ORAggieFan said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Saying an ordinance is ineffective is not the same as saying the mask by itself is ineffective. It is saying that the behavior of the general public regarding their masks render them ineffective. This is a combination of poor handling, improper fitting and lack of wearing in many scenarios, including home.

---

I agree with this, but I'd add lack of compliance and lack of enforcement before anything you listed.

---

I live in San Diego and I see near 100% compliance where it is required. CDC has said from previous studies on influenza if they are not worn at home they are ineffective. Don't believe anywhere is requiring to be worn at home (nor would people).

Now, proper compliance is different. I saw a lady in the store remove hers to lick her fingers to open a produce bag. I saw a deli worker use his masked hand to adjust his mask over his nose. I could go on. There is a reason doctors are trained in properly scrubbing in and out. Most of us just use the same mask every day and don't bother with the proper process.

---

Fair point, thanks for the response.

And rereading the thread, I'll step it back and say what I was really thinking about was what tysker mentioned... that is, there are lots of private gatherings with family/friends happening. So I suppose it has nothing to do with lack of mask compliance, but rather lack of gathering compliance.

Even for my family, which takes this seriously because my wife has an auto-immune disease, we've had small gatherings with family and friends occur more frequently the longer this drags out.

So really, I'd say that most situations where masks would be most helpful are either banned already (large public gatherings) or happen in situations outside of the control of the mask policy (private gatherings).

That said, if there's even a marginal benefit from mask use in stores, I'm grateful for it. A life I care about is at stake. Guess I'm just being selfish and not considering how uncomfortable that makes life for the rest of y'all.

ORAggieFan said:

---

AgsMyDude said:

---

RandyAg98 said:

---

yukmonkey said:

---

All this means is that Hawaii's peak will be later. And their economy will be in worse shape. There is no other argument.

---

This has been shown in literally every region measured. I don't know why some people, leaders, administrators refuse to see it. The spike is a "when" not "if". Lockdowns only delay the inevitable.

---

Why is this repeated so much? Nobody thinks lockdown eliminates the virus permanently. It was about improving treatment, keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed, etc.

Too many people died early from pushing everyone on a vent, even some docs here on TexAgs said many survivors from 2 months ago would have died at the start. In that sense, the lockdown worked.

---

It may have worked early on, but continuing efforts for lockdowns are against everything that was said about flattening the curve. Even in NY, hospitals weren't overran. Cruise ships brought in for backup hospitals were never utilized. Hospital capacity has not been an issue. Lockdowns should have been lifted as we've learned more, instead they continue with the hope of a vaccine really being the only way they will be eased by many unless the virus does it's thing and moves on like it has in so much of the world already.

---

There are lots of places where hospitals were stretched thin and had to divert staff from other departments/hospitals to get help. A friend of mine just moved back to her primary nurse duties last week after spending 2 months in the Covid unit to assist. You can't tell me that hospitals that are going through that are going to be able to provide the same level of care that they could pre-Covid.

Well, I suppose you can tell me, but then we'll have no other recourse than to agree that we disagree

Do these aggregating counts serve any use?

The total car count will ALWAYS go up from where it was before.

The better metric is current active cases but that is also very difficult to quantify and track.

Yes, you can use the rate of change of the increase in the total case count to infer things IF you presume the testing standards and time to test and report results are consistent and steady, but that is actually unlikely.

Keegan99 said:

---

Can anyone provide a link to these studies and their conclusions?

They evidently weren't conclusive enough to convince several European nations of their benefit.

Netherlands:

Quote:

---

Dutch public health officials and the national government are unbending with respect to what they consider to be lack of scientific evidence on the efficacy of non-medical masks in limiting the spread of the novel coronavirus. On Wednesday, July 29th, at a press conference, officials maintained the line they've adopted since March: "There's no scientific evidence for the efficacy of non-medical masks."

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/08/01/dutch-officials-adamant-about-lack-of-mask-efficacy-in-preventing-coronavirus-transmission/

Finland:

Quote:

---

Research has shown that widespread use of face masks have little or no effect on reducing the spread of upper respiratory infections, according to a report presented a government-appointed working group led by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (MSAH) on Friday.

---

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benefit_to_widespread_mask_use/1137647

Several other countries reached similar conclusions.


Maybe the Finnish and Dutch scientists hadn't seen the right studies?

---

Did you read the article in the first link, or mainly just the headline? It's a decent article and points out some of the reasons you could argue with the Dutch statement. I myself agree a bit with what the Dutch official said - there was very limited study of NON MEDICAL mask effectiveness. There was a study, from years ago, that was posted on this board and that study did include a fabric mask, compared to medical/surgical masks, and did prove sizeably reduced effectiveness (but still some effectiveness) but also did not state the make and material of the fabric mask. Very limited information to gather from that.

The second link didn't work for me.

You can research studies and conclusions shared PRIOR to Covid 19, with no political/financial/social influences that have occurred during this pandemic, through perusing all the links generated from this google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=effectiveness+of+masks+in+the+prevention+of+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS804US804&sxsrf=ALeKk03i0mrUYFDaMWCvRDKTDju-PzQNwQ%3A1599066620912&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F1%2F2019&tbm=

These studies would all obviously be conducted using known respiratory viruses - influenzas, rotoviruses, prior coronaviruses - at the time and not Covid 19, so if there is something physically unique about Covid 19 interacting with masks that would not be covered. Also, none of these studies (that I saw) try to weigh whether mass mask mandates are "worth it" compared to hospitalizations, death rates, or financial impact from a particular virus pandemic. These studies just evaluate mask types and whether they can limit the spread of respiratory viruses.

Due to the fact medical personnel, and at risk individuals, have worn face masks of some type for a century there has obviously been a lot of studies conducted prior to COvid 19. Mostly for use in medical environments and not aimed at widespread societal usage.

Complete Idiot said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So the theory is the massive spike would have been worse without masks?

That the benefits of masks are unfalsifiable?

---

Last step: deny scientific studies and state they are falsified. Never mind that most studies on the effectiveness of masks were conducted in the decade before Covid 19 even emerged, and would not have the same potentially negative political or social influences on outcome.

I can discuss the fact masks ordinances may not have enough effectiveness to warrant their implementation due to the fact not enough people comply to make much impact, there are studies showing that as well. But to state masks studies showing they slow the spread of airborne illness are falsified is basically just waving the "fake news" wand over things you don't like.

---

This strikes me as similar to the in vitro study vs in vivo study distinction. We can run a test showing mask X reduces droplets by x%. And that is fine and suggestive of a positive effect in the same way an in vitro study does. However, what it doesn't show is an actual effectiveness in the real world (an in vivo study if you will). Like with in vitro studies, you can measure a quantity, but that may not have a real world impact. Problem is, you can't run a randomized controlled trial on mask use and at best are stuck with retrospective studies which can be fraught with confounding factors, much in the same way the OP graphs focus on one set of factors and might be missing others.

We similar issues with the "can children spread the disease" studies. Studies have shown viral loads as high in children as adults. Ok. But other studies has shown transmission lower than would be expected in schools. Again, retrospective study because you can't do a randomized trial on going to school.

Interesting you reference studies before COVID19. I have had plenty of people tell me studies on SARS-CoV don't apply because it isn't SARS-CoV2. Just an amusing observation and in no way suggests that mask studies conducted prior to 2020 somehow don't apply simply because they predate COVID19. However, there might be some question in treating all respiratory viruses the same, since an influenza may or may not survive longer or in smaller droplets than a coronavirus.

So my question for the "Masks don't work crowd" is this: What do you attribute the reduction in cases/deaths to in southern states?

Are you saying that cases would have been roughly what they were in Texas with or without masks? Or are you saying that masks work, just delay the spread and your spike?

I am not pro or anti-mask, I am curious why we saw such a dramatic dip in cases in Texas, Florida, AZ after masks were required.

The data in Hawaii is interesting, has there been less of a willingness by citizens to wear masks since they were required to at all times, or has that been traced at all? Just curious if the increase is due to some other reason.

That is a very good point. The viral load in kids is a great example. It seems like it would be one way, but in real life it is the opposite. In this case I sure would love to know why!

I get that. And I have posted about the benefits (IMO) of the initial (what should have been very short) lockdown on helping us not overwhelm hospitals and gain better treatment regimens.

What is bizarre to me is that, in areas that never had much of a "first wave", many people act surprised when there is a spike in cases/hosp/deaths. There is a spike everywhere. Then things rapidly improve after that. The only difference is when that spike occurs.

Keegan99 said:

---

Never claimed that the studies were falsified.

Maybe this will help: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability

In this case, the claim is that masks are effective, and any rise in detected infections after mask ordinances is brushed aside with "but for the masks, it would have been worse!", and therefore the claim of mask ordinance effectiveness is unfalsifiable.

---

I think you are misrepresenting unfalsifiability

Whether or not masks are proven to be effective is immaterial in terms of unfalsifiablility. A rise in detected infections due to other factors (in this case an inter-island travel, people refusing to maintain other safe practices, and simply not wearing a mask) still doesn't mean that masks are unfalsifiable. It could mean that the research still shows that masks work even when other factors contribute to a rise in infections.


Take the following examples,

Masks always reduce transmissions of Covid-19
Masks never work in reducing the transmission of Covid-19

Both statements are falsifiable.

Your claim of "Masks are effective" is also falsifiable because it exists in a condition that it can be proven true or false. It is a testable theory regardless of the outcome.

Essentially outcomes don't really matter when looking at whether or not something is falsifiable. Its a bit of a tough concept to accurately explain. Even the link you posted doesn't do a great job of explaining falsifiability (their second example is falsifiable).

Keegan99 said:

---

It means that no observed real-world trend can render the claim "masks are effective" as false.

There will always be potentially confounding factors that mask proponents can point to in order to excuse whatever undesirable trend is observed.

---

Thats a very different interpretation of falsifiablity than I am familiar with, mainly because to focuses so strongly on the actual result. Granted my experience with the concept comes from a science background and not philosophical one which I suppose could change the interpretation.

No matter how you slice it, "Masks are effective" is a testable theory. And really that's the key to determining if something is falsifiable or not.

ORAggieFan said:

---

AgsMyDude said:

---

RandyAg98 said:

---

yukmonkey said:

---

All this means is that Hawaii's peak will be later. And their economy will be in worse shape. There is no other argument.

---

This has been shown in literally every region measured. I don't know why some people, leaders, administrators refuse to see it. The spike is a "when" not "if". Lockdowns only delay the inevitable.

---

Why is this repeated so much? Nobody thinks lockdown eliminates the virus permanently. It was about improving treatment, keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed, etc.

Too many people died early from pushing everyone on a vent, even some docs here on TexAgs said many survivors from 2 months ago would have died at the start. In that sense, the lockdown worked.

---

It may have worked early on, but continuing efforts for lockdowns are against everything that was said about flattening the curve. Even in NY, hospitals weren't overran. Cruise ships brought in for backup hospitals were never utilized. Hospital capacity has not been an issue. Lockdowns should have been lifted as we've learned more, instead they continue with the hope of a vaccine really being the only way they will be eased by many unless the virus does it's thing and moves on like it has in so much of the world already.

---

Regarding the "effectiveness early on", the doctor credited with the creation of the small pox eradication program and several colleagues published a paper several years ago regarding the response to a pandemic flu like respiratory viruses.

In it, they argued against long term lockdowns, pointing out that last time we did that was the Spanish flu before we understood the cause of disease. They also discussed the effectiveness of things like closing schools (long term was a bad idea, a few weeks when there is a significant outbreak at school was ok), mask use (not really needed for mass public) and many other things. Basically our response was exactly the opposite of what was presented in the paper.

The good doc died shortly after the paper was published so he wasn't around to tell the world how dumb they were being.

Aston94 said:

---

So my question for the "Masks don't work crowd" is this: What do you attribute the reduction in cases/deaths to in southern states?

Are you saying that cases would have been roughly what they were in Texas with or without masks? Or are you saying that masks work, just delay the spread and your spike?

I am not pro or anti-mask, I am curious why we saw such a dramatic dip in cases in Texas, Florida, AZ after masks were required.

The data in Hawaii is interesting, has there been less of a willingness by citizens to wear masks since they were required to at all times, or has that been traced at all? Just curious if the increase is due to some other reason.

---

Completely has to do with timing. FL never had a state mandate. I live in SoCal so follow here more closely. Take a look at LA, OC and SD counties and their mask mandates and our curves. Coincidentally, peaks were almost identical between the Southern states.

ETA other state peaks:
FL - July 17
TX - July 15
AZ - July 7

Now, why is it that four states with vastly different policies all have peaks w/in 10 days of each other?

And he just added one for FL with some of the counties that required masks.

I knew the first response would be the lockdown needs to end now. I'm not against easing restrictions but it's pretty clear locking down helped us in many ways, particularly folks learning more about the virus and what works, doesn't etc.

Aston94 said:

---

So my question for the "Masks don't work crowd" is this: What do you attribute the reduction in cases/deaths to in southern states?

Are you saying that cases would have been roughly what they were in Texas with or without masks? Or are you saying that masks work, just delay the spread and your spike?

I am not pro or anti-mask, I am curious why we saw such a dramatic dip in cases in Texas, Florida, AZ after masks were required.

The data in Hawaii is interesting, has there been less of a willingness by citizens to wear masks since they were required to at all times, or has that been traced at all? Just curious if the increase is due to some other reason.

---

I'll give an answer to this one, though it is purely my feeling and not scientific at all.

Masks, I'm sure, work wonderfully in a vacuum - a perfect world where nobody ever has to adjust their nose, remove it, it falls off, etc. But that's not real life. While I'm seeing almost 100% adoption in North Dallas, they are not always worn properly at all times. To me, that's just the rub of humans being humans. We are imperfect.

Second, I really believe in some of the burnout theory. If there are 10 people in a room, and one guy shows up with the virus, chances are high (mask or not) that at least 7 are going to get it just based on how humans interact. If a month down the road, there are 10 people in the room (7 of which already had the virus), and a guy shows up with the virus, he might only infect 1 more person simply because there are fewer available hosts. I'm not sure we hit a herd immunity in this example, but there are fewer folks that are susceptible. I think that is a major piece of why we are seeing cases falling.

You would need a control group and an experimental group with the same average composition and to be able to isolate other variables. It could be tested. The problem is the existing data in broad use for making policy does not have a control group of other scientific controls and is not experimental data with a falsifiable hypothesis, so conclusions drawn from it are inherently conjecture based on intuition. Claims could be made that the data indicates certain things but without a control we would never know if they were correct or not.

WSJ opinion section had a piece the other day about a new statistical study that concluded lockdowns did not make any statistical difference. This is not surprising. The human brain is wired to look for shortcuts and simple solutions. Simple solutions often will not have more than a marginal impact on complex problems with many different variables. The human brain will then look for any anecdotal evidence or information to support the decision, and will assume and mistake correlation in the process.

rosco511 said:

---

WSJ opinion section had a piece the other day about a new statistical study that concluded lockdowns did not make any statistical difference. This is not surprising. The human brain is wired to look for shortcuts and simple solutions. Simple solutions often will not have more than a marginal impact on complex problems with many different variables. The human brain will then look for any anecdotal evidence or information to support the decision, and will assume and mistake correlation in the process.

---

All animals are hard-wired for efficiency. Majority of things we do are subconsciously efficient.

As such, when you impose barriers to natural efficiency, we are naturally going to impede those barriers, and frustration / anger will ensue along the way.

Quote:

---

Now, why is it that four states with vastly different policies all have peaks w/in 10 days of each other?

---

Orange County issued a recommendation "strongly encouraging" mask wearing at the same time that LA County and San Diego Counties issued their mandates (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-09/orange-county-recommends-face-coverings-as-coronavirus-protection) . The Mandate on June 18 was a statewide mandate.

Most people started wearing masks around then. There were people in both counties that resisted the order. That data doesn't show that masks don't work (of course, doesn't show that they do either). You could make an argument that mandate vs. recommendation doesn't matter from that data.

Turns out there's not even solid evidence that surgical masks do much good *in surgery*.

From the UK in 2015:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/

Quote:

---

"However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. "

---

Quote:

---

"What literature that is available on the subject tends to be dated with poorly explained methodology. There is also uncertainty over whether the results of such studies can be extrapolated to current surgical practice given the advent of new antiseptic techniques since they were completed. The evidence base investigating the effects of facemask usage on patient-based outcomes is, in general, more extensive than that of surgeon-centred outcomes. Facemasks do have a clear role in maintaining the social cleanliness of surgical staff, but evidence is lacking to suggest that they confer protection from infection either to patients or to the surgeons that wear them."

---

It looks like we should be asking what changed three weeks after the outside mask policy went into effect. If you base your assumption about the efficacy Of the mask policy based simply on cases shown in the OPs chart, you should be arguing heavily in favor or inside mask wearing and demanding outside mask wearing be eliminated.

In all actuality, the spike probably has much more to do with other factors and behaviors that started shortly after the outdoor mask policy went into effect. I live in an area where outdoor mask policy is mandated. Certain populations ignore it completely and as we know it's pretty unenforceable.

Again, as I already stated, I'm not arguing the lockdown shouldn't be lifted.