraft FIKI
Single-engine....anything

Alot of these can be combined on a series of flight legs, as most of us well know. These are verifiably lethal risks. So the "every minute/useless bit of mitigation is necessary" crowd never took any of the above lethal risks to themselves and their pax?

[Ruddervator]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... Q0.twitter

[OneYonge]

Risk management... We should ban flying airplane at night and in IFR conditions because science shows its not as safe as day VFR. Humans can't tolerate risk. It's poor risk management to think otherwise and therefore I'm right even if you prove later it's only marginally more dangerous to fly in night IFR conditions.

Where does risk management meet reasonable measures of safety? Do we have no limit on what we will give up in the name of risk management? Most of us were sold on an idea that masks work better than they actually do... And now what keep double down on masks to save face? I think it's idiotic that masks get 90 percent of the attention for being responsible for 2 percent of prevention. But that's the bias engrained into society now.

As pilots, we are the "experts" in our field and can already make decisions based on our knowledge and training. It is procedure.

Regarding masks, the scientists are still in a pissing match about it. You have one study that says one thing, and another that says something else.

By risk management, I am referring to decisions made by those of use who are not scientists caught in the middle.

Our decisions regarding masks are not based on "science". Between non-scientists, assessment of risks vary enormously.

Whether there should be a mandate or not... that is politics and therefore another topic.

[photofly]

There is some evidence (per the original post) that wearing masks reduces infection rates.
What's the argument against wearing a mask? I'm not seeing the down-side here.

[montado]

We should ban the snowbirds. They have a bad safety record, those planes could fall out of the sky and kill people on the ground. How dare they fly above me. I don't like risk. Especially risk for something so stupid like flying planes in formation. What is the risk reward to stupid planes flying in circles above me burning fuel for no reason causing climate change. Who's with me? /s

[Rockie]

As usual Montado left out the context:

Summary

What is already known about this topic?
Universal masking and avoiding nonessential indoor spaces are recommended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

What is added by this report?
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.

What are the implications for public health practice?
Mask mandates and restricting any on-premises dining at restaurants can help limit community transmission of COVID-19 and reduce case and death growth rates. These findings can inform public policies to reduce community spread of COVID-19.


And:

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.
Community mitigation measures can help reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, mask mandates were associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days, whereas allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in COVID-19 case and death growth rates after 40 days. With the emergence of more transmissible COVID-19 variants, community mitigation measures are increasingly important as part of a larger strategy to decrease exposure to and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (3,4).

Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

Cherry picking a statistic out of an entire study while omitting any of the context provided by the actual authors is typical of some trying to push their head up their ass agenda.

[photofly]

We should ban the snowbirds. They have a bad safety record, those planes could fall out of the sky and kill people on the ground. How dare they fly above me. I don't like risk. Especially risk for something so stupid like flying planes in formation. What is the risk reward to stupid planes flying in circles above me burning fuel for no reason causing climate change. Who's with me? /s

If banning the Snowbirds reduced the risk of Covid infection by 0.5 to 1.9%, they'd have been gone by mid-March 2020.

[OneYonge]

Debates on this forum about mask/no-mask is an example of Non-scientist vs Non-scientist discussion.

See the diagram above.

Scientists themselves could not agree on it, what more a bunch of pilots who can easily google a study opposing another study.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

mm7010e3-H.pdfStudy has been released.

Mask mandates were shown to curtail the growth in daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% to 1.9% after they were implemented.

Imagine all the pissing matches over masks. Dr Robert redfield even said he thought masks were more effective than vaccines. Remember, trust the experts. Imagine trusting experts when they say such idiotic things. Now we have the divide in Texas where some businesses want to keep masks mandatory.

I think it's ridiculous... But to each their own... Some people think masks should be mandatory even with little evidence to support they have much effectiveness at all. I have always said I thought masks were pretty much useless and whether you believe in masks or not you should treat it as if they don't really work.

CDC still recommends mask wearing. I guess even a small amount of effectiveness means we should all mask up right?

You clearly do not understand the concept of exponential growth. We've been wearing masks for a year (give or take) now. So here's the math:

1*1.015^365 = ~229.14

By wearing masks with a 1.5% effectiveness rate for one year, we have therefore reduced the spread of covid by a whopping 22,290% - four orders of magnitude. I'll take that inconvenience.

Or, to put it another way, I would be a very, very rich man, if I could find an investment that earned me 1.5% interest per day.

This argumenrt is only convincing if you don't math.

Furthermore:

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.

In other words, it's extremely unreliable because it failed to account for acutal compliance, among a vast cornucopia of other factors. It did not measure mask usage. It only measured mask policy. But let's continue to misquote and misunderstand scientific research, and then hold it up as proof, right?

[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

[Rockie]

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.

[montado]

RedAndWhiteBaron doesn't understand the concept that telling people masks work when they really do nothing causes more spread. If we did things that were actually effective covid would be over. Instead covid is still here because people think masks stop covid when they don't.

So I guess you accept lies that cause people to die... Great logic.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

RedAndWhiteBaron doesn't understand the concept that telling people masks were when they really do nothing causes more spread. If we did things that were actually effective covid would be over. Instead could be vid is still here because people think masks stop covid when they don't.

Do I guess you accept lies that cause people to die... Great logic.

I'm sorry, what? I just proved, by your own article, how effective they are. You appear to have completely ignored my analysis and instead are now continuing to provide opinion rather than facts and evidence contrary to my argument.

And I never argued that other measures may indeed be more effective - you threw that in as a red herring. I argued that by your own logic, masks are effective, and proved it with 8th grade math.

[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.

[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%.

[montado]

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.

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?

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...

Didn’t air Canada just change their masks? Why is it they have a cloth mask they issued for a year that is no longer deemed acceptable to wear, explicitly told you can not wear it anymore... Was this mask not effective? You mean we were told to wear it because it keeps us safe, yet it didn’t work? Hmmm.

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.