There is a thread on this. Basically, it's choosing something to support the premise. Believe since this study has been published the data shows there really hasn't been a difference in the counties.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Univ. of Kansas study of Mask/No Mask Counties
2,826 Views |
20 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by JJMt
People have already made up their minds and whatever they believe is correct and final. As long as half believe and half don't, it's going to take a while to get through this. It's going to come down to who has the most endurance.
Study fails to say why there was a huge spike in non-mask counties prior to the mask mandate. There are obviously larger variables at play that they fail to account for.
In addition, they are picking and choosing windows to data to support their hypothesis.
This study is garbage.
In addition, they are picking and choosing windows to data to support their hypothesis.
This study is garbage.
Correlation =/= causation.JJMt said:Even bigger spike in non-mask counties, and the spike in non-mask counties was when and why they instituted the mandate, no? But after the mandate, new case leveled off in mask counties.NASAg03 said:
Study fails to say why there was a huge spike in non-mask counties prior to the mask mandate. There are obviously larger variables at play that they fail to account for.How so? It appears that the data they present is from the onset of Covid through the date of the study.Quote:
In addition, they are picking and choosing windows to data to support their hypothesis.
The study may be garbage, and I'm certainly open to that, but I'd like to see more persuasive reasons.
Here is a study that compares mask to in public, and indoors.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
Masks wearing indoors in easier to observe, control, and perform contact tracing. In that setting, they found no statistical correlation between wearing masks and a reduction in covid cases.
JJMt said:
Your points may be true, but I was asking for comments on the Kansas study (not other studies), and then asked for more clarification on your judgment that it was garbage.
ETA: Did you actually read the study you linked? It seems to come to the opposite conclusion for which you linked it.
For example:AndQuote:
The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.Quote:
CONCLUSION
The study provides evidence that US states mandating the use of face masks in public had a greater decline in daily COVID-19 growth rates after issuing these mandates compared with states that did not issue mandates. These effects were observed conditional on other existing social distancing measures and were independent of the CDC recommendation to wear face covers issued April 3, 2020. As international and state governments begin to relax social distancing restrictions, and considering the high likelihood of a second COVID-19 wave in the fall and winter of 2020,30 requiring the use of face masks in public could help in reducing COVID-19 spread.
I think this paragraph from the linked paper really tells it best:
"There was a significant decline in daily COVID-19 growth rate after the mandating of face covers in public, with the effect increasing over time after the orders were signed. Specifically, the daily case rate declined by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points within 15, 610, 1115, 1620, and 21 or more days after signing, respectively. All of these declines were statistically significant (p<0.05 or less). In contrast, the pre-event trends in COVID-19 case growth rates were small and statistically insignificant."
The last sentence should dispell the theory that the soceity happened to hit some magical immunity threshold the second that an NPI was put into place.
Weird how Johnson County is praised but weirdly isn't followed up on after October 11th...
Wonder why that could be....
Wonder why that could be....
The argument is not the date of the report, the argument is point in time analysis is flawed without continual review. The study sought an answer they were seeking and once they received the answer they desired did not care to test further.
It's from the Kansas COVID state report.
https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/160/COVID-19-in-Kansas
It's from the Kansas COVID state report.
https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/160/COVID-19-in-Kansas
If masks worked wouldnt this all be done by now?
No. It is a graph of that county.
The heralded Johnson county that beat COVID with a mask mandate but then whose residents apparently all just decided they were done beating COVID and simultaneously disobeyed,
EDIT: If you click the specific county, the graph will isolate only that county's numbers.
The heralded Johnson county that beat COVID with a mask mandate but then whose residents apparently all just decided they were done beating COVID and simultaneously disobeyed,
EDIT: If you click the specific county, the graph will isolate only that county's numbers.
Yes I did.JJMt said:
Your points may be true, but I was asking for comments on the Kansas study (not other studies), and then asked for more clarification on your judgment that it was garbage.
ETA: Did you actually read the study you linked? It seems to come to the opposite conclusion for which you linked it.
For example:AndQuote:
The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.Quote:
CONCLUSION
The study provides evidence that US states mandating the use of face masks in public had a greater decline in daily COVID-19 growth rates after issuing these mandates compared with states that did not issue mandates. These effects were observed conditional on other existing social distancing measures and were independent of the CDC recommendation to wear face covers issued April 3, 2020. As international and state governments begin to relax social distancing restrictions, and considering the high likelihood of a second COVID-19 wave in the fall and winter of 2020,30 requiring the use of face masks in public could help in reducing COVID-19 spread.
In the outdoor public setting, after implementing mask mandates, the change in daily cases rates was -2 percentage points. As such, the authors concluded "There was a significant decline in daily COVID-19 growth rate after the mandating of face covers in public, with the effect increasing over time after the orders were signed.
In the more controlled indoor settings where mask use, contact tracing and other variables are easier to track and account for, and where aerosol spread is more likely, the daily case rate varied from -.5 to +.5 change. After implementing masks rules, case rates dropped 1 percentage point, following the behavior of the outdoor data. Yet in this case, the authors state "Overall, these results indicate no evidence of declines in daily COVID-19 growth rates with employee-only mandates."
-2 point change = significant decline
-1 point change = no evidence of decline
How do I interpret this study? Inconclusive at best. The public setting had limited prior data that just-so-happened to fit their desired outcome, and with that they conclude masks work. But only in outdoor public settings apparently.
Also, the 95% confidence intervals are larger than the delta in daily case rates, meaning there is data they use that does not support their conclusions, but the average of all the public data does.
Correlation =/= causation.
You're the one that brought that study to the discussion. Now you're trying to undermine the study and it's conclusions.
Change in infection rate is one thing, actual infection rate is another, especially if you cherry pick the top of a spike to begin your study period.
Take the whole run of the virus and the difference is negligible.
The Kansas mask study is not good.
And of course...
Take the whole run of the virus and the difference is negligible.
The Kansas mask study is not good.
And of course...
So I present data that the mask mandate clearly did not work and you've disregarded all data because there are more mask mandates?
That's just silly.
That's just silly.
Featured Stories
See All
21:46
7h ago
3.6k
Mario Craver ready to build on his early success at A&M
by Billy Liucci
FINAL: Alabama 100, Texas A&M 97
by Luke Evangelist
25:57
9h ago
3.7k
12:36
7h ago
1.6k