To Mask or Not to Mask?

[JettaKnight]

Remember another time when we wore masks, and it wasn't some globalist conspiracy to destroy freedom?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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

There seems to be a theory here that if we simply play along with the government “recommendations”, they’ll leave us alone and not shut down the economy again. I’m not so sure that will be the case. Holcomb and his brain trust have two tools in their tool box. “Mask Up, Indiana” and shut down the economy. When the first one doesn’t do the trick, they’ll do the other again.

 

[jamil]

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.

Maybe that's not what's really happening. Maybe independents can be as full of **** as lefties or righties. When I hear people saying that there is some ulterior motivation for pushing masks, I think that has a lot to do with the credibility earned by the powers that be. Which isn't a whole lot. There is a form of truth there that should matter.

Of course that consideration doesn't actually matter. People are gonna think what they think and you're right, that will influence the election at least a little. Some people will think that it's irrational to think masks won't help. There's another case too. Some people will see the Karens yelling hysterically at the top of their lungs masks dangling around their chins, at other people alone in cars with the windows up while not wearing masks. And they'll think that's ****ing crazy. And that might inform their votes as well. I'm certainly not voting to give anyone like that any power.

 

[jamil]

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?

I think this latest push for wearing masks is fueled by the spike in cases. And I think there may be some wrong beliefs about that, that the reason for the spike is because not enough people are wearing masks. And I think that may be a natural conclusion to draw, but it's superficial. We've seen that at least a large part of the spike in new cases tracks a spike in testing. So there's that. We also see this timed pretty well with a couple of weeks after mass protests have been happening. And it's pretty reasonable short of evidence to the contrary, to think that that huge lack of social distancing easily may have impacted the spike as well. So that would indicate bad policy on the part of handling the protests amidst the pandemic. So not exactly the fault of conservatives tending to be skeptical of the need for masks.

 

[idkfa]

There seems to be a theory here that if we simply play along with the government “recommendations”, they’ll leave us alone and not shut down the economy again. I’m not so sure that will be the case. Holcomb and his brain trust have two tools in their tool box. “Mask Up, Indiana” and shut down the economy. When the first one doesn’t do the trick, they’ll do the other again.

Yes, indeed. This is a very succinct summary of what's happening in this thread.
There aren't any studies that conclusively showed the efficacy of cloth masks. Quite the opposite is true, actually: the use of cloth masks results in a higher incidence of influenza-like illness.
N95 masks were studied relatively well -- and the vast majority of studies that have anything positive to say about them are the retrospective observational ones.
There is some evidence that indicates wearing masks for prolonged periods of time results in decreased blood oxygen. While most of this evidence is anecdotal, there are published peer-reviewed studies that serve as indirect evidence that this conclusion is indeed correct.

Asking or, worse, requiring people to wear masks in the face of all this evidence is quite literally the most anti-scientific thing to do.

 

[idkfa]

Here's another thing to consider: in 2009 the CDC simply stopped counting cases.

In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there's an epidemic?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/

 

[jamil]

Remember another time when we wore masks, and it wasn't some globalist conspiracy to destroy freedom?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Eh, there's at least one karen in every bunch.

 

[JettaKnight]

There seems to be a theory here that if we simply play along with the government “recommendations”, they’ll leave us alone and not shut down the economy again. I’m not so sure that will be the case. Holcomb and his brain trust have two tools in their tool box. “Mask Up, Indiana” and shut down the economy. When the first one doesn’t do the trick, they’ll do the other again.

Well, when you become dogmatically opposed to the former, one can almost expect the latter if necessary.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, indeed. This is a very succinct summary of what's happening in this thread.
There aren't any studies that conclusively showed the efficacy of cloth masks. Quite the opposite is true, actually: the use of cloth masks results in a higher incidence of influenza-like illness.
N95 masks were studied relatively well -- and the vast majority of studies that have anything positive to say about them are the retrospective observational ones.
There is some evidence that indicates wearing masks for prolonged periods of time results in decreased blood oxygen. While most of this evidence is anecdotal, there are published peer-reviewed studies that serve as indirect evidence that this conclusion is indeed correct.

Asking or, worse, requiring people to wear masks in the face of all this evidence is quite literally the most anti-scientific thing to do.

Unfortunately, we’ve become a people that turns to government to cure all of our problems. And the people in government will always turn to the only tool they have when pressed hard enough by the squeakiest wheels—force. And there are a lot of squeaky Karens out there. Look at the comments under the Holcomb “Mask Up” facebook posts for example. There are post after post pleading for him to make mask wearing mandatory.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, when you become dogmatically opposed to the former, one can almost expect the latter if necessary.

Yeah, those in power don’t cotton very well to those acting as they please.

 

[jamil]

Well, when you become dogmatically opposed to the former, one can almost expect the latter if necessary.

It looks to me that some people are dogmatically in favor too. See, if the CDC hadn't had its head up its ass, and had told people to just wear cloth masks and leave the N95's for the people who actually have to work with covid patients, a lot of this likely would have been avoided.

Also, it's probably not very accurate to think that conservatives are the only people not wearing masks. I see some political messages on young people's tee shirts as I'm out and about and it's pretty clear that many people not wearing masks are young people with political ideologies on the left. And the demographics of the people who make up a lot of this spike bear that out too. It's not primarily us old ****s not wearing masks that's spiking the cases.

 

[HoughMade]

I think this latest push for wearing masks is fueled by the spike in cases. And I think there may be some wrong beliefs about that, that the reason for the spike is because not enough people are wearing masks. And I think that may be a natural conclusion to draw, but it's superficial. We've seen that at least a large part of the spike in new cases tracks a spike in testing. So there's that. We also see this timed pretty well with a couple of weeks after mass protests have been happening. And it's pretty reasonable short of evidence to the contrary, to think that that huge lack of social distancing easily may have impacted the spike as well. So that would indicate bad policy on the part of handling the protests amidst the pandemic. So not exactly the fault of conservatives tending to be skeptical of the need for masks.

I think masks may be part of it, but primarily combined with people getting together in groups indoors.

The random person with no mask down the aisle of the grocery store? Probably not an issue.

A group of people without masks at parties, reunions, bars, church....well

As for the protests, sure they were a problem whether it was acknowledged or not...but from what I saw on TV, a higher percentage of people were wearing masks than in my church (where there is no distancing) yesterday.

Once people started protesting, I suppose we could have gotten out the fire hoses....

By not voluntarily doing things that may help, we are virtually forcing mandates...which a bunch of people will then cry about as unjust. The idea that people will not voluntarily distance or wear a mask in a store until it is proven to their satisfaction...by scientists they would never believe anyway...is absurd. There is no evidence they will accept. They've chosen up sides.

 

[JettaKnight]

Unfortunately, we’ve become a people that turns to government to cure all of our problems. And the people in government will always turn to the only tool they have when pressed hard enough by the squeakiest wheels—force. And there are a lot of squeaky Karens out there. Look at the comments under the Holcomb “Mask Up” facebook posts for example. There are post after post pleading for him to make mask wearing mandatory.

Why would I ever want to do that?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why would I ever want to do that?

Entertainment value.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It looks to me that some people are dogmatically in favor too. See, if the CDC hadn't had its head up its ass, and had told people to just wear cloth masks and leave the N95's for the people who actually have to work with covid patients, a lot of this likely would have been avoided.

Also, it's probably not very accurate to think that conservatives are the only people not wearing masks. I see some political messages on young people's tee shirts as I'm out and about and it's pretty clear that many people not wearing masks are young people with political ideologies on the left. And the demographics of the people who make up a lot of this spike bear that out too. It's not primarily us old ****s not wearing masks that's spiking the cases.

I’ve seen plenty of conservatives parroting the conventional wisdom of the pro-maskers.

 

[idkfa]

I think masks may be part of it, but primarily combined with people getting together in groups indoors.

The random person with no mask down the aisle of the grocery store? Probably not an issue.

A group of people without masks at parties, reunions, bars, church....well

And here's the crux of the matter: probably.
Is there a preponderance of evidence to show that this dramatic disruption of public life and economy is necessary to produce desired results?
Furthermore, what are those results?
We are on day 119 of the "15 days to slow the spread". The goalposts are on a truck doing 90 mph.

 

[HoughMade]

And here's the crux of the matter: probably.
Is there a preponderance of evidence to show that this dramatic disruption of public life and economy is necessary to produce desired results?
Furthermore, what are those results?
We are on day 119 of the "15 days to slow the spread". The goalposts are on a truck doing 90 mph.

What is your realistic plan to get us back to "normal"?

Just saying it's over and acting as though it is is not a realistic plan.

I do lots of things based upon possibilities and probabilities, especially when there is no definitive present evidence and the risk of doing the opposite is very low.

 

[idkfa]

I’ve seen plenty of conservatives parroting the conventional wisdom of the pro-maskers.

Most people are truly lost in this maze of deception created by the flip-flopping "authorities".
That being said, what is truly most disturbing is how easily these folks reject the principles they claim to be their core values.
I surmise, they simply do not even understand these core values all too well in the first place.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What is your realistic plan to get us back to "normal"?

Just saying it's over and acting as though it is is not a realistic plan.

I do lots of things based upon possibilities and probabilities, especially when there is no definitive present evidence and the risk of doing the opposite is very low.

Maybe instead of acting like it’s over, we admit to ourselves we’ll have to let it burn itself out.

 

[BugI02]

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.

From:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340603522_Face_Masks_Against_COVID-19_An_Evidence_Review
Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review

I selected it because of its easily understoog graphic presentation, with the caveat that the illustrated conclusions are predominantly from modeling rather than empirical

View attachment 88855


What I'm seeing is to even get to an R0 of 1, you need 100% compliance with a near 40% efficacious mask, or 75% compliance with use of a 45+% efficacious mask

I draw two quick conclusions from this

Neither scenario seems very realistic right now

The sweet spot for gains is in the middle. Perhaps they should be developing a 60% efficacious mask that would be comfortable enough that they could convince enough people to wear for 60% compliance, and could mass produced cheaply