Do you wear a mask?

When you go out to places like the grocery store, do you wear a mask?

  • Yes, I think it helps slow the spread

    Votes: 54 44.6%
  • Yes, I'm not sure how much it helps but it's no big deal to wear one

    Votes: 30 24.8%
  • Yes, but only because I'm required to

    Votes: 11 9.1%
  • No, I don't think it helps

    Votes: 11 9.1%
  • No, It's my decision/I'm healthy so not at risk

    Votes: 11 9.1%
  • No, They're uncomfortable/can't use them due to a health condition

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • No, it makes us look weak/I'm not going to live in fear

    Votes: 7 5.8%
  • Other, post below

    Votes: 6 5.0%

  • Total voters
    121

oak_street1981

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
361
Points
83
We could actually discuss the findings and limitations of that study, but I have a feeling you don’t actually care about the actual science of it.

Before COVID, a couple of studies found that surgical masks were essentially equivalent to N95s when it comes to influenza transmission...doesn’t seem convenient for your message though.


Great, then why are transmission rates in mask compliant areas not dropping like rocks?

Maybe we need to start welding doors shut to keep people compliant. A leftist in my 'hood told me last week that China took care of Covid, so why could not Trump.
 

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
Great, then why are transmission rates in mask compliant areas not dropping like rocks?

Maybe we need to start welding doors shut to keep people compliant. A leftist in my 'hood told me last week that China took care of Covid, so why could not Trump.
No one with any smarts has claimed that masks are absolutely protective and that they’re the answer to everything. They’re one helpful option, they’re meant to reduce risk, not be fully preventative. Slowed transmission is more manageable from a healthcare perspective, that’s all I think we should realistically be shooting for.

We will never out mask bad behaviors, mask or no mask, on average we’re gathering with too many people too closely for too long of time periods.
 

oak_street1981

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
361
Points
83
No one with any smarts has claimed that masks are absolutely protective and that they’re the answer to everything. They’re one helpful option, they’re meant to reduce risk, not be fully preventative. Slowed transmission is more manageable from a healthcare perspective, that’s all I think we should realistically be shooting for.

We will never out mask bad behaviors, mask or no mask, on average we’re gathering with too many people too closely for too long of time periods.
Well, great, the only peer reviewed, bulletproof study on the impact on mask wearing just came out today and it was not good for those that claimed all these masks did anything good for anyone.

I'll post it soon
 

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
Well, great, the only peer reviewed, bulletproof study on the impact on mask wearing just came out today and it was not good for those that claimed all these masks did anything good for anyone.

I'll post it soon
I’ve already read it. Maybe you should actually read what the authors wrote about their own interpretations and limitations of the data. You’re parroting partisanship. I’ll post it for you:

 

oak_street1981

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
361
Points
83
OK, sure.. you were right! I must obey and move on! (or go to the Kamp)

PS (those masks the average person is wearing do not do squat, noted)
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
565
Points
113
I’ve already read it. Maybe you should actually read what the authors wrote about their own interpretations and limitations of the data. You’re parroting partisanship. I’ll post it for you:

My interpretation of this is that masks provide a slight protection when outside the home but actually created a slightly higher likelihood of catchcing CV inside the home.

I think the main takeaway is perhaps people are relying too much on masks rather than keeping away from other people. Thus we see a
skyrocketing number of cases even whete there are mask mandates. My elderly father has this view that masks are a panacea and i worry about him.

I read a review of this danish study that said the study should be taken seriously, however the reviewer said would be nice if more studies of this type were available.
 
Last edited:

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
My interpretation of this is that masks provide a slight protection when outside the home but actually created a slightly higher likelihood of catchcing CV inside the home.

I think the main takeaway is perhaps people are relying too much on masks rather than keeping away from other people. Thus we see a
skyrocketing number of cases even whete there are mask mandates. My elderly father has this view that masks are a panacea and i worry about him.


I read a review of this danish study that said the study should be taken seriously, however the reviewer said would be nice if more studies of this type were available.
I definitely buy into that being part of the problem. Masking is NOT a replacement for social distancing, but a supplement to it.

When I first read about the study methods from the authors (before the actual study was published), I saw they designed the study to detect a 50% reduction in infection. From the modeling studies I've read, even the most optimistic ones didn't seem to estimate that high of a range of protection, so I figured this study was doomed from the outset to find "masks don't work" as some like to put it. There was actually a 20% reduction in infections in the mask wearing group, but the study wasn't powered with enough subjects to determine if that was truly significant or due to chance. The study also didn't really address another big advertised reason for masking - protecting others from you. What is the level of protection when we're both masked? Additive 40%? Synergistic 50%+?

It is a decent piece of science, but it is far from a total answer to the masking question. There are also some methodology issues that I think need to be fixed in the next iteration.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,943
Reaction score
1,660
Points
113
We could actually discuss the findings and limitations of that study, but I have a feeling you don’t actually care about the actual science of it.

Before COVID, a couple of studies found that surgical masks were essentially equivalent to N95s when it comes to influenza transmission...doesn’t seem convenient for your message though.

At first glance it feels like the cohorts should have been divided further into those with early and middle adolescent children vs those without. I find it hard to believe n95 is equivalent to surgical mask in impeding aerosols and droplets. Need more data. We all know people don’t always comply with proper wear, either. Perhaps n95 emboldens riskier exposures, contamination, etc. interesting, though.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
792
Points
113
Sorry, I have been off for a few days, in a nice tropic place and not been inclined to log on but:
No worries - I appreciate the reply.

- i cover late shifts to no I have no pattern when I post, I tend to be up from 12PM to 5AM most of the time and sometimes bored, and internet service is spotty where I have been.
Been there and I always tell people - sleeping during the day is not the same as at nigh - I was always off/foggy headed when I had late shifts/overnights.

-I have not been a Vikings fans since about 1999, but I hope for the best
Denny Green saved you additional years of purple depression?? I keep deluding myself that they'll win a Super Bowl in my lifetime, but the Twins _WS or Gopher Football - Rose Bowl or better bets.

- I only ride my bike when the streets are clear of ice and muck, maybe in NYC you do better
I'm well best my outdoor bike days, best I can muster is an indoor model; plus 200 dead cyclists this year here.


-In Supply Chain and Operations we know all about PPE and 'fit" and every Safety Consultant knows ill fitted masks area complete distraction and waste of time
I always thought the neck gaiters were a joke and some of the early cloth masks also.
I'm just basing it on what the majority of the public health officials area advocating as a preventive measure. For example, I know that when I turn the light switch, electricity works and the light goes on - I do not however know how in granular detail how if functions and I'm okay with not understanding it at that nuanced a level

The price of KN95 has dropped drastically, of course, a the supply has greatly increased to the meet the demand and I now sport them most of the times, unless I'm taking a quick pop out or to a non crowded local at off hours - I'll don a blue one.


I'll post the real "science" study that came out today on masks as soon as re-locate it.
Love to read it, as I'm all about learning especially if it counters my position. I'd want to know the following as well (If possible) -
was it peer reviewed?
was this published in a scientific journal? If yes, which one?
who sponsored (Paid) for the study?

You may want to check out this video from PBS


This second one explains the math of masks and how it reduces the spread amongst people.


My reply in bold in your message.
 

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
At first glance it feels like the cohorts should have been divided further into those with early and middle adolescent children vs those without. I find it hard to believe n95 is equivalent to surgical mask in impeding aerosols and droplets. Need more data. We all know people don’t always comply with proper wear, either. Perhaps n95 emboldens riskier exposures, contamination, etc. interesting, though.
There have been a couple studies and there was a recent meta-analysis of these studies which found similar results (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228345/). I thought this was an interesting note by the authors in the discussion:

The reason for the similar effects on preventing influenza for the use of N95 respirators versus surgical masks may be related to low compliance to N95 respirators wear, 23 which may lead to more frequent doffing compared with surgical masks. 13 Although N95 respirators may confer superior protection in laboratory studies designing to achieve 100% intervention adherence, 24 the routine use of N95 respirators seems to be less acceptable due to more significant discomfort in real‐world practice. 11 Therefore, the benefit of N95 respirators of fitting tightly to faces is offset or subjugated. 13 However, it should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment. 25
In the meta-analysis you can see the N95 is definitely favored in the risk ratios but doesn't quite rise to statistical significance. I think we all agree surgical masks aren't as good as N95s in filtering efficiency but I think these studies suggest filtering efficiency isn't the only variable to consider.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,594
Reaction score
2,173
Points
113
Prior to 2020, scientists and doctors recommended hand washing and quarantining the sick as the ways to combat flus. There has really been no statistical benefit to nations which instituted mask mandates or lockdowns. They all look pretty much the same. So maybe the old wisdom was correct, and the new (politically motivated?) “science” is wrong.
 

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
Prior to 2020, scientists and doctors recommended hand washing and quarantining the sick as the ways to combat flus. There has really been no statistical benefit to nations which instituted mask mandates or lockdowns. They all look pretty much the same. So maybe the old wisdom was correct, and the new (politically motivated?) “science” is wrong.
Oh c'mon man, you're talking out of you behind. With covid we have found a majority of the spread to others occurs when people are pre-symptomatic - we have determined this using "science". Hence the recommendation to quarantine if suspected contact, but barely anyone does this... Just quarantining the sick and hand washing won't get the job done.

There has really been no statistical benefit to nations which instituted mask mandates or lockdowns. They all look pretty much the same
Do you know of any actual scientific studies that support your statement? Usually when people say this they're just repeating their favorite partisan commentator. Here is a manuscript with some very simpl analyses that has looked at STATES and disagrees with this very statement, there are more analyses like this out there: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202457v1.full.pdf

Much of what has happened this year has been unprecedented, and there hasn't been direct science to look to. You're going to say politically motivated and put science in quotes, how would you categorize your above statements? They not in line with the "science" like you've been led to believe.

Any measure that decreases human-to-human contact is going to reduce spread. The question we need to ask is, does the benefit of a measure outweigh the cost. You speak in black and white terms when everything is in shades of grey. You're off the mark man. Most people have absolutely no idea how science is done, but they're happy to criticize and put it in quotes.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
565
Points
113
I definitely buy into that being part of the problem. Masking is NOT a replacement for social distancing, but a supplement to it.

When I first read about the study methods from the authors (before the actual study was published), I saw they designed the study to detect a 50% reduction in infection. From the modeling studies I've read, even the most optimistic ones didn't seem to estimate that high of a range of protection, so I figured this study was doomed from the outset to find "masks don't work" as some like to put it. There was actually a 20% reduction in infections in the mask wearing group, but the study wasn't powered with enough subjects to determine if that was truly significant or due to chance. The study also didn't really address another big advertised reason for masking - protecting others from you. What is the level of protection when we're both masked? Additive 40%? Synergistic 50%+?

It is a decent piece of science, but it is far from a total answer to the masking question. There are also some methodology issues that I think need to be fixed in the next iteration.
Pardon my ignorance, but can you interpret this statement from the study : "95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% decrease to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers". Does that mean a 23% decrease in infections?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
1,212
Points
113
My interpretation of this is that masks provide a slight protection when outside the home but actually created a slightly higher likelihood of catchcing CV inside the home.

I think the main takeaway is perhaps people are relying too much on masks rather than keeping away from other people. Thus we see a
skyrocketing number of cases even whete there are mask mandates. My elderly father has this view that masks are a panacea and i worry about him.

I read a review of this danish study that said the study should be taken seriously, however the reviewer said would be nice if more studies of this type were available.
Show me one expert who has said masks are a panacea and offer total protection.

Maybe people need to get there information from good sources and use their brains. Its obvious to me when i put on a cloth mask that it isn't really providing me with protection, I can feel how the air flows. How do you fix stupid? I have some answers but they wouldn't be very popular.😎😎😎
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,594
Reaction score
2,173
Points
113
Oh c'mon man, you're talking out of you behind. With covid we have found a majority of the spread to others occurs when people are pre-symptomatic - we have determined this using "science". Hence the recommendation to quarantine if suspected contact, but barely anyone does this... Just quarantining the sick and hand washing won't get the job done.


Do you know of any actual scientific studies that support your statement? Usually when people say this they're just repeating their favorite partisan commentator. Here is a manuscript with some very simpl analyses that has looked at STATES and disagrees with this very statement, there are more analyses like this out there: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202457v1.full.pdf

Much of what has happened this year has been unprecedented, and there hasn't been direct science to look to. You're going to say politically motivated and put science in quotes, how would you categorize your above statements? They not in line with the "science" like you've been led to believe.

Any measure that decreases human-to-human contact is going to reduce spread. The question we need to ask is, does the benefit of a measure outweigh the cost. You speak in black and white terms when everything is in shades of grey. You're off the mark man. Most people have absolutely no idea how science is done, but they're happy to criticize and put it in quotes.
I’m looking at charts like this

I don’t think there has been a whole lot of science happening here. The science is politicized. And the science is not unanimous. It’s the media that decides which scientific voices to elevate. You can find all kinds of disagreement by scientists of current orthodoxy. And that’s really what science is.
In terms of public policy, the intended results of the recommendations have been all over the place and poor. The unintended results are off the charts awful.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
565
Points
113
Show me one expert who has said masks are a panacea and offer total protection.

Maybe people need to get there information from good sources and use their brains. Its obvious to me when i put on a cloth mask that it isn't really providing me with protection, I can feel how the air flows. How do you fix stupid? I have some answers but they wouldn't be very popular.😎😎😎
I think the media has pushed a narrative that masks are as essential as not being close to other people. Thus many people like my father who are putting too much faith in masks.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
21,180
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
How many people voted for Trump? Lots of morons willing to ignore the science and spread covid. Fact is....with all the morons out and about....people who are listening to the doctors advice are still in dangers way.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
1,212
Points
113
I’m looking at charts like this

I don’t think there has been a whole lot of science happening here. The science is politicized. And the science is not unanimous. It’s the media that decides which scientific voices to elevate. You can find all kinds of disagreement by scientists of current orthodoxy. And that’s really what science is.
In terms of public policy, the intended results of the recommendations have been all over the place and poor. The unintended results are off the charts awful.
Well you can't argue that the hospitals are empty.
So we have to do something.

It doesn't matter who is right about exactly how it spreads, its obviously spreading out of control.
 

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
I’m looking at charts like this

I don’t think there has been a whole lot of science happening here. The science is politicized. And the science is not unanimous. It’s the media that decides which scientific voices to elevate. You can find all kinds of disagreement by scientists of current orthodoxy. And that’s really what science is.
In terms of public policy, the intended results of the recommendations have been all over the place and poor. The unintended results are off the charts awful.
Do you understand masks are not meant to be some magic bullet? They are just one tool to help mitigate spread (NOT COMPLETELY PREVENT). Doctors and scientists say they are not a substitute for social distancing either. Like I said, you're living in black and white terms.

You're confusing science with politics. Politicians dictate policy. Are politicians actually following the science, should be what you're asking. Closing down elementary schools is not following the science.

Now, I literally just gave you a link to a thorough, scientific (but not yet peer reviewed), analysis of the potential effects of these strategies, and you countered with an article that has clearly cherry picked data - which conveniently cuts off it's graphs when it's argument doesn't hold up. That's what science is to you? You don't care about the science you care about the politics.

Take a look again: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202457v1.full.pdf
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
12,185
Reaction score
930
Points
113
How many people voted for Trump? Lots of morons willing to ignore the science and spread covid. Fact is....with all the morons out and about....people who are listening to the doctors advice are still in dangers way.
Like Gavin new some and Nancy pelosi!!! They voted for Trump?

Stzroker the imbecile. Great job Dipshidiot!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
 

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
Pardon my ignorance, but can you interpret this statement from the study : "95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% decrease to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers". Does that mean a 23% decrease in infections?
In short, I wouldn't read too much into that range, it's basically a probability without much certainty. I'll try to explain a little.

So the 95% CI (confidence interval) is essentially a "margin of error". What it's saying is, based on the numbers, 95% of samples would be expected to be in this range. So in this case, 95% of mask wearers would be expected to experience effects in the range of: 46% decrease in infection, to 23% increase.

It is a number, in this case, that is purely based on how many people were in the study. The more people in the study, the smaller your error margins (and 95% CI) will be. That's why more subjects/samples in a study usually gives you more confidence in your results (think about a political poll that asked 50 people vs. 5000 people - which is more likely to be more accurate). Now, they didn't actually look at each person and say, okay this person has 10% increased risk, this person has 30% decreased risk - they derived a range from the numbers.

Does that make sense, at all? I'm trying to think of the best way to describe let me think on it some more. Here's sort of a visual representation, that I don't know will help either but, think of the curve as where each sample/person would fall as a distribution, that's how we get our average:

1605826204525.png
 
Last edited:

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
565
Points
113
In short, I wouldn't read too much into that range, it's basically a probability without much certainty. I'll try to explain a little.

So the 95% CI (confidence interval) is essentially a "margin of error". What it's saying is, based on the numbers, 95% of samples would be expected to be in this range. So in this case, 95% of mask wearers would be expected to experience effects in the range of: 46% decrease in infection, to 23% increase.

It is a number, in this case, that is purely based on how many people were in the study. The more people in the study, the smaller your error margins (and 95% CI) will be. That's why more subjects/samples in a study usually gives you more confidence in your results (think about a political poll that asked 50 people vs. 5000 people - which is more likely to be more accurate). Now, they didn't actually look at each person and say, okay this person has 10% increased risk, this person has 30% decreased risk - they derived a range from the numbers.

Does that make sense, at all? I'm trying to think of the best way to describe let me think on it some more. Here's sort of a visual representation, that I don't know will help either but, think of the curve as where each sample/person would fall as a distribution, that's how we get our average:

View attachment 10543

In short, I wouldn't read too much into that range, it's basically a probability without much certainty. I'll try to explain a little.

So the 95% CI (confidence interval) is essentially a "margin of error". What it's saying is, based on the numbers, 95% of samples would be expected to be in this range. So in this case, 95% of mask wearers would be expected to experience effects in the range of: 46% decrease in infection, to 23% increase.

It is a number, in this case, that is purely based on how many people were in the study. The more people in the study, the smaller your error margins (and 95% CI) will be. That's why more subjects/samples in a study usually gives you more confidence in your results (think about a political poll that asked 50 people vs. 5000 people - which is more likely to be more accurate). Now, they didn't actually look at each person and say, okay this person has 10% increased risk, this person has 30% decreased risk - they derived a range from the numbers.

Does that make sense, at all? I'm trying to think of the best way to describe let me think on it some more. Here's sort of a visual representation, that I don't know will help either but, think of the curve as where each sample/person would fall as a distribution, that's how we get our average:

View attachment 10543

Ok, thanks. So would the mean then be an 11.5% decrease among mask wearers?
 
Top Bottom