To Mask or Not to Mask?

[jamil]

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.

I estimated that up to half the protestors were wearing masks. The other half, not. They're doing some contract tracing now. Are the new infections coming from the churches? Bars? Parties? Reunions? Probably from all above. But, there is a reason why it's mostly young people. I'm not sure it's fair to blame conservatives for that.

It seems at least a little likely that the spike would have happened regardless of what conservatives believe about masks, given the predominate age range of people testing positive. Conservatives are getting all the blame for that.

 

[jamil]

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 too 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

Thanks. Your google fu is much greater than mine. This is kinda what I've been wanting to see albeit not from modeling. I'll have some further comments after I've digested this more.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BugI02 again.

 

[idkfa]

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.

You do things based on the data, it appears, and that is commendable, sir.
Now, most governments clearly are not doing that -- if anything, they are doing the opposite (as I outlined in my previous comments).

Why, may I ask, do you state that doing nothing is not a realistic plan?
Doing (mostly) nothing in regards to COVID-19, opening up fully and completely for most jurisdictions is quite literally the best option, as evidenced by e.g. South Dakota -- or the fact that in 2009 the CDC literally stopped counting cases (as I mentioned in my previous comment).

 

[HoughMade]

I am not blaming conservatives for that.

I am blaming everyone getting together in groups and not taking reasonable precautions.

As for burning itself out, sure. Barring a vaccine, that is what is going to have to happen. However, that doesn't mean that government at any level is going to accept that and not call for restrictions...and more mandated restrictions is what I am trying to avoid.

Give them something small to avoid something big being imposed.

 

[HoughMade]

You do things based on the data, it appears, and that is commendable, sir.
Now, most governments clearly are not doing that -- if anything, they are doing the opposite (as I outlined in my previous comments).

Why, may I ask, do you state that doing nothing is not a realistic plan?
Doing (mostly) nothing in regards to COVID-19, opening up fully and completely for most jurisdictions is quite literally the best option, as evidenced by e.g. South Dakota -- or the fact that in 2009 the CDC literally stopped counting cases (as I mentioned in my previous comment).

The reality we have to deal with is most places will not follow the sparsely populated South Dakota's lead, especially if cases are rising. If you thought you heard me advocating a shutdown...I never have. I advocate people voluntarily distancing and wearing masks indoors or in crowded spaces.

 

[jamil]

Bug, I that's the way I read it too. But I don't need it to get to R0=1 to make it worth it. I mean, getting it well under 2 would possibly help keep the new infections down.

Would making comfortable/efficient masks even make a dent? Young people think they're invincible. They don't need any particular ideological bias to not ware them. Any mask won't be as comfortable as no mask.

I do think there are people who don't tend to wear them because they're not comfortable. I tend not to wear one because it restricts my breathing to an uncomfortable extent, and not because I think there's a conspiracy. Wearing it for an extended period gives me headaches. I think it's because I'm not getting the oxygen I need. So that's a big deal. I don't know how many of "me" there is out there. Probably not as many as there are who don't wear them because of delusions of invincibility and ideological bias.

 

[BugI02]

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.

This is disingenuous. It begs the question of whether large scale mask compliance will actually help, because such has no set goal and no end point. What reduction in the rate of infection can we expect? Is the slowing of reaching herd immunity worth the slowing of infection rate for a disease that seems overwhelmingly non-serious non-fatal? How long will we be required to wear masks - 2 weeks, two months, two years, forever? What is the endpoint statistically that determines that?

You are right about one thing, government will willingly adopt even bad solutions in order to convince voters that it is doing something about the problem

 

[jamil]

I am not blaming conservatives for that.

I am blaming everyone getting together in groups and not taking reasonable precautions.

As for burning itself out, sure. Barring a vaccine, that is what is going to have to happen. However, that doesn't mean that government at any level is going to accept that and not call for restrictions...and more mandated restrictions is what I am trying to avoid.

Give them something small to avoid something big being imposed.

Oh, gosh, this sounds a lot like "give up bump stocks so they don't demand more". Or, back in the early 90s, give up "assault rifles" so they don't demand muh shot gun.

I don't think we're there yet and I'm not sure if everyone started wearing masks that the spike would end. And then what?

 

[JettaKnight]

Oh, gosh, this sounds a lot like "give up bump stocks so they don't demand more". Or, back in the early 90s, give up "assault rifles" so they don't demand muh shot gun.

I don't think we're there yet and I'm not sure if everyone started wearing masks that the spike would end. And then what?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope



Come'on, only weak arguments have to pull in a control analogy on INGO.

 

[BugI02]

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.

Perfect! That's how things are supposed to work, with everybody else free to act on their own assumptions about risk

Where we're destined to butt heads is when you assume your assessment of your risk should apply (or worse yet, be applied) to everybody else. The (unconscious) assumption of superior analysis is likely unwarranted

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Bug, I that's the way I read it too. But I don't need it to get to R0=1 to make it worth it. I mean, getting it well under 2 would possibly help keep the new infections down.

Would making comfortable/efficient masks even make a dent? Young people think they're invincible. They don't need any particular ideological bias to not ware them. Any mask won't be as comfortable as no mask.

I do think there are people who don't tend to wear them because they're not comfortable. I tend not to wear one because it restricts my breathing to an uncomfortable extent, and not because I think there's a conspiracy. Wearing it for an extended period gives me headaches. I think it's because I'm not getting the oxygen I need. So that's a big deal. I don't know how many of "me" there is out there. Probably not as many as there are who don't wear them because of delusions of invincibility and ideological bias.

Just as a personal observation— at work, they make people wear them for the entire time they’re on the premises. I’ve noticed a few people seem to acquire a bit of a slur in their speech while wearing them. Now, that could simply be the mask mechanically interfering with their speech but I do wonder if it could be something to do with breathing issues.

 

[jamil]

This is disingenuous. It begs the question of whether large scale mask compliance will actually help, because such has no set goal and no end point. What reduction in the rate of infection can we expect? Is the slowing of reaching herd immunity worth the slowing of infection rate for a disease that seems overwhelmingly non-serious non-fatal? How long will we be required to wear masks - 2 weeks, two months, two years, forever? What is the endpoint statistically that determines that?

You are right about one thing, government will willingly adopt even bad solutions in order to convince voters that it is doing something about the problem

I think Hough is right about the effect though. If the numbers don't start going down more actions will be taken. And if those don't work even more. That's not necessarily a reason to capitulate. I'm just saying that the freedom they decide to limit will be the one they have political capital to pay for. I think only in the bat**** craziest states would anyone have the political capital to shut business back down. So it's going to be mask mandates. And in red states that doesn't fly either. But in terms of political capital it wouldn't be as costly as shutting business down. Doesn't even matter if it's the thing that gets the numbers down. It's what not just standing there, but doing something looks like. And that's what hysterical people demand.

 

[HoughMade]

Oh, gosh, this sounds a lot like "give up bump stocks so they don't demand more". Or, back in the early 90s, give up "assault rifles" so they don't demand muh shot gun.

I don't think we're there yet and I'm not sure if everyone started wearing masks that the spike would end. And then what?

You know what then. maybe it will burn itself out or get a vaccine before there is again political will for widespread shutdowns. Better later or never than sooner.

I get it. Some people don't like to negotiate. There are consequences for that.

 

[JettaKnight]

Perfect! That's how things are supposed to work, with everybody else free to act on their own assumptions about risk

Where we're destined to butt heads is when you assume your assessment of your risk should apply (or worse yet, be applied) to everybody else. The (unconscious) assumption of superior analysis is likely unwarranted

Don't you agree that we can discuss risk in an attempt to persuade someone without being domineering?

 

[idkfa]

The reality we have to deal with is most places will not follow the sparsely populated South Dakota's lead, especially if cases are rising. If you thought you heard me advocating a shutdown...I never have. I advocate people voluntarily distancing and wearing masks indoors or in crowded spaces.

No, I assumed nothing of the sort.
Naturally, the reality of the matter is no matter what we say powers that be will do whatever they want.
Holcomb appears to have been religiously following whatever Trump/Pence administration was advocating, I surmise, due to Pence being a Hoosier.
To recapitulate, if the "authorities" really wanted to achieve some goals, they would've 1) defined them, 2) stuck to them, and 3) changed their methodology in accordance with new evidence.
Imo the coronavirus situation stopped being about the virus right around late March, give-or-take.

 

[idkfa]

I think Hough is right about the effect though. If the numbers don't start going down more actions will be taken. And if those don't work even more. That's not necessarily a reason to capitulate. I'm just saying that the freedom they decide to limit will be the one they have political capital to pay for. I think only in the bat**** craziest states would anyone have the political capital to shut business back down. So it's going to be mask mandates. And in red states that doesn't fly either. But in terms of political capital it wouldn't be as costly as shutting business down. Doesn't even matter if it's the thing that gets the numbers down. It's what not just standing there, but doing something looks like. And that's what hysterical people demand.

Imo that is exactly what's going on.

Edit: also, which numbers should be going down? Deaths? Hospitalizations? These are rhetorical questions, as, clearly, cases are all the rage recently -- well, we just need to stop testing, and that'll solve it. Just like in 2009.

 

[dusty88]

I estimated that up to half the protestors were wearing masks. The other half, not. They're doing some contract tracing now. Are the new infections coming from the churches? Bars? Parties? Reunions? Probably from all above. But, there is a reason why it's mostly young people. I'm not sure it's fair to blame conservatives for that.

It seems at least a little likely that the spike would have happened regardless of what conservatives believe about masks, given the predominate age range of people testing positive. Conservatives are getting all the blame for that.

I don't think people are blaming conservatives for particularly spreading the virus (with the exception of the indoor Trump rallies). At the moment, young people going to bars and house parties appears to be a key source of community transmission.

What I think people do see is that a big chunk of conservatives are starting to look like the Flat Earth Society. Googling until they find some rare bird doctor who agrees with their preconceived notions, or misinterpreting a study, or even quoting "doctors" from completely different fields rather than deal with their cognitive dissonance.

It just doesn't appeal anyone to listen to any ideas on anything else. It repels people from even considering rational conservative ideas.

Even many of the congresscritters are acting like they know more than the scientists.

And yes, this is all my opinion. I can only tell you that it's the first time I'm embarrassed to be a conservative libertarian. It's getting more difficult to convince people that conservatives want to do the right thing for their fellow man.

 

[BugI02]

I think Hough is right about the effect though. If the numbers don't start going down more actions will be taken. And if those don't work even more. That's not necessarily a reason to capitulate. I'm just saying that the freedom they decide to limit will be the one they have political capital to pay for. I think only in the bat**** craziest states would anyone have the political capital to shut business back down. So it's going to be mask mandates. And in red states that doesn't fly either. But in terms of political capital it wouldn't be as costly as shutting business down. Doesn't even matter if it's the thing that gets the numbers down. It's what not just standing there, but doing something looks like. And that's what hysterical people demand.

The present seems like it might be a great time to teach people that there is not a solution to every problem (at least not one that they'll like) and simultaneously (in a non-Einsteinian sense) remind them that government not only doesn't have the solution but quite often is making the problem worse with its thrashing around

 

[BugI02]

You know what then. maybe it will burn itself out or get a vaccine before there is again political will for widespread shutdowns. Better later or never than sooner.

I get it. Some people don't like to [STRIKE]negotiate[/STRIKE] [haggle]. There are consequences for that.

*.*

 

[BugI02]

Don't you agree that we can discuss risk in an attempt to persuade someone without being domineering?

Let me know when you're ready to start