The Mask thread Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,920
Read what I wrote a little bit more closely. I didn't say that they aren't effective, only that I suspect time will tell that the beneficial effects were insufficient to justify the negative effects. Given the long-term implications involved with respect to both elements it is impossible to say yea or nay to that statement at this point, hence why I only say I suspect this will be the case. There is not enough data on the long-term effects to justify a definitive conclusion at this point, since the knock-on period will be in the span of several years at least.

Yes it is common sense that these practices will limit the spread of any virus. However, this begs the question of why such measures were not already in place? After all there are many other similar viruses, many of them deadly. Yet we never took such stringent measures in the past - presumably because of the downside in terms of impact on economic activity, social norms, cultural life and so forth. Now they are apparently justified, and it's apparently obvious beyond the point of any further justification, but is covid so much more serious than any other previous ailment that it is in fact so obvious?

Perhaps the long-term downside of such restrictions is greater than the short-term upside - the numbers are simply not in yet. The current data is not reliable enough to make the result of any such calculation convincing. Perhaps more information which is yet to be uncovered will shed new light on the scenario. Perhaps it is the very "novelty" of this coronavirus which engenders a kind of hysterical or figuratively-allergenic response on the part of society - one that will abate when the novelty wears off. Perhaps we will all look back in the sober light of morning and think, dear god we trashed the whole place and for what? I'm not saying this IS the case, but it COULD be - it's a possibility that can't be eliminated based on the information on hand right now.
It’s what i bolded in your post that is nonsensical. Wearing masks, keeping distance, and following health authority recommendations will certainly limit viral spread. Your other point of contention (are the restrictive measures doing more harm than the virus?) is moot within the discussion of limiting viral spread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am toxic and 42

StrangeVision

Wear a mask.
Apr 1, 2007
24,477
9,339
Read what I wrote a little bit more closely. I didn't say that they aren't effective, only that I suspect time will tell that the beneficial effects were insufficient to justify the negative effects. Given the long-term implications involved with respect to both elements it is impossible to say yea or nay to that statement at this point, hence why I only say I suspect this will be the case. There is not enough data on the long-term effects to justify a definitive conclusion at this point, since the knock-on period will be in the span of several years at least.

Yes it is common sense that these practices will limit the spread of any virus. However, this begs the question of why such measures were not already in place? After all there are many other similar viruses, many of them deadly. Yet we never took such stringent measures in the past - presumably because of the downside in terms of impact on economic activity, social norms, cultural life and so forth. Now they are apparently justified, and it's apparently obvious beyond the point of any further justification, but is covid so much more serious than any other previous ailment that it is in fact so obvious?

Perhaps the long-term downside of such restrictions is greater than the short-term upside - the numbers are simply not in yet. The current data is not reliable enough to make the result of any such calculation convincing. Perhaps more information which is yet to be uncovered will shed new light on the scenario. Perhaps it is the very "novelty" of this coronavirus which engenders a kind of hysterical or figuratively-allergenic response on the part of society - one that will abate when the novelty wears off. Perhaps we will all look back in the sober light of morning and think, dear god we trashed the whole place and for what? I'm not saying this IS the case, but it COULD be - it's a possibility that can't be eliminated based on the information on hand right now.

If ands and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

I'm sorry, but your premise is bullshit. Do you propose we do nothing? Maybe in hindsight our opinions will change, but what exactly do you propose we do now? We can't base action on what we might possibly know in a few years. Do you want to just sit there and type up some shit you can pull up in a few years in a gotcha moment? Have fun.
 

waingr0

May 14, 2010
1,916
197
What the f*** are you talking about? We regulate the living hell out of cars to make driving safer, and the regulations only get tougher every few years. The government:
- requires manufacturers to include all kinds of safety features like anti-lock breaks, airbags, backup cameras, catalytic converters, etc.
- requires a license and insurance to drive one
- requires regular safety inspections of vehicles
- legislates driving behaviors, including limiting how fast you can go, how much you can drink before you drive, telling you where your kids are allowed to sit in a car, requiring you to wear your seatbelt, etc.
- polices driving habits, including by issuing tickets and arresting people who violate driving laws

For covid, we’re talking about the government asking you to wear an additional piece of cloth.

To your point, the government works very very hard to make driving safer.

Your post was already summed up and covered previously, tough guy.
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,589
15,478
South of Heaven
Your post was already summed up and covered previously, tough guy.
And yet, you still don’t get it. You want to pretend it’s all or nothing. No one is pretending we will ever get auto deaths down to zero, but we’ll at least try to make it better. Same with covid. Wearing masks helps. It’s also as minor an intervention as we can do.
 

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
And yet, you still don’t get it. You want to pretend it’s all or nothing. No one is pretending we will ever get auto deaths down to zero, but we’ll at least try to make it better. Same with covid. Wearing masks helps. It’s also as minor an intervention as we can do.
You would think so but for some people it's the hill they are willing to die on, for no logical reason.
 

waingr0

May 14, 2010
1,916
197
I am trolling guys, don't worry. Who in their right mind would have a problem with masks?



Why would anyone think this is wrong?
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
I agree, there is nothing wrong with that. Pretty ingenious of that mall to do that.
Great initiative by that mall that allows them to still provide that yearly service but in a way that protects everyone.
 

Fordy

Registered User
May 28, 2008
26,799
2,935
EnhvNieVQAA_q9N
 

Lazlo Hollyfeld

The jersey ad still sucks
Mar 4, 2004
28,134
26,430
I am trolling guys, don't worry. Who in their right mind would have a problem with masks?



Why would anyone think this is wrong?

ok here's the thing. I agree with your point in that this will be a strange and anxious year that will could have impact on children. But it's really about making decisions on how to manage exposure to the virus while trying to maintain a normal life. And wearing a mask is such a small change to make.

In terms of childhood trauma I'd much rather kids look back and think "remember that weird Christmas where we couldn't sit on Santa's lap?" than "remember that Christmas when Grandma died alone in a hospital and we couldn't visit her, and someone in our family likely exposed her to the virus that killed her?"

It's a small piece of cloth that if everyone wore, combined with social distancing, could help business stay open and maintain some sense of normal.
 

Fordy

Registered User
May 28, 2008
26,799
2,935
How dare you question that insightful graph. It has every important data point on there. Like https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2020/10/29/some-arizona-towns-lift-mask-mandates.html

Oh....
you think a couple of small town mayors is all it takes for you to explain away what's right in front of your face? you didn't even read the article. 99% of the biggest cities and counties are still under mandates in arizona. try again

either way, this article is from 4 weeks after the trend had already moved up, showing the masks weren't really accomplishing anything at all. in fact, the trendline was already headed upwards while the CDC was actively praising the effects of masks in arizona
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,589
15,478
South of Heaven
you think a couple of small town mayors is all it takes for you to explain away what's right in front of your face? you didn't even read the article. 99% of the biggest cities and counties are still under mandates in arizona. try again

either way, this article is from 4 weeks after the trend had already moved up, showing the masks weren't really accomplishing anything at all. as you can see, the trend was
Are you sure about that, or is this another situation of you wanting it to be true? Here’s a fun story for you.
Mask Mandates Work To Slow Spread Of Coronavirus, Kansas Study Finds

The Kansas mask requirement went into effect on July 3, when coronavirus cases were rising across the state. But 81 counties opted out of the mandate, as permitted by state law. The other 24 counties — which account for the majority of the state's population — chose to require that masks be worn in public places.
. . .
On average, the counties that required masks saw a 6% reduction in cases (calculated as a seven-day rolling average of new daily cases per capita). In contrast, the counties that opted out saw a 100% increase.
 
Mar 12, 2009
7,358
7,428
ok here's the thing. I agree with your point in that this will be a strange and anxious year that will could have impact on children. But it's really about making decisions on how to manage exposure to the virus while trying to maintain a normal life. And wearing a mask is such a small change to make.

In terms of childhood trauma I'd much rather kids look back and think "remember that weird Christmas where we couldn't sit on Santa's lap?" than "remember that Christmas when Grandma died alone in a hospital and we couldn't visit her, and someone in our family likely exposed her to the virus that killed her?"

It's a small piece of cloth that if everyone wore, combined with social distancing, could help business stay open and maintain some sense of normal.
lets not forget meeting Santa Clause for the first time isn't exactly a pleasant experience for all children; there's a reason kids crying in Santa's lap is a trope/cliche.
 

Fireonk

Registered User
Jan 10, 2006
1,920
2,510
a couple of small town mayors is all it takes for you to explain away what's right in front of your face? 99% of the biggest cities and counties are still under mandates in arizona. try again

Mask usage based on surveys - IHME | COVID-19 Projections

So weird that as soon as they had their highest mask usage rate their numbers went down and then start rising again when they basically settled into their current mask usage rate.

Realistically the graph is spiking more likely because of the social distancing graph right below that. Started going back up again just as mask usage was coming down. But I am sure that is less important than the plot of when the CDC released a study. That is definitely an important driver of the cases in Arizona and not something just to push an agenda. Definitely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blender

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,920
You would think so but for some people it's the hill they are willing to die on, for no logical reason.
Or the hill they are willing to (basically) be responsible for killing others on, which is deplorable - IMO.

you think a couple of small town mayors is all it takes for you to explain away what's right in front of your face? you didn't even read the article. 99% of the biggest cities and counties are still under mandates in arizona. try again

either way, this article is from 4 weeks after the trend had already moved up, showing the masks weren't really accomplishing anything at all. in fact, the trendline was already headed upwards while the CDC was actively praising the effects of masks in arizona
Wearing a mask is only part of the equation to limit viral spread. We need to keep our distance from one another, and follow other health orders/recommendations. They all work together. It would be like driving at the speed limit, but be piss drink. Need to do both to be safest, right?

Your post was already summed up and covered previously, tough guy.
You continue to argue against the effectiveness of masks to limit viral spread. Yet, it’s common sense wearing masks will limit viral spread. Keeping distance from others will limit viral spread. Following proper hygiene will limit viral spread. Combine these three, and (pretty much follow health orders) presto - greatly reduce viral spread. It’s really common sense these measures will work, and even better when combined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fordy

Registered User
May 28, 2008
26,799
2,935
Are you sure about that, or is this another situation of you wanting it to be true? Here’s a fun story for you.
Mask Mandates Work To Slow Spread Of Coronavirus, Kansas Study Finds
this study ended on august 23rd. here's what the counties look like since then (and either way, they've had a statewide mask mandate now):

Enhwv8JW4AMCADV


as you can see, it's not having an effect. regardless, even if that study wasn't cut off at a convenient timeframe, it would do nothing to discount the real numbers i posted from arizona. do you understand that? that would still be the reality in the state

Mask usage based on surveys - IHME | COVID-19 Projections

So weird that as soon as they had their highest mask usage rate their numbers went down and then start rising again when they basically settled into their current mask usage rate.

Realistically the graph is spiking more likely because of the social distancing graph right below that. Started going back up again just as mask usage was coming down. But I am sure that is less important than the plot of when the CDC released a study. That is definitely an important driver of the cases in Arizona and not something just to push an agenda. Definitely.
self reported mask use, and social distancing, has only shifted 10% since july in arizona. that's not enough to explain the shift - only seasonality is
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheBluePenguin

Registered User
Apr 15, 2015
6,590
6,644
St Louis
this study ended on august 23rd. here's what the counties look like since then (and either way, they've had a statewide mask mandate now):

Enhwv8JW4AMCADV


as you can see, it's not having an effect. regardless, even if that study wasn't cut off at a convenient timeframe, it would do nothing to discount the real numbers i posted from arizona. do you understand that? that would still be the reality in the state


self reported mask use, and social distancing, has only shifted 10% since july in arizona. that's not enough to explain the shift - only seasonality is


Didn't that article say that the more populated areas keep mask mandates? So the fact that the less populated areas had the same amount of cases with less people would not be a victory. Maybe I am missing something about the graph you posted
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,589
15,478
South of Heaven
this study ended on august 23rd. here's what the counties look like since then (and either way, they've had a statewide mask mandate now):

Enhwv8JW4AMCADV


as you can see, it's not having an effect. regardless, even if that study wasn't cut off at a convenient timeframe, it would do nothing to discount the real numbers i posted from arizona. do you understand that? that would still be the reality in the state
Please provide a link to where you're lifting these. What are these measuring? Total cases? Active cases? Cases per million? Just slapping in charts without explanation or reference is not helpful at all. Instead, it looks like you're purposely hiding the source.

The University of Kansas has additional data tracking the numbers through the end of October. The mandate vs no mandate difference still existed through the end of October. As of the end of October, the mask mandate counties had a rolling seven day average of about 20 new cases per 100k people. The counties without mask mandates had a rolling seven day average of almost 40 new cases per 100k people.

https://ipsr.ku.edu/covid19/images/Mask_Mandate_forJoCo.pdf

Mask mandate associated with an average 7 fewer cases per day in Kansas (50% of Mean)
 

Panthaz89

Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Panthers fan
Dec 24, 2016
13,190
5,710
Buffalo,NY
I mean there are other factors like people gathering at rallies and people gathering in large numbers that's gonna make the masks kind of irrelevant....if people gather in the thousands thanks to their great idea of protesting during a pandemic its also going to take away the efforts of slowing the spread. Also the mandate has to actually be followed otherwise its not doing anything and because certain people had made up their mind early on they won't accept when people tell them otherwise. If there wasn't restrictions in a place like NYC the virus would get out of hand due to population density.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stampedingviking
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->