LOL the Army study I posted literally has the words "County" and "Level" adjacent to one another in the subject line.Sam Lowry said:Again, the Army study does not claim to measure the benefit of masks per se. The fact that you've been citing it, and only it, for months and months without ever addressing the dozens of other studies on mask effectiveness should clue you in that you need to dig deeper.Quote:I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.Quote:The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.Quote:I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.Quote:I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.Quote: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.Quote:Because they slow community spread. From your link:Quote:If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....Quote:
They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.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.
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.....
Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..
Show us.
Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/
It's not impossible to compare states. It's just a lot more complicated than you'd like to make it. That's true in part because states like Florida and Texas were often at odds with their own local authorities, creating a patchwork of different policies. County-level data is much more meaningful. Despite the complexities and the disagreement over lockdowns and related issues, masks were one of the most clearly successful mitigation practices.
You can offer theory and opinion of others that masks stop community spread, but the plain outcome in the real world is inescapably clear. In the places masks were worn most - states and counties with mandates - mask wearing had no impact on community spread.