Mask mandates had near zero effect on China Disease rates of infection

Micawber said:
Why would someone start a thread when the abstract of its only source completely refutes their belief? To cherry pick a contra indicating footnote within?

With advocates like TA who needs cross-x?
Click to expand...

I put the data from the report there for you to read. The abstract is just a generalization. It's the actual science and data that count. If you think that a 1% or less reduction in rate of infection was worth all the mask and lockdown mandates, that crashing the economy nearly as badly as the Great Depression or Recession did then so be it. I see that as insignificant and a waste of time that did far, far more harm than good.
 
BartenderElite said:
I'm a Masker. And I'm proud to be a Masker.

Maybe there's money to be made on a bumper sticker there, somewhere.
Click to expand...

Go for it! Maybe you could go for some humor and wear this one for a change...

ur,mask_flatlay_front,product,600x600.jpg


That way you can claim to be following the science while still wearing a mask!
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Go for it! Maybe you could go for some humor and wear this one for a change...

ur,mask_flatlay_front,product,600x600.jpg


That way you can claim to be following the science while still wearing a mask!
Click to expand...

That's not the science, though. Most studies and conclusions show masks are effective in slowing the spread.

I just wear it as a courtesy, more than anything - and just in public places like stores. It's no big deal.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
By miniscule amounts according to their own data, generally less than 1% difference. Given the low rate of transmission overall, and that only certain groups were seriously in danger once contracting it, the use of masks and lockdowns didn't make any significant contribution to the contraction rate.
On the other hand, lockdowns did have a massive and negative effect on the economy and tens of millions of people's economic and social welfare and security. That is, it's clear that the lockdowns hurt Americans far, far more than they helped.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you read the data correctly? Because the difference between mask mandate and no mask mandate was 5% in difference of growth by the 81st day. That means the death rate is growing 5% faster which compounds over time.

Deaths per week
A No mask .06 growth 100 - 106 - 112 - 119 - 126 - 133 - 141 - 150 - 159 - 168 - total deaths in 10 weeks -1318
B Mask .01 growth - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - total deaths in 10 weeks - 1046

That means with the place with no mask mandate in 10 weeks would have 25% more deaths than the place with a mask mandate. This would only compound even more over time if you continued to have mask vs no mask. After 4 months the deaths per week with no masks would be more than double the place with masks.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So says the CDC in this report:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm



So the science says that masks and even mass lockdowns had next to no effect on the rates of infection of China Disease in the US...

We have to follow the science don't we? This also proves, once again, that Fauci is a quack and Biden isn't listening to the scientists and science on this.
Click to expand...

You should have, I don't know, maybe read it or something. Because it says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim.

ROTFLMFAO!!!! Do you ever get tired of being battered like a pinata?

"Summary
What is already known about this topic?

Universal masking and avoiding nonessential indoor spaces are recommended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

What is added by this report?

Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Mask mandates and restricting any on-premises dining at restaurants can help limit community transmission of COVID-19 and reduce case and death growth rates. These findings can inform public policies to reduce community spread of COVID-19.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I put the data from the report there for you to read. The abstract is just a generalization. It's the actual science and data that count. If you think that a 1% or less reduction in rate of infection was worth all the mask and lockdown mandates, that crashing the economy nearly as badly as the Great Depression or Recession did then so be it. I see that as insignificant and a waste of time that did far, far more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Yep. You got the data wrong. This is why you should leave science to the actual scientists. A difference in growth rate is not the same thing as the difference cases.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Are you sure you read the data correctly? Because the difference between mask mandate and no mask mandate was 5% in difference of growth by the 81st day. That means the death rate is growing 5% faster which compounds over time.

Deaths per week
A No mask .06 growth 100 - 106 - 112 - 119 - 126 - 133 - 141 - 150 - 159 - 168 - total deaths in 10 weeks -1318
B Mask .01 growth - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - total deaths in 10 weeks - 1046

That means with the place with no mask mandate in 10 weeks would have 25% more deaths than the place with a mask mandate. This would only compound even more over time if you continued to have mask vs no mask. After 4 months the deaths per week with no masks would be more than double the place with masks.
Click to expand...

He didn't read it. I don't actually think he knows how to read.

And realistically, the difference between 1% growth and 5% growth is HUGE, especially since the rate of transmission is exponential. Take a look at the bottom line. There were about 30% MORE DEATHS without masks. Huge. TA is clueless. He just made a complete fool of himself. Again.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
By miniscule amounts according to their own data, generally less than 1% difference. Given the low rate of transmission overall, and that only certain groups were seriously in danger once contracting it, the use of masks and lockdowns didn't make any significant contribution to the contraction rate.
On the other hand, lockdowns did have a massive and negative effect on the economy and tens of millions of people's economic and social welfare and security. That is, it's clear that the lockdowns hurt Americans far, far more than they helped.
Click to expand...

That’s the take home message from it: masking barely registered in terms of mitigation; and the negative effects of lockdowns *far outweigh* the benefits.

At the end of the day, the virus was going to virus once established in a population and that occurred as early as November 2019. Once the virus was established, it was going to run its course with mitigation measures [including mask mandates] providing only marginal effect on the ultimate outcome.

And this could have been predicted in 2019, based on what was known in virology.

Hence, the CCP virus hoax.
 
BartenderElite said:
Yep. There are still some out there who think this way, JPP.
Click to expand...

To be clear, so there’s no longer any need for confusion on it:

The hoax was pointlessly destroying an economy *in an election year*; then using the CCP virus as a pretext for some ‘imaginative’ election maneuvers, some of which are still being investigated as we speak.

IOW, the hoax is NOT the virus or the pandemic; the hoax was how the pandemic was put to political use by democrats. In the words of one famous leftist ‘Covid was a godsend to the left’.

And they took full advantage of it. In fact, they seem hesitant to let go of it.
 
So the people who have been claiming for so long that science doesn't exist want to use science today to make a case that the science doesn't make -- because they don't understand the science/math in the first place.

. . .
 
Darth Omar said:
To be clear, so there’s no longer any need for confusion on it:

The hoax was pointlessly destroying an economy *in an election year*; then using the CCP virus as a pretext for some ‘imaginative’ election maneuvers, some of which are still being investigated as we speak.

IOW, the hoax is NOT the virus or the pandemic; the hoax was how the pandemic was put to political use by democrats. In the words of one famous leftist ‘Covid was a godsend to the left’.

And they took full advantage of it. In fact, they seem hesitant to let go of it.
Click to expand...

In an election, they gave people an option of voting without putting themselves at risk. "Still being investigated as we speak" - spoiler alert on that: it will end up like the others, and find that this was the most secure election in American history.

The GOP lost fair & square, because denial isn't a good strategy during a global pandemic.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
By miniscule amounts according to their own data, generally less than 1% difference. Given the low rate of transmission overall, and that only certain groups were seriously in danger once contracting it, the use of masks and lockdowns didn't make any significant contribution to the contraction rate.
On the other hand, lockdowns did have a massive and negative effect on the economy and tens of millions of people's economic and social welfare and security. That is, it's clear that the lockdowns hurt Americans far, far more than they helped.
Click to expand...

who knows how many hundreds of thousands of lives masks/distancing saved, certainly not you
 
BartenderElite said:
In an election, they gave people an option of voting without putting themselves at risk. "Still being investigated as we speak" - spoiler alert on that: it will end up like the others, and find that this was the most secure election in American history.

The GOP lost fair & square, because denial isn't a good strategy during a global pandemic.
Click to expand...

Even Fauci said it was safe to vote in person.

And democrats liked their ‘Covid election’ so much they are trying to make it into federal election law.

Who can blame them for trying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top