You guys arguing back and forth about masks how dumb. You sight this guys findings and numbers, you sight this one to rebut. Do "proper" masks work in a "controlled" study following strict guidelines YES. Do they work in the real world where people don't wear the right kind (a thin cloth over their mouth most 1 layer) in a work environment where you touch it and it falls down and you have to lift it back over your nose. Wearing the same one every day and then people just not wearing them at all. NO because you can't make people do it. Wear one if you want and quit trying to control people because history has shown that doesn't work. If your scared stay the fuck home and quit crying.
Also mostly wrong.
The mask usage studies people did look at, before making them mandatory in field - were mass usage studies, in field. One of the issues was, that at first there werent that many, and that they sometimes were contradictory.
(Wow, so you are saying it depends on how people used them?)
You are right though, that if you are dealing with people, that "do not believe in them", and then "dont use them", and then use "numbers still bad" as an excuse for their behavior - you are rectifying a self fulfilling prophecy, that certainly doesnt get better, once you've convinced everyone not to do jack.
--
Because you cant differentiate "was it masks, was it behavior change" (people holding more distance) very well, we can come down to "you want something" that creates those plateaus.
Otherwise, what you would see in in those graphs is spikes, that accelerate to the point where mass immunity is reached, and then sharply drop - because mass immunity is reached.
That they 'plateau' at all, means "fuel is missing". Was it masks, was it people not shaking hands anymore, was it people washing hands more often - you cant ask them (they dont know), and you cant say which one it was for sure - but you want that mix, to get you the result of the "one person infects three" spread stalling - earlier than at 'congratulations, 60% of your popultion has it already'.
Now any somewhat effective measure could do that. If your group of ultra morons, that 'dont believe in it working' finally are all infected, and have reached mass immunity - while at the same time only 10% of your overall population is effected, this would also show in a plateau, no masks needed with the morons, but masks needed with everyone else.
If a slight summers breeze is enough to keep concentration of aerosols in the air beachside in Santa Monica low concentration enough, that spread stays linear, so be it - but that wasnt what people were seeing all over the country. (If you look at the sharp spike and sharp fall in Nevada - thats more of an indication for 'all morons infected now').
Not seeing a decline in the graphs, is not 'masks arent working', because with cloth/curgical masks you want to slow down spread, and prevent propagation "across" different tighly nit groups, that meet without wearing masks.
So - if there is no change in the expected propagation curve, you are allowed to scratch your head. But a 'lessening incline' is not no change, and a flat line (plateau), also is not no change.
And that if more people stay longer in heated rooms, than outside, the whole problem becomes bigger by several magnitudes - also is something you could have known, by the point you realized, that any flue is seasonal.
Also - if you dont limit 'mass spread vectors' (mass spreader events) like the US never showed many signs of doing - you can have exponential growth - for a while, with many people only f.e. infecting their families. Because at home, people dont wear masks. That doesnt mean, that you shouldnt try to have it not spread across your society - using any of the means you have.
And masks are shown to both reduce the aerosols in the air (not entirely, but by volume and amounts of particles per unit of air), and remind people to adhere to social distancing rules. Are they perfect? No. Do they help? Yes. And you can even see it in the graphs that are lampooned to 'show that masks didnt work' because the line still went up again six months further into the future.
Thats simply ignorance - and pronouncing something, because you cant read whats there.
--
Also if you want to look at this by country, and lets use 'how well was it managed' (instead of just 'masks'), thats fine as well.
Germany:
Great compliance:
France:
Got out of hand, followed by actually good compliance:
Spain:
All over the place - probably not well managed - and at the beginning of the next incline:
Italy:
Missmanaged at first, but now on the way to a plateau, after 'harsher measures'
US:
Finally plateauing, so what I'd call managed - but at a very high level (relative to peak) of cases (thats the best case scenario for the economy btw, because it means, there were few lockdowns in place.):
Also please take with a grain of salt, because if you limit testing - you also get a plateau. And there are testing limitations in certain german metropolies, that I know are in place (not sure how much they affect the overall result, not sure how thats handled in other countries - so just one datapoint to remind you to be at least a bit sceptical.)
Also deaths curve for italy looks like this:
(Death curves are always 'more spikey' ('prone to extremes, caused by single events'))
Meaning, that they did a great job managing the actual care of patients better the second time around. Or that the second time arround mostly young people got infected.
Deathrate in the US -
Shows an almost constant high death rate - as in 'almost nothing done'.
Now for deaths you'd have to look at deaths per million to find out if true.
US deaths per million: 1100,
Italy deaths per million: 1200,
(France deaths per million: 1000,
Spain deaths per million 1100,
Germany deaths per million: 440)
(Population density:
US: 35.5 inhabitants per square kilometer
Italy: 205 inhabitants per square kilometer
France: 122 people per square kilometer
Spain: 94 people per square kilometer
Germany: 234 people per square kilometer
Meaning US sucked balls, and Spain sucked.)
Meaning - even though italy was hit 'the worst' in the beginning, US managed to become like italy - by missmanaging their outbreak throughout the year. And while having the far better (lower) population density number. Congratulations.
-
If you want proof that Nevada was a bumblef*ck state:
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1340106627576262656
Almost every state reports more than 100 people hospitalized per million, while Nevada reports 592, which translates into 1 out of 1700 people in the state.
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1338285945708146689
edit: Deaths per million for Nevada are also at around 1000, thats odd - so lets look at population density:
Nevada: 11 inhabitants per square kilometer - so they a re bumblef*ck central. 3.5 times lower population density than the rest of the country (on average), but just as many deaths per million as the rest.
--
Also - if you want to see something odd, you compare 'infections per million', where every developed state is aiming at around the 40000 number.
And where Switzerland is at 40000, but germany is at 20000 - what that tells you is - that
Masks work - but no one gives a f*ck what people are shouting, and everyone is aiming at that 40k number currently, no matter the circumstances at all (not population density, not age, not terrain, ...) - which means the actual driver for measures is not 'what people think', but actually - economic.
In germany it isnt - but 'the f*ck are they doing'. Also there is a suspiciously high amount of developing countries also at 20k or 10k and below. So either their 'climate' very healthy - or those numbers are fixed (f.e. by limitation of testing capacity), or for some reason they all wear masks as successfully as germans do.
src:
https://ncov2019.live/
Arrived at that conclusion after wondering, why Nevada was bumblef*ck central until they hit 1000 deaths per million, and only then started to do something.
Also looking at "rich people central and also an island" (New Zealand), they are at 400 infections per million. Which is 100x better than everyone else - and they werent limited by testing, at a population density of 18 inhabitants per square kilometer. This gives you an idea what role topography can play. And where Nevada could have ended up - if well managed.
Nevada infections per million, currently? 80000. New Zealand 400. But the problem is, that masks dont work?
The Real Jdbye
@
BigOnYa:
