Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[Robert J Anderson]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is transmitted via aerosols, but the primary mode of transmission is droplets.  

Masks won’t stop the spread but they will reduce the primary mode of transmission.

Do you disagree that there is medical consensus that they work? 

Yeah, the consensus says masks work, but "work" is ambiguous at this point.  I think the better question now is how much the masks slow the spread, if at all, and whether aerosol transmission is the controlling factor in the spread. 

If masks reduce the primary mode of droplet transmission yet don't stop aerosol transmission, does it matter?   If you are in an indoor work setting/grocery store, etc., where people are masked, eventually you will be exposed to the aerosol transmission because aerosols aren't stopped.  Has it been determined whether aerosol transmission is sufficient to drive the infection numbers?  This study seems to say that the numbers aren't changed regardless of mask mandates, pointing to perhaps aerosol transmission driving the bus. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1 

[Chum]

edit: decided to leave this to @pogi and go play

Edited September 5, 2021 by Chum

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Yeah, the consensus says masks work, but "work" is ambiguous at this point.  I think the better question now is how much the masks slow the spread, if at all, and whether aerosol transmission is the controlling factor in the spread. 

If masks reduce the primary mode of droplet transmission yet don't stop aerosol transmission, does it matter?   If you are in an indoor work setting/grocery store, etc., where people are masked, eventually you will be exposed to the aerosol transmission because aerosols aren't stopped.  Has it been determined whether aerosol transmission is sufficient to drive the infection numbers?  This study seems to say that the numbers aren't changed regardless of mask mandates, pointing to perhaps aerosol transmission driving the bus. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1 

Yes, reducing the "primary mode of transmission" helps.  And there is strong evidence to back that up.

From your link:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Let me show you the preponderance of evidence on mask mandates (again - since you apparently you aren't following the thread) that have actually been peer reviewed and published in journals:

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

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

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-021-00517-2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407620303468

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253510

https://www.unthsc.edu/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/COVID-19-report-July-20-updated.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951820/

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

When one infected person transmits the Delta virus to 5 others on average, and each of those 5 transmit it to 5 others, etc. etc.  You see how even reducing one infection can be significant and important in slowing the spread and reducing the burden on hospitals. 

Medical and scientific consensus back masks.  The prophets back masks.  You have medicine, science, and religion all backing masks...what foundation are you standing on exactly?  If all of those things are saying the same thing, and you are saying something else, it is probably a good time to sit down and really consider your position.  One pre-print study that has not been peer reviewed is not enough to stand up against the preponderance of evidence you have, despite what your favorite radio personality might say about it. 

Edited September 5, 2021 by pogi

[Robert J Anderson]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you really think your position is representative of “the research”?

”Not as effective as advertised”?  By who?

The research exists and should be factored into what the consensus is.  If it turns out that even though masks stop droplet transmission but don't stop aerosol transmission, perhaps aerosol transmission is enough to drive the numbers we see. 

That's the implication of this research.  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1

This hasn't been peer reviewed yet but should be. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, reducing the "primary mode of transmission" helps.  And there is strong evidence to back that up.

From your link:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Let me show you the preponderance of evidence on mask mandates (again - since you apparently you aren't following the thread) that have actually been peer reviewed and published in journals:

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

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

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-021-00517-2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407620303468

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253510

https://www.unthsc.edu/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/COVID-19-report-July-20-updated.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951820/

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

When one infected person transmits the Delta virus to 5 others on average, and each of those 5 transmit it to 5 others, etc. etc.  You see how even reducing one infection can be significant and important in slowing the spread and reducing the burden on hospitals. 

Medical and scientific consensus back masks.  The prophets back masks.  You have medicine, science, and religion all backing masks...what foundation are you standing on exactly?  If all of those things are saying the same thing, and you are saying something else, it is probably a good time to sit down and really consider your position.  One pre-print study that has not been peer reviewed is not enough to stand up against the preponderance of evidence you have, despite what your favorite radio personality might say about it. 

I love dueling websites. 
 

As Johnny Carson used to ask, “Who do you trust?”

 

https://escipub.com/Articles/IRJPH/IRJPH-2021-08-1005.pdf

Quote

 

Background: COVID-19 pandemic mitigation requires evidence- based strategies. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, most US states mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use were associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States.

 

Methods: We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates.

 

Results: Earlier mask mandates were not associated with lower total cases or lower maximum growth rates. Earlier mandates were weakly associated with lower minimum COVID-19 growth rates. Mask use predicted lower minimum but not lower maximum growth rates. Growth rates and total growth were comparable between US states in the first and last mask use quintiles during the Fall-Winter wave. These observations persisted for both natural logarithmic and fold growth models and when adjusting for differences in US state population density. Conclusions: We did not observe association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states. COVID-19 mitigation requires further research and use of existing efficacious strategies, most notably vaccination.

 

 

 

Quote

In conclusion, we found mask mandates and use to be poor predictors of COVID-19 spread in US states. Strengths of our study include assessing COVID-19 association with both mandates and reported use; evaluating both Ln and Fold growth models; accounting for population density differences; and measuring case growth after modeled mandate effective dates in states with late or no mandates. Our study also has key limitations. We did not assess counties or localities, which may trend independently of state averages. While dense sampling promotes convergence, IHME masking estimates are subject to survey bias. We only assessed one biological quantity [confirmed and probable COVID-19], but the ongoing pandemic warrants assessment of other factors such as hospitalizations and mortality. Importantly, our study does not disprove the efficacy of all masks in limited and controlled circumstances, such as properly worn N95 respirators. A recent study found that at typical respiratory fluence rates, medical masks decrease airway deposition of 10-20μm SARS-CoV-2 particles but not 1-5μm SARS-CoV-2 aerosols [45]. Aerosol expulsion increases with COVID-19 disease severity in non-human primates, as well as with age 

BMI in humans without COVID-19 [46]. Together with enhanced vaccination rates, aerosol treatment with improved ventilation and air purification could help reduce the size of COVID- 19 outbreaks.
 

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I love dueling websites. 
 

As Johnny Carson used to ask, “Who do you trust?”

 

https://escipub.com/Articles/IRJPH/IRJPH-2021-08-1005.pdf

Background: COVID-19 pandemic mitigation requires evidence- based strategies. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, most US states mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use were associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States.

Methods: We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates.

Results: Earlier mask mandates were not associated with lower total cases or lower maximum growth rates. Earlier mandates were weakly associated with lower minimum COVID-19 growth rates. Mask use predicted lower minimum but not lower maximum growth rates. Growth rates and total growth were comparable between US states in the first and last mask use quintiles during the Fall-Winter wave. These observations persisted for both natural logarithmic and fold growth models and when adjusting for differences in US state population density. Conclusions: We did not observe association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states. COVID-19 mitigation requires further research and use of existing efficacious strategies, most notably vaccination.

That’s how science works.  You follow the preponderance of evidence.  You are unlikely to find one scientific study that doesn’t have another study which seems to come to a different conclusion.  
It doesn’t seem that your 1 article has been enough to sway medical and scientific consensus, nor has it swayed our prophets.
 

Edited September 5, 2021 by pogi

[Robert J Anderson]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, reducing the "primary mode of transmission" helps.  And there is strong evidence to back that up.

From your link:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Let me show you the preponderance of evidence on mask mandates (again - since you apparently you aren't following the thread) that have actually been peer reviewed and published in journals:

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

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

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-021-00517-2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407620303468

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253510

https://www.unthsc.edu/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/COVID-19-report-July-20-updated.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951820/

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

When one infected person transmits the Delta virus to 5 others on average, and each of those 5 transmit it to 5 others, etc. etc.  You see how even reducing one infection can be significant and important in slowing the spread and reducing the burden on hospitals. 

Medical and scientific consensus back masks.  The prophets back masks.  You have medicine, science, and religion all backing masks...what foundation are you standing on exactly?  If all of those things are saying the same thing, and you are saying something else, it is probably a good time to sit down and really consider your position.  One pre-print study that has not been peer reviewed is not enough to stand up against the preponderance of evidence you have, despite what your favorite radio personality might say about it. 

Sometimes the consensus is wrong.  The consensus is against us as members.  Most don't belong to our church, but we are continuing the effort.  Scientists and even prophets are fallible.  The consensus among doctors used to be to prescribe bleeding.  Our leaders have said some questionable things in the past and then changed when new light and knowledge was given.  Newtonian physics, in part, gave way to Einstein.

Also, there are other studies on mask effectiveness and the flu virus prior to the push to mask everyone.  California v. Florida numbers showed that mask mandates didn't affect the infection numbers.  Maybe aerosol transmission is what drives this?  Would you be willing to admit that perhaps the mask mandates were an over-reaction to a disease that has a less than 1% mortality rate and mostly affects people in a mild fashion?  Also, it looks like having and surviving the mild covid-19 illness provides better protection than the vaccines.  Are you ready for the third, fourth and fifth dose?  I'm not.

Maybe the better approach was to allow infection and take care of those immunocompromised?

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

That’s how science works.  You follow the preponderance of evidence.  You are unlikely to find one scientific study that doesn’t have another study which seems to come to a different conclusion.  
It doesn’t seem that your 1 article has been enough to sway medical and scientific consensus. 

 

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I love dueling websites. 
 

As Johnny Carson used to ask, “Who do you trust?”

 

https://escipub.com/Articles/IRJPH/IRJPH-2021-08-1005.pdf

 

 

 

Yes, thank you, I know how science works. And so with a wave of the hand, Dr. Guerra et al are swept away. I love it.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Sometimes the consensus is wrong.  The consensus is against us as members.  Most don't belong to our church, but we are continuing the effort.  Scientists and even prophets are fallible.  The consensus among doctors used to be to prescribe bleeding.  Our leaders have said some questionable things in the past and then changed when new light and knowledge was given.  Newtonian physics, in part, gave way to Einstein.

Also, there are other studies on mask effectiveness and the flu virus prior to the push to mask everyone.  California v. Florida numbers showed that mask mandates didn't affect the infection numbers.  Maybe aerosol transmission is what drives this?  Would you be willing to admit that perhaps the mask mandates were an over-reaction to a disease that has a less than 1% mortality rate and mostly affects people in a mild fashion?  Also, it looks like having and surviving the mild covid-19 illness provides better protection than the vaccines.  Are you ready for the third, fourth and fifth dose?  I'm not.

Maybe the better approach was to allow infection and take care of those immunocompromised?

Are you really comparing medical consensus to religious consensus?

Take care of the immunocompromised? As if we haven’t done that already. 

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Yes, thank you, I know how science works. And so with a wave of the hand, Dr. Guerra et al are swept away. I love it.

They can’t both be right, if you understand how science works...

What does the preponderance of evidence tell us?  What do the prophets say?  Does this article really stand up against the medical field and the prophets?

Edited September 5, 2021 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

They can’t both be right, if you understand how science works...

What does the preponderance of evidence tell us?  What do the prophets say?  Does this article really stand up against the medical field and the prophets?

Rather than address the actual findings of a recent study, you have resorted to an appeal to authority…science, government, and religion, the Tripple Whammy. Who would dare question?

Edited September 5, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Rather than address the actual findings of a recent study, you have resorted to an appeal to authority…science, government, and religion, the Tripple Whammy. Who would dare question?

Funny, I posted like six or seven studies that show that mask mandates work.  Rather than address the actual findings, you have swept them away with one lone study.  The sad thing is, you don’t even have authority to appeal to, you simply appeal to this study - as if the preponderance of evidence that contradicts it doesn’t exist.  
 

Yes, the triple whammy should cause one to seriously question their position, especially if all they have is one study and their favorite radio personality to appeal to.

[Robert J Anderson]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you really comparing medical consensus to religious consensus?

Take care of the immunocompromised? As if we haven’t done that already. 

You are the one who brought up the religious angle in your attempt to guilt me into not questioning the consensus.  I think good science always questions the supposed consensus.  That is how progress is made. 

Also, we need to stop the trend of bullying and cancelling those who disagree.  Opposition in all things, even in the scientific realm, keeps us honest.  The science is never settled.  Perhaps the vaccines could be made to be better, cover the variants better, perhaps stop transmission like other vaccines do?  Maybe we jumped on the vaccine bandwagon too early?  These questions need to be discussed and researched.  It looks like this is becoming like the flu shot where the pharmaceutical companies cannot keep up with the continually mutating virus.  Other methods in attacking this need to be researched and not automatically, emotionally discounted like we see with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.    

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Funny, I posted like six or seven studies that show that mask mandates work.  Rather than address the actual findings, you have swept them away with one lone study.  The sad thing is, you don’t even have authority to appeal to, you simply appeal to this study - as if the preponderance of evidence that contradicts it doesn’t exist.  
 

Yes, the triple whammy should cause one to seriously question their position, especially if all they have is one study and their favorite radio personality to appeal to.

No, I did not sweep anything away. That was your response. Presenting another set of data from a responsible source for consideration is the scientific method. An appeal to authority is not 

To which radio personality am I appealing?🤣

Edited September 5, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I did not sweep anything away. That was your response. 

You didn’t sweep them away? Where did you address their findings As you expect me to do with your study?  Apparently your study deserves critical review but mine don’t.

Got it!

 

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

You didn’t sweep them away? Where did you address their findings?

I have never rejected their findings. In fact, I have appealed to them in other discussions about masks. For all I know they may be spot on. I presented a different set of data and you reflexively dismissed it with a wave of your hand.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I never rejected have their findings. In fact, I have appealed to them in other discussions about masks. For all I know they may be spot on. I presented a different set of data and you reflexively dismissed it with a wave of your hand.

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that mask mandates might work after all you have said on these forms over the last year and a half? You truly Don’t have an opinion on the matter?  After everything you’ve heard read researched etc. where do you stand on masks Bernard? I find it very hard to believe that there is a neutral person alive today.

Edited September 5, 2021 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that mask mandates might work after all you have said on these forms over the last year and a half? You truly Don’t have an opinion on the matter?  After everything you’ve heard read researched etc. where do you stand on masks Bernard? I find it very hard to believe that there is a neutral person alive today.

Having grown up in the most scientific community in world history, I have great respect for scientists, but I also acknowledge their human fallibility. All the consensus in the world did not prevent a number of friends’ fathers dying from radiation poisoning. 

I look at many sources including those you recommend, others like the above study that seem to be legitimately in opposition. I question inconsistencies and contradictions and weigh against personal observations.

There is so much hypocritically inconsistent messaging, posturing, and implementation to be found all around us. I believe much of the resistance to masking and vaccinations comes from this constant confusion.

For example, masks are mandated for 20 elementary students in a classroom, but not for crowds of thousands of sports fans. In Uber-locked down Washington some public events like a boat fair are cancelled but the State Fair with up to a million visitors goes on.  

Where do I stand on masking? That’s simple. I believe it can have some positive effect when observed properly. From what I can tell, that is the scientific consensus. From what I have observed, very few folks if any actually follow the protocols.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

23 hours ago, Chum said:

 

We know that higher compliance reduces infection rates.  This tells us that wherever Multnomah infection rates are, they'd be even higher with lower mask compliance.

It totally depends on what your mask is made of, how tight it is to your face, and how it is worn. No one does anyone favors by using "mask" as if it is a one size fits all thing. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Sometimes the consensus is wrong.  The consensus is against us as members.  Most don't belong to our church, but we are continuing the effort.  Scientists and even prophets are fallible.  The consensus among doctors used to be to prescribe bleeding.  Our leaders have said some questionable things in the past and then changed when new light and knowledge was given.  Newtonian physics, in part, gave way to Einstein.

Also, there are other studies on mask effectiveness and the flu virus prior to the push to mask everyone.  California v. Florida numbers showed that mask mandates didn't affect the infection numbers.  Maybe aerosol transmission is what drives this?  Would you be willing to admit that perhaps the mask mandates were an over-reaction to a disease that has a less than 1% mortality rate and mostly affects people in a mild fashion?  Also, it looks like having and surviving the mild covid-19 illness provides better protection than the vaccines.  Are you ready for the third, fourth and fifth dose?  I'm not.

Maybe the better approach was to allow infection and take care of those immunocompromised?

It seems pretty convenient to simply dismiss the preponderance of evidence and the scientific consensus when it does not confirm your bias. Masks do prevent the spread. You are simply incorrect.  No mask mandates were not an overreaction.  1% morality rate it high. 300 million infected means 3 million dead. We saw and are seeing once again that hospital are being overwhelmed with covid cases so there is a ripple effect. Deaths from Covid at 650 K and many experts think it is higher and then add deaths from non Covid infections but pandemic related and we could be at 900k.  Mild Covid only helps build immunity for the variant you get. Not for others. Not so with the vaccine. God help us with people like you that refuse to follow the real science. If we have have a pandemic as contagious as covid with a 5% plus mortality rate we are doomed.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Maybe the better approach was to allow infection and take care of those immunocompromised?

Yea how did that work in Sweden?  How is it going in Florida?

[juliann]

Just now, Teancum said:

It seems pretty convenient to simply dismiss the preponderance of evidence and the scientific consensus when it does not confirm your bias. Masks do prevent the spread. You are simply incorrect.  No mask mandates were not an overreaction.  1% morality rate it high. 300 million infected means 3 million dead. We saw and are seeing once again that hospital are being overwhelmed with covid cases so there is a ripple effect. Deaths from Covid at 650 K and many experts think it is higher and then add deaths from non Covid infections but pandemic related and we could be at 900k.  Mild Covid only helps build immunity for the variant you get. Not for others. Not so with the vaccine. God help us with people like you that refuse to follow the real science. If we have have a pandemic as contagious as covid with a 5% plus mortality rate we are doomed.

Don't want to get into all the rest, but "masks" are not all equal. So there couldn't be a "scientific" consensus without studying each homemade mask, or single layer whatever bought off the shelf along with how much leakage there is. Nothing is going to be scientific until we stop the any mask at all is magic nonsense. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Other methods in attacking this need to be researched and not automatically, emotionally discounted like we see with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.    

Study away!  If they are effective then use it. Problem is ivermectin has not been through any rigorous blind studies.  People scream about the vaccine.  Well guess what?  Billions have been vaccinates.  Hundreds of millions in the US. Very few problems.  Yet you are promoting horse de wormer and it has not been through any substantive clinical trials for Covid treatment.  Yet ant vaxxers are drinking this stuff.  You cannot  make  this stuff up.

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Don't want to get into all the rest, but "masks" are not all equal. So there couldn't be a "scientific" consensus without studying each homemade mask, or single layer whatever bought off the shelf along with how much leakage there is. Nothing is going to be scientific until we stop the any mask at all is magic nonsense. 

I never said that any mask is magic so I don't really need to argue the point.  

[SteveO]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I never said that any mask is magic so I don't really need to argue the point.  

And yet you said:

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Masks do prevent the spread.

Without specifying, that just isn’t a true statement.