Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, provoman said:

The study claims decrease but september through todays data shows increases.

Data from September to present shows increases in cases in nearly every State, including States with State wide mask mandates. 

 

On one of the researchers website, is map of the US with each showing a graph of cases, the graph line in most of the States (to include mask madate States) go up almost vertical or seemingly upward trend.

B71B3601-7AFC-4E93-AD5D-C1B1C236C4D5.jpeg

 

graph is from http://nathanseegert.com/corona.

It doesn’t claim a decrease in total cases.  Flu cases are going to spike with or without masks when flu season comes, the study claims masks will temper the spike.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

A very interesting discussion about social distancing from the beginning of February  (11 known cases).

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/03/coronavirus-spread-social-distancing-us/
 

Don’t have time to read it all till later.  Looks pretty consistent with what we know now uP to the point I read. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

It doesn’t claim a decrease in total cases.  Flu cases are going to spike with or without masks when flu season comes, the study claims masks will temper the spike.

Ok. Just for reference, I quoted your response to Juliann

On 11/24/2020 at 1:00 PM, pogi said:

I think it brings up a valid point however about the importance of controls in studies.  Any study suggesting that mask mandates don't work because positive cases actually rise after mask mandates are implemented are flawed due to a lack of controls.  Of course they are going to continue to rise when they are implemented (typically) during a surge.   It looks like the data they quote for their study is from the CDC:

 

image.png.e0921f18a7f86a84e5f8717a679f65cc.png

 

Key Point # 1

"Covid 19 casess decrease after the implenetation of a mask requirement."

 

That is claim that cases of covid 19 decrease following the implementation of a mask mandate. If it does not refer to total case what other explanation could there be?

 

The infection data from September to today shows daily rise in cases in almost every State. 

 

If Key Point 1 was correct as to current status of infection cases, there would not be a 3 month long daily increase in almost every State.

 

Also a separate study making similar claims was withdrawn https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.21.20208728v2

 

Edited by provoman
Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

Ok. Just for reference, I quoted your response to Juliann

 

Key Point # 1

"Covid 19 casess decrease after the implenetation of a mask requirement."

 

That is claim that cases of covid 19 decrease following the implementation of a mask mandate. If it does not refer to total case what other explanation could there be?

 

The infection data from September to today shows daily rise in cases in almost every State. 

 

If Key Point 1 was correct as to current status of infection cases, there would not be a 3 month long daily increase in almost every State.

 

Also a separate study making similar claims was withdrawn https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.21.20208728v2

 

The study stated that cases will obviously still rise after mask mandates.  Read it.  What they are attempting to show is that it will rise less than if there was no mandate.

I posted several studies (I think there were 4.  The CDC listed 7, including 1 of their own) by the way, all showing that mask mandates work.  

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

The study stated that cases will obviously still rise after mask mandates.  Read it.  What they are attempting to show is that it will rise less than if there was no mandate.

I posted several studies (I think there were 4.  The CDC listed 7, including 1 of their own) by the way, all showing that mask mandates work.  

Do you have a page reference for their claim that cases will rise.

Here is direct quote from the 64 page paper

"We document that state mask mandates during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic reduced case growth ..."

It just seems irresponsible to promote "reduced case growth" when there has been increases for 3 months.

With total case having increased over the past 3 months, it sure appears disingenious to claim "reduced case growth". 

A claim of "reduced case growth" is incapatible with "well cases will increase."

 

 

Link to post
32 minutes ago, pogi said:

The study stated that cases will obviously still rise after mask mandates.  Read it.  What they are attempting to show is that it will rise less than if there was no mandate.

I posted several studies (I think there were 4.  The CDC listed 7, including 1 of their own) by the way, all showing that mask mandates work.  

This is from page 12 of the 64 page paper

"we show that after the mandate, new cases appear to stop increasing entirely, suggesting that the mask mandate reduces the spread of the disease."

 

It is clear they are referring to total case count.

 

And based on that statement they are not saying "cases will rise". Data from September to shows increase growth of cases. And again, it seems clear that they are referring to total case count.

The paper should not be used to promote reduced case growth. It is an economic paper, created by economist; it is not a medical paper.

Edited by provoman
Link to post
58 minutes ago, pogi said:

The study stated that cases will obviously still rise after mask mandates.  Read it.  What they are attempting to show is that it will rise less than if there was no mandate.

 

I wish that were the case. But isn't claiming that it would be worse, which cannot possibly be measured, circular reasoning in the extreme?

Link to post

This is the biggest problem  https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2020/11/26/youll-never-guess-which-countrys-media-has-covered-covid-19-most-negatively/?sh=7d7037fe7ee8

Quote

There is some degree of usefulness, though, in understanding the tenor of news media coverage of the pandemic, because we peer through it as a kind of looking glass onto the crisis itself, which in turn informs the media coverage that follows, which influences us even more, and on and on that circle turns. For example, alarming coverage from a local newspaper that COVID numbers are spiking again (like this Arizona news report declaring that COVID numbers there have seen their biggest one-week jump of the pandemic) might send some local residents scurrying back inside, to hunker down and ride out the resurgence — while others might scoff and declare this all another display of media overkill. Which is to say, the media coverage has real-world impact, for good or otherwise.

I use this again to demonstrate that skeptics are not without reason. I have a FB friend who uses the same government data to dispute the screaming negative coverage. In one instance where the media was claiming hospitals were full in his city he merely used the state data from the hospitals themselves which were not reporting being anywhere near what the media claimed at that time. 

This is what I think creates or supports the refusal to follow recommendations, which happens on a scale of skepticism to the full out conspiracy stuff.  Yesterday, we have CA closing down restaurants again while admitting there is no data (scientific reason) supporting that restaurants are super spreaders.

Quote

 

91% of stories by US major media outlets about COVID-19 were considered to be negative

54% of non-US major media stories were regarded as negative

And 65% of articles from scientific journals were regarded as negative

“The negativity of the US major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials,” an abstract of the researchers’ study reads. “Media negativity is unresponsive to changing trends in new COVID-19 cases or the political leanings of the audience. US major media readers strongly prefer negative stories about COVID-19, and negative stories in general. Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumber stories of decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 even during periods when new cases are declining.”

 

So of course there is growing rebellion and Covid fatigue. "Research" that isn't really what it claims to be only adds to it. I have to continually use the above stats from this guy's feed to remind myself the world isn't ending or I would never leave the house even with a mask and multiple precautions. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

The study stated that cases will obviously still rise after mask mandates.  Read it.  What they are attempting to show is that it will rise less than if there was no mandate.

CFR, please provide the page number of the paper supporting this.

Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

It doesn’t claim a decrease in total cases. 

CFR.

I have peovided a quote wherein the U of U researchers claim cases reduced entirely.

Edited by provoman
Link to post
5 hours ago, pogi said:

 

you posted these two links

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

Each look at data after a mask mandate.

For comparison, Salt Lake County established a mask mandate on September 24. Since Sep 24 cases in Salt Lake County increased daily, from less than 1,000 to peaking at 1,600 just a few days ago. 

 

My point is that current data does not support claims made using data from march 2020 - September 2020. And becuase current data does not support the claims; the U of U economist paper is doing a disservice.

Edited by provoman
Link to post
4 hours ago, provoman said:

This is from page 12 of the 64 page paper

"we show that after the mandate, new cases appear to stop increasing entirely, suggesting that the mask mandate reduces the spread of the disease."

 

It is clear they are referring to total case count.

 

And based on that statement they are not saying "cases will rise". Data from September to shows increase growth of cases. And again, it seems clear that they are referring to total case count.

The paper should not be used to promote reduced case growth. It is an economic paper, created by economist; it is not a medical paper.

2 hours ago, provoman said:

CFR.

I have peovided a quote wherein the U of U researchers claim cases reduced entirely.

2 hours ago, provoman said:

CFR, please provide the page number of the paper supporting this.

Please don't waste my time.  The answer you are looking for is in the introduction. You clearly didn't give the study any serious consideration and are just finding quotes to cherry pick out of context.  

"we show that after the mandate, new cases appear to stop increasing entirely, suggesting that the mask mandate reduces the spread of the disease."  

Taken in context, it is not saying what you pretend it is saying.  Here is the figure 3 in reference:  

As you can see, some places still had increases after implementing mandates.  Overall however, the curve flattened out. 

436703219_ScreenShot2020-11-26at2_08_21PM.png.4f6b288987f7598617294d61b2c06fb8.pngThis references figure 3

 

Page 2 - Introduction:

Quote

As a result, a simple regression of case growth on mask orders might show that the imposition of mask orders is positively correlated with case growth, even if the true effect of masks is to limit the spread of COVID-19. Deliberate policy induces an upward bias in the correlation of mask orders and case growth and a downward bias in the estimate of the effectiveness of the mask order to limit COVID case growth.

A little bit further down on page 12, the page you cherry picked out of context from:

Quote

The number of new cases per 100,000 people decreases substantially after the mandate; column (5) reports that cases decreased by two people per 100,000, a 13% decrease relative to the mean.

13% decrease is not a complete flattening halt of growth in all states that implement mandates. 

Quote

We find that a state mask mandate immediately reduces the growth of new cases

"Reduce" the growth, not stop.

The cool part about the study is the positive dual effect of mask mandates:

Quote

 

These estimates emphasize that mask mandates can persistently promote economic activity while at the same time safeguarding public health. Our results, therefore, suggest that policymakers do not face a trade-off between lives and livelihoods in combating COVID-19.

Specifically, in columns (1) and (3), we report that mobility increases by 0.39 percentage points and spending increases by $23.89 per person per month, respectively. This evidence suggests that people believe that they face less risk when engaging in economic activity with the mask mandate in place. Simply put, they go out and consume more. Meanwhile, cases per population decrease, despite the increased mobility.

 

Despite the increased mobility (which should have an increase on cases) case counts went down.  That is a strong testament of the effectiveness of masks.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, juliann said:

I wish that were the case. But isn't claiming that it would be worse, which cannot possibly be measured, circular reasoning in the extreme?

Believe what you wish.

It is not hard to calculate cases per 100,000/day in the population before and after mask mandates.  They also used controls/placebo states to compare against. They also had many other controls by comparing across states and counties with mask mandates being implemented at different times and months with different trends in cases at the time.  It is actually a very well done study.  

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, juliann said:

This is the biggest problem  https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2020/11/26/youll-never-guess-which-countrys-media-has-covered-covid-19-most-negatively/?sh=7d7037fe7ee8

I use this again to demonstrate that skeptics are not without reason. I have a FB friend who uses the same government data to dispute the screaming negative coverage. In one instance where the media was claiming hospitals were full in his city he merely used the state data from the hospitals themselves which were not reporting being anywhere near what the media claimed at that time. 

This is what I think creates or supports the refusal to follow recommendations, which happens on a scale of skepticism to the full out conspiracy stuff.  Yesterday, we have CA closing down restaurants again while admitting there is no data (scientific reason) supporting that restaurants are super spreaders.

So of course there is growing rebellion and Covid fatigue. "Research" that isn't really what it claims to be only adds to it. I have to continually use the above stats from this guy's feed to remind myself the world isn't ending or I would never leave the house even with a mask and multiple precautions. 

I understand Covid fatigue.  It sounds like you are pointing your finger at the media.  I have no problem with that.  But is it really that unexpected that media coverage about a once in a century pandemic that has already killed a quarter million people in the US would be more negative in tone? Does this diversion away from the CDC suggest that you couldn't find a CFR?  It is time to retract the claim that they lied.  

Link to post

I simply don't understand the resistance from people who claim that they believe that masks work but resist any study that demonstrates that mandates work.   It is like claiming that seat belts reduce risk, but mandating seat belts will have no effect. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Please don't waste my time.  The answer you are looking for is in the introduction. You clearly didn't give the study any serious consideration and are just finding quotes to cherry pick out of context.  

"we show that after the mandate, new cases appear to stop increasing entirely, suggesting that the mask mandate reduces the spread of the disease."  

Taken in context, it is not saying what you pretend it is saying.  Here is the figure 3 in reference:  

As you can see, some places still had increases after implementing mandates.  Overall however, the curve flattened out. 

436703219_ScreenShot2020-11-26at2_08_21PM.png.4f6b288987f7598617294d61b2c06fb8.pngThis references figure 3

 

Page 2 - Introduction:

A little bit further down on page 12, the page you cherry picked out of context from:

13% decrease is not a complete flattening halt of growth in all states that implement mandates. 

"Reduce" the growth, not stop.

The cool part about the study is the positive dual effect of mask mandates:

Despite the increased mobility (which should have an increase on cases) case counts went down.  That is a strong testament of the effectiveness of masks.

 

Thanks for the response. But the September to present data do not reflect the claims made in that study.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I simply don't understand the resistance from people who claim that they believe that masks work but resist any study that demonstrates that mandates work.   It is like claiming that seat belts reduce risk, but mandating seat belts will have no effect.  Come on people. 

The study I linked that was withdrawn  because case increased in the areas that the researchers claimed reduction, is the same reason why the U of U professors should not have published and should withdrawn and revaluate their claims based on the last three months.

Put simply it certainly appears the U of U study is not supported by current data.

Edited by provoman
  • Like 1
Link to post
31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes it does.

How so?

Again Salt Lake County, September 24 is the mask mandate. From late September cases were an upward trend with per 100,000 also increasing. The 7 day average in Salt Lake County is 1200.

With a 60 day upward trend and per 100,000 increasing how would the U of U show reduction in growth for Salt Lake County? Or just about any State since late september; late September/October starts the Natiowide upward trend of cases.

Edited by provoman
Link to post

Would it be a lie if it was said that cloth masks reduce transmission " up to " 91% ? No, but it is certainly misleading. The CDC may not have specifically said that masks " don't work " but to say they are not " recommended " (currently ) leaves the impression ( with many folks ) that a mask is not all that necessary/effective . It would not have been difficult for the CDC message to say " masks are effective in reducing transmission, but we don't feel that masks are needed at this time." That surely would have cut back the panic ' up to ' 91% .😄

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, provoman said:

The study I linked that was withdrawn  because case increased in the areas that the researchers claimed reduction, is the same reason why the U of U professors should not have published and should withdrawn and revaluate their claims based on the last three months.

Put simply it certainly appears the U of U study is not supported by current data.

Read the paper.  Don't skim it.  It is supported by current data.  They are not claiming that mask mandates are surge proof.  I have already provided references.  You can't judge the UofU paper based on the paper you reference.  Totally different papers, totally different methodology, totally different controls, totally different authors, totally different conclusions. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
21 hours ago, provoman said:

How so?

Again Salt Lake County, September 24 is the mask mandate. From late September cases were an upward trend with per 100,000 also increasing. The 7 day average in Salt Lake County is 1200.

With a 60 day upward trend and per 100,000 increasing how would the U of U show reduction in growth for Salt Lake County? Or just about any State since late september; late September/October starts the Natiowide upward trend of cases.

A 13% decrease relative to the mean, was the conclusion of the study.   

Would you predict from this result that the current surge could not happen?  Of course not.  So why are you suggesting that the surge does not reflect the claims of this study?

Think about it.  It is a decrease relative to the mean/pre-mandates.  We will still see spikes after the mandates.  Case counts per 100,000 may still go up.  Surges will still happen.  But case counts are reduced relative to the mean despite the increase in community mobility. 

Based on these results from across the country, we can predict with a high degree of confidence that the current surge would have been worse without the mandates.  If masks work, one would predict that mandates work too.  Seems like a pretty straight forward and logical conclusion.  Studies show that masks work.  The UofU study simply corroborates that.  The results are predictable.  Why in the world would you question them if you believe that masks work?  

The CDC's own study about mask mandates corroborates the results of the UofU study that mask mandates work to reduce case counts relative to the mean.

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
20 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Would it be a lie if it was said that cloth masks reduce transmission " up to " 91% ? No, but it is certainly misleading. The CDC may not have specifically said that masks " don't work " but to say they are not " recommended " (currently ) leaves the impression ( with many folks ) that a mask is not all that necessary/effective . It would not have been difficult for the CDC message to say " masks are effective in reducing transmission, but we don't feel that masks are needed at this time." That surely would have cut back the panic ' up to ' 91% .😄

Suggesting that masks are not recommended "currently" because 1) they are needed for front-line workers (leaving one with the impression that they work), and 2) community spread is negligible, in no way leaves the impression that masks are ineffective.   They DID say that masks are effective by 1) saying they are needed to protect front-line workers, 2) by recommending that sick people wear them to reduce transmission, and 3) for non-medical workers who are around sick people to wear them to reduce exposure risk.  With those recommendations, no sincere person can claim that they were trying to imply that they don't work.  No lying whatsoever.  Nothing misleading about it. Their reasons for not recommending masks at the time were clear and reasonable, and consistent with their history of recommending masks for the general public.  Never in history has the CDC recommended that the general public wear masks for any infectious disease outbreak with numbers as low as they were at the time.  This was not a conspiracy to mislead the public.   

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

This was not a conspiracy to mislead the public.

True, but if we have learned anything from social media it's that folks will interpret statements in the most off the wall ways, and the media is just as sloppy with the narrative. As a teacher I know that I must be VERY specific with instructions and say them several times , and even then someone will screw them up. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Not sure what to make of this:

Quote

Johns Hopkins Study Saying COVID-19 Has 'Relatively No Effect on Deaths' in U.S. Deleted After Publication
BY MATT MARGOLIS NOV 27, 2020 11:24 AM ET

Conventional wisdom is that COVID-19 has caused thousands of deaths in the United States and nearly 1.5 million worldwide. This perception has been directly challenged by a study published by Johns Hopkins University on Sunday, November 22.

Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins University, critically analyzed the impact that COVID-19 had on U.S. deaths. According to her, the impact of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States can be fully understood by comparing it to the number of total deaths in the country.

According to study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

Wait, what?  Really?

That’s what it says.  And, it should come as no surprise that not long after the study was published it was deleted within days.

Luckily, a back-up copy remains on The Wayback Machine, and we can still read the study.

Quote

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

According to Briand, “The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals.”

Briand’s analysis found that the range of deaths amongst the older population has remained within the range of past years.

So, if COVID-19 has actually had no significant impact on U.S. deaths, why does it not appear that way?

Quote

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

“This is true every year,” explained Briand. “Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes.”

Here’s where things get interesting.

Quote

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

The study found that “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.” In fact, “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”

Briand concludes that the COVID-19 death toll in the United States is misleading and that deaths from other diseases are being categorized as COVID-19 deaths.
...
On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”

On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”

Quote

Though making clear the need for further research, the article was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic. We regret that this article may have contributed to the spread of misinformation about COVID-19.

They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...