CDC: Face Masks Don't Prevent COVID-19; Study Finds Masks Have Negligible Impact on Coronavirus Numbers (Israel, crime)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah around 1%, within the margin of error for the study. You must believe in a 10 mile an hour speed limit.
It's brutally clear you have no training in statistics. First off, it was already pointed out to you that the 1% change is based on a daily rate of change yet you choose to ignore. CA, at its peak, had on the order of 40,000 new cases per day, thus if mask wearing alone can reduce the number of new infections per day by 1%, that's potentially thousands of new cases prevented per week.
Secondly, what does 'within the margin of error' even mean? You clearly ignored the fact that the CDC used weighted least squares regression modeling that mathematically proved that mask wearing results in statistically significant impacts on both reducing both daily COVID-19 case growth rates and daily COVID-19 death growth rates. Let me point out to you important methodology you appear to have ignored from the actual study:
Weighted least-squares regression with county and day fixed effects was used to compare COVID-19 case and death growth rates before and after 1) implementing mask mandates and 2) allowing on-premises dining at restaurants. Because state-issued policies often applied to specific counties, particularly when states began allowing on-premises dining, all analyses were conducted at the county level. Four regression models were used to assess the association between each policy and each COVID-19 outcome. The regression models controlled for several covariates: restaurant closures in the mask mandate models and mask mandates in the restaurant reopening models, as well as bar closures,** stay-at-home orders,†† bans on gatherings of ≥10 persons,§§ daily COVID-19 tests per 100,000 persons, county, and time (day). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were weighted by county population with standard errors robust to heteroscedasticity and clustered by state. Analyses were performed using Stata software (version 14.2; StataCorp). This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.¶¶
During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.
OANN, making Americans dumber by the day because they have some college intern getting paid $9 an hour to write crappy 100 word articles based on journal articles/science news they don't even read through its entirety or probably even understand. A simple low cost solution like wearing a cheap cloth over your face can significantly reduce both case growth rates and growth of the number of deaths per day according to the CDC study. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
It's brutally clear you have no training in statistics. First off, it was already pointed out to you already that the 1% change is based on a daily rate of change. CA, at its peak, had on the order of 40,000 new cases per day, thus if mask wearing alone can reduce the number of new infections per day by 1%, that's potentially thousands of new cases prevented per week.
Secondly, what does 'within the margin of error' even mean? You clearly ignored the fact that the CDC used weighted least squares regression modeling that mathematically proved that mask wearing results in statistically significant impacts on both reducing both daily COVID-19 case growth rates and daily COVID-19 death growth rates. Let me point out to you important methodology you appear to have ignored from the actual study:
OANN, making Americans dumber by the day because they have some college intern getting paid $9 an hour to write crappy 100 word articles based on journal articles/science news they don't even read through its entirety or probably even understand. A simple low cost solution like wearing a cheap cloth over your face can significantly reduce case growth rates and growth of the number of deaths per day. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
If this were what you claim it is, it would be the lead story on every DNC propaganda outlet you love listening to. It isn't, because it proves the opposite of what you're claiming.
The big lie in your post is that it "can significantly reduce case growth." This study proves exactly the opposite, just like any comparison of a mask mandate state to a non-mask mandate state proves. The masks do NOT provide any significant reduction in case growth. To argue otherwise at this point, after the data is in, is just more liberal lying.
Of course, I'd expect nothing less from you Democrats.
If this were what you claim it is, it would be the lead story on every DNC propaganda outlet you love listening to. It isn't, because it proves the opposite of what you're claiming.
The big lie in your post is that it "can significantly reduce case growth." This study proves exactly the opposite, just like any comparison of a mask mandate state to a non-mask mandate state proves. The masks do NOT provide any significant reduction in case growth. To argue otherwise at this point, after the data is in, is just more liberal lying.
Of course, I'd expect nothing less from you Democrats.
So that's all you got? Nothing remotely based on actual mathematics to disprove the CDC study?
What a surprise. Again, choosing to ignore the actual methodology and the results of the linear regression modeling.
So that's all you got? Nothing remotely based on actual mathematics to disprove the CDC study?
What a surprise. Again, choosing to ignore the actual methodology and the results of the linear regression modeling.
I'm ACCEPTING the results of the study from the lying CDC. Their own results show that there is no significant reduction in COVID-19 spread from mask mandates. Just like if you compare Florida to NY or CA or MI or any other locked down mask mandated state.
Keep up with the myth, all it does is make you lose credibility in the end. People are waking up to the lies they've been fed by people like you for the past year.
Oof. Gut punch for those with a religious belief in wearing a cloth mask.
Masks are the "Superspreader"
People with unsanitized hands, tugging that mask up right at their nose....
The reason cases increased exponentially where and when mask mandates were implemented.
I'm ACCEPTING the results of the study from the lying CDC. Their own results show that there is no significant reduction in COVID-19 spread from mask mandates. Just like if you compare Florida to NY or CA or MI or any other locked down mask mandated state.
Keep up with the myth, all it does is make you lose credibility in the end. People are waking up to the lies they've been fed by people like you for the past year.
No, you are not accepting the results. The results clearly show a significant reduction; you don't know what you're talking about. Do you not even understand the simple concept of a p-value? I literally highlighted the end result concluding that the statistical analysis shows that p<0.01 for all.
No, you are not accepting the results. The results clearly show a significant reduction. Do you not even understand the simple concept of a p-value?
No, 1% is not significant. Not when you do a risk/benefit analysis and appreciate the societal costs of the national nightmare you people have inflicted on the country over the past year.
I understand a "p-value" just fine. Do you understand the concept that there is more to life than COVID-19, that we have to consider other effects of policy besides a tiny theoretical 1% insignificant reduction in viral spread before dictating what people can wear and whether they can breathe fresh air?
No, 1% is not significant. Not when you do a risk/benefit analysis and appreciate the societal costs of the national nightmare you people have inflicted on the country over the past year.
I understand a "p-value" just fine. Do you understand the concept that there is more to life than COVID-19, that we have to consider other effects of policy besides a tiny theoretical 1% insignificant reduction in viral spread before dictating what people can wear and whether they can breathe fresh air?
It is significant. That's literally the definition of the result that the least squares regression shows. Again, you ignore the fact that a significant result, proven with actual mathematics, is also based on a change in daily growth.
No, 1% is not significant. Not when you do a risk/benefit analysis and appreciate the societal costs of the national nightmare you people have inflicted on the country over the past year.
I understand a "p-value" just fine. Do you understand the concept that there is more to life than COVID-19, that we have to consider other effects of policy besides a tiny theoretical 1% insignificant reduction in viral spread before dictating what people can wear and whether they can breathe fresh air?
You clearly do not understand a p-value, or much else about statistics or the methodology behind studies (the Methods section is the most important part of any study). And if you do, please explain your understanding. It's fine if you don't understand it. We'll be happy to educate you about it. But please stop spreading your misinformation. Thank goodness not enough people are on City Data for you to pose a significant societal danger. Again, it's OK if you don't quite get the findings of the study (these studies are not written for the lay reader). There's plenty of generous people on this forum who will help you understand it. At least two have already stepped forward. So, let's begin. How do you see the p-value? Your answer, and the subsequent dialogue it will generate, could help a lot of people learn something.
You clearly do not understand a p-value, or much else about statistics or the methodology behind studies (the Methods section is the most important part of any study). And if you do, please explain your understanding. It's fine if you don't understand it. We'll be happy to educate you about it. But please stop spreading your misinformation. Thank goodness not enough people are on City Data for you to pose a significant societal danger. Again, it's OK if you don't quite get the findings of the study (these studies are not written for the lay reader). There's plenty of generous people on this forum who will help you understand it. At least two have already stepped forward. So, let's begin. How do you see the p-value? Your answer, and the subsequent dialogue it will generate, could help a lot of people learn something.
LOL. You guys have been lying about the virus and masks since Day One and you are here condescending to me? Go Fowci whoever.
There is no “significant societal danger” other than the one presented by totalitarians like you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.