ADVERTISEMENT

CDC data seems to indicate masks are largely ineffective

lawpoke87 said:
If I’m reading the data correctly? Not a science guy so someone “Clong” help me out. Data seems to indicate masks reduce infection rate by only 1-2% which...correct?

www.cdc.gov

Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing ...

This report describes changes in COVID-19 case and death growth ...
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...
1% effective! 😂😂😂😂😂😂. They are a feel good placebo that do absolutely NOTHING to prevent the spread of a virus. Seems like there are a couple of people in here that argued with me about them being effective that are eating lots of Crow right now! 😂
 
I hate wearing a mask. However, you would have to have a large trial group and publish peer review evaluations to know if they help or not. I wear the damn mask, even before it was required in the town I live in. What is one percent of 300 million?

If you get a runny nose, guess where it goes. If you wear glasses they fog over when you come indoors.
 
TUMe said:
I hate wearing a mask. However, you would have to have a large trial group and publish peer review evaluations to know if they help or not. I wear the damn mask, even before it was required in the town I live in. What is one percent of 300 million?

If you get a runny nose, guess where it goes. If you wear glasses they fog over when you come indoors.
Click to expand...

While I don’t disagree and I have a mask policy in my office, I don’t anticipate we’re going to get a better or more comprehensive study than the cited one conducted by the CDC. They examined data from over 3000 counties. Keep in mind the study doesn’t specifically address the effectiveness of “a mask” but the effectiveness of mask mandates. However, due to different types of masks and the variety of ways they’re worn it’s likely the best metric
 
Last edited:
shon46 said:
1% effective! 😂😂😂😂😂😂. They are a feel good placebo that do absolutely NOTHING to prevent the spread of a virus. Seems like there are a couple of people in here that argued with me about them being effective that are eating lots of Crow right now! 😂
Click to expand...
Read the article, it says mask MANDATES... not masks ... the reason it still spreads is because of “ Patriots” that refuse to wear one even though there is a mandate
 
  • Like
Reactions: eastcane
shon46 said:
1% effective! 😂😂😂😂😂😂. They are a feel good placebo that do absolutely NOTHING to prevent the spread of a virus. Seems like there are a couple of people in here that argued with me about them being effective that are eating lots of Crow right now! 😂
Click to expand...
Btw, I hate wearing one as well and I hate the pandemic as much as anybody
 
Two things.

"The regression models controlled for several covariates: restaurant closures in the mask mandate models and mask mandates in the restaurant reopening models, as well as bar closures,** stay-at-home orders,†† bans on gatherings of ≥10 persons,§§ daily COVID-19 tests per 100,000 persons, county, and time (day). "

This means the modeling was done conservatively. The changes they are reporting are those for which only unique variance from masking is considered. Of course, none of this takes into account cause and effect. So if masking caused variance in any of the control variables, it would suppress the independent effect of masking.

"During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). "

These are changes in GROWTH RATES, not Covid infection rates themselves. So I think this makes the outcome all the more impressive. The analysis suggests the mandatory masking policy retarded the growth rate of COVID in the community, even accounting for all these other factors which have shared variance with the masking.

This is a very conservative analysis. I do not like multiple regression in this context. A better analysis would be something called "relative importance" which looks at the relative contribution of several predictor to an outcome - e.g., capacity controls, mask mandate, bar closures, etc. Almost certainly it would show an even larger effect for mask mandates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane, eastcane and Clong83a
drboobay said:
Two things.

"The regression models controlled for several covariates: restaurant closures in the mask mandate models and mask mandates in the restaurant reopening models, as well as bar closures,** stay-at-home orders,†† bans on gatherings of ≥10 persons,§§ daily COVID-19 tests per 100,000 persons, county, and time (day). "

This means the modeling was done conservatively. The changes they are reporting are those for which only unique variance from masking is considered. Of course, none of this takes into account cause and effect. So if masking caused variance in any of the control variables, it would suppress the independent effect of masking.

"During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). "

These are changes in GROWTH RATES, not Covid infection rates themselves. So I think this makes the outcome all the more impressive. The analysis suggests the mandatory masking policy retarded the growth rate of COVID in the community, even accounting for all these other factors which have shared variance with the masking.

This is a very conservative analysis. I do not like multiple regression in this context. A better analysis would be something called "relative importance" which looks at the relative contribution of several predictor to an outcome - e.g., capacity controls, mask mandate, bar closures, etc. Almost certainly it would show an even larger effect for mask mandates.
Click to expand...


Can you dumb it down for me? Did the study take into account bar and restaurant closers or is that variable not considered? Why would you expect non multiple regression analysis to show a greater mask effect ?
 
TULSARISING said:
Read the article, it says mask MANDATES... not masks ... the reason it still spreads is because of “ Patriots” that refuse to wear one even though there is a mandate
Click to expand...
Anyone who has ever had experience with chemical and biological warfare training will tell you unless the mask is Mil grade and put on correctly, it is useless. 85% of people that get Covid wore a mask all the time! Masks are a losing strategy for a virus that has a 99.7% recovery rate for people under 70 and without multiple pre existing medical conditions.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Can you dumb it down for me? Did the study take into account bar and restaurant closers or is that variable not considered? Why would you expect non multiple regression analysis to show a greater mask effect ?
Click to expand...
I need a keyboard to get deeper on this. Maybe tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87
shon46 said:
Anyone who has ever had experience with chemical and biological warfare training will tell you unless the mask is Mil grade and put on correctly, it is useless. 85% of people that get Covid wore a mask all the time! Masks are a losing strategy for a virus that has a 99.7% recovery rate for people under 70 and without multiple pre existing medical conditions.
Click to expand...
Once again, a non credible source
 
TULSARISING said:
Read the article, it says mask MANDATES... not masks ... the reason it still spreads is because of “ Patriots” that refuse to wear one even though there is a mandate
Click to expand...

Not sure I completely follow this logic. I would be willing to bet there are more “Patriots” in those counties who refused to mandate masks than those who passed such mandates. Thus, fewer mask wearers (probably by a considerable margin) in the non mandated counties as said counties would tend to be more conservative.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Not sure I completely follow this logic. I would be willing to bet there are more “Patriots” in those counties who refused to mandate masks than those who passed such mandates. Thus, fewer mask wearers (probably by a considerable margin) in the non mandated counties as said counties would tend to be more conservative.
Click to expand...
Sorry Lawpoke, I’m not really following what you are saying
 
lawpoke87 said:
Not sure I completely follow this logic. I would be willing to bet there are more “Patriots” in those counties who refused to mandate masks than those who passed such mandates. Thus, fewer mask wearers (probably by a considerable margin) in the non mandated counties as said counties would tend to be more conservative.
Click to expand...
Let me also say I do not think masks PREVENT you from getting it, I just think it cuts your chances down of getting it because they hold back a lot of the respiratory droplets from when you talk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 04Watu
TULSARISING said:
Sorry Lawpoke, I’m not really following what you are saying
Click to expand...

Simply that the non mandated counties likely had fewer mask wearers than those who mandated the masks due to the political makeup of those counties not to mention those who didn’t wear them because they weren’t legally obligated to do the same. Basically...mask mandates do work to the extent they result in more people wearing masks
 
  • Like
Reactions: TULSARISING
lawpoke87 said:
Can you dumb it down for me? Did the study take into account bar and restaurant closers or is that variable not considered? Why would you expect non multiple regression analysis to show a greater mask effect ?
Click to expand...
It took into account restaurant closures. But in a blunt way. If any level of indoor or outdoor dining was allowed, that was counted as lifting restaurant closures.

As to why multiple regression is somewhat deceiving in this context, it is an issue called colinearity. Fancy word, but it means that regression coefficients are sensitive to predictor variables that correlate with one another. When you have a lot of non-independent predictor variables (ones that tend to go up and down together), it becomes hard for a regression model to really understand the relative importance of the predictors. The issue would be that, when issuing restaurant closures and mask mandates tend to go together in lots of counties, then it gets hard to tell which of the two really had more effect.

As someone who has read lots and lots of research studies and statistics, however, my overall take is that the mask mandates help from reading this. They probably help NOT JUST because of the mask wearing, but probably because it makes people take the whole Covid problem more seriously in other ways. In other words, it is not just the independent effect, but the shared effect from multiple measures to mitigate spread.

Finally, it is absolutely incorrect to read this as saying "masks are 1% effective." That's a total misinterpretation of the research.

I hope that helps a little bit. Unfortunately there are many nuances in interpreting this data since it is exploratory and not experimental.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eastcane and 04Watu
I read it as mask mandates resulted in an insignificant difference in the number covid cases compared to counties without said mandates. There are obviously other factors involved as well.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Simply that the non mandated counties likely had fewer mask wearers than those who mandated the masks due to the political makeup of those counties not to mention those who didn’t wear them because they weren’t legally obligated to do the same. Basically...mask mandates do work to the extent they result in more people wearing masks
Click to expand...
Gotcha
 
lawpoke87 said:
I read it as mask mandates resulted in an insignificant difference in the number covid cases compared to counties without said mandates. There are obviously other factors involved as well.
Click to expand...
There always is, that’s why I say I can’t stand extremists on either the Republican or democratic side for that reason
 
TULSARISING said:
Meaning there are always different factors from both sides of that makes sense
Click to expand...
Europe says hello! When your done explaining your theories perhaps you can come help the great people here understand why we are still locked down after following the strictest mask mandates outside of China for a year now. I say it again, non military grade masks don’t work!
 
Last edited:
"Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1–20, 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days after implementation. "

"During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period. "

In other words, mask mandates were associated with lower growth of Covid cases and deaths, even accounting for all of the other things they measured. If you allow that there is probably a "shared" priming effect that cuts across all mitigation measures, that only increased the usefulness of the mask mandates. My reading is that this is pretty good evidence the mandates helped.

Early in this pandemic I thought that mandates would be unnecessary because Americans would do the right thing. But boy was I wrong. It really changed how I see many of my fellow Americans. It was deflating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TULSARISING
drboobay said:
"Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1–20, 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days after implementation. "

"During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period. "

In other words, mask mandates were associated with lower growth of Covid cases and deaths, even accounting for all of the other things they measured. If you allow that there is probably a "shared" priming effect that cuts across all mitigation measures, that only increased the usefulness of the mask mandates. My reading is that this is pretty good evidence the mandates helped.

Early in this pandemic I thought that mandates would be unnecessary because Americans would do the right thing. But boy was I wrong. It really changed how I see many of my fellow Americans. It was deflating.
Click to expand...
You are wrong! I’m still locked down and I promise you, the lockdowns here in Europe pale in comparison to the US.
 
shon46 said:
You are wrong! I’m still locked down and I promise you, the lockdowns here in Europe pale in comparison to the US.
Click to expand...
Your sources for just about everything you say are never credible sites so it really is hard to take anything you say seriously, not trying to be mean, just saying why nobody here really buys into anything you say
 
Sorry I have seen it with my own eyes in good old Tulsa, OK. So much selfishness and lack of precaution. Mandate or no mandate, I have been very disappointed in the behavior of many of my fellow humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU and TULSARISING
drboobay said:
Sorry I have seen it with my own eyes in good old Tulsa, OK. So much selfishness and lack of precaution. Mandate or no mandate, I have been very disappointed in the behavior of many of my fellow humans.
Click to expand...
You and me both
 
TULSARISING said:
Your sources for just about everything you say are never credible sites so it really is hard to take anything you say seriously, not trying to be mean, just saying why nobody here really buys into anything you say
Click to expand...
Lol 😂 you will always be lost in the sauce listening to the psyop mind games the MSM spews. The truth is out there, it’s up to you to find it.
 
drboobay said:
"Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1–20, 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days after implementation. "

"During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period. "

In other words, mask mandates were associated with lower growth of Covid cases and deaths, even accounting for all of the other things they measured. If you allow that there is probably a "shared" priming effect that cuts across all mitigation measures, that only increased the usefulness of the mask mandates. My reading is that this is pretty good evidence the mandates helped.

Early in this pandemic I thought that mandates would be unnecessary because Americans would do the right thing. But boy was I wrong. It really changed how I see many of my fellow Americans. It was deflating.
Click to expand...

I read the narrative. Unfortunately, their data doesn’t really support those findings. Any decrease in cases per the actual data appears to be minimal and possibly even within the margin of error. I do understand why the narrative is what it is.
 
It is not within any margin of error. Thus the p < .05. There is about 98% confidence the effect is nonzero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a and TUMe
shon46 said:
Lol 😂 you will always be lost in the sauce listening to the psyop mind games the MSM spews. The truth is out there, it’s up to you to find it.
Click to expand...
Never said I listened to the MSM, I think they are corrupt as well, if you think I’m a far left liberal , you couldn’t be farther from the truth. When you actually listen to medical professionals, most of them support wearing a mask, instead you listen to conspiracy theorists
 
drboobay said:
It is not within any margin of error. Thus the p < .05. There is about 98% confidence the effect is nonzero.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t that also mean there’s a 98% confidence the effect is between 1-2% keeping in mind the other variables?
 
lawpoke87 said:
If I’m reading the data correctly? Not a science guy so someone “Clong” help me out. Data seems to indicate masks reduce infection rate by only 1-2% which...correct?

www.cdc.gov

Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing ...

This report describes changes in COVID-19 case and death growth ...
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...
I just skimmed it, and I will try to read it more fully soon.

They report a 1-2% drop, as you note, in the growth rate for counties that had a mask mandate in effect. That is not a 1%drop in caseload, but a drop in the growth rate. And they note that closing or opening restaurants has a pronounced effect on the spread.

The drop being in the growth rate is better than if it were in total cases, but it is notably small. That said, it is still statistically significant. But that is not evidence by itself that masks don’t work on an individual level, and they mention a laundry list of variables that they didn’t account for that also contribute. If anything, it is evidence that a mask ‘mandate’ doesn’t matter much. For example, even without a mask mandate, most indoor stores are still going to require them. They actually conclude that masks help and there is ample evidence experimental evidence that they should be helpful.

I‘ve thought this over in my own head when trying to explain why a state that has had a mask mandate for almost a year now (NM) isn’t really doing that much better than our neighboring state, OK. One problem is that while wearing masks does help prevent casual spread in the grocery store, it doesn’t help much at all to prevent spread among families and close knit communities. And that’s exactly the pathways that we have seen the most spread in NM. My wife sees whole families come into the hospital together. It rips through families and close friends that don’t always wear masks when they see each other or otherwise spend time close together for longer periods of time. Cloth masks don’t work as well for sustained/close contact. Better than nothing, but it’s a roll of the dice. That’s why nurses and EMTs wear N95s.

My neighbors all got it over the holidays. Nearly killed one of them. They got it from a child that they have partial custody over. The kid goes from one home to another every couple of months and transferred the virus to them on one of those trips.

So I think the conclusion is that the crowd pathways are pretty well covered, mask mandate or not, and this document bears that out. If stores and such require them and wearing them in indoor common spaces is more or less the norm, it doesnt much matter if the ‘mandate‘ is there or not. The supporting evidence for that conclusion is also covered by this paper, which is that when restaurants are allowed to open, it universally explodes the growth rate. That actually makes sense if masks work, because now you have allowed groups of strangers to gather indoors without masks as a sort of ‘control’ group that wasn’t there before. Worse, they sit there for an hour creating a sustained exposure event for anyone nearby.


Edit: I’ll also note that the laundry list of things they admittedly don’t account for makes me agree with drboobay. This is a very conservative analysis, and they were still able to prove a trend. So the mask mandates do help, just not as much as anyone would really like. But that is because even with no mandate, many of the same altered behaviors have happened in big numbers. You have a mask mandate in your office, for example, although I assume nobody is compelling you to do it. But by allowing some small segment of stores or people to run around maskless and unchallenged, you do provably increase the growth rate, which is an acceleration term.

To really demonstrate that mask wearing and social distancing is effective in the traditional sense, you’d need a control group where everybody carries on as normal, going to shows, dinners, and grocery stores with nobody wearing a mask at all. But that would be a pretty unethical experiment.
 
Last edited:
After an argu
drboobay said:
Finally, it is absolutely incorrect to read this as saying "masks are 1% effective." That's a total misinterpretation of the research.
Click to expand...
Anyone that believes that to start with, you will be hard pressed to get their interpretation to be anything else. It probably doesn't matter if they fully understand the study or not. Lack of understanding will take a millisecond off of their hesitation to that conclusion.
 
TULSARISING said:
Never said I listened to the MSM, I think they are corrupt as well, if you think I’m a far left liberal , you couldn’t be farther from the truth. When you actually listen to medical professionals, most of them support wearing a mask, instead you listen to conspiracy theorists
Click to expand...
Don’t go getting into your feelings. I never accused you of supporting any political side did I? If you believe MSM is corrupt than you wouldn’t be foolishly dismissive of my sources. Anybody who doesn’t follow the Fauci narrative about masks has been silenced from MSM so your comments about most support wearing mask is false. Go to Rumble, Gab, Twitch, Dlive, and many other Non MSM sites and you will hear a very different narrative.
 
shon46 said:
Don’t go getting into your feelings. I never accused you of supporting any political side did I? If you believe MSM is corrupt than you wouldn’t be foolishly dismissive of my sources. Anybody who doesn’t follow the Fauci narrative about masks has been silenced from MSM so your comments about most support wearing mask is false. Go to Rumble, Gab, Twitch, Dlive, and many other Non MSM sites and you will hear a very different narrative.
Click to expand...
Once again , non credible sites. When they start spitting out conspiracy theories, they are no better than the MSM . Btw, don’t see how that is “ getting in my feelings “.
 
His new media OANN/Newsmax, worse than MSNBC. Full flag of ignorance in all its blazing colors. About as trustworthy as a sack of shat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TULSARISING
Gmoney4WW said:
After an argu

Anyone that believes that to start with, you will be hard pressed to get their interpretation to be anything else. It probably doesn't matter if they fully understand the study or not. Lack of understanding will take a millisecond off of their hesitation to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
I think lawpoke was asking a sincere question, and it is not obvious on its face to your average Joe why a 1% drop in growth rate is significant.

A better way to think about this 1-2% drop would be akin to interest rates. It's a drop in the growth rate, so while it is not huge, it still matters. Explain it in terms of mortgage interest rates. Most people would love to see a 1.5% drop in their mortgage interest rate.

And that's just what they can prove controlling for only a few variables. It could be bigger. But I still say it is not that surprising that a 'mandate' isn't the end-all be-all. Factors like indoor dining dominate when they are allowed to operate.
 
Clong83a said:
I think lawpoke was asking a sincere question, and it is not obvious on its face to your average Joe why a 1% drop in growth rate is significant.

A better way to think about this 1-2% drop would be akin to interest rates. It's a drop in the growth rate, so while it is not huge, it still matters. Explain it in terms of mortgage interest rates. Most people would love to see a 1.5% drop in their mortgage interest rate.

And that's just what they can prove controlling for only a few variables. It could be bigger. But I still say it is not that surprising that a 'mandate' isn't the end-all be-all. Factors like indoor dining dominate when they are allowed to operate.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to lawpoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back