Texas becomes biggest US state to lift COVID-19 mask mandate

The data says otherwise. Data shows that mask mandates significantly slowed infection rates when areas without said mandates are compared to those that have them. I've linked to several sources for this at this point.

 

It does show stabilization what it does not show is why. And you claim to follow the science???

 

Think. Think. Where did the per capita numbers soar higher, in areas without mandates or those with mandates? You can cheat for this question by reading the links I've provided. This ain't rocket surgery. You can keep repeating the phrase "real life data," but one day you should try actually looking at the real life data.

 

Feel free to offer an alternative explanation. Meanwhile, this is not the only instance of said observation, and the main variable is always the same: masks. Yes, I'll keep following science. I wish you guys would do the same. This nonsense, primarily motivated by Trump worship and looney conspiracy theories, is getting people killed. Makes it hard to appreciate the entertainment value of such nonsense.

 

And you've been linked areas where mask mandates didn't have an impact.

That's actually very strong evidence that it's not the masks that's causing the difference.

 

Actually, I've been given some graphs, but most of the time no source is provided, and they simply cherry picks two states and ignoring all of the other data. No, that isn't "strong evidence."

Meanwhile, I can't throw a rock without hitting additional research demonstrating their effectiveness. Here's some more, which the conspiracy theorists will of course be incapable of addressing:

https://news.mit.edu/2020/masks-mandates-impact-deaths-0805
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...1zb42atQFU9v42OT_PwFLBqybYLNruqRoCrDcQAvD_BwE

It's a virus. It's a virus that primarily spreads through particulates. Masks are effective at blocking those particulates. No one with two brain cells to rub together can deny these facts.

 

How do you know masks are the "main variable"? You have shown correlation. Bravo. As mudman has pointed out (and you have ignored several time) data has already been presented that shown infection rates nearly identical for masked and unmasked states. If masks were truly an effective preventative measure (don't get me wrong I'm not saying they have no effect just a very small effect in practice) then we should not see similar infection rates in unmasked communities.

 

This is blatantly false. I've linked to a study that compared ALL "masked states" to ALL "unmasked states," and the "masked states" had a lower infection rate. We don't "see similar infection rates in unmasked communities." We see higher rates. Please read.

 

LSG posted a chart that showed Mississippi and Alabama tracking almost perfectly. Do you think the data is fake?

 

I think anyone capable of critical thought can see why that's not going to work when there is much better research using more inputs and doing a better job of isolating variables. One side is telling me to absorb as much relevant as possible. The other side is saying, "But what if we only look at these two things and ignore literally everything else?" Think.

 

I am thinking you're full of ****. I have no doubt you can demonstrate the efficacy of masks in a lab. I also have no doubt that in public where people are wearing all manner of less than ideal "masks" an all manner of improper fittings the results diverge rapidly from the ideal condition. Ergo, while they had an effect on curbing the rates it was likely small and dominated by other measures. The real effect should continue to drop with every. single. vaccination and recovery.

 

You can continue ignoring the facts if you want. I've provided several studies. Feel free to continue burying your head in the sand. Maybe look at the actual effects, which have been provided, instead of just theorizing about how large or small you think the effect should be? Maybe? Just maybe?

 

You cherry picked a couple counties in Kansas, no biggie when you do it though right?

Do you deny that people touch their masks all the time?

Do you deny that people then touch other things wherever they're at? I don't care about what people should/shouldn't be doing. I am simply referring to what actually happens so don't tell me 'well they shouldn't be touching things'....they are and that's what matters.

Can you produce a study that takes these things into account?

You seem to be looking at this from a hypothetical standpoint and I'm looking at it from the perspective of what is really happening in the country. Hypothetically, could masks help if nobody touched them? Then if they did made sure to whip out the hand sanitizer to disinfect? etc etc.... Sure, maybe if everybody exercised flawless technique you could say masks could help and then the data would back that up. That's not what I'm arguing because I don't care about a perfect world that doesn't exist. I think those of us saying they don't appear to be working are speaking to the fact that the numbers country wide just don't show enough of a difference, if any, to conclude that masks are definitely making an impact.

 

Will you admit you are wrong when texas does not show a spike in infections? I bet you won't.

 

Unless we see some significant increases in vaccine distribution soon, we'll see a spike. Will you admit you are wrong when Texas does show a spike in infections? Can't wait to hear the excuses.

 

Not only that, but his chart doesn't say if any other measures where mandated. He says that the "main variable" was a mask but doesn't even try to back it up. Completely dishonest.

 

The variable used to distinguish between the two groups was mask mandates. I've linked to more details about the study and the controls they used. But I guess if you were reading this stuff we wouldn't be having this "debate" in the first place.

 

You either don't know what the phrase "cherry picked" means or you didn't read the link. They compared ALL Kansas counties that had mask mandates to ALL Kansas counties that didn't. After you look up what "cherry picked" means, you'll learn a thing or two about how that couldn't be any further from cherry picking.

Hell, I guess it is free tutoring time again. You see, in order to "cherry pick," they would have had to only compare SOME mask mandate counties to SOME counties without a mandate and pick the ones that favor the numbers they want. Anyone who read the links can see that this isn't what happened. Why do you feel the need to make that up? I think we both know.

And I don't care about your strawmen.

Already have.

Thank you for admitting that you didn't read any of my links. That explains a lot.

 

Good grief.....you cherry picked kansas. Pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant.

You don't care about reality or what goes on in the real world? That explains a lot. Wish I would've known this from the beginning.

 

You said "cherry picked a few counties in Kansas." Yes, I know what you meant, and we both know why you are now shifting the goalposts. Plus, I've provided several other links that go beyond Kansas, so you either still don't know what "cherry picked" means or, and I think this is far more likely, you haven't even attempted to review any of the data provided. Cool beans.

This fake argument has already been corrected, but I'll correct it again. I've linked to real world data. You are projecting your unwillingness to confront the real world onto others. Why do you insist on making **** up instead of just consulting the data?

 

20 people out of 100,000 is 0.02%. In other words the "no substantial difference" factor is 99.98%

Take your own advice about "facts".

 

. . . some quick, free math tutoring here: if you are going to compare the "difference," you should compare the cases out of 100,000 in Group A (the group with a mask mandate) to the cases out of 100,000 in Group B (the group without). If you are feeling lazy, the study a link to does that for you. Spoiler alert: the difference is quite substantial. You are doing your "factoring" wrong.

 

FYI, the influenza virus was done 98%

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

 

The highest number on the Y-axis on your graph is 50. That is 50 people out of 100,000, and the highest any line reaches is 40 cases out of 100,000 people. Kansas does not appear to have a huge Covid issue, mask or no mask.

Besides your chart ends last November. This is March already.

What happened in Kansas since November? Mask or no mask, they had a winter peak like the rest of the country, followed by a sharp decline back to about the same levels where they were going into last spring (masks or no masks).

Pssst. It's not the masks.


https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/160/COVID-19-in-Kansas

 

Try to understand what the graph represents. Okay, 40 cases out of 100,000 people . . . 40 cases out of 100,000 people refers, specifically, to what? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you are making it difficult.

Okay. And?

This may be the most blatantly dishonest argument I've seen in the forums in years. Yes, the disease peaked in winter. You claim that this means that the masks made no difference . . . I'm assuming you are intelligent enough to realize that you could only make the argument that the data supports your claim if the data covered the difference between mask wearing and not wearing a mask during that time period, like my graph did . . . which yours doesn't. What do you need help understanding here?

Think. Baby steps. Does your graph show that there was no difference in the number of cases between mask-wearing areas and non-mask wearing areas? No, it does not. A middle schooler could see that.

Psst, your graph provides no data at all regarding masks.

Please try to comprehend: if I were to tell you that drowning deaths spiked in summer, and that the drowning deaths in summer were much higher than the drowning deaths in the previous winter, would you understand that it would be an absolutely braindead argument to try to use this to claim that lifeguards don't make a difference? Would you comprehend that? If you comprehend that, then you see why your own argument is completely vapid, so I'm afraid I still have to ask.

"Drowning deaths spiked in summer. Pssst, it's not the lifeguards." Do you see how moronic that is? Yes or no?