Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what to make of this:

Thanks,

-Smac

It wasn’t published by John Hopkins and was not endorsed by the university or school of medicine.   It was published by an independent student run publication.  Your article made it sound like they tried to hide the article and they only maintained a copy through some obscure means.  Not true.  In an effort to maintain transparency, the news letter offers a free pdf for anyone to read it.  Your article is also misleading in not providing the full context of why the publication decided to retract it.

No doubt, this will become good conspiracy fodder.

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

It wasn’t published by John Hopkins and was not endorsed by the university or school of medicine.   It was published by an independent student run publication.  Your article made it sound like they tried to hide the article and they only maintained a copy through some obscure means.  Not true.  In an effort to maintain transparency, the news letter offers a free pdf for anyone to read it.  Your article is also misleading in not providing the full context of why the publication decided to retract it.

No doubt, this will become good conspiracy fodder.

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

Good info.  Thank you for sharing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what to make of this:

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you been able to look at the study?  Every link that talks about the study in this article and others I have found through searching only link back to an article.

Link to post

Here is the PDF  from Pogi’s link/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iO0K75EZAF8dkNDkDmM3L4zNNY0X-Xw5/view

From the link, not the pdf:

Quote

Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
10 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

Thank for your time and for the explanation, I do appreciate your explanations and time.

 

I understand what you are saying. However, if we take the researchers to mean the words they published, then case decrease entirely, thus they suggest mask mandates are surge proof.

 I know you addressed the decrease entirely langauge with figure 3, and again thank you. However decrease entirely is the researchers explanation of their figures, so I think they actually ment the words they used in plain understanding of the use of those words.

 

Again I appreciate your time in explaining.

 

Separately, as per capita increase individual risk also increase - is that correct? If individual risk increases with per capita increases under mask mandates, personally I would suspect consumer mobility would decrease, thus affecting negatively affecting consumer spending. 

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

Thank for your time and for the explanation, I do appreciate your explanations and time.

 

I understand what you are saying. However, if we take the researchers to mean the words they published, then case decrease entirely, thus they suggest mask mandates are surge proof.

 I know you addressed the decrease entirely langauge with figure 3, and again thank you. However decrease entirely is the researchers explanation of their figures, so I think they actually ment the words they used in plain understanding of the use of those words.

 

Again I appreciate your time in explaining.

 

Separately, as per capita increase individual risk also increase - is that correct? If individual risk increases with per capita increases under mask mandates, personally I would suspect consumer mobility would decrease, thus affecting negatively affecting consumer spending. 

The cases did entirely stop climbing in figure 3 relative to pre-mandate climbs.  It flat lined.  You are misinterpreting this to mean that wherever a mandate was instigated that it completely stopped the surge, or that there could be no future surges with seasonal changes.  The data in figure 3 clearly dismisses that idea.  Notice how some dots are higher than pre mandate levels.  In order to take your interpretation we have to dismiss literally everything else they say where they explicitly acknowledge that surges continued after mandates in some areas after implementation, and we also have to pretend like figure 3 doesn’t exist.

Per capita increase in cases will no doubt affect consumer confidence.  What is your point?  The data/study doesn’t argue against this.  The data simply shows that consumer confidence increased after imposing mandates relative to pre mandate spending. 

Do you believe that masks work provoman?

Edited by pogi
Link to post
On 11/27/2020 at 8:33 PM, pogi said:

The cases did entirely stop climbing in figure 3 relative to pre-mandate climbs.  It flat lined.  You are misinterpreting this to mean that wherever a mandate was instigated that it completely stopped the surge, or that there could be no future surges with seasonal changes.  The data in figure 3 clearly dismisses that idea.  Notice how some dots are higher than pre mandate levels.  In order to take your interpretation we have to dismiss literally everything else they say where they explicitly acknowledge that surges continued after mandates in some areas after implementation, and we also have to pretend like figure 3 doesn’t exist.

Per capita increase in cases will no doubt affect consumer confidence.  What is your point?  The data/study doesn’t argue against this.  The data simply shows that consumer confidence increased after imposing mandates relative to pre mandate spending. 

Do you believe that masks work provoman?

With the recent Johns Hopkins article that was taken down (remarkably Johns Hopkins says it stands by the article but is afraid of it being misused), and the recent Danish study https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/19/mask-effectiveness-study-denmark-counter-cdc-recom/, perhaps it is time to rethink our response to this?  Perhaps a better course is to focus on who is actually getting sick and not who merely tests positive?  As you may know, there is controversy surrounding the pcr tests and whether or not testers are amplifying the rna fragments too much.  Are we over-reacting to this? https://www.globalresearch.ca/chief-science-officer-pfizer-says-second-wave-faked-false-positive-covid-tests-pandemic-over/5724753

Obviously people are dying from this but what is the real threat to the population at large?  The overwhelming people I know who died from this are over 80 yrs old.  Again, shouldn't we always be analyzing whether or not we are over-reacting to these types of problems?  Shouldn't we do a cost benefit analysis when considering policy?  Small business has suffered while huge conglomerates have benefited from less competition.  Suicides are up.  Alcohol sales and the abuse that surely follows are up.  Is there a better way?  Or should we just panic and immediately go to the most draconian measures we can think of?

My understanding is that you are a nurse.  Is that right?  So, your opinions are clearly not expert opinions when given outside of your nursing expertise, correct?

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Please read the link.  This is bogus lies.  See:  

I am not familiar with the Danish study you mentioned.  All I can say is that it has to be taken in context the the whole of research that has been done on masks.  The Danish study did conclude from your link:

 

Over a quarter million recorded deaths, with an even more uncounted excess deaths -Mandating masks that have been shown to reduce spread and boost the economy is not an overreaction. 

Does this somehow make it ok?  The rest of us have no moral obligation to protect the elderly?  By the way, over 100,000 people between the ages of 45 and 74 have died from Covid in the US, and numbers are rapidly surging, even doubling previous daily counts. 

What is so draconian about mask mandates?  They are no more draconian than seat belt laws. We are talking about masks, right?  We can't blame all of the economic downturn, suicides, alcohol abuse, etc. on government interventions (especially not mask mandates).  That is not reasonable.  The weight of the pandemic alone (without even considering government interventions) harming consumer confidence, with everything else that is going in our country in 2020 no doubt has taken an enormous toll. 

I have specialized and am certified in infectious disease and travel medicine, and am a public health nurse.  I have been a part of the Covid response from the beginning. This is my area of expertise.  

Here is the article that was taken down. https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https:/www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19  Do you dispute what Ms. Briand found and why?

From a tweet by Johns Hopkins, it says the article was taken down because of how it was being used.  https://www.thecollegefix.com/student-newspaper-deletes-article-on-study-that-found-covid-has-had-little-effect-on-u-s-deaths-this-year/

Why not just have someone look at the data and actually show where the errors are?  Instead, the article is removed.  Does that help or hinder the search for truth?  I am sure the supposed conspiracy theorists you are probably weary of wouldn't have as much ammunition if counter narratives were allowed and debated.  The Johns Hopkins response you cite merely says this:  "Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers."

Yet it doesn't show the work proving the error she supposedly made, if at all.  It still points to the possibility of trivialization as a rationalization to take down the article. 

I don't think anyone doubts that sars-Cov-2 is serious and that is why we should take a look at all the data and make some hard decisions regarding what is beneficial to everyone.  Further, I don't think you are willing to look at the economic and social effects of the lockdowns and the complications associated with mask mandates.  A balancing approach needs to be taken and other contrasting points of view need to be involved, instead of the conclusory based reasoning employed by the MSM and others.

Here is a study saying that the virus can go through the eyes: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.full.pdf

Maybe there is nothing we can do and the virus will simply be with us like so many other corona viruses are?  We've had mask mandates for a while and everyone I know wears them.  Governors who favor masks and supposedly wear them are testing positive.  Also, there is a supposed 2nd wave going on, with mask mandates.  How do you explain that?  Perhaps governments favor the mask simply because it is something to do?  The CDC has done many studies on mask effectiveness against flu transmission and found that masks don't prevent it.  How do you respond to the Pfizer executive who says this is way overblown?  https://www.globalresearch.ca/chief-science-officer-pfizer-says-second-wave-faked-false-positive-covid-tests-pandemic-over/5724753

Also, I don't think anyone or any study exists that will show that seatbelts are pointless or don't prevent more serious injury.  However, mask effectiveness as well as the pandemic seriousness is in dispute and by reputable scientists.  https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/pascal-sacre

https://www.globalresearch.ca/plea-mps-mike-yeadon-dont-vote-lockdown/5729192

https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-covid-vaccine-hype-fails-mention/5730504

Finally, why do you suppose there is a focus on positive tests and not on who actually gets sick?  Most who test positive don't get sick or are only mildly ill for a few days.  Is it because people won't be as afraid as some want should the emphasis change?

Link to post
2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Here is the article that was taken down. https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https:/www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19  Do you dispute what Ms. Briand found and why?

From a tweet by Johns Hopkins, it says the article was taken down because of how it was being used.  https://www.thecollegefix.com/student-newspaper-deletes-article-on-study-that-found-covid-has-had-little-effect-on-u-s-deaths-this-year/

Why not just have someone look at the data and actually show where the errors are?  Instead, the article is removed.  Does that help or hinder the search for truth?  I am sure the supposed conspiracy theorists you are probably weary of wouldn't have as much ammunition if counter narratives were allowed and debated.  The Johns Hopkins response you cite merely says this:  "Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers."

Yet it doesn't show the work proving the error she supposedly made, if at all.  It still points to the possibility of trivialization as a rationalization to take down the article. 

I got about this far and had to stop.  

IT IS NOT JOHN HOPKINS for crying out loud.  They didn't not publish it.  They did not endorse it.  The article was published by an independent student column - it was not published in any scientific or scholarly journal.  Not peer reviewed.  And despite your claims to the contrary, the students did indeed show where the errors are.  For some reason you are not posting all the errors they mentioned.  So who is really trying to hinder the search for truth here by cherry picking and falsely attributing things to John Hopkins?

Quote

 

Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

 

Those are 3 legitimate reasons to take it down.  IT never should have been published in the first place.  This paper would have ZERO chance of being published in a serious journal that does it's due diligence. 

Edited by pogi
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Further, I don't think you are willing to look at the economic and social effects of the lockdowns and the complications associated with mask mandates. 

Believe what you want, I guess.

3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Here is a study saying that the virus can go through the eyes: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.full.pdf

Where have you been?

3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Maybe there is nothing we can do and the virus will simply be with us like so many other corona viruses are? 

That settles it then!

3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Also, there is a supposed 2nd wave going on, with mask mandates.  How do you explain that? 

I have already addressed this. 

3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

globalresearch.ca???  This is our source for your Covid science?  This tells me everything I need to know about you.

  • Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation.

I opened up one article and found this right off the bat:

Quote

I am certain the pandemic is over and was over before the end of June.

Please stop.  Please stop.  

3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Finally, why do you suppose there is a focus on positive tests and not on who actually gets sick?  Most who test positive don't get sick or are only mildly ill for a few days.  Is it because people won't be as afraid as some want should the emphasis change?

Because that is how we track and report infectious disease, and always have.  Nothing new here.  No conspiracy.  Sorry.  We always track and report asymptomatic cases with all diseases. 

These people are infectious and need to be in isolation to protect the public and health care system from being overburdened.  They need to be tracked and counted because they are infected.  Simple as that.  How do you suppose epidemiology works anyway?  They are perhaps even more dangerous than those who have symptoms for the simple fact that they may not know that they are contagious and then head over to grandma's house. 

If you simply want to talk about morbidity, deaths and hospitalizations, there is much we can talk about there too if that is where you want to focus.  It doesn't make this pandemic any prettier however.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

urther, I don't think you are willing to look at the economic and social effects of the lockdowns and the complications associated with mask mandates. 

Please don’t do mindreading or make it personal. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

We've had mask mandates for a while and everyone I know wears them. 

It is not simply preventing someone from getting the virus that is the goal, it is also decreasing the viral load they are exposed to which appears to lessen the severity of the disease...which is very important as there appear to be long term effects that at times may be debilitating.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Finally, why do you suppose there is a focus on positive tests and not on who actually gets sick?  Most who test positive don't get sick or are only mildly ill for a few days.  Is it because people won't be as afraid as some want should the emphasis change?

“Percent positive” (even when hovering at say 5%) is an indicator of spread to those who do get sick and very ill and disproportionately stress the healthcare system for everyone. Considering the virus is not going away and the projected timeframe for developing and distributing a vaccine, the best approach for the economy and public health has been to prevent the spread, not just pump dollars into the healthcare system or create an alternate system of managing morbidity and mortality. Given this is a novel virus, additional methods to prevent the spread are bound to be frequently modified, using the best science available. Given the national response has political considerations (elected officials form the command structure); may the best politics prevail with the participation of the most constructive voices.

Link to post

What was done in the previous 6-8 months to prepare health care facilities for , what was predicted, a second wave? Were people just too tired to ramp up PPE products and ICUs etc. so that hospitals would not be so easily overwhelmed ? I remember when the hospital ships and field hospitals were set up and then taken down for a lack of use. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

What was done in the previous 6-8 months to prepare health care facilities for , what was predicted, a second wave? Were people just too tired to ramp up PPE products and ICUs etc. so that hospitals would not be so easily overwhelmed ? I remember when the hospital ships and field hospitals were set up and then taken down for a lack of use. 

It really depends on the jurisdiction. For example, these are the first 2 things I Googled: 

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/coronavirus/2020/11/11/hospital-doctors-confident-in-preparation-for-covid-second-wave

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospitals-prepare-for-the-new-covid-wave-11606152734

I realize that not all jurisdictions are as confident or prepared.

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

I remember when the hospital ships and field hospitals were set up and then taken down for a lack of use. 

Iirc, the bottleneck with the ships and field hospitals was always having enough people trained to handle ICUs, ventilators, and such.  I read an article about NY and how one hospital would have loved to have sent many of their patients elsewhere, but only a handful qualified to be sent to a field hospital out of hundreds because of the limitations of service.  It would be interesting to know if the military ramped up training in these areas.  Schools had the problem of how does one train future nurses and doctors with social distancing in place...and it is likely years of training required to get to that level.

In the EDH update it reports hospitals, etc are so desperate for staffing, a traveling nurse can get up to $8000 a week or more.

Link to post
4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

What was done in the previous 6-8 months to prepare health care facilities for , what was predicted, a second wave? Were people just too tired to ramp up PPE products and ICUs etc. so that hospitals would not be so easily overwhelmed ? I remember when the hospital ships and field hospitals were set up and then taken down for a lack of use. 

 

I don't know about other organizations, but the church has had at least 2 projects where many masks were made.  There were a a lot made in the Salt Lake area. The other project was in the Phoenix area.  I think the Utah one was probably bigger considering the social media posts I saw. It was kind of fun to have my mom doing them first since she sews well and then be able to ask her for advice when it came to AZ a couple of months ago.  My guess is they probably did them or will do them in other areas as well.

I also know on another board I have gone that there were quite a few women who were not members of the church making masks (probably members as well) for health care givers.  They would ask for supplies or pay for them on their own and then just give the masks away to hospitals etc.    

Edited by Rain
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Here is an article talking about increased suicides as a result of the covid measures:  https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/perfect-storm-suicide-death-toll-surges-past-covid/

One would hope that our leaders are looking at these statistics and not just positive test results where most don't even show any symptoms.

Counterpoint: That article comes from WorldNet Daily which is basically just a bunch of opinion columns. They follow no journalistic standards and they have a propensity to get the facts wrong, probably deliberately.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-net-daily-wnd/

Edited by The Nehor
Link to post
On 11/27/2020 at 9:33 PM, pogi said:

The cases did entirely stop climbing in figure 3 relative to pre-mandate climbs.  It flat lined.  You are misinterpreting this to mean that wherever a mandate was instigated that it completely stopped the surge, or that there could be no future surges with seasonal changes.  The data in figure 3 clearly dismisses that idea.  Notice how some dots are higher than pre mandate levels.  In order to take your interpretation we have to dismiss literally everything else they say where they explicitly acknowledge that surges continued after mandates in some areas after implementation, and we also have to pretend like figure 3 doesn’t exist.

Per capita increase in cases will no doubt affect consumer confidence.  What is your point?  The data/study doesn’t argue against this.  The data simply shows that consumer confidence increased after imposing mandates relative to pre mandate spending. 

Do you believe that masks work provoman?

Regarding figure 3, to be honest, it really isn't important what the graph shows. What is important is what the researchers claims the graph shows.

The paper should not have promoted by almost every major paper in Utah, t should have been pushed from the Governors press conference, it should not have been covered. The paper relied on essentially outdated data (March 2020 through September 2020, the paper does not include the nation wide surge from late September to present) to promote or encourage current non-essential spending.  Additionally, economist should stay away from making medical claims about the efficacy of mask mandates.

As for what I think about masks, I do not see that as relevant to the discussion.  Again, I appreciate your time in discussing the research.

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

Regarding figure 3, to be honest, it really isn't important what the graph shows. What is important is what the researchers claims the graph shows.

The paper should not have promoted by almost every major paper in Utah, t should have been pushed from the Governors press conference, it should not have been covered. The paper relied on essentially outdated data (March 2020 through September 2020, the paper does not include the nation wide surge from late September to present) that should not be used to promote or encourage current spending non-essential spending.  Additionally, economist should stay away from making medical claims about the efficacy of mask mandates.

As for what I think about masks, I do not see that as relevant to the discussion.  Again, I appreciate your time in discussing the research.

I think you are misinterpreting what the researchers are claiming about figure 3.  Read it all in context.  They explicitly acknowledge that surges could and did still happen after mandates.  It is mentioned right in the media article too.  Everyone seems to have noticed it but you.  Figure 3 averages the ups and downs of the individual states and counties. They are talking about pre mandate averages trending upwards and post mandate averages flattening.  You are trying to make this about specific and individual counties and states, when they were talking about national averages when you crunch all the number together and put them in a singular line chart. 

Can you contest the conclusive results of a 13% decrease compared to the mean, or are you just getting hung up on your interpretation of that singular sentence in a 60 page paper? You seem to be trying to dismiss the legitimacy of the entire paper based on that one line. 

Why shouldn't it have been promoted by the media? Because you disagree with it?  It appears to be a solid study to me and corroborates the overwhelming consensus of mask evidence that we have and think it deserves national attention.  2 month old data in any published paper is not considered "outdated".  It shows that mandates were effective within 2 months of publishing.  It is nearly impossible to have anything more recent than that in a published paper.  The study shows that mask mandates worked during the 7 month period of the study.  You could try and argue that given the recent surge, mask mandates are no longer effective - but then you would have to give a legitimate reason as to why you think they were effective within a 7 month span that ended 2 months ago but for some mysterious reason they are not effective now.  What is your hypothesis?  The only result that would change are the averages in figure 3 - but they would still be lower than the pre-mandate averages.  The line wouldn't be flat, it would still be inclining but in a less dramatic manner, but the 13% decrease relative to the mean should stay the same however. 

I disagree about your comment regarding economists studying the efficacy of mask mandates.  Their study was primarily on the economic impact of mask mandates.  Consumer confidence is dependent upon the statistical analysis of their efficacy.  The one (consumer confidence) is directly related to the other (efficacy). 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
33 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are simply misinterpreting what the researchers are claiming about figure 3.  Read it all in context.  They explicitly acknowledge that surges could and did still happen after mandates.  Figure 3 averages the ups and downs of the individual states and counties. They are talking about pre mandate averages trending upwards and post mandate averages flattening.  You are trying to make this about specific and individual counties and states, when they were talking about national average effect. 

Why shouldn't it have been promoted by the media, because you disagree with it?  It is a solid study despite what you think.  2 month old data in any published paper is not considered "outdated".  It shows that mandates were effective within 2 months of publishing.  You can't deny that they worked during the 7 month period of the study.  You could try and argue that given the recent surge, mask mandates are no longer effective - but then you would have to give a legitimate reason as to why you think they were effective within a 7 month span that ended 2 months ago but for some mysterious reason they are not effective now.  What is your hypothesis?  The only result that would change are the averages in figure 3 - but they would still be lower than the pre-mandate averages.  The line wouldn't be flat, it would still be inclining, but the 13% decrease relative to the mean would stay the same however.  There would be no logical reason why that would change.  And if that doesn't change, then the only conclusion we can make is that mask mandates are effective.  

I disagree about your comment regarding economists studying the efficacy of mask mandates.  Their study was primarily on the economic impact of mask mandates and the statistical analysis of their effectiveness.  The one (economic benefit) is directly related to the other (efficacy). 

I do think that your opinion about masks is relevant to the discussion.  It helps me understand where you are coming from and why you might disagree that mask mandates are effective.  If I had to guess, either, 1) you think that masks aren't effective - explaining your hesitancy to believe that mask mandates are effective (why would you argue that mask mandates are ineffective if masks work? - it would be totally illogical), or 2) you believe that masks are effective but think that mask mandates are a violation of your liberty and thus will attack any study which are favorable to mask mandates to protect your liberty.  Those are the only 2 reasons I can think of as to why someone might disagree that mask mandates are effective.  I will keep an open mind though if you can share alternative reasons. 

By happenstance, seriously it was just some random turn of events, I found the MIT/UCSF paper that they withdrew.

 

One of their withdrawn keypoints was 
KEY POINTS
Question: Are mask mandates with an increase in population-wide facial masking in the U.S. associated with decreased hospitalizations due to COVID-19? 

Finding: We found a statistically significant drop of up to 7.13 (95% CI: -4.19, -10.1) percentage points in COVID- 19 hospitalizations following mask mandates, while controlling for age categories in the county, testing and cases normalized by population, and population mobility (as a way to control for other nonpharmaceutical
interventions such as sheltering-in-place).

They withdrew their paper and the following is now part of the abstract:

 

Quote

Withdrawal The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed in this study. New analyses in the context of the third surge in the United States are therefore needed and will be undertaken directly in conjunction with the creators of the publicly-available databases on cases, hospitalizations, testing rates.

The UCSF researchers are with the  Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

When a very red Governor, who has essentially not taken any meaningful action on covid puts forth a study from economist in a very red state, which study at least facially appears to make same and/or similar claims that researchers associated with an Epidemiology Department and Infectious Disease, and the researchers with an Epidemiology Department withdrawn their study, I think it is reasonable to question the economist.    

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

When a very red Governor, who has essentially not taken any meaningful action on covid puts forth a study from economist in a very red state, which study at least facially appears to make same and/or similar claims that researchers associated with an Epidemiology Department and Infectious Disease, and the researchers with an Epidemiology Department withdrawn their study, I think it is reasonable to question the economist.    

Like I said, totally different methodology, totally different controls, totally different authors, totally different study, and importantly - this one has not been withdrawn.  You can't compare the two.  In the same way, you can't downplay all chloroquine studies because 1 or 2 were withdrawn or retracted.   The UofU study, by the way, directly addresses post mandate surges in their data, which the study you reference doesn't appear to.  It was much more comprehensive in scope with more controls and covered a much larger span of time across the entire nation on state and county levels, with mandates starting at different time periods in the pandemic. 

I would also note that the study you reference doesn't refute it's results, it simply suggests that they want to include data from the most recent surge and are continuing the study before publishing.  Lets wait and see what their new results with the recent surge suggests.  Your dismissal of this study is premature - let alone both studies.  Furthermore, I linked to other studies by the CDC and others which corroborates the data and results too.   One withdrawal for further study is not evidence that mandates don't work.   I would have you note that a withdrawal of a study by the author for further study is very different from a retraction of a study that has been disproven or has some major error in methodology, etc.  https://sites.kowsarpub.com/hepatmon/knowledgebase/display/withdraw-vs-retraction.html

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
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...