For sure. But the general population of morons wearing cheap masks just to feel compliant and get a false sense of safety is different.Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
For sure. But the general population of morons wearing cheap masks just to feel compliant and get a false sense of safety is different.
"What would a $2,000 Geissele Super Duty do that a $500 PSA door buster on Black Friday couldn't do?" - Stopsign32v
Moderator
I have been wearing n95 and Kn95 masks since the beginning of this. I just fork out the bucks. They really aren't even that expensive if you keep an eye out. I bought a bunch at a small town auction right at the beginning of all this mess and have supplemented with K95. I have never worn the cloth or surgical masks, because I haven't had too. I suspect if I n/k95 masks were more difficult to procure I might have worn a combo face shield and cloth mask. I really don't see why I wouldn't. It's the same reason I carry a j-frame to the bathroom in my own house--I probably won't need it...but why the hell not? The way I look at it, the masks give you the equivalent of a little more distance. I keep back, and am scrupulous about washing my hands. Honestly, if we all just stayed 5-6 foot back and kept up with our hygiene I suspect we would all be a lot healthier for all kinds of reasons.
I absolutely make sure that my wife and daughter are masked when they go in public (also n95/K95). I also make sure they obey the distancing and hand washing rules. I basically was a nazi about people touching their eyes and face but they (and myself) have gotten a lot better about this.
I have noticed this last year that all of us have had zero colds or fevers or flus. This is highly unusual in this household. I suspect (although I will never know) that is a result of 1. Masking/social distancing, 2. These procedures being followed closely in our daughters school, 3. Less cavalier attitude towards touching things in public, etc. I give the general public and businesses some credit but obviously, a lot of folks are not following the protocols for various reasons (1. Don't care, 2. Already had covid, 3. Political statement (probably the dumbest people), 4. poverty). Again, could just be a coincidence. I follow Farnam's rules about not going places where there is trouble and it has kept me out of gunfights. Again, might be a coincidence.
Obviously, just like in the gun world, you can never push your risk to zero. There are always tradeoffs. I just don't see any real downsides to masking up. Hell, I was paranoid about facial monitoring and now we have moved into a time where you can dress like a train robber and nobody cares. lol.
I suspect I or a member of my family will catch it at some point. But even then, the steps I have taken may have bought me enough time to where now medical professionals have many more tools. At the beginning, people were wondering if we should be drinking fishtank chemicals. Now we have some stuff that is really helpful. It might make the difference, hell it might not. Again, just like a gun. You might train and carry the best gun in the world, do everything right...and then get shot in the head while driving down the highway minding your own business.
Let those who are fond of blaming and finding fault, while they sit safely at home, ask, ‘Why did you not do thus and so?’I wish they were on this voyage; I well believe that another voyage of a different kind awaits them.”
Christopher Columbus
Senior Member
I agree. That's what I was getting at with the difference between mask effectiveness versus mask mandate effectiveness. Two entirely different subjects.
Senior Member
Asked and answered.
To 98% of the population, they are the same thing.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Member
No really no, https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10...aff.2020.00818
The study provides direct evidence on the effectiveness of widespread community use of face masks from a natural experiment that evaluated the effects of state government mandates in the US for face mask use in public on COVID-19 spread. Fifteen states plus Washington, D.C., mandated face mask use between April 8 and May 15. Using an event study that examined daily changes in county-level COVID-19 growth rates, the study found that mandating public use of face masks was associated with a reduction in the COVID-19 daily growth rate. Specifically, we found that the average daily county-level growth rate decreases by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after signing, respectively.
Senior Member
A study that encompassed less than 45 days when we are for all purposes 12 months into Covid is of questionable value.
Andy
Site Sponsor
Good points.
Senior Member
To be fair it was published June 16th. Current for the timeframe given
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Member
I believe the American people (in conjunction with/helped by our MSM) have lost the ability to scrutinize the veracity of the "authorities" who are telling them what they must do.
It is no longer a matter of trying to figure out if these people in positions of power are lying, it's about trying to figure out if they ever aren't lying.
Senior Member
Not sure I understand the study.
"This study provides evidence from a natural experiment on the effects of state government mandates for face mask use in public issued by fifteen states plus Washington, D.C., between April 8 and May 15, 2020. The research design is an event study examining changes in the daily county-level COVID-19 growth rates between March 31 and May 22, 2020. Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively."
"STUDY DATA AND METHODS
DATA
We collected information on statewide face cover mandate orders from public data sets on such policies and from searching and reviewing all state orders issued between April 1 and May 21, 2020. Our study focused on state executive orders or directives signed by governors that mandate use."
------------
okay...
One of the states they mentioned was Maryland. According to the linked search, Maryland had a 7-day average of 188 new infections per day for the week of March 31. That steadily increased to a 7-day average of 1,062 new infections per day for the week of May 22. That's greater than a 500% increase during the period. https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The study suggests that the infection growth rate could have been .9-2% less due to the mask mandate? How is such a claim anything more than statistical noise considering the huge increase during the period, as well as the unaccounted for variables in the study?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks