To Mask or Not to Mask?

[dusty88]

That does seem to be different from what you've been saying. You've been saying that you were skeptical that the viral load is sufficient to infect people. But nevertheless, I'll accept this.

So with that said, we agree, that it's possible that an asymptomatic carrier can transmit the virus to uninfected people. Now we're down to likelihoods. Which is where I'm at. Given your numbers above, let's say we're talking about 1% of the population is infected asymptomatically/presymptomatically at a given time. It seems like a reasonable number for likely scenarios. That one person goes to work, works closely with others who are not wearing masks, and infects someone. That person then infects someone else. And so on. If mask wearing reduces the R0 such that it's less than zero (certainly not something that's been proven) the virus would eventually burn out.

That's the information I want. I want to know what the effective R0 is when x% of the population wears masks correctly. Show me that curve and I'm might jump on the mask bandwagon. If it just bumps the effective R0 down a few hundredths, like from 2.4 to 2.397. **** that. It's not a lot more than noise. I think my own methods of avoiding spread are better than that. But if it's a few decimal points, like from 2.4 to say 1.9, okay. Now I'm interested. That might equate to a lot of lives that don't have to have a bad outcome from catching this virus. It sounds to me that through all the matter-of-factly language, this may be were you're at too.

I don't think you're going to get that level of detailed evidence in short order.

Researchers are still trying to figure out why this disease appears to be spread primarily by superspreaders: one hypothesis is something like 10% of the people do 80% of the spread. They don't know if it's something about those individuals, the viral load they contract, or that they happen to be out at the timing of their infection at just the right moment.

When I look at risk/reward I look not only at likelihoods, but at the severity of each outcome. If a mask reduces the likelihood of spreading the virus, that might be a significant result including saving lives of multiple people, getting schools open etc.
If a mask doesn't reduce the likelihood of disease spread significantly, you lose nothing but your pride or a few dollars you spent on your mask or ?? some perceived evil subversive influence that I'm not finding any serious evidence for.

In my view, if a mask might be even a small contributor to reducing transmission it's a step worth taking.

 

[jamil]

Clear, concise, well presented. Good job .

The point with the virus is,

1. It was called a 'Flu', two reasons that's wrong and minimized the threat.
'Flu' is a 'Presumptive Clinical Diagnosis' based on a group of symptoms, not a specific diagnosis based on identify the disease.
Food poisoning and internal infections present symptoms that are often mistaken for 'Flu' because of symptoms.
'Presumptive' is the key word in the definition.

So when you hear 'Kung Flu', you can be absolutely sure the person has no idea what they are talking about.

2. This virus is in the same general group of common colds.
While it's a new mutation and needs a lot of research, it's by no means a 'Cold'.
While the contagian rate is similar to the common cold, the common cold doesn't cause the inflammatory response and after effects this virus does.

What was suspected, and now proven, you CAN catch this over & over, just like the common cold...
And it's becoming apparent the symptoms become progressively worse with reinfection.
Some of the medical staff that were verified infected, cleared, reinfected are having a MUCH worse time on the second time around.
Some reinfected within 90 days of being tested cleared of first infection.

The idea of "Herd Immunity" is out the window entirely now that it's proven you CAN be reinfected.
It will take about 6 months for the research to get into wide distribution, with the disinformation/misinformation out there it takes longer to drill it into hard heads...

With the small scale testing going on in this country, Florida just had more proven infections in ONE DAY than some countries had in their entirety.
South Korea is an example, doing more testing in one day than the US did in 3 months, got ahead of it and stopped it.
Taiwan is another, more testing, mandatory mask/disinfecting orders in the front end, less infections/deaths all through this that Florida or Texas has in one day...

Infected are blind people with loaded machine guns firing at random in all directions...
Either you 'Armor Up' or you risk catching a blind man's bullet.
It's someone playing Russian Roulette, but pointing the gun at everyone but their own heads.

This is bull****. I've heard plenty of people refer to it as "Kung Flu" while understanding that it's not the flu at all. It's a pejorative name for COVID that intends to show contempt for the source of the virus. That has nothing to do with what people think about what it is.

Most people that say "it's the flu" aren't saying that they believe it is literally the flu. What they're saying is that it has the overall impact of the flu on society where some people die of the flu. The reason why that's not a great comparison is that the flu is typically seasonal and this **** ain't giving up the summer.

Also, I think you're premature in saying it's been proven that you can be reinfected. There is some evidence to suggest it's possible but I think is still some distance from "proving".

 

[chipbennett]

That does seem to be different from what you've been saying. You've been saying that you were skeptical that the viral load is sufficient to infect people. But nevertheless, I'll accept this.

Yes, I have been skeptical of the viral load in the exhalation of asymptomatic/presymptomatic carriers. That doesn't mean that such people cannot transmit the virus. (Does anyone believe that?) My point with said skepticism is that I'm not sure there is sufficient risk in general, public interactions to implement public policies that mandate general mask-wearing - particularly where it is possible for those who deem themselves to be at risk to maintain social distancing or otherwise avoid non-mask wearers.

So with that said, we agree, that it's possible that an asymptomatic carrier can transmit the virus to uninfected people. Now we're down to likelihoods. Which is where I'm at. Given your numbers above, let's say we're talking about 1% of the population is infected asymptomatically/presymptomatically at a given time. It seems like a reasonable number for likely scenarios. That one person goes to work, works closely with others who are not wearing masks, and infects someone. That person then infects someone else. And so on. If mask wearing reduces the R0 such that it's less than zero (certainly not something that's been proven) the virus would eventually burn out.

That's the information I want. I want to know what the effective R0 is when x% of the population wears masks correctly. Show me that curve and I'm might jump on the mask bandwagon. If it just bumps the effective R0 down a few hundredths, like from 2.4 to 2.397. **** that. It's not a lot more than noise. I think my own methods of avoiding spread are better than that. But if it's a few decimal points, like from 2.4 to say 1.9, okay. Now I'm interested. That might equate to a lot of lives that don't have to have a bad outcome from catching this virus. It sounds to me that through all the matter-of-factly language, this may be were you're at too.

Based on my numbers (which are general and used for illustrative purposes only), the likelihood that an arbitrary, apparently healthy person is an asymptomatic/presymptomatic carrier is 0.2%, not 1%.

I look at it more from a utilitarian perspective. That 0.2% represents 1 person out of 500 apparently healthy people. (Or, using your numbers, 1 person out of 100 apparently healthy people.) Should the government have authority to compel mask wearing for 499 (or 99) healthy people because of the 1 person who is an asymptomatic/presymptomatic carrier?

 

[HoughMade]

My mask covers the second chin that is so determined to develop. I'm in.

 

[chipbennett]

I am not talking about mandates...

...but doesn't it make sense to wear a mask in enclosed spaces where diatancing is not practicable until we know more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread?

I think the conversation of what is prudent to do according to one's own agency is different from the conversation of what the government should be able to mandate.

It's largely a rhetorical matter in my case, since I rarely find myself anywhere that is an enclosed space where distancing is not feasible.

 

[BugI02]

C'mon man. You have no better reasons to equate oxygen masks in airliners, and life jackets on North Sea Ferries to wearing masks to help limit infections than mask proponents have for equating many of their knee jerk reactions. I still don't understand this belief that the advocacy for wearing masks is due to some kind of conspiracy. I think there's plenty of evidence that some people are exploiting belief for political gain. But that doesn't mean the whole advocacy group is part of a great conspiracy. I think the simpler thing is most likely the truer thing in this case. People believe what they believe and then they act that out. D88 is just acting out a belief. You're acting out yours. Chip is acting out his.

Most regular people are doing this. I think it's when we get into the people with political agendas, that's when we see them acting out in deceptive ways. But acting out in deceptive ways doesn't mean the thing they're acting on is deception. Two things can be true at the same time. it may be that mask wearing limits spread of the disease. It may be that people take advantage of people's fears around that for personal or political gain.

Is that not the definition of a conspiracy^

The examples are just there to illustrate how actors with an agenda will manipulate your level of fear (in those cases toward the 'less' end of the spectrum) in order to influence uninformed opinion about risk. You should not assume that WuVid would somehow be exempt from such manipulation with underlying agenda because; public good

Edit: I don't think everybody advocating for mask wearing is part of a conspiracy, I just think they've drunk the koolaid and are unwittingly carrying the conspiracy's water

 

[JettaKnight]

No, this isn't exactly like that at all. Conservatives were first adopters of masks. They've become quite skeptical because the information keeps changing, sometimes 180 degrees from what it was. So then they start to suspect that there are reasons other than just that they got it really wrong initially.

Indeed. It does seem to be a Litmus test for freedom loving now. Perhaps a no true Scotsman thing?

 

[jamil]

I don't think you're going to get that level of detailed evidence in short order.

Researchers are still trying to figure out why this disease appears to be spread primarily by superspreaders: one hypothesis is something like 10% of the people do 80% of the spread. They don't know if it's something about those individuals, the viral load they contract, or that they happen to be out at the timing of their infection at just the right moment.

When I look at risk/reward I look not only at likelihoods, but at the severity of each outcome. If a mask reduces the likelihood of spreading the virus, that might be a significant result including saving lives of multiple people, getting schools open etc.
If a mask doesn't reduce the likelihood of disease spread significantly, you lose nothing but your pride or a few dollars you spent on your mask or ?? some perceived evil subversive influence that I'm not finding any serious evidence for.

In my view, if a mask might be even a small contributor to reducing transmission it's a step worth taking.

I mean. That's kinda not a lot different from the "if it saves just one life" argument, which I don't think is a valid argument. Yeah, masks are cheap, but they're not without burden. Otherwise I'd see way more people wearing them correctly. When Karen yells at me for not wearing a mask, while she has hers dangling under her chin, she's kinda hard to take seriously. There are a lot of those people out there. Point is, if someone really believes in mask wearing to the extent that they become irate with other people don't have them, that tells me that they're not all that comfortable to wear. And discomfort isn't the only issue. Wearing a mask makes me out of breath doing some activities that wouldn't make me out of breath otherwise. I would rather take other steps, like avoiding close contact with people not from my household ("social distancing" is starting to sound retarded).

There is currently nothing in my world that requires me to wear a mask to do my part to mitigate whatever risk I am to society. Except I really want a ****ing haircut. And mask-wearing just doesn't work for that.

 

[Trigger Time]

At this point my plan is to just do all my shopping and eating out in Johnson and surrounding counties and avoid any business that requires a mask. Since I don't eat out often anyway and there is a Kroger just past the county line that will be just as happy to take my money, it is what it is I guess. I think this just put moving out of Marion County up a bit in my priority list. We'll see if it becomes a statewide mandate. If so I think I'll just stay home. I can order from Kroger and grubhub and such, plus I hate crowds so whatever. I guess as usual from our politicians we'll punish everyone instead of advocating personal responsibility.

If you have the ability, I highly recommend and endorse putting marion county in your rearview mirror. You will be very happy you did once you're gone.

I dont care if governor fancy pants mandates masks or not. I won't be wearing one in public. A business, I can choose to visit or not.
If everyone gathered their balls and stood together then we.wouldnt be having our liberty stolen away.
Businesses too. They wont close or fine all of them and if they fine any then we as a community must rally behind them.
The states mandates for schools and businesses is just like the nazis

 

[Trigger Time]

Remember back in the beginning (when I myself was wearing a mask) and I said they needed to come clean and say masks would help and to distribute them via mail to every home?
Well maybe back then it would have made a difference. Now? No. Masks aren't going to do anything except give people a false sense of hope and security.
This new strain WILL move through our entire population eventually and there is no stopping it. Life must go on.
The consequences of continuing this madness far outweigh the damage from catching the virus. This isnt the plague.

 

[jamil]

Is that not the definition of a conspiracy^

The examples are just there to illustrate how actors with an agenda will manipulate your level of fear (in those cases toward the 'less' end of the spectrum) in order to influence uninformed opinion about risk. You should not assume that WuVid would somehow be exempt from such manipulation with underlying agenda because; public good

Edit: I don't think everybody advocating for mask wearing is part of a conspiracy, I just think they've drunk the koolaid and are unwittingly carrying the conspiracy's water

Well, not really. If something is effective and everyone sees some reasoning about how effective something is, and then everyone starts exploiting it because it's effective, is that a conspiracy? Everyone bought up all the toilet paper. Was there a vast conspiracy? I think people tend to panic and then their reactions are pretty predictable from there. How many times do we see something happening and say, we'll the democrats are gonna do this or that now. And when they do this or that, was it because they all got together and coordinated it? Maybe sometimes, but usually I think they just know to do it because it tickles the same behavior circuitry. Of course I think politicians are exploiting covid. And of course that's agenda driven. That doesn't mean that everything that scientists say about it is just a grand conspiracy to forward the enemy's goals. I think most of them just kinda want to figure this thing out. But it would help if certain leaders would just be straightforward with people.

For example the mask thing. Back when conservatives were the ones wearing the masks, maybe Fouci should have said, hey, guys, you're buying up all the masks. And it's not that they won't help you, but ya know, we have all these health workers catching covid right now, and they could really use those masks that you keep buying up. Can you just knock that **** off for a few months until supply can meet demand? And if that doesn't work, appeal to suppliers to prioritize healthcare workers. And that part did happen. But also Fouci tried to lie to people "for the greater good." At least that's my reading of the facts.

 

[jamil]

Remember back in the beginning (when I myself was wearing a mask) and I said they needed to come clean and say masks would help and to distribute them via mail to every home?
Well maybe back then it would have made a difference. Now? No. Masks aren't going to do anything except give people a false sense of hope and security.
This new strain WILL move through our entire population eventually and there is no stopping it. Life must go on.
The consequences of continuing this madness far outweigh the damage from catching the virus. This isnt the plague.

Okay. Let's enter this rabbit hole. Masks would have worked then but not now. Because there is a new strain? So this new Strain is uber defiant of masks?

 

[BugI02]

That is a belief not founded in evidence. You may not see sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, but that doesn't mean the null hypothesis is true until you know it's true. And there does seem to be some evidence that says it may be true. It's like I said. You're acting like it's 100-0. I'm thinking that a realistic estimate would be that it's something less than 100 on the one side and something greater than zero on the other.

So. I have an unquantified but non-zero chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning. Neither event informs any of my day to day choices of action. The best simulation of real world circumstances IMO is still the Viet Nam improvised cloth mask study. No one wants to pay attention to it because it shows 3% efficacy with a similar sized virus, so the focus becomes 'not everybody was wearing a mask', even though at best 100% compliance would double that to 6% . Then they'll go with laser fluorescence studies of droplets or coughing into petri dishes for supporting data, even though such things are far less germane any practical simulation of risk

 

[dusty88]

I perceive another political issue here that's being overlooked by conservatives: the independent view and how that influences elections.

What many independents see right now is that many conservatives are more emotionally invested in denying the crisis than helping with it.

I'm not saying you should do things just to impress people (I don't) but if you are going to make arguments about invisible subversive influences or being contrarian just to show you can, you might want to consider the actual result of those statements and actions. You might be helping the virus and the liberals at the same time.

 

[HoughMade]

...What many independents see right now is that many conservatives are more emotionally invested in denying the crisis than helping with it...

I'm far from an independent...and that what I ​see.

 

[BugI02]

I think it's interesting that we're more interested in our freedom to be mask free than in doing whatever is pretty simple and reasonable to at least try to avoid another shutdown.

I am voluntarily taking precautions for a lot of reasons, but one of them is that the governments may decide that if people don't voluntarily take some measures, and, again, get the trend going down, it will be back to draconian measures.

Think it can't happen again? What is that based upon?

Two caveats

You have decided that masking is reasonable, are you leaving room for others to come to a different conclusion on what they feel is reasonable and if not why not?

And, if I'm right and it's largely theatre, what does that indicate v the avoiding a new lockdown scenario? If we take precautions known to be unlikely to work (IMO) and then they in fact don't work, does that not set the stage for 'well, we just have to do more' to be more likely to be chosen over 'well, we've done what we reasonably can'. You have drawn the conclusion that something can be done to meaningfully check the spread of this, I am not so sure. I see credit for all improvement given uncritically to masking and social distancing (with very little evidence beyond correlation) and blame for all worsening attributed to lack of fealty to the latest rules (except for necessary looting and burning, of course), equally uncritically

The same people who will complain that what scientific testing of improvised masks exists doesn't exactly match our real world situation, will then, with all seriousness, hold up Japan as an example proving widespread masking mitigates this disease - as if the only meaningful difference between Japanese society and ours is a willingness to mask

 

[HoughMade]

What is your plan to stem the spread?

If we want to return to normal, we have 1 unrealistic option: act like it doesn't exist. It's unrealistic if for no other reason that the governments will not ever take this position.

The second option is to do something, or some things, to try to reduce spread, at least while we are figuring out exactly what is effective and not.

I have made my position on mandates crystal clear.

 

[foszoe]

You seem to assume objectively healthy people. Most people don't include a conscious self evaluation of their own health in their daily routines.

Yes, it unquestionably is founded in evidence - unless you believe that 100% of apparently healthy people are infected and asymptomatic/presymptomatic.

I am in no way acting like it's 100-0. You are inferring something that I have never implied. Allow me to restate: in the entire population, there are two classes of people: those who are infected and those who are not infected. Those who are not infected do not display symptoms and do not carry the virus. This subset represents, what, 99% of the total population? That leaves 1% of the population as infected/carriers. Among those who are infected, the subset can be further divided into those who are symptomatic and those who are asymptomatic/presymptomatic. Let's say that the latter subdivision is 20% of the subgroup. 20% of 1% of the total population is 0.2%.

Now, take any arbitrary gathering of non-symptomatic people. What is the likelihood that any one person in that group is an asymptomatic/presymptomatic carrier, rather than a healthy non-carrier?

Adjust the numbers to suit your liking. Whatever reasonable numbers you use, the null hypothesis is that any arbitrary, non-symptomatic person is not infected/not a carrier.

 

[BugI02]

What is your plan to stem the spread?

If we want to return to normal, we have 1 unrealistic option: act like it doesn't exist. It's unrealistic if for no other reason that the governments will not ever take this position.

The second option is to do something, or some things, to try to reduce spread, at least while we are figuring out exactly what is effective and not.

I have made my position on mandates crystal clear.

I don't think there can be a plan to stem (stop or greatly reduce) the spread. Are we forgetting that the goal (prior to mission creep) was to slow down the rate of spread, the underlying assumption was it would still spread

I'm also not convinced we should continue to try to slow the spread once hospital capacity was found to be adequate. I think the only way is through, most people that were going to die from this will still die from this, unless their co-morbidities get them first

 

[jamil]

So. I have an unquantified but non-zero chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning. Neither event informs any of my day to day choices of action. The best simulation of real world circumstances IMO is still the Viet Nam improvised cloth mask study. No one wants to pay attention to it because it shows 3% efficacy with a similar sized virus, so the focus becomes 'not everybody was wearing a mask', even though at best 100% compliance would double that to 6% . Then they'll go with laser fluorescence studies of droplets or coughing into petri dishes for supporting data, even though such things are far less germane any practical simulation of risk

The whole discussion to me is more about belief, how that informs your thinking about policy, how it drives your own behavior, and whether the belief and affected behaviors are reasonable and rational. And I think I've found a common language to talk about that, which is using the effective R0 as a reference point. It's just a concise way to refer to how much a mask might affect the spread.

So, if you believe the R0 is virtually unchanged by wearing masks, it's rational not to wear masks. So then we're left with wondering if it's reasonable or not, given the current information, to believe that mask-wearing does not effect R0 enough to justify wearing them on a personal level. I don't think there are many people here advocating for strict mask wearing laws, so that part of the discussion sounds unnecessary. In terms of research out there, there are some things that suggest that the effective R0 should theoretically be reduced by wearing a mask.

But, the fluorescence studies of droplets/coughing into a petri dish is merely connecting the dots with dashed lines. So I think it's reasonable, even still, to be skeptical that the R0 would be affected enough to justify wearing masks in mass. Now when they have solid lines, then we're getting into unreasonable tin-foil hat territory.

The reason I think the discussion should move to what is reasonable/rational, not just on INGO but nationwide, even worldwide, is to remove the politics and personal scorn levied from both sides. People on both sides are ridiculing people on the other side. And that's not rational. I don't think the conversation we're having nationally, especially through the media is a rational conversation. I keep hearing the pro-mask side say that masks shouldn't be politicized, and then they utterly reject the rational things on the skeptical side. And visa versa. Both sides are politicizing it. Regardless of what side you're on, it's not only the other is doing the irrational stuff.

I dunno. Maybe people should just put the twitter down and go have a nice bike ride. And maybe don't get too upset if you see someone wearing or not wearing a mask. Enjoy life for **** sake.