|
Post by Bevo on Aug 20, 2020 16:11:32 GMT
However this digression started with the notion that the flu was more dangerous. I disagree, and so do many others. In CERTAIN age groups... not all. And, the data shows that COVID is considerably less dangerous to younger people than the flu. There aren't MANY people remaining who would argue against that. Overall, I think it's clear that COVID is more deadly than normal flu. How much so is somewhat in question, because of the perverted way we've been incentivizing death counts with cash payments from the Feds. But, I think it's clear that it's worse than any flu we've seen since at least 1968/69.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 20, 2020 17:57:11 GMT
How does removing people from homes have anything to do with what I said? This study you liked basically said transmission in public is not a huge threat - especially compared to spread at home. And this study was done when social distancing and masks were enforced. Seems like social distancing and mask usage was a good strategy, this study showed that if we do that, the threat of spread is relatively low. Removing people from their homes is a non-sequitur. We don't have to do that, and won't (at least not for having a virus). It seems like these mask mandates really generate fear that we are turning into authoritarian China. Also, basically would mean to simplify. Saying the study said people without symptoms do NOT spread the virus is not a simplification, it is misrepresenting the study. It sounds good though, a Bevo fact. Basically: "used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation".That is exactly what I did. I actually never said I "Liked" this study.. I simply said it was "interesting". It's frustratingly incomplete, but offers a new perspective. What was interesting to me was: Asymptomatic people didn't appear to spread the disease, even in a home environment. Where, presumably, people were NOT wearing mask. Isn't that the primary reason we're making EVERYONE wear masks? Because, you might be spreading it even if you have no symptoms? According to this study, that mostly didn't happen. If we focused on people WITH symptoms, rather than EVERYONE... we'd likely have achieved at least the same result we've seen with wide-spread mask application. That helps explain why the actual data (like Los Angeles) doesn't show correlation between mandate mask wearing and COVID spread. My point about China taking people out of their homes is just a reminder. If you believe their data, they have fared much better than we have, with regards to overall cases and deaths. But, they didn't achieve this with "Stay at home" orders and strict mask wearing. They went significantly farther... Taking steps that we're NOT going to do. The report showed asymptomatic cases are less likely to cause secondary infection. This is significantly different than saying asymptomatic cases do NOT cause secondary infection. The first implies asymptomatic people are still a risk, albeit lower, but they should probably still take precautions to help prevent spread. The second implies that asymptomatic people are zero risk, and they have no reason to take precautions to prevent spread. Saying low risk is ‘basically’ no risk is not a good summary. This is especially true when mitigating low risk can be as trivial as wearing a mask or hand washing. Why bother when you falsely believe the risk is zero?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 20, 2020 19:00:14 GMT
The report showed asymptomatic cases are less likely to cause secondary infection. This is significantly different than saying asymptomatic cases do NOT cause secondary infection. Significantly different? Really. Is 0.3% really all that different from 0? It's a matter of degrees, I guess. Personally, I don't think the difference is enough to MANDATE mask-wearing by government decree. Others might disagree. Most people would probably wear their mask anyway. I prefer the freedom to decide for myself. So, I got results today from an anti-body test I took 2 weeks ago. Indeed, I DID have COVID in May and still have anti-bodies. Why do I need to wear a mask? Can I get a State of Kentucky button that says I don't need one?
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 20, 2020 21:33:05 GMT
There is a significant difference between zero risk and a small risk.
Zero risk you don’t even consider mitigating. Zero is zero, a waste of time. Small risk, especially when death is a possible outcome, you definitely at least consider. When the mitigation approach is extremely simple, for example wearing a mask in public, it makes sense to try to mitigate.
And keep in mind that this study was with masks on. It certainly can’t be extrapolated to what the spread would be without masks.
And your attitude of ‘I should decide for myself’ is the exact problem. You are not deciding just for yourself, but you are potentially impacting others. If masks were only effective at self protection, you would have a point. But when we go into public, there are many government mandates about behavior designed to promote the general welfare. It ceases to be only a personal choice when it can affect others.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 20, 2020 23:52:04 GMT
I wonder, with people who want masks to be their choice and not forced upon them, how do they feel about public nudity, and laws preventing it?
If beliefs are consistent, and it is government overreach to mandate masks, then it is also overreach to mandate other clothing to regulate public nudity. After all, didn’t the supreme court uphold the constitutionality of laws prohibiting public nudity for the sake of ‘morality and public order’? Not even health or safety reasons! I wonder if that group was conservative it liberal? Must have been liberals, because no conservative would uphold such a government overreach on personal liberty. Sounds like something China would do, not conservative America.
Bevo, I think we can agree that the conservative approach (limited government) would allow complete nudity in public, which includes no mask mandates.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 21, 2020 0:15:01 GMT
Are people claiming that masks prevent spread? How do we know that graph wouldn’t show more cases without a mask mandate? Surely behavior, testing, spread, SOMETHING, etc. changed with that spike? It is a very reductionist argument to say that since case increased with a mask mandate, it is obvious that cases don’t work. Exponentials increase, even if you dampen the growth factor. x^y and x^(y-a) will both increase overtime. Saying x^(y-a) still increased overtime, thus ‘a’ clearly didn’t dampen the growth, is not looking at the whole picture. Obviously the equation for virus spread is much more complicated, but how exactly is that evidence that masks don’t work? Though I’m sure those who require double blind studies to prove that masks work will also point out that this is evidence that they don’t.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 21, 2020 13:34:59 GMT
There is a significant difference between zero risk and a small risk. Zero risk you don’t even consider mitigating. Zero is zero, a waste of time. Small risk, especially when death is a possible outcome, you definitely at least consider. When the mitigation approach is extremely simple, for example wearing a mask in public, it makes sense to try to mitigate. And keep in mind that this study was with masks on. It certainly can’t be extrapolated to what the spread would be without masks. And your attitude of ‘I should decide for myself’ is the exact problem. You are not deciding just for yourself, but you are potentially impacting others. If masks were only effective at self protection, you would have a point. But when we go into public, there are many government mandates about behavior designed to promote the general welfare. It ceases to be only a personal choice when it can affect others. Wow. I must admit, I’m somewhat shocked by this response. So, ANY risk that is above zero, to you, is justification for a broad government mandate requiring everyone to wear face coverings… if your local Mayor, or Governor, or President says so? No matter how small. No matter how unsubstantiated? You’re willing to give up the ability to show your face, uncovered, in public? I’ve had a theory, for a while now, that our society has lost the ability to cognitively manage or accept risk. I guess this is ultimate confirmation. So, now… I guess masking is forever.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 21, 2020 13:42:50 GMT
Are people claiming that masks prevent spread? Yes, constantly. Our Kentucky Governor says daily that masks are CRITICAL to our effort to prevent spread. He was boldly taking credit for his perceived improvement in our numbers, a couple of weeks after his mandate. Now, we're 6 weeks after, and our numbers haven't really improved at all. What the hell? EVERYONE is wearing them?? We still have states, and cities that NEVER mandated mask wearing. Their numbers are not worse than areas that have. There is NO discernable correlation. In Los Angeles, what jumps out from the data is, the HUGE jump in cases starting 2 weeks after the beginning of wide-spread protesting. Of course, most of these protestors were wearing mask, and were outside. So, our trusted media assured us there was no risk of virus spread. Even now, they claim the protesting had virtually nothing to do with it. But, I guess it doesn't matter. As long as there is a 0.000000001% chance that the masks somehow slowed the spread, even though we can't prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 21, 2020 13:54:28 GMT
Bevo, I think we can agree that the conservative approach (limited government) would allow complete nudity in public, which includes no mask mandates. If our Governor decides that wearing clothes is helping spread the virus, and we could slow the spread by 0.00000001% by having everyone go nude, I suppose you would accept and willingly comply? We have elected Representatives that collectively decide on the laws that we, the people will live by. If they decide on wearing clothes, I will and I might continue to vote for them. If they start to suggest it would be better for everyone to be always nude, I will NOT vote for them, and the laws will change. One of the big problems I'm having with what's going on now is.... Many Governor's are assuming responsibility to decide EVERYTHING that goes on is their state. Everything from whether schools can open, whether they play volleyball or football, whether private businesses have the right to conduct commerce, or not. That's not what we elected them for. Our guy says liquor stores and casinos can be open, but churches.. (following the SAME guidelines) cannot. I get that Executives sometime need Emergency Powers to make time sensitive decisions in the public interest. But, this is going WAY TOO FAR. This "emergency" is going on now into 6 months. It's time for elected Representatives to reclaim some power and get involved. It's time for the PEOPLE, through their elected Representatives, to get involved and reclaim some of our rights.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 21, 2020 16:50:40 GMT
I don’t think we should mask forever because there is risk. I was explaining to you that zero risk is significantly different than low risk, especially when death is involved. Zero risk doesn’t need to be considered, low risk does even if the result is no action. You weigh the mitigation against the risk and make a decision.
There is clearly risk, and people are clearly getting sick, and there are unknowns about COVID-19. The mitigation, wearing a mask in public on this example, is trivial.
I find it perfectly reasonable to mandate masks during a pandemic where there is no vaccine. I don’t consider it a power grab or unprecedented based on other precedent of requiring clothes in public for reasons less serious than health and safety.
If it continues past experts recommending it, then I could see the issue. If nudity was forced, in your red herring, then I would disagree because that clearly isn’t recommended by anyone.
And I had forgotten about the protests, that does explain the increase I would think.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 21, 2020 16:53:56 GMT
Also, I won’t argue against you on your other concerns about governors mandating and micromanaging business. I could see how that is legitimately concerning. Though I see that very differently than mandating a mask during a pandemic with no vaccine. My position on masks doesn’t automatically mean I support everything government is doing to mitigate spread.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 21, 2020 19:23:41 GMT
The mitigation, wearing a mask in public on this example, is trivial. I agree that mask wearing is not a heavy burden, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's trivial. They are uncomfortable. They make eating, drinking and smoking difficult, if not impossible. They give me a headache after an hour or two of wearing one. Many people complain of anxiety both from wearing them, and from seeing so many other people wearing them. It's highly annoying when you're shopping, trying to read labels and your glasses keep fogging up. My wife hates them, because they mess up her make-up and fog up her glasses too. They interfere in facial recognition software and video surveillance which has an impact some types of businesses and crime prevention. Mandating masks, I believe, leads many people to avoid going out altogether. They'd rather just stay home to avoid the annoyance. That inhibits economic recovery, although I couldn't say exactly how much? My biggest concern really is, they give people a false sense of security which encourages them to be less concerned about distancing, which... I believe, is more important that wearing a mask. Look at the huge increase in cases in LA and across the country after the protesting started at the end of May. Those people were almost all wearing masks. They thought they were protected. They weren't. It would be much easier to accept these relatively minor inconveniences if there was just SOME hard evidence that they actually make a difference, when worn in a general public environment. There just isn't any. And, why would there be? As discussed before, there really cannot be any measurable overall benefit when the only chance for benefit comes from a very, very small % of people walking around in public. Especially, if people who are actually SICK, you know.. with symptoms, stay home. To me, the very, very minor % benefit (which can't actually be proven) is not worth the imposition. Would be nice if we could at least take a vote on it. Although, our media has scared the crap out of everyone so badly, it would probably pass 80/20.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 21, 2020 21:17:03 GMT
I agree with the false sense of security. The recommendations I see say exercise social distancing, and wear a mask when you can’t. Not, use a mask so you can get within six feet of someone. Does your same healthy skepticism that you use towards mask apply to social distancing as well? That one is wrecking the economy too, and based on the mechanism of spread. Any remember, the study that showed the spread from asymptomatic people was low, was done while masks were mandated. Do we know if the spread is equally low without masks? Your level of scrutiny for evidence to wear masks seems much higher than evidence against wearing masks. A graph of increasing cases in a county is enough evidence to suggest that masks are ineffective, but randomly controlled trials of the efficacy of masks on a mechanism of spread is not enough evidence. I’ll go with the experts and wear my mask in public. I was doing it when there was no mandate. To me, it is one of the simplest things in the world to do. I’ve even been told I look better in a mask!
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 22, 2020 15:30:17 GMT
The recommendations I see say exercise social distancing, and wear a mask when you can’t. Not, use a mask so you can get within six feet of someone. That's what the original recommendations said, and they were reasonable. With the mandate, you have to wear the mask EVERYWHERE outside of your home. Doesn't matter if you're near anyone or not. It's overkill. Especially, given that the vast majority of people (at least, where I live) were wearing masks already. I suspect that is the real reason why we can't find correlation between cases and mandates. Which, is kind of my point. The heavy-handed government mandate forces us to do stupid things... like wearing a mask while walking on a beach with no one within 100 yards. Whereas, with no mandate, most people were already using masks in ways that made some sense. Of course, a few yahoos weren't following the rules. But, not enough to make any real difference in transmission rates. Does your same healthy skepticism that you use towards mask apply to social distancing as well? My 'healthy skepticism" is nothing more than a desire for understanding and it applies to everything. Any remember, the study that showed the spread from asymptomatic people was low, was done while masks were mandated. Do we know if the spread is equally low without masks? Well sort of. You have to dig deep into the data to get it. But, yea.. I think it shows Asymptomatic people rarely pass it to anyone, no matter what the setting was... mask, or no mask. At least, I THINK so.. not 100% sure. There were 305 (out of 3410) contacts followed who were people in close contact ( unprotected) with confirmed COVID cases who were asymptomatic. Of those 305, only 1 every tested positive. I would ASSUME that this 300 people were exposed in a variety of settings (Household, Transport, Work, etc) more or less in equal proportion to the rest of the contacts? I don't think the study specifies this, although they should have this data. Asymptomatic people pretty much didn't pass it to anyone (1 in 300), no matter what the setting was... mask, or no mask. The underlying assumption here is: People in Household settings probably aren't wearing masks. Maybe, they are wearing mask at home in China? Especially, if they know someone in the house is sick? From what I know about Chinese people, I'd bet they were. But, I'm not sure. This study didn't ask that question? If we assume masks were not worn at home, even with sick family members in the house, then the data clearly shows transmission rates are higher at home, w/o masks. It really is a fascinating study. We could never get this kind of data in the US. It might just be the best evidence yet in favor of mask wearing? For sure, it could be if we had a few more pieces of data. Frankly.. I am a little surprised by the rather low percentage that transmitted the disease, 3.7%. Maybe that's high. I don't study diseases for a living. Just seems, for this supposedly SUPER contagious disease, it would transmit at a higher rate. Some of these were repeated contacts, some even with multiple sick people. Although, I guess it was 10% for people in the same home (Presumably, not wearing masks). That's a pretty healthy number. I would just assume, in a household, the rate would be close to 100%? The data does suggest, COVID isn't passed by quick, short exposures... like, passing someone on a sidewalk, or even standing beside them for a few minutes on a train. (Even without mask, remember... connection with Index cases was exposure WITHOUT protection). Rather, people are most at risk from close, longer exposures... at home, or in an office, or perhaps a bar setting. I'm not sure what that means in terms of translating to policy? Your level of scrutiny for evidence to wear masks seems much higher than evidence against wearing masks. A graph of increasing cases in a county is enough evidence to suggest that masks are ineffective, but randomly controlled trials of the efficacy of masks on a mechanism of spread is not enough evidence. Could be. I'd like to think not. I admit, I'm not all that impressed by mechanistic studies that only look at clinical lab settings. They're interesting. But, they just don't reflect a real world environment. This recent study that looked at small particle generation using single-ply cloth (ie: bandana, or neck wraps) showed these kinds of covering were actually "worse than nothing". That was my concern with the other study. I prefer studies that look at reality, not just theory. At least, take the time to look at the kinds of coverings people are ACTUALLY wearing, in the ACTUAL condition. And, yea.. eventually, I'd really like to see some clear correlation between all the things were doing: Social distancing, mask wearing, etc... and see that they really have an impact that exceeds simply quarantining sick people. I know that's a pipe dream. But, it sure would be comforting to see. I look at data every day from countries all over the world, and from the various states. I see a lot of differences in the data. But, I don't see correlation in the way governments have responded (not consistent anyway, outside of China). This virus seems to do whatever it wants, despite our best efforts. I see more correlation in demographics and relative health of the population than anything else. There MUST be someone doing meta-data analysis somewhere? Where is Google when we need them? I was doing it when there was no mandate. T So have I. Although, I was only wearing them when I was actually around people, closer than I wanted to be. The only time I have somewhat enjoyed having a mask on was, gambling in a casino with smokers. I HATE cigarette smoke. The mask helps in that situation. It is a bit more annoying to be wearing the mask now that I know I've already had COVID and have anti-bodies. I'm a zero risk of passing it to anyone. But, whatever.. gotta follow the law. On Tuesday, I'm going to donate plasma at the University of Louisville. Maybe, I can actually help someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 22, 2020 16:14:25 GMT
Just one more point: I think we have to be a little careful of comparing Americans to Chinese. It may well be that they had a much higher level of base immunity, from having larger exposure to previous similar viruses. Plus, of course ... all data from China must be blessed by the Communist Party. So, should all be viewed with skepticism.
|
|