Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php
I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.
except that they do not stop community spread.
you have a forest & trees problem.
No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.
No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.
Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.
They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.
If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....
Because they slow community spread. From your link:
Quote:
Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.
After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.
"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."
Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.
The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.
unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.
And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?
Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....