Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
Perhaps, when someone agrees with you, you assume they are more socially adept. And, when someone disagrees with you, you assume they are naturally disagreeable.
There is a pattern there, but it has nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the listener.
The other criticism I’ve seen is that the study does not fully capture the impact of the winter wave when even places like California went up.
You’re trying to refute a regression with a pair of side by side comparisons carefully selected by advocates?
Do you want to explain why that line of reasoning is worthless, or shall I?
One of the great disconnects here I suspect is we have a lot of i (introverted health policy experts who went into their fields because it offered a way to manage data and policy instead of patients and staff) who have very little idea or empathy of what the es (highly extroverted people) are going through. Really think about it....the idea that 20 somethings who aren’t married or cohabitating are going to go a year without dating Or have a fling...does anyone really imagine that’s possible?
See your earlier comment on variants. If you grant the importance of correcting for variants, you can’t bring up the socal winter spike without correcting for the variant that made it as large as it was.
Oh I’m not holding up the slide by slide comparison as the rubric. I’m just saying if the cdc were serious about doing a county by county analysis they would have used the county level mandates and side by side county results as the basis for their study. They did a few early on but then stopped when the charges of date selectivity came up.
Again though a comparison of county by county mandates of side by side counties in states without full mandates would have corrected for that. The examples do exist as I’ve pointed out
met61
GOLD
Or, I'm over the target.
I would say you're over the target sir. First, they come up with a Scam. Second, they come up with a Plan to make the Scam work. Third, you need to Demic up the population and then add the following names to it: Epi and or Pan. I personally would use Scam and Plan instead or Epi and Pan to Demic, but that's MOO. The good news today is I'm driving South to watch my dd ball. I hope she can run today. She got a slicer on her foot surfing the other day.
met61
GOLD
Amazing who folks blindly bestow power upon, then so willfully bow to them. Listen to the LA teachers union president sometime, a real gem with power.
Desert Hound
DA
This is from last yr. The science hasn't changed. The politics has.
“It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something—whether it’s a scarf or a mask—in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,” says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. The only problem: that’s not effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, “the CDC would have recommended it years ago,” he says.
The science, according to the CDC, says that surgical masks won’t stop the wearer from inhaling small airborne particles, which can cause infection. Nor do these masks form a snug seal around the face.
The above is what the CDC and other orgs were saying for decades.
web.archive.org
“It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something—whether it’s a scarf or a mask—in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,” says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. The only problem: that’s not effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, “the CDC would have recommended it years ago,” he says.
The science, according to the CDC, says that surgical masks won’t stop the wearer from inhaling small airborne particles, which can cause infection. Nor do these masks form a snug seal around the face.
The above is what the CDC and other orgs were saying for decades.
Health Experts Are Telling Healthy People Not to Wear Face Masks for Coronavirus. So Why Are So Many Doing It?
The government and most health experts keep telling the public not to wear face masks for coronavirus. So why are they doing it anyway?
Quick analysis of b.1.117 (UK variant), and the next 2 months.
Nationally- number of cases is doubling a bit faster than once per two weeks. (R = 1.4 or so.). Currently at 15K or so cases per day. Expect it to continue doubling until vaccines cover enough additional people to counteract the higher R. That is, we need to vaccinate 4/14 of those who are not yet immune. 2/7 x .84 = another 24% of the country. 80 M more people vaccinated. 2 months before it turns around for vaccines. 4 more doublings. 120K cases per day peak.
Big things I missed: 1- recovered b.1.117 cases will bring the peak lower. 2- Any vaccinations will slow the doubling, even if we don’t get to 80M more. 3- Over excited reopening will make the peak go higher. I am treating these as offsetting each other, but I suspect the third factor is bigger than the first or second.
California- b.1.117 has stalled at 15% of cases. Dad guess is that b.1.117 can’t make further inroads because it isn’t much stronger than the already dominant LA variant. If true, it means CA won’t have a b.1.117 peak. However, CA is opening dining, theaters, and stadiums, so expect case counts to remain high for a while. Case counts can’t go up too far without putting us back in purple and closing it all down again.
So, another national peak in the 100K-150K cases per day range. CA hanging out at the red/purple boundary. (Cases go down, open something stupid. Our stupid thing forces cases back up, close down the stupid. Repeat.)
Be glad the line for soccer is at 14 instead of at yellow. With dining open, I am no longer optimistic that we can hit yellow this spring.
(again, not an epidemiologist. So don’t take this too seriously.)
Nationally- number of cases is doubling a bit faster than once per two weeks. (R = 1.4 or so.). Currently at 15K or so cases per day. Expect it to continue doubling until vaccines cover enough additional people to counteract the higher R. That is, we need to vaccinate 4/14 of those who are not yet immune. 2/7 x .84 = another 24% of the country. 80 M more people vaccinated. 2 months before it turns around for vaccines. 4 more doublings. 120K cases per day peak.
Big things I missed: 1- recovered b.1.117 cases will bring the peak lower. 2- Any vaccinations will slow the doubling, even if we don’t get to 80M more. 3- Over excited reopening will make the peak go higher. I am treating these as offsetting each other, but I suspect the third factor is bigger than the first or second.
California- b.1.117 has stalled at 15% of cases. Dad guess is that b.1.117 can’t make further inroads because it isn’t much stronger than the already dominant LA variant. If true, it means CA won’t have a b.1.117 peak. However, CA is opening dining, theaters, and stadiums, so expect case counts to remain high for a while. Case counts can’t go up too far without putting us back in purple and closing it all down again.
So, another national peak in the 100K-150K cases per day range. CA hanging out at the red/purple boundary. (Cases go down, open something stupid. Our stupid thing forces cases back up, close down the stupid. Repeat.)
Be glad the line for soccer is at 14 instead of at yellow. With dining open, I am no longer optimistic that we can hit yellow this spring.
(again, not an epidemiologist. So don’t take this too seriously.)
If you read your March 2020 article carefully, you will notice they are still asking whether a mask protects the wearer. As you noted, we had been asking that question for decades.This is from last yr. The science hasn't changed. The politics has.
“It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something—whether it’s a scarf or a mask—in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,” says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. The only problem: that’s not effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, “the CDC would have recommended it years ago,” he says.
The science, according to the CDC, says that surgical masks won’t stop the wearer from inhaling small airborne particles, which can cause infection. Nor do these masks form a snug seal around the face.
The above is what the CDC and other orgs were saying for decades.
Health Experts Are Telling Healthy People Not to Wear Face Masks for Coronavirus. So Why Are So Many Doing It?
The government and most health experts keep telling the public not to wear face masks for coronavirus. So why are they doing it anyway?
It turns out that is the wrong question.
The science did change. We got smart enough to ask a better question: Does a mask protect other people from the wearer?
This is why you had to find the article on archive.org. The science in the article is out of date, and the original publisher does not want to publish out of date and misleading information.
Any single cause explanation will lead to a mismatch graph like that. That's why people run models and regressions like the CDC one.
Besides, you want mask usage versus Rt. It will still be a mismatch, but at least it will be the right mismatch.
To make this an objective experiment, one would also have to show the result on a vulnerable population that mostly didn't wear masks.