Not Surprising (Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay: live, military, dangerous)

[guidoLaMoto]

But the same fraction of people wearing masks got infected as the fraction wearing/not infected, ie- masks make no real difference. It's the exposure to possible sources that was significant-- known infected and long public exposures in poorly ventilated areas (bars/restaurants).

It's kinda like wearing a bullet proof vest-- you can still get shot in the head. If nobody shoots at you, you don't need one at all. If you get in the way of a barrage of bullets, it may not help.

Masks can give a false sense of security...and maybe the biggest problem is, as you said earlier, they're often used incorrectly.

[lovemyfl]

Originally Posted by everwinter

Ya, Wisconsinites don't like to be told what to do, & the tavern league has the bars open for some crazy reason. Then you have our impeached president & local Republican politicians ignoring basic infection control strategies & resisting Evers every move. It's a recipe for disaster here. Our state's an embarrassment on a national level. Chicago has Wisconsin on a travel quarantine list. That should tell you something.

And what's with the gas stations? Yesterday about 1/3 the people shopping in Kwik Trip didn't have a mask on. These losers can't even bother to put a mask on for 7 min, & then go inside & cough all over the store. But they say it's all about "my rights," and you know "don't tread on me."

impeached president?!?!HAHAHA you mean the what crazy Nancy wanted. The same rich Nancy who would not EVEN sign the "stand alone" stimulus bill so we could get out checks. Talk about mean and disgraceful. Democrats do not care about American people one iota! Everyone has learned that a long time ago.

[lovemyfl]

By the way it's the China virus. If biden had been prez, we would all be dead!!!!!!!! Why? Trump put a ban on Chinese coming here immediately Joe did not want that. Why is that? Think.

[timberline742]

Masks are about protecting others. Good heavens. Either people don't get that, or they don't care about others. I suspect the latter. Selfish jerks.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

But the same fraction of people wearing masks got infected as the fraction wearing/not infected, ie- masks make no real difference. It's the exposure to possible sources that was significant-- known infected and long public exposures in poorly ventilated areas (bars/restaurants).

When the whole masking thing got started, the prevailing idea was that when you wear a mask, you protect others.

I don't remember too many people saying that masks were primarily supposed to protect the wearer.

The line of reasoning was that spit gobbets emerging from the mask-wearer's mouth would have a harder time launching toward and infecting the other person.

This is why some mask-wearers get upset when the person they're interacting with isn't wearing a mask. The mask-wearer is trying to do something to protect the other person, but the unmasked other person isn't returning the favor.

It's kinda like wearing a bullet proof vest-- you can still get shot in the head. If nobody shoots at you, you don't need one at all. If you get in the way of a barrage of bullets, it may not help.

Masks can give a false sense of security...and maybe the biggest problem is, as you said earlier, they're often used incorrectly.

I agree with both points, and that's probably why Wisconsin cases are spiking in spite of the mandate.

I find that when I wear a mask, I'm more self-conscious about what (material substance) issues forth from my mouth, and I try not to direct my face directly at the person. Not that that would be absolutely effective in preventing transmission of an airborne virus, but maybe it helps a tad.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by lovemyfl

impeached president?!?!HAHAHA you mean the what crazy Nancy wanted. The same rich Nancy who would not EVEN sign the "stand alone" stimulus bill so we could get out checks. Talk about mean and disgraceful. Democrats do not care about American people one iota! Everyone has learned that a long time ago.

Originally Posted by lovemyfl

By the way it's the China virus. If biden had been prez, we would all be dead!!!!!!!! Why? Trump put a ban on Chinese coming here immediately Joe did not want that. Why is that? Think.

Must be a slow news day at Fox.

[lovemyfl]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

Must be a slow news day at Fox.

A slow day at Fox is Better any day than the fake news on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, list goes on.

[everwinter]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

Found the reference https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...mm6936a5-H.pdf
but the fact remains that masks only seem to be ~30% in preventing the wearer from getting infected.

From the article.

In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public.

Self-reporting's always a little questionable. Maybe the responders were scared to admit they didn't follow rules & they actually went some places without a mask. Also mask material, & wear method's also a factor.

I tend to think masks play well over a 30% factor in preventing covid spread. I work in a hospital & help out in a nursing home. I've worked very closely with patients (much closer than 6 feet) with Covid for over 15 min at a time, & the patients don't have a mask on in their hospital room. I do though. I've been tested 4 times for covid (nursing home requirement) & haven't acquired Covid. I trust masks a lot, & feel confident when I go into a covid patients room and get right next to them that the mask will protect me.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by everwinter

From the article.



Self-reporting's always a little questionable. Maybe the responders were scared to admit they didn't follow rules & they actually went some places without a mask.

.

I'm an honest analyst...You're absolutely right about any study that relies on subjects' memories and honesty-- but reported mask use was essentially the same in both groups, so we can surmise that both groups lied equally....but those not infected had no real reason to lie.

"The Theory" makes no difference-- It's the practicality that counts. In practice, masks apparently don't make any difference.

I'll use the same logic here as that used in the Gun Regulation controversy: you can can make any laws you want. By definition, the outlaws aren't going to follow them.

While we can be glad your anecdotal experience is favorable, how many healthcare workers, presumably well trained & equipped with PPE still got infected?...No matter how many germs you successfully block, it's only the ones that get thru that count.

In the study, it's obviously the risk of going out in public that counts, but, given the extreme problems that the economic, social & psychological effects of seclusion produced, and given the near impunity of infection in the under 45 age demographic, the cure is worse than the disease.

WI had very low infection rates early on and is just playing "catch up" now. No epidemic comes under control until the recovered population grows beyond the equilibrium point. The proper metric of success should not be keeping the death count low, but limiting the number of people still susceptible.

[Empidonax]

Here's an article from UCHealth (July 16, 2020) that discusses some pre-Covid studies regarding the effectiveness of masks. The studies (as summarized, at least) generally seem to favor proper mask-wearing, though the report doesn't address any unique features about the current virus that might not apply to the pre-Covid studies mentioned.

https://www.uchealth.org/today/wear-...upports-masks/

And this study on coronaviruses in general features a lot of moving parts, but generally seems to conclude that masks can be effective when used in conjunction with other precautions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

Excerpt:

«There are more randomised controlled trials of community use of masks in well people (Aiello et al., 2012; Simmerman et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2010; Aiello et al., 2010; MacIntyre et al., 2009; Cowling et al., 2008, Suess et al., 2012, Cowling et al., 2009) than studies of the use by sick people (also referred to as “source control”), and these trials are larger than the few on source control (Johnson et al., 2009, Leung et al., 2020, MacIntyre et al., 2016). The evidence suggests protection by masks in high transmission settings such as household and college settings, especially if used early, in some trials if combined with hand hygiene and if wearers are compliant (Aiello et al., 2012; Aiello et al., 2010; MacIntyre et al., 2009; Cowling et al., 2008, Cowling et al., 2009, Suess et al., 2012). If masks protect in high transmission settings, they should also protect in crowded public spaces, including workplaces, buses, trains, planes and other closed settings. The trial which did not show efficacy used influenza as the outcome measure (Simmerman et al., 2011), which is a rare outcome, so requires a larger sample size for adequate power and may have been underpowered.»


And here's a discussion of a Duke University study that generally favors mask use, with some masks being more effective than others:

https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about...1&publicId=395