|
Post by Bevo on Mar 16, 2021 18:03:06 GMT
I don't think you can take those graphs and make any reasonable conclusion about one single action or policy. Well, on this, I think we'll just have to disagree. I think real world data is hugely important. For sure, there are confounding variables. But, that's exactly where the potential for learning lies. We need, as much as possible, to understand which variables were significant, and which ones weren't. As one of the few places where NO ONE wore masks, I think Denmark is pretty important. The huge study that was done there might just be the best such study done to date. Guess what it said? I don't have the advanced statistical toolkit to say one way or the other. I certainly don't either. I'm capable of learning it, I think. Not sure I WANT to. I REALLY don't understand how they can claim statistical significance against a NULL case that is unknown and unknowable?? I'd prefer to be able to trust people who ARE experts in these fields. But, that's been difficult to do when I see so many conflicting studies and so many dramatic shifts in guidelines. Originally [you] touted this study as reasons why masks don't work. You did not doubt the legitimacy of the study. The conversation has been essentially explaining what the study was actually implicating. Now that you are aligned with what the study suggests, you have essentially said the study is not honest ("an honest study would make enough data available...") It seems your mind is already made up, even before you understood what the study was saying. It is a shame too, because I thought you were going to turn the corner, especially when you said "there would be no debate." The study was only valid when you thought it came to the same conclusion you already have. I can't say whether the study is honest, or not. And, I don't think you can either. No one can, because there is not enough data provided. In fact, my original position was; that the study was accurately done, showed minimal impact from masking, and then made a recommendation for masking that I didn't agree with because it failed to take into account any of the downside for constant mask wearing. After going through the data, I still think this is likely the case. I just don't believe the decline in rate was truly an "absolute value" reduction. I could believe the "Relative value" reduction. That's what I assumed at the beginning. I don't see how they can claim a 2% reduction when, in most every country, or state that I've looked at the, the highest death growth rates were 2% or less. If their data was correct, in ALL cases, mandating masks would have eliminated any increases. They're saying it did, 100 days later? How in the world could they know that given all the confounding variables you mentioned? Deaths eventually go down, even in places where NO MASKS were worn at all. Why is that not the NULL to compare to? If that's what their data says? Then, I want to see more about how they corrected for the other variables. Because, the results simply don't pass the "smell test" when compared to data that is available to me. It is trivial to put on a mask for the 30 minutes you are in a grocery store. 100% agree. Not a big deal at all to me. But again, WHEN do we stop wearing them? If the guideline is: Wear them, even if there's an infinitesimal benefit? I'm not down with that. If you want to keep wearing it? Fine. But, don't force me. And, don't force businesses one way or the other. I think Fauci was correct when he said: “Wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences; people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
“When you think mask, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill,” added the medical expert"
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 16, 2021 23:16:53 GMT
Well, on this, I think we'll just have to disagree. I think real world data is hugely important. For sure, there are confounding variables. But, that's exactly where the potential for learning lies. We need, as much as possible, to understand which variables were significant, and which ones weren't. As one of the few places where NO ONE wore masks, I think Denmark is pretty important. The huge study that was done there might just be the best such study done to date. Guess what it said? Real world data is important, which is why the study used real world data. I just don't think you can do an eyeball test on a chart, or do a single variable analysis on an entire country and come up with any reasonable conclusion. That is all I was saying. All of the studies I see recommend masking. I don't see so many conflicting studies. When you interpret them as loosely as you do, maybe? There were shifts at the beginning as they were trying to figure it out, yes. But have the guidelines shifted much since then?
In the US, daily death growth rates, as they've defined, were over 30% last March, and in the teens in early April. I don't know how you can say they were always 2% or less. You've got bad data somewhere. Just pick two sequential days anytime in March of last year, and you'll get well above 2%. The entire point of the study is to separate out the different areas for the analysis to work, in this case it was by county. This allows you to effectively compare the results of a fixed effect within a subgroup (i.e. mask mandates within a county), while controlling for other factors in that subgroup. Comparing Denmark to the United States, or even other countries, is statistically meaningless. If you are really curious on the methods, here is a good video to introduce the idea of this type of analysis: www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9UEYUXi6lYThey used a standard established method, which is essentially designed for this type of data, called out what they controlled for, and showed where they got their data as well as date that they got it. This study is repeatable. Maybe not by you or me because it is far more involved than plugging numbers into excel. But I trust this study a lot more than your study of Denmark, which is not a study, but a very reductive observation. In grocery stores and other essential places for the public? I wouldn't care if it were forever. It is more trivial than the required shoes, pants and shirt. And if I prevented 1 person from getting sick by wearing a mask over the past year, I would say it was worth it for me personally. But that is just me personally.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 18, 2021 1:48:24 GMT
if I prevented 1 person from getting sick by wearing a mask over the past year, I would say it was worth it for me personally. Wow.. that really says a lot. We see the world VERY differently. I must value seeing people faces a LOT more than you do. Given that >98% of the people who "get sick" recover fully in a few days, I would never say something like that. I support "Freedom of Expression"
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 18, 2021 4:51:25 GMT
I value a stranger's health more than I value seeing their face. I also don't disregard the 2% who didn't fully recover. Maybe I'm just pro-life? Different world views I guess. The only time we find common ground is with the math. So I'll get back to that: you said "in most every country, or state that I've looked at the, the highest death growth rates were 2% or less" In Kentucky last April, the average daily death growth rate was over 8%, calculated from data here: www.kentucky.com/news/coronavirus/article242404986.html I picked Kentucky because you specifically had said you looked at Kentucky data before. All the pieces are there, if you want to put them together. You have the ability to calculate that death growth rate was well over 2%, especially at the beginning. You know the study is referencing a drop in death growth rate by 1.9 percentage points, not a relative 1.9%. You understand the huge implications of a 1.9 percentage point drop in death growth rate on the total number of deaths. All together, in hindsight, masking was probably a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 18, 2021 17:02:53 GMT
you said "in most every country, or state that I've looked at the, the highest death growth rates were 2% or less" In Kentucky last April, the average daily death growth rate was over 8%, calculated from data here: www.kentucky.com/news/coronavirus/article242404986.html I picked Kentucky because you specifically had said you looked at Kentucky data before. Most of the data I was looking at was much later. ie: After Aug 2020, when the numbers really started increasing. By then, the absolute numbers are much higher, and the growth rates are lower. Which, highlites another flaw in this study. The Law of diminishing returns dictates that a Cumulative Death chart will slow in growth rate. In April, I calculated daily death growth rate to be 8.6. That was an amount of around 6-7 people per day. 100 days AFTER our state wide mask mandate, we had 11-12 people dying per day, even though our death growth rate was less than 1. You know the study is referencing a drop in death growth rate by 1.9 percentage points, not a relative 1.9%. No. I don't know, because the study doesn't specify. They could have given an example to make it clear. But, when someone says, "A number was reduced by 2%". If the number is 10%, you can't know for sure if they're talking about 8% or 9.8%. The language is imprecise. As a person who negotiates a lot of contracts, I can tell you: Specific language is important. All together, in hindsight, masking was probably a good idea. Let's have a look at Kentucky. Our Governor issued a State-Wide mask mandate on July 10. For the 20 day period BEFORE that, our Daily Death Growth Rate was 0.8%For the 20 day period AFTER that, our Daily Death Growth Rate was 0.8%For the 20 day period 80-100 days AFTER that, our Daily Death Growth Rate was 0.8% Yes... I can CLEARLY see how the masks saved us. (he said, sarcastically) Regardless of what the growth rate was, the WORST period for Kentucky in terms of deaths was in January of this year. That's when the MOST people were dying every day. Mask compliance in Kentucky has been very high. It didn't help. Anyone who thought mask mandates were going to save us from this virus has been proven horribly wrong. By practically ANY measure, in any place you look.
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Mar 18, 2021 17:52:57 GMT
Masks are useless
The sheeple wear their masks into stores while touching keypads that every phucker entering that store that day has touched...true evidence of a completely dumbed-down society
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Mar 18, 2021 18:03:11 GMT
Gonna host an old time music jam this afternoon, outside on the deck. We'll be spaced about 4-5 ft apart with masks and most of us have been fully vaccinated. It will be interesting to see how the experimental gene therapy affects your immune system in the coming years. Fauci thanks you for being a guinea pig
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 18, 2021 23:53:52 GMT
The study did not say "A number was reduced by 2%" It said "a percentage point decrease". The language is specific and precise, as I have already pointed out:
This whole conversation started because you attributed language to the study that the study did not use. And you are still attributing language to the study that the study did not use.
I had responses to your other points, but it is useless. You can't even acknowledge the language used in the study, so you substitute your own and argue against it.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 19, 2021 0:44:42 GMT
Gonna host an old time music jam this afternoon, outside on the deck. We'll be spaced about 4-5 ft apart with masks and most of us have been fully vaccinated. It will be interesting to see how the experimental gene therapy affects your immune system in the coming years. Fauci thanks you for being a guinea pig Based on your recent posts, you should be begging for new genes.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 19, 2021 3:02:58 GMT
The study did not say "A number was reduced by 2%" It said "a percentage point decrease". The language is specific and precise, as I have already pointed out:
This whole conversation started because you attributed language to the study that the study did not use. And you are still attributing language to the study that the study did not use.
I had responses to your other points, but it is useless. You can't even acknowledge the language used in the study, so you substitute your own and argue against it.
I don’t blame you. It’s probably a good time for you to stop pretending that masks have saved us all.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 19, 2021 12:10:27 GMT
I never said masks saved is all. The study never said dropped by 1.9%. The study never said death rates dropped by 2% over 100 days.
But it’s easier for you to lie and argue against these lies. For someone who wants respectful conversation and says precise language is important, you aren’t really practicing what kind preach.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 19, 2021 15:05:42 GMT
I never said masks saved is all. The study never said dropped by 1.9%. The study never said death rates dropped by 2% over 100 days. They say: "Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates" In their results table, they claim a "Percentage point change" of -1.9% in "coefficients from the weighted least-squares regression models" between the reference period and "81–100 days after". It's also worth pointing out, they say masking is "associated with". They don't say it 'Causes" or "results in"... because, well.... they can't. But you have no problem leaping to this conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 20, 2021 0:36:24 GMT
I said: You know the study is referencing a drop in death growth rate by 1.9 percentage points, not a relative 1.9%. Your response: No. I don't know, because the study doesn't specify. Your next response, I guess after a moment of clarity: In their results table, they claim a "Percentage point change" I'm glad you came around to what the study said, but it is difficult to have a respectful conversation when you initially deny what the study said. Next up your straw man approach. Below is probably my most opinionated statement (notice how I don't lie about what the study said): All together, in hindsight, masking was probably a good idea. Compare this to your take on my opinion: It’s probably a good time for you to stop pretending that masks have saved us all. If respectful conversation is what you want, I think I can offer that. But if the conversation is not being honest about the language in the study, and straw men of my opinions, then I don't think a respectful conversation can happen.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 20, 2021 0:53:57 GMT
To compliment my last post, can I add this? Bevo, are you looking to argue against this opinion?: Anyone who thought mask mandates were going to save us from this virus has been proven horribly wrong. By practically ANY measure, in any place you look. I can understand the desire to argue against this opinion, or any opinion you've seen in media, public, etc. And if I saw that opinion, I'd argue against it too. Masks are not the savior. Masks will not save us from COVID-19. However I do believe that masks do provide some impact in reducing spread. And my understanding of the math of exponential growth, "some impact" can result in a significant benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 20, 2021 18:02:14 GMT
But it’s easier for you to lie and argue against these lies. I have not lied about what this study says. I have said, I find the language ambiguous, and I wish they'd have provided some data to make it more clear. You're probably right. It's more likely, going by the wording, that they're reporting a 2% absolute drop in the rate. But, I truly am not certain. Especially, when they're not talking about the rate, directly, but in changes to "coefficients in a linear regression". How do changes to the coefficients translate into differences in measured rate? I'm not sure. If it is a direct 1:1 translation, then I have to wonder about the accuracy of the results? As I said before, if the difference was truly that significant, it would be readily apparent in macro-data. It's not. That's what I meant when I said there would "be no debate". Everyone would be able to see the difference. Apparently, other factors come into play that limit spread of the virus before these tremendous benefits can show themselves? Or, limit the effectiveness of masks over a longer time period? Which, leads me back to: What difference did it really make? You can't just say, "Without masks, the deaths would really been terrible", because... we have examples of places that didn't wear masks. The results there weren't terrible. They weren't different at all. In some places, they were actually better. There are plenty of people who act like masks are going to save us. My Governor frequently said, "If we all wear masks, we can get our lives back". We did. He was wrong. We'll get our lives back when we reach herd immunity and the virus goes away. I'm glad to hear you say you don't think masks will save us. I don't disagree with your opinion that they provide some benefit. I just don't think the benefit has been significant, at all. Especially not in places where prevalence of the virus is very low. And, I DO THINK there are downsides.. practically, socially, and even medically. The trick, as always, is to balance risk vs benefit. That's not easy to do, even when the available data is reliable. It's damned near impossible in the world we live in today.
|
|