Coronavirus

[Scat]

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I see quite a distance between the highest values of the CI in the mask-required group and the lowest values of the CI in the non-masked group. I have no explanation for your inability to process numbers.

The numbers in the brackets are the margin of error. If a thing had an effect of 10% with a margin of error of +/- 5%, it would say 0.90 (0.85-0.95). When the high side is higher than 1 it means the margin of error is larger than the observed effect.

IN A PETRI DISH, AT LEVELS THAT WOULD POISON A HUMAN BEING. It has no effect at all in clinical trials.

In what? In clinical trails you say? On people? You think the information from the tests on people is more telling than what happened in a lab? Me too! The CDC thinks that and the FDA thinks that. I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

[One Brow]

The numbers in the brackets are the margin of error. If a thing had an effect of 10% with a margin of error of +/- 5%, it would say 0.90 (0.85-0.95). When the high side is higher than 1 it means the margin of error is larger than the observed effect.

Right, this data would only pass a 90% confidence interval, not a 95%. I suppose those extra live pale in camparison to the superiority of the 95% CI over the 90% CI, even when there is no significant downside to the mask mandate.

Still, you agree masking is effective when also applied to teachers as well as students, right?

Mask requirements for teachers and staff members¶¶
Optional	57 (33.7)	29,881	264	4.42 (3.92–4.98)	Ref
Required	110 (65.1)	61,190	298	2.44 (2.17–2.73)	0.63 (0.47–0.85)

Me too! The CDC thinks that and the FDA thinks that. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Me too. Of course, the CDC and FDA also think that we don't sacrifice giving people the best known care during clinical trials whether in the control group or not, which would include requiring masks, while you seem to disagree, so perhaps it's not as clear as you claim.

 

[One Brow]

That's some pretty good satire.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Right, this data would only pass a 90% confidence interval, not a 95%.

No, you're thinking of it backwards. A 90% CI would have a greater range. A higher CI would have a lower range but the researchers in this case did not believe a higher CI to be justified.

there is no significant downside to the mask mandate.

The effectivness of masks and the effectivness of mask mandates are entirely different and should not be conflated. It is also far too soon to assert there being no significant downside to mask mandates. I am very much looking forward to seeing the impact on the fertility rate in areas covered by mask mandates. The mask is a visible reminder that everyone can infect and maybe even kill you if you get too close to them. I'm curious as to the rates of pregnancy in areas where that visible reminder is omnipresent versus areas where it is not.

Still, you agree masking is effective when also applied to teachers

I believe the 37% cited in the summary applies to teachers alone but it is important to note that students rarely infect teachers meaning likely all teachers who did become infected likely became infected someplace other than the school where they were wearing masks. I think it is possible teachers who wore masks may have behaved socially different in their non-work life than teachers who made the decision to not wear masks. Even if the 37% can truly be attributed to the device rather than behavior, that still isn't a lot. It is less than putting a filter in the room. I think the only answer is vaccination.

 

[One Brow]

No, you're thinking of it backwards. A 90% CI would have a greater range. A higher CI would have a lower range but the researchers in this case did not believe a higher CI to be justified.

I am very sure not. A 100% CI would have infinite range. A 1% CI would have almost no range. Higher CIs lead to wider ranges of data.

The effectivness of masks and the effectivness of mask mandates are entirely different and should not be conflated.

Then, you feel this study was useless for determining the efficiency of masks? Why include it, then?

I am very much looking forward to seeing the impact on the fertility rate in areas covered by mask mandates.

Unless it affects the next 10 years, I don't see this as a significant issue.

I believe the 37% cited in the summary applies to teachers alone but it is important to note that students rarely infect teachers meaning likely all teachers who did become infected likely became infected someplace other than the school where they were wearing masks.

Of course, you can provide evidence for this claim that the rate of student->teacher infection is about 1/30th the rate of teacher->student, since there is a 30:1 classroom ratio?

I think it is possible teachers who wore masks may have behaved socially different in their non-work life than teachers who made the decision to not wear masks. Even if the 37% can truly be attributed to the device rather than behavior, that still isn't a lot. It is less than putting a filter in the room.

Doing both took the reduction to 51%.

I think the only answer is vaccination.

I think it's short-sighted to rely on a single solution.

 

[Safetydan]

I am very much looking forward to seeing the impact on the fertility rate in areas covered by mask mandates. The mask is a visible reminder that everyone can infect and maybe even kill you if you get too close to them. I'm curious as to the rates of pregnancy in areas where that visible reminder is omnipresent versus areas where it is not.

LMAO. WTF is this take?

 

[Avery]

LMAO. WTF is this take?

It's well-established that mask wearing is part of safe sex.

And I feel like this is probably an actual fetish so I'm just going to bow out now.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Then, you feel this study was useless for determining the efficiency of masks? Why include it, then?

First, the word is 'efficacy' not 'efficiency'. I include it because at showing you 21% efficacy for students and 37% efficacy for teachers I am steelmanning your argument. For those who think masks are wonderful, those are the best the numbers get. Remember that this study was from before vaccines were widely available which means this is the original wild type SARS-CoV-2. If masks were that ineffective against the original, how well do you think they do at stopping Delta variant with a viral load 300 times as high as the original SARS-CoV-2? I'll give you a hint:

Of course, you can provide evidence for this claim that the rate of student->teacher infection is about 1/30th the rate of teacher->student, since there is a 30:1 classroom ratio?

It isn't 1/30th of the rate. Student to teacher infections are practically non-existent and of course I can provide peer reviewed research published in a reputable academic journal.

Incidence and Secondary Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Schools

In the first 9 weeks of in-person instruction in North Carolina schools, we found extremely limited within-school secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2, determined by contact tracing.

pediatrics.aappublications.org

 

[Al-O-Meter]

LMAO. WTF is this take?

Early assessment of the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and births in high-income countries

Drawing on past pandemics, scholars have suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic will bring about fertility decline. Evidence from actual birth data has so far been scarce. This brief report uses data on vital statistics from a selection of high-income countries, including the United States. The...

www.pnas.org

 

[Safetydan]

Early assessment of the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and births in high-income countries

Drawing on past pandemics, scholars have suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic will bring about fertility decline. Evidence from actual birth data has so far been scarce. This brief report uses data on vital statistics from a selection of high-income countries, including the United States. The...

www.pnas.org

Cool, you should just say that a pandemic affects fertility rates. I'm on board with that because that makes sense.

Mask mandates = less sex is a garbage conclusion to make because mask mandates and no-more-sexy-time are clearly contemporaneous and independent results of the same cause - a pandemic.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's well-established that mask wearing is part of safe sex.

And I feel like this is probably an actual fetish so I'm just going to bow out now.

Damn straight. You're obviously a PF (plain face). GTFOH

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Cool, you should just say that a pandemic affects fertility rates. I'm on board with that because that makes sense.

Mask mandates = less sex is a garbage conclusion to make because mask mandates and no-more-sexy-time are clearly contemporaneous and independent results of the same cause - a pandemic.

It is more of a hypothesis, but I think masks remind people there is a pandemic and the social outcomes correlated with pandemics will be stronger where there are mask mandates. I'm looking forward at being able to compare fertility drops between states with mask mandates versus states without mask mandates. You may be correct and there will be no difference, but we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[One Brow]

Firstly, the word is 'efficacy' not 'efficiency'. I include it because at showing you 21% efficacy for students and 37% efficacy for teachers I am steelmanning your argument. For those who think masks are wonderful, those are the best the numbers get. Remember that this study was from before vaccines were widely available which means this is the original wild type SARS-CoV-2. If masks were that ineffective against the original, how well do you think they do at stopping Delta variant with a viral load 300 times as high as the original SARS-CoV-2?

About 37%, since the higher viral load applies whether or not the infected person is masked. However, if you have a sound argument for higher or lower, make it.

You're certainly aren't going to prove anything by repeating a single incidence.

It isn't 1/30th of the rate. Student to teacher infections are practically non-existent and of course I can provide peer reviewed research published in a reputable academic journal.

Through contact tracing, health department staff determined an additional 32 infections were acquired within schools. No instances of child-to-adult transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were reported within schools.

32 to 0 is not out of line with a 30-1 ratio, or even 20-1.

Clusters of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Elementary ...

This report describes an investigation of clusters of SARV-CoV-2 ...

www.cdc.gov

An educator was the index patient in four clusters (B, E, F, and I), a student was the index patient in one cluster (H), and in four clusters (A, C, D, and G), whether the index patient was the student, the educator, or both (i.e., two index cases occurred) could not be determined.

So, "practically non-existent" means "existent", and in ratios not dissimilar from the expected ones.

By the way, do you agree there is also student-to-student transmission to consider?

 

[One Brow]

Early assessment of the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and births in high-income countries

Drawing on past pandemics, scholars have suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic will bring about fertility decline. Evidence from actual birth data has so far been scarce. This brief report uses data on vital statistics from a selection of high-income countries, including the United States. The...

www.pnas.org

Doesn't mention masks at all. Why do you make arguments and pretend to support them like this?

 

[jazzVA]

This site is considered poor taste by some (the link, not JF although I could see that argument as well). It’s considered poor taste in the way smokers don’t like those grim cancer commercials. Others may find it persuasive but probably only those already persuaded.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

An educator was the index patient in four clusters (B, E, F, and I), a student was the index patient in one cluster (H), and in four clusters (A, C, D, and G), whether the index patient was the student, the educator, or both (i.e., two index cases occurred) could not be determined.

I don't think you understood that study. In the one cluster where the student was the index patient (cluster H), no teacher was ever infected. In that entire study they did not find a single conclusive incident of a student infecting a teacher. It isn't impossible, but students infecting teachers is almost nonexistent.

 

[One Brow]

I don't think you understood that study. In the one cluster where the student was the index patient (cluster H), no teacher was ever infected. In that entire study they did not find a single conclusive incident of a student infecting a teacher. It isn't impossible, but students infecting teachers is almost nonexistent.

Yet, I'm sure you agree that student-student paths also need to be controlled, right?

 

[GVC]

I know it puts me in the minority, but I'm all for it. If Joe Rogan wants to experiment with Ivermectin then I think it is great and I hope it works. My only caveat is that I hope all the data is collected, good outcome or bad, so that our knowledge base increases. I'm all for experimentation, and if a grown adult wants to subject his or her body to experimentation I believe they should be allowed.

Yes. Absolutely this.

Also agree that current vaccines and the continued development of vaccines are our best hope. The widespread poo-pooing of (experimental) treatments as a complement to immunization is stupidly counterproductive.

 

[Douchebag K]

Why? Made sense to me.

Do you guys over there really hate each other that much ?