The Largest Randomized Test on Masks show no significant impact...Those pesky Danish people.... https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
City of Clemson Votes To Extend Mask Mandate
- Thread starter nashvegastiger
- Start date
Why are Democrats running Clemson?
It’s amazing to me that people are still wearing masks in SC - you’ve either had Covid, are not susceptible to Covid for whatever reason, or have had ample time to get the Covid vaccine….
I'm amazed that people really care so much.. Whether you think it's a conspiracy, political agenda etc... It ain't that deep..Its just a mask... I wear it just in case I am potentially saving someone else's life...
I was in your shoes, but quit once I got vaccinated. My wife is vaccinated and wears hers so she doesn’t feel judged haha
Full disclosure, I’m not claiming to be an expert because I’m confident there are several in this thread much more researched on this topic than me.
But when you look at the trends from across the country from when/where waves have hit, their length and severity, in areas with and without restrictions, it becomes pretty clear that none of these public health mandates really do much of anything other than alter the timing of when they’ll hit.
The virus does its thing, it’s just a matter of when. The only thing that’s really affected that has been immunity, either natural or via vaccine.
You wanna watch real political junk science theater? Watch the last few Chas City Council meetings!
Masks do little in society to stop the spread or a virus. Masks are not worn properly and studies all show there is no difference with and without masks in society for any historical virus. The data is clear.
Everyone - take your freedoms and liberties back.
What would make sense is if community leaders would stop telling people what to do inside their property.
It is actually the opposite). The aggregate effect is small.
Fauci has long been an idiot when it comes to this virus. Biden is clueless ...
Some of the first paragraph is right, but studies do not “all show there is no difference with and without masks...”. Also, it should probably be repeated that the point of masks was to prevent us from a situation where indoor public spaces had to close. There should be a clear point where governments stop mandating masks, but they haven’t been sone kind of horrible tool of tyranny.
I’m not an expert either, but I do have a pretty good idea of where to find reliable expertise. The CDC has evidence that mask policies do seem to save lives and slow the spread of COVID, although the effect is pretty modest. There’s lots of evidence that masks work to prevent the spread individual circumstances, though, but that does depend on people wearing them correctly. I also think it’s interesting that there aren’t big differences between US jurisdictions that had more restrictive policies and ones that didn’t (although, if you compare countries with extremely restrictive policies we never would’ve tolerated to us, there are some differences), but localities within less restrictive states might’ve had more stringent policies, more restrictive policies might’ve been implemented because of outbreaks and less restrictive policies might’ve been adopted because the virus was less prevalent, and more restrictive policies might’ve prevented worse outbreaks. Seems like it would be hard to test or model.
Are you suggesting public indoor spaces should be even more restricted? Or that masks should be even more important indoors? Not sure where you’re going with that.
Using that line of reasoning, you could quit driving a car as you could potentially be saving someone’s life.
You are an example of brainwashing gone mad. Please show any statistic, any, which would that this virus warrants the level of intense paranoid-politically-driven precautions that have been driven down our throats. Look at the bar charts for deaths by age. This isn’t the bubonic plague.
I think the mandate should be done away with, but a mask doesn’t have to be N-95 to be beneficial. Even a two ply paper mask or one made of cotton has some benefit.
The OP is right, though. All the at risk population has had ample time to get vaccinated. The adults who won’t get the vaccine are the ones holding everything up now....we could be at herd immunity already if it weren’t for all the people who listen to bad information that cause them to be afraid of a perfectly safe vaccine.
Masks wouldn’t even be an issue anymore if folks would just do their civic duty and get vaccinated. Now as a result of these anti-vaxxers this thing is gonna continue to mutate.
Of course it has. That dude can’t see what is right in front of his face. The massive mask mandates coupled with social distancing and religious hand washing/sanitizing has most certainly been the most major contributor to the massive drop in cases of influenza, a virus that is much less contagious than Covid-19.
Honestly this is how I’ve always viewed it. The folks who have been up in arms about mask from day one are hilarious with their faux outrage. But now that the vaccine has been widely available, there’s no more need for them IMO.
Idc about stats... you can twist stats to prove/disapprove any point... Its a F^^##IN mask.. I can see if you had to wait in line for 2 hours to get one or pay 20 dollars a day... I wear just because... Its NOT that big of a deal
As a quick caveat, yes I'm going to go through many of the non-COVID-19 specific studies but let me share a little bit about why I get frustrated with how the CDC presents information.
These studies (that are specific to COVID-19 and face coverings) provided by the CDC further illustrate my point that they are not isolating masks and comparing them to groups in a double-blind, placebo controlled type of environment. If you read what the link you sent says in the table summarizing the articles, the CDC implies, in almost each case, that the “mask wearing reduces the spread”, etc. However, when you look at the actual linked articles, its ALL mitigation factors in essentially every case and then they take that information and automatically correlate it with the mask wearing without noting that there were many other mitigation factors.
Honestly, I don't think that there is a way to isolate them, on the population level, at the moment. Why? Because there has been so much fear/hesitancy (some rightfully so) by the populations that CORRELATES with City Mitigation Methods. Meaning, just that behavioral change would significantly reduce the spread, in theory, though you cannot isolate the methods in that manner. It would need to be done in a laboratory setting (which has been done for years...more later).
Let me illustrate by going through the first five of the studies that are referenced, specific to COVID-19, on the link you provided:
- Hendrix May 2020
- Quote from the actual research article: "The citywide ordinance reduced maximum building waiting area seating to 25% of normal capacity and recommended the use of face coverings at indoor and outdoor public places where physical distancing was not possible. Both company and city policies were likely important factors in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during these interactions between clients and stylists. These results support the use of face coverings in places open to the public, especially when social distancing is not possible, to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2."
- Face coverings NOT isolated from other factors and they concluded that they work without a baseline of comparison
- Quote from the actual research article: "The citywide ordinance reduced maximum building waiting area seating to 25% of normal capacity and recommended the use of face coverings at indoor and outdoor public places where physical distancing was not possible. Both company and city policies were likely important factors in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during these interactions between clients and stylists. These results support the use of face coverings in places open to the public, especially when social distancing is not possible, to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2."
- Payne June 2020
- Quote from the actual research article: "Preventive measures, such as using face coverings and observing social distancing, reduced risk for infection."
- Once again, not isolated. Face coverings are said to work, in and of themselves, when they are combined with other mitigation factors.
- Quote from the actual research article: "Preventive measures, such as using face coverings and observing social distancing, reduced risk for infection."
- Wang Y May 2020
- "Reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households by face mask use, disinfection and social distancing"
- Doung-Ngern P et al September 2020
- Abstract: "We found the type of mask worn was not independently associated with infection and that contacts who always wore masks were more likely to practice social distancing. Maintaining >1 m distance from a person with COVID-19, having close contact for <15 minutes, and frequent handwashing were independently associated with lower risk for infection. Our findings support consistent wearing of masks, handwashing, and social distancingto protect against COVID-19."
- This is why I mentioned behavioral changes associated with Mask Mandates moreso than the actual mask
- Abstract: "We found the type of mask worn was not independently associated with infection and that contacts who always wore masks were more likely to practice social distancing. Maintaining >1 m distance from a person with COVID-19, having close contact for <15 minutes, and frequent handwashing were independently associated with lower risk for infection. Our findings support consistent wearing of masks, handwashing, and social distancingto protect against COVID-19."
- Gallaway October 2020
- "beginning approximately 2 weeks after implementation and enforcement of mask mandates and enhanced sanitations practices began on June 17"
If you’re willing to read, I can send you about 20 pages of research articles from BEFORE COVID-19 that actually isolate masks and face coverings.
Last edited:
To be clear, that study didn't report "no significant impact." It was inconclusive -- failing to reach "statistical significance," or confidence the results were non-random or attributable to the phenomenon being tested.
A systematic meta-analysis of 162 studies published in arguably the most well-respected medical journal in the world, the Lancet, suggests otherwise.
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed...
www.thelancet.com
Also, the study itself says its findings were inconclusive, with the data being compatible with a 46 percent reduction in transmission to a 23% increase.
Here's the precise, summarized, Conclusion: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."
ALSO
"a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation."
AND "Masks have been hypothesized to reduce inoculum size (34) and could increase the likelihood that infected mask users are asymptomatic, but this hypothesis has been challenged (35)"
AND "The face masks provided to participants were high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98% (37). A published meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in preventing influenza in health care workers between respirators (N95 [American standard] or FFP2 [European standard]) and surgical face masks (38)"
AND
"Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings. Lack of eye protection may also have been of importance, and use of face shields also covering the eyes (rather than face masks only) has been advocated to halt the conjunctival route of transmission (40, 41). We observed no statistically significant interaction between wearers and nonwearers of eyeglasses (Supplement Figure 2). Recent reports indicate that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via fomites is unusual (42), but masks may alter behavior (@ChicagoTiger85
)and potentially affect fomite transmission."AND
"Recent observational studies that indicate a protective association between mandated mask use in the community and SARS-CoV-2 transmission are limited by study design and simultaneous introduction of other public health interventions (14, 43)."
The last sentence, above this quote, in large font, is what I've been harping on ITT and it applies to the specific Lancet data that you linked, to some degree. Here is some exact verbiage from the link you provided:A systematic meta-analysis of 162 studies published in arguably the most well-respected medical journal in the world, the Lancet, suggests otherwise.
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed...www.thelancet.com
Also, the study itself says its findings were inconclusive, with the data being compatible with a 46 percent reduction in transmission to a 23% increase.
"From database inception to May 3, 2020, we searched for studies of any design and in any setting that included patients with WHO-defined confirmed or probable COVID-19, SARS, or MERS, and people in close contact with them, comparing distances between people and COVID-19 infected patients of 1 m or larger with smaller distances, with or without a face mask on the patient, or with or without a face mask, eye protection, or both on the exposed individual."
In the concluding tables, re: each of the 3 major items researched, face masks receive a "low certainty" designation, meaning: "low certainty (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect could be substantially different from the estimate of the effect)". Every single one of the face masks studies are in health care settings and they (nearly) all do not isolate face masks because they include other mitigation efforts in addition to the face masks. IOW, if they're going to pop a face mask on someone (whichever kind), they are almost always going to provide for additional mitigation techniques; of which, are mentioned within just the title of the linked articles. IMO, that's the main reasons why they designate it as "low certainty".
Last edited:
Herein lies the most obvious challenge facing researchers trying to quantify all of this. There are a lot of moving parts to a pandemic, so you're not going to find a study that perfectly controls what you need to control, isolate groups the way you need to and keep data applicable to others, delineate those who do/do not wear masks from those who do/do not take part in other risk mitigating steps, etc.Here's the precise, summarized, Conclusion: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."
ALSO
"a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation."
AND "Masks have been hypothesized to reduce inoculum size (34) and could increase the likelihood that infected mask users are asymptomatic, but this hypothesis has been challenged (35)"
AND "The face masks provided to participants were high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98% (37). A published meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in preventing influenza in health care workers between respirators (N95 [American standard] or FFP2 [European standard]) and surgical face masks (38)"
AND
"Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings. Lack of eye protection may also have been of importance, and use of face shields also covering the eyes (rather than face masks only) has been advocated to halt the conjunctival route of transmission (40, 41). We observed no statistically significant interaction between wearers and nonwearers of eyeglasses (Supplement Figure 2). Recent reports indicate that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via fomites is unusual (42), but masks may alter behavior (@ChicagoTiger85
AND
"Recent observational studies that indicate a protective association between mandated mask use in the community and SARS-CoV-2 transmission are limited by study design and simultaneous introduction of other public health interventions (14, 43)."
The last sentence, in large font, is what I've been harping on ITT and it applies to the specific Lancet data that you linked, to some degree. Here is some exact verbiage from the link you provided:
"From database inception to May 3, 2020, we searched for studies of any design and in any setting that included patients with WHO-defined confirmed or probable COVID-19, SARS, or MERS, and people in close contact with them, comparing distances between people and COVID-19 infected patients of 1 m or larger with smaller distances, with or without a face mask on the patient, or with or without a face mask, eye protection, or both on the exposed individual."
In the concluding tables, re: each of the 3 major items researched, face masks receive a "low certainty" designation, meaning: "low certainty (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect could be substantially different from the estimate of the effect)". Every single one of the face masks studies are in health care settings and they (nearly) all do not isolate face masks because they include other mitigation efforts in addition to the face masks. IOW, if they're going to pop a face mask on someone (whichever kind), they are almost always going to provide for additional mitigation techniques; of which, are mentioned within just the title of the linked articles. IMO, that's the main reasons why they designate it as "low certainty".
Of course, that also perhaps is a pretty solid argument that these steps, including mask-wearing, should be taken in concert with each other, rather than precluding one because they make us uncomfortable.
The other obvious consideration is, if wearing a mask, social distancing, and other protocols fight spread, at one point do we move forward, responsibly, with lifting them? I'd say we have enough data to suggest wearing a mask, especially in tandem with other measures, works. How long we ought to keep them up might be driven primarily by herd immunity reached by vaccination participation and obviously those who have already been infected.
I appreciate the way in which you’re discussing this, thank you.
You bring up some solid points; however, that’s not the general narrative to which I was responding. Meaning, the narrative has been, in general, “the masks work”, period. My contention has been that we need evidence to support that, precisely because, it changes behavior in such a way as to impact the 1st Amendment.
The other issue is that, prior to SARS2-COV, the mask issue was essentially settled. There is a, and forgive the crossover, Stare Decisis, element to this entire process. The scientific literature was pretty well settled, as it applies to face coverings, prior to this craze. So much so that even Fauci went on 60 Minutes expressing his held belief that masks didn’t really help anything, prior to the mandates.
That said, if it was presented in the way you framed it: “Let’s try all these things to mitigate risk”, as opposed to “masks work stop asking questions” (I’m expressing the narratives) I think many would be much more likely to comply. The problem is, to me, you need substantial proof, to implement something on a population level, especially considering that it seems to contradict the previously help scientific opinion.
Last edited:
If the argument is that state/local governments enforcing policies within their police powers in the absence of clear evidence of effectiveness could lead them to restrict free speech/gun rights without clear evidence of effectiveness, that seems like a bit of a stretch to me given their legal review is subject to entirely different tests (rational basis vs. intermediate/strict scrutiny).
I mistyped re: the 2nd Amendment. It’s not pertinent to this discussion.
I would say it could set a bad precedent but that’s a completely separate discussion.
Thank you McMaster.
My kids are actually excited about going to school without a mask!
My kids are actually excited about going to school without a mask!
