• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:4,590] Study Finds Face Masks Didn’t Slow Spread Of Covid-19

snakestretcher said:
So, this 'study' is in fact a computer modelling exercise performed by mathematicians; not virologists or epidemiologists.
Click to expand...
Virologists in epidemiologists say that sharing air is what causes the spread of viruses like this.

If you can breathe while you're wearing that mask you're sharing air.

Sorry you're stupid little superstition is a little more than that.
 
Another possible flaw. Which state is more likely to implement a mask mandate, one that is already getting hit hard by COVID (as a consequence of other factors) or one that is not?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Virologists in epidemiologists say that sharing air is what causes the spread of viruses like this.

If you can breathe while you're wearing that mask you're sharing air.

Sorry you're stupid little superstition is a little more than that.
Click to expand...
Once again you demonstrate how clueless your posts are.
 
Arguing the other side of then coin for a moment, one could see this study as demonstrating the limits of heavy-handed public policy. What these results may show is that with or without the nanny state, those at risk will do what they need to do to protect themselves (like wear a mask, even if there's no mandate to do so) and others who are at less risk will take the opportunity to exercise a small measure of civil disobedience with little risk.
 
NatMorton said:
Arguing the other side of then coin for a moment, one could see this study as demonstrating the limits of heavy-handed public policy. What these results may show is that with or without the nanny state, those at risk will do what they need to do to protect themselves (like wear a mask, even if there's no mandate to do so) and others who are at less risk will take the opportunity to exercise a small measure of civil disobedience with little risk.
Click to expand...
I would modify it to be more accurate

Arguing the other side of then coin for a moment, one could see this study as demonstrating the limits of heavy-handed public policy. What these results may show is that with or without the nanny state public regulations, those at who perceive risk will do what they need to do to protect themselves (like wear a mask, even if there's no mandate to do so) and others who are at less ignore risk will take the opportunity to exercise a small measure of civil disobedience with little legal risk.

But the core of your statement is correct, compliance levels were low and there was inadequate cultural support in this country to do what needed to be done in order to save lives.

You had too much spin to be "arguing on the other side"
 
snakestretcher said:
Someone with a working knowledge of the complexities of viral transmission, epidemiology and virology, maybe? I don't call a mathematician when I'm sick.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose an epidemiologist would know how to program an accurate set of computer simulations?

If you're looking to understand correlation across a wide set of data, you ought to be looking to the folks in the Math Department, not those from Life Sciences.
 
NatMorton said:
Why do you suppose an epidemiologist would know how to program an accurate set of computer simulations?
Click to expand...
Because, if you had any idea of how biological scientists work, you'd know that computers are used constantly to make informed predictions.
 
NatMorton said:
Why do you suppose an epidemiologist would know how to program an accurate set of computer simulations?

If you're looking to understand correlation across a wide set of data, you ought to be looking to the folks in the Math Department, not those from Life Sciences.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume its epidemiologists doing the advanced aspects (such as tuning models) of that job?


jobs.cdc.gov

Health Scientist at CDC

Learn more about applying for Health Scientist at CDC
jobs.cdc.gov jobs.cdc.gov
 


If someone is infected with a virus, I'd much rather they act like a courteous human being and stop as many air droplets to slow their spread which science shows masks can do. Yet here in the "Christian" nation of the USA, it seems puzzlingly hard to convince people to be that type of person.
 
snakestretcher said:
Because, if you had any idea of how biological scientists work, you'd know that computers are used constantly to make informed predictions.
Click to expand...
I know more than you suspect.

My point stands. This study is first and foremost a statistical analysis, not an attempt to diagnose or cure a disease. There is nothing per se wrong about mathematicians running this study. You're simply groping for a reason to dismiss it out of hand.
 
americanwoman said:


If someone is infected with a virus, I'd much rather they act like a courteous human being and stop as many air droplets to slow their spread which science shows masks can do. Yet here in the "Christian" nation of the USA, it seems puzzlingly hard to convince people to be that type of person.
Click to expand...

When I had the virus I stayed in my house. That's what you should do.
 
You guys are way too interested to grab onto anything for this debate making it way to easy to question it.

The OP study...
www.medrxiv.org

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against...
www.medrxiv.org www.medrxiv.org

And at the top...
"This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

The only method deployed...
"We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates."
(note the word estimated)

The OP study is nothing more than a mathematical study.

The MIT study...

And at the top...
"Edited by Renyi Zhang, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, and accepted by Editorial Board Member John H. Seinfeld March 3, 2021 (received for review September 9, 2020)"
(Received for review is not the same as reviewed, thus not peer reviewed.)

Some (not even all) of the most important aspects and conclusions of the study, that the OP brought into this discussion, and nullified the first study. Making me question if the OP bothered to read either one.

"In both examples, the benefit of face masks is immediately apparent." (p8)

"While official quarantine guidelines emphasize the importance of isolating infected persons, our study makes clear the importance of isolating and clearing infected indoor air." (p8)

"Finally, we stress that our guideline is based on the average concentration of aerosols within the room. For every region of enhanced airborne pathogen concentration, there is necessarily a region of reduced concentration and lower transmission risk elsewhere in the room." (p10)

"Above all, our study makes clear the inadequacy of the SixFoot Rule in mitigating indoor airborne disease transmission and offers a rational, physically informed alternative for managing life in the time of COVID-19." (p11)

As in put on a mask, limit the number of people in an indoor area, and clean the place upon detection of contamination. The study actually mentions the number of people in a room, not the distance between them. Meaning one rule alone out of context is not enough, the true point of the study.

Said another way, treat the pandemic as a pandemic and quit coming up with useless shit to try to make a political argument devoid of what either study really means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom