Thanks for posting. I read her thread this past weekend and found if quite fascinating. I learn so much from a lot of her posts.Mormad said:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1375707615351595008.html
Some Monica Ghandi stuff and a link to follow her
Coronavirus
2,600,783 Views |
20305 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by Werewolf
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,263
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,263
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Here are the latest vaccination updates for the US and NC (Data Source: Bloomberg Vaccination Tracker):
US Vaccinations:
Total Vaccination Doses Available: 189,476,694
Total Vaccination Dose Administered: 147,602,345 <== 28.9% of population have received 1st dose
Percentage of Available Doses Administered: 77.9%
NC Vaccinations:
Total Vaccination Doses Available: 5,776,229
Total Vaccination Dose Administered: 4,609,430 <== 28.4% of population have received 1st dose
Percentage of Available Doses Administered: 79.8%
Below are the graphs showing how we are doing in reaching the 200M doses in the first 100 days of the Biden administration.
US Vaccination 200M Doses Target (Data Source: Bloomberg Data Tracker):
NC Vaccination 6.4M Doses Target (Data Source: Bloomberg Data Tracker):
US Vaccinations:
Total Vaccination Doses Available: 189,476,694
Total Vaccination Dose Administered: 147,602,345 <== 28.9% of population have received 1st dose
Percentage of Available Doses Administered: 77.9%
NC Vaccinations:
Total Vaccination Doses Available: 5,776,229
Total Vaccination Dose Administered: 4,609,430 <== 28.4% of population have received 1st dose
Percentage of Available Doses Administered: 79.8%
Below are the graphs showing how we are doing in reaching the 200M doses in the first 100 days of the Biden administration.
US Vaccination 200M Doses Target (Data Source: Bloomberg Data Tracker):
NC Vaccination 6.4M Doses Target (Data Source: Bloomberg Data Tracker):
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,263
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I decided to make this a separate post, since I believe it is worth the focus. If you know of people who doubt the vaccine's effectiveness, please show them the chart below. As you can see, before we began mass vaccination of the older age groups, there was clear division between the age groups hospitalized and the 70+ age group had the highest number of daily hospitalizations.
Since the vaccinations have begun to be administered, the number of people hospitalized for the key age groups have all collapsed on top of each other, with no clear separation between the age groups. What is driving this collapse in age groups hospitalized - it is clearly the vaccines.
The chart below show the percentage of those partially and fully vaccinated by age group. As you can see, the age groups most heavily vaccinated are those that contributed the most to hospitalizations and are those that are now seeing the greatest decrease in hospitalizations. The vaccines work and anyone that suggests otherwise is only trying to mislead you.
Since the vaccinations have begun to be administered, the number of people hospitalized for the key age groups have all collapsed on top of each other, with no clear separation between the age groups. What is driving this collapse in age groups hospitalized - it is clearly the vaccines.
The chart below show the percentage of those partially and fully vaccinated by age group. As you can see, the age groups most heavily vaccinated are those that contributed the most to hospitalizations and are those that are now seeing the greatest decrease in hospitalizations. The vaccines work and anyone that suggests otherwise is only trying to mislead you.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,263
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I have mentioned Alicia Smith as someone to follow on Twitter. Tonight, she Tweeted out a new study regarding T-Cells and their potential effectiveness against many of the variants currently circulating around the world.
This information, combined with the latest study from the CDC showing the effectiveness of the vaccines to reduce transmission after vaccination seem to be more good news and supportive of people getting vaccinated. As the evidence continues to mount, hopefully the messaging and policies will shift to a return to normal.
This information, combined with the latest study from the CDC showing the effectiveness of the vaccines to reduce transmission after vaccination seem to be more good news and supportive of people getting vaccinated. As the evidence continues to mount, hopefully the messaging and policies will shift to a return to normal.
Got a text from my brother last night that said. Astudt was released showing the frontine worked who got their shot back in mid December were still showing 90% efficacy now. I took that as a good sign. Also read an article that stated 15 days after the first Pfizer shot, you have 90% efficacy. That made me feel a little better.
Pfizer was 100% effective in preventing transmission of COVID-19 in adolescents ages 12 to 15.
Pfizer Adolescent Study
Pfizer Adolescent Study
packgrad said:
This was a well timed tweet as yesterday Texas reported an increase in daily cases with an increase in the 7 day average of cases. Their hospitalizations also increased yesterday as well. Deaths still trending down which is great to see.
Still not a trend, but Texas is not out of the woods yet. I am not trying to make this R vs. D as the original tweeter was, but very important to attach context and true data to these arguments one way or the other.
PackPA2015 said:packgrad said:
This was a well timed tweet as yesterday Texas reported an increase in daily cases with an increase in the 7 day average of cases. Their hospitalizations also increased yesterday as well. Deaths still trending down which is great to see.
Still not a trend, but Texas is not out of the woods yet. I am not trying to make this R vs. D as the original tweeter was, but very important to attach context and true data to these arguments one way or the other.
But is that related at all to any mandate? There is no correlation. The decrease wasn't a direct result of lifting the mandate, the increase isn't a direct result of lifting the mandate. Their increase is still less than many places that have mandates in place. Seasonality and climate win again.
I mean cases are slightly rising in NC (I still think plateau, but I can spin it as a 'rise')? Is it because we did or did not lift our mask mandate?
OR
There is also some discussion about a particular susceptibility to C19 infection in the 2 weeks following vaccination. (Not discounting the effectiveness of the vaccine). Just more inputs to look at.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,263
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Mormad - Thanks for posting this article. I found myself agreeing with all of his points, particularly the ones on the politicization of science and the role of the media. The point on science is something we have discussed recently and at different times in this lengthy thread. Being someone who was educated in science and loves science with a passion, I have tried to avoid getting political, but a few times I have had a selective rant.Mormad said:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/91860?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2021-03-31&eun=g1815585d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Engagement%20PassiveNew%202021-03-31&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_passiveNew
A must read
With regards to his point on the role of media, he said exactly the same thing I have said in past posts. Here is his exact quote:
"A media landscape whose first commitment is to attention -- capturing as many views, eyeballs, and clicks as possible -- has failed us."
Many in the media (I called some out a couple of days ago) have done tremendous harm and as such, their ability to inform me is significantly diminished. I have always believed the media's role is to accurately report balls and strikes and with some in the media, they have not done so. As the author says and I have pointed out in the past, the media needs to generate eyeballs and the more they can hype a story, the more eyeballs they can generate.
I have friends in the media and I have had some discussion with a couple of them in the past about how some in the media have handled the reporting on Covid-19. They have agreed with my views and in a couple of cases, have admitted their own frustrations with how much of the reporting has been slanted and manipulated.
This seems huge since there's obviously millions of children who haven't been vaccinated. Would be key to schools operating like normal in the fall if we can get most children vaccinated as well. I know they don't transmit as easily but this would be an extra layer of protection.PackPA2015 said:
Pfizer was 100% effective in preventing transmission of COVID-19 in adolescents ages 12 to 15.
Pfizer Adolescent Study
That was my point in my original post. The tweet doesn't take anything in context and attributes the decline in cases directly to repealing the mask mandate. I am not saying that there is a direct connection with the increased cases either. I'm just tired of making this all an R vs. D argument without acknowledging the millions of other factors affecting cases.
School should be back to normal now. Anything less than that is anti-science.statefan91 said:This seems huge since there's obviously millions of children who haven't been vaccinated. Would be key to schools operating like normal in the fall if we can get most children vaccinated as well. I know they don't transmit as easily but this would be an extra layer of protection.PackPA2015 said:
Pfizer was 100% effective in preventing transmission of COVID-19 in adolescents ages 12 to 15.
Pfizer Adolescent Study
C19 has a massive risk stratification. Along the lines of what Prasad has said, do the adverse reactions associated with the vaccine outweigh the benefits to kids? I think there is actual debate there. Will the answer eventually be to vaccinate kids, maybe... maybe even a definite yes. But maybe slow the roll a little on kids so that we don't need to push the EUA down on them when there isn't benefits for them may not outweigh the risks.
Do I think the same debate holds for seniors, of course not.
PackPA2015 said:
That was my point in my original post. The tweet doesn't take anything in context and attributes the decline in cases directly to repealing the mask mandate. I am not saying that there is a direct connection with the increased cases either. I'm just tired of making this all an R vs. D argument without acknowledging the millions of other factors affecting cases.
I disagree. Texans (and other states lifting mandates) were called 'Neanderthals' and that they were signing a 'death warrant for Texans', per the subtweets.
Texas was promised an apocalypse by hyperbolic politicians, public health officials, and media. And it didn't happen. And thus further erodes public trust in all these things. Instead of having a reasoned take, they promise the end of days and cry wolf.
When the Wolf does come and we need real direction and guidance for impactful measures, that guidance will fall on deaf ears because our media and leaders can't give a nuanced context filled take themselves. Instead resorting to insults and hyperbole.
It is our leaders, public health officials, and media that should be providing the nuance and context. THEY ARE STILL FAILING AT THIS A YEAR INTO THE PANDEMIC.
For the record. I am neither R nor D.
No, the tweet doesn't do that at all. That is your bias assigning the correlation to that tweet thread. His point was all of the people making comments like "death mandate", "Neanderthal thinking" were wrong. And they were/are.PackPA2015 said:
That was my point in my original post. The tweet doesn't take anything in context and attributes the decline in cases directly to repealing the mask mandate. I am not saying that there is a direct connection with the increased cases either. I'm just tired of making this all an R vs. D argument without acknowledging the millions of other factors affecting cases.
Edit to add.... here is another tweet in the thread. Notice the trend and the silence from media.
What has been the consistent adverse reaction to the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine? I haven't read anything on that and it seems like this would be an extra layer of preventing spread / sickness, and it would eliminate the talking point of unions to avoid going back to work. Granted I think they should be back in school at this point, that's not what I'm discussing. I'm saying a safe and effective vaccine for children would just help move us further to herd immunity and keep schools even safer.
But that is the thing, when one side does it (say liberal media for example) and then the other side (say original tweeter) says the same thing just on the other aspect of it, does it make either of them right?Wayland said:PackPA2015 said:
That was my point in my original post. The tweet doesn't take anything in context and attributes the decline in cases directly to repealing the mask mandate. I am not saying that there is a direct connection with the increased cases either. I'm just tired of making this all an R vs. D argument without acknowledging the millions of other factors affecting cases.
I disagree. Texans (and other states lifting mandates) were called Neanderthals and that they were signing a 'death warrant for Texans', per the subtweets.
Texas was promised an apocalypse by hyperbolic politicians, public health officials, and media. And it didn't happen. And thus further erodes public trust in all these things. Instead of having a reasoned take, they promise the end of days and cry wolf.
When the Wolf does come and we need real direction and guidance for impactful measures, that guidance will fall on deaf ears because our media and leaders can't give a nuanced context filled take themselves. Instead resorting to insults and hyperbole.
It is our leaders, public health officials, and media that should be providing the nuance and context. THEY ARE STILL FAILING AT THIS A YEAR INTO THE PANDEMIC.
For the record. I am neither R nor D.
Obviously, you and I cannot control what other people tweet or say, but the tweeter is just as guilty for doing the same things above that you are complaining about. That was all I was calling out. It doesn't make it right whether its a republican or a democrat doing it.
I am not disagreeing at all that leaders in our country have not made things worse. Trust is at an all time low with public health and that is harmful to future issues for sure.
As you know, I am on record in these threads saying it was too early for repealing of the mask mandate based on their vaccination rates, presence of multiple variants, and cases/hospitalizations and it could have been. This is still undergoing a "trial". I did not predict an apocalypse or even a huge spike in cases, just that the increase in risk of cases/hospitalizations risk and potentially going backwards as a state outweigh the inconvenience of wearing a mask. That is my opinion not based on any political belief. I could care less who runs the state. I would say the same thing if Cooper repealed the mandate in NC.
PackPA2015 said:But that is the thing, when one side does it (say liberal media for example) and then the other side (say original tweeter) says the same thing just on the other aspect of it, does it make either of them right?Wayland said:PackPA2015 said:
That was my point in my original post. The tweet doesn't take anything in context and attributes the decline in cases directly to repealing the mask mandate. I am not saying that there is a direct connection with the increased cases either. I'm just tired of making this all an R vs. D argument without acknowledging the millions of other factors affecting cases.
I disagree. Texans (and other states lifting mandates) were called Neanderthals and that they were signing a 'death warrant for Texans', per the subtweets.
Texas was promised an apocalypse by hyperbolic politicians, public health officials, and media. And it didn't happen. And thus further erodes public trust in all these things. Instead of having a reasoned take, they promise the end of days and cry wolf.
When the Wolf does come and we need real direction and guidance for impactful measures, that guidance will fall on deaf ears because our media and leaders can't give a nuanced context filled take themselves. Instead resorting to insults and hyperbole.
It is our leaders, public health officials, and media that should be providing the nuance and context. THEY ARE STILL FAILING AT THIS A YEAR INTO THE PANDEMIC.
For the record. I am neither R nor D.
Obviously, you and I cannot control what other people tweet or say, but the tweeter is just as guilty for doing the same things above that you are complaining about. That was all I was calling out. It doesn't make it right whether its a republican or a democrat doing it.
I am not disagreeing at all that leaders in our country have not made things worse. Trust is at an all time low with public health and that is harmful to future issues for sure.
As you know, I am on record in these threads saying it was too early for repealing of the mask mandate based on their vaccination rates, presence of multiple variants, and cases/hospitalizations and it could have been. This is still undergoing a "trial". I did not predict an apocalypse or even a huge spike in cases, just that the increase in risk of cases/hospitalizations risk and potentially going backwards as a state outweigh the inconvenience of wearing a mask. That is my opinion not based on any political belief. I could care less who runs the state. I would say the same thing if Cooper repealed the mandate in NC.
Putting aside how the media loves to focus only on Florida and Texas.
When the one side hurling insults is our President and members of Congress and the other side is some Yahoo on Twitter who doesn't even have a blue check (for whatever that is worth), then, who says what matters A WHOLE LOT.
Tell me how it helps to have the President call Texans "Neanderthals"?? Really going to bring people in to follow the guidance.
One of my major problems all along has been messaging. And for some reason, politicians can't get their heads out of their asses and think long enough to stop playing pandemic politics.
Instead of crying wolf on mask mandates, double down on vaccinations.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,263
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Yes - Babylon Bee is satire (I hope people do realize this), but I thought the following Tweet was particular spot on. It echoes what we heard from Dr. Walensky said a couple of days ago in her Covid update. She expressed extreme worry and dread and at one point, she even said she was going off-script to convey her personal concern. In actuality, it is obvious to me and anyone who objectively watched the video that she did not go "off script" and actually continued to read from the prepared script. What a horrible way to try and build trust.
Fair enough. I get your point and I agree with it. I called out Trump for some of the things he said and I will do the same with Biden. Words, especially from our President and Congress, matter.Wayland said:PackPA2015 said:But that is the thing, when one side does it (say liberal media for example) and then the other side (say original tweeter) says the same thing just on the other aspect of it, does it make either of them right?Wayland said:PackPA2015 said:
That was my point in my original post. The tweet doesn't take anything in context and attributes the decline in cases directly to repealing the mask mandate. I am not saying that there is a direct connection with the increased cases either. I'm just tired of making this all an R vs. D argument without acknowledging the millions of other factors affecting cases.
I disagree. Texans (and other states lifting mandates) were called Neanderthals and that they were signing a 'death warrant for Texans', per the subtweets.
Texas was promised an apocalypse by hyperbolic politicians, public health officials, and media. And it didn't happen. And thus further erodes public trust in all these things. Instead of having a reasoned take, they promise the end of days and cry wolf.
When the Wolf does come and we need real direction and guidance for impactful measures, that guidance will fall on deaf ears because our media and leaders can't give a nuanced context filled take themselves. Instead resorting to insults and hyperbole.
It is our leaders, public health officials, and media that should be providing the nuance and context. THEY ARE STILL FAILING AT THIS A YEAR INTO THE PANDEMIC.
For the record. I am neither R nor D.
Obviously, you and I cannot control what other people tweet or say, but the tweeter is just as guilty for doing the same things above that you are complaining about. That was all I was calling out. It doesn't make it right whether its a republican or a democrat doing it.
I am not disagreeing at all that leaders in our country have not made things worse. Trust is at an all time low with public health and that is harmful to future issues for sure.
As you know, I am on record in these threads saying it was too early for repealing of the mask mandate based on their vaccination rates, presence of multiple variants, and cases/hospitalizations and it could have been. This is still undergoing a "trial". I did not predict an apocalypse or even a huge spike in cases, just that the increase in risk of cases/hospitalizations risk and potentially going backwards as a state outweigh the inconvenience of wearing a mask. That is my opinion not based on any political belief. I could care less who runs the state. I would say the same thing if Cooper repealed the mandate in NC.
Putting aside how the media loves to focus only on Florida and Texas.
When the one side hurling insults is our President and members of Congress and the other side is some Yahoo on Twitter who doesn't even have a blue check (for whatever that is worth), then, who says what matters A WHOLE LOT.
I still don't agree with using the Yahoo on Twitter as "evidence" for success for repealing the mask mandate, specifically when his evidence does not hold true today. That could of course change tomorrow and cases/hospitalizations could go back down and continue to trend downward. Either way, the tweet, to me, is not a good one, but to each their own as always.
ETA: On your point on doubling down on vaccinations, this is exactly what we are doing. Pushing them out as fast as we can, but there are other things that can also be done at the same time (3 Ws) while in public spaces with unvaccinated individuals.
I may should have said "indirectly" vs. "directly" in my post. I still think it is a really bad tweet, but people can do what they want on twitter.
Just want to say that Texas, and every state in our country, are not out of the woods, yet.
Just want to say that Texas, and every state in our country, are not out of the woods, yet.
What is your definition of out of the woods? I think that based on the data we have currently, that we are out of the woods as far as risk of overwhelming the health care system, which is why all of the restrictions were put in place in the first place. Are we out of the woods for flareups, new variants, increase in cases, increase in hospitalization, increase in deaths? Probably not. But at this point in time, given the number of people who have reportedly been infected, the number of people with at least some protection from one shot of vaccine, and the number of highly vulnerable who have unfortunately succumbed to this disease, I can't see how we are at risk of overwhelming the health care system.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
Out of the woods for me is enough vaccinated + natural immunity to prevent or lessen the impact of a fourth wave and to keep COVID numbers (cases, hospitalizations, and deaths) at a tolerable level - think influenza-like numbers. There are quite a few epidemiologists who have discussed the possibility of a fourth wave and are still discussing this at length. We still have several hotspots currently in the Mid-West and Northeast that still leave this possibility open.wilmwolf80 said:
What is your definition of out of the woods? I think that based on the data we have currently, that we are out of the woods as far as risk of overwhelming the health care system, which is why all of the restrictions were put in place in the first place. Are we out of the woods for flareups, new variants, increase in cases, increase in hospitalization, increase in deaths? Probably not. But at this point in time, given the number of people who have reportedly been infected, the number of people with at least some protection from one shot of vaccine, and the number of highly vulnerable who have unfortunately succumbed to this disease, I can't see how we are at risk of overwhelming the health care system.
This can be two-fold - nationally and state-by-state. For NC, I have said previously that I think 50% immunized with at least 1 dose should be sufficient to repeal the mask mandate. That number combined with natural immunity should confer adequate protection to keep COVID at an influenza-like level which is tolerable for our society. Businesses should be open 100% at this point due to the rapid decline in numbers anyways.
ETA: If any of you are on Facebook, Your Local Epidemiologist (data-based) and Friendly Neighbor Epidemiologist (faith and data-based) are great follows. They present a ton of data based on their home state of Texas (since we are discussing it) and nationally as well. They discuss the pandemic and various other public health issues.
PackPA2015 said:
I may should have said "indirectly" vs. "directly" in my post. I still think it is a really bad tweet, but people can do what they want on twitter.
Just want to say that Texas, and every state in our country, are not out of the woods, yet.
I agree that 3 weeks isn't long enough to know what's gonna happen in Texas, assuming that lifting the mandate can be correlated AT ALL with a rise or fall in cases. I tend to agree with Wayland that those two things are difficult to correlate alone. Mask mandates are political, wearing a mask is not. I've never been a fan of mask mandates if people could be trusted to act in a responsible manner. NC could lift all restrictions today and many would still live as if restricted based on their own personal risk valuation. Many texans could be doing the same. So, in the end, it's very difficult to use Texas as a shining example for the country. Not a big fan of such a tweet either. I think it assumes too much too soon and likely sends an irresponsible message to a number of people who want to hear it. Mask mandates aren't the way out of this though. As Wayland said, double down on vaccinating all that will.
Agreed. Overwhelming the health care system is no longer the concern. It's more along the lines of supporting your team.wilmwolf80 said:
What is your definition of out of the woods? I think that based on the data we have currently, that we are out of the woods as far as risk of overwhelming the health care system, which is why all of the restrictions were put in place in the first place. Are we out of the woods for flareups, new variants, increase in cases, increase in hospitalization, increase in deaths? Probably not. But at this point in time, given the number of people who have reportedly been infected, the number of people with at least some protection from one shot of vaccine, and the number of highly vulnerable who have unfortunately succumbed to this disease, I can't see how we are at risk of overwhelming the health care system.
If cases were trending up for 3 weeks in Texas, we would have enough info to say they made the incorrect decision. If they aren't trending up, we don't have enough info. We don't even know if there is a correlation between mask mandates and cases increasing/decreasing. But it's bad form for someone to call out the people that were calling for doom and gloom in Texas due to lifting the mask mandate....
If cases were going up it would just as poor form to blame lifting the mandate imo.
90% after 1 shot?!RunsWithWolves26 said:
Got a text from my brother last night that said. Astudt was released showing the frontine worked who got their shot back in mid December were still showing 90% efficacy now. I took that as a good sign. Also read an article that stated 15 days after the first Pfizer shot, you have 90% efficacy. That made me feel a little better.
Wow. So what does the 2nd shot do? I've already got 1 Pfizer and my 2nd one is in a couple weeks.
ncsualum05 said:90% after 1 shot?!RunsWithWolves26 said:
Got a text from my brother last night that said. Astudt was released showing the frontine worked who got their shot back in mid December were still showing 90% efficacy now. I took that as a good sign. Also read an article that stated 15 days after the first Pfizer shot, you have 90% efficacy. That made me feel a little better.
Wow. So what does the 2nd shot do? I've already got 1 Pfizer and my 2nd one is in a couple weeks.
According to my brother, it ups you to 96% and in his not so fancy words, makes your body go to work faster. I will be getting my second shot in a little over 2 weeks and even though it doesn't seem like much, for me and my wife, every little extra protection helps.
Wife and I are getting our first shot Friday
I am assuming this is partially directed at me. I have no team as I have mentioned many, many times. I follow the data and discuss. My opinions will not always align with yours and that is okay.packgrad said:Agreed. Overwhelming the health care system is no longer the concern. It's more along the lines of supporting your team.wilmwolf80 said:
What is your definition of out of the woods? I think that based on the data we have currently, that we are out of the woods as far as risk of overwhelming the health care system, which is why all of the restrictions were put in place in the first place. Are we out of the woods for flareups, new variants, increase in cases, increase in hospitalization, increase in deaths? Probably not. But at this point in time, given the number of people who have reportedly been infected, the number of people with at least some protection from one shot of vaccine, and the number of highly vulnerable who have unfortunately succumbed to this disease, I can't see how we are at risk of overwhelming the health care system.
If cases were trending up for 3 weeks in Texas, we would have enough info to say they made the incorrect decision. If they aren't trending up, we don't have enough info. We don't even know if there is a correlation between mask mandates and cases increasing/decreasing. But it's bad form for someone to call out the people that were calling for doom and gloom in Texas due to lifting the mask mandate....
I think mask mandates work, because there is data (to me) that shows that they do. Others will argue differently. I also live in an area that is highly anti-mask due to political beliefs which has shaped my above opinion. My county has been slower for cases to decline and we are dealing with prolonged hospitalizations and deaths secondary to this. If you live in a more urban area, your opinion may be completely different based on what you see.
Cases are going up in Texas as are hospitalizations. We just do not know yet if that is a trend or a blip on the radar. We simply need more time to follow it. Is this due to a repealing of the mask mandate? If people in Texas are no longer wearing masks in large numbers, then yes it could be. If people in Texas are still wearing masks in high enough numbers, then it is likely unrelated. I don't live in Texas, so I can't answer that question. I follow multiple epidemiologists who were very, very against repealing of the mask mandates, not because of their political beliefs, but because the numbers were not there yet in their opinions. I tend to heed their advice on this as well over ANY political figure, R or D.
My point about the tweet was simply this, please don't use hyperbole or out of context information to call out people who are being hyperbolic and using info out of context. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,263
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
nm. Not even worth debate at this point.
Wayland said:
nm. Not even worth debate at this point.
You're not bothering me. I read your post before you took it down.
It's hard to know what I am looking at with your graphs without the description beside the color. There are differences between each that are noticeable which may make yours or my point, not sure.
You make fair points and they are data-based which is greatly appreciated. I have attached a study which I believe I've shared before which is not cherry picked data and provides evidence that mask mandates do lower numbers/transmission. As I have shared before, my county does me no favors in changing my opinion of mask mandates. We have 50% wearing a mask with a mandate. With talking to patients and others in the community, without a mandate this likely drops to around 20-25%. We have dealt with climbing covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths much longer when compared to similar surrounding counties that have more mask adherence.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that our focus should be on increasing vaccination rates as quickly as possible and we are doing that currently. The rest of the equation is, do we keep on doing the rest of what has worked or not? In my opinion, we do in order to guarantee or lower the risk of prolonging a return to normalcy until vaccination rates get there. We can have our sole focus on vaccination rates and still wear a mask. One does not prevent the other, right? Or am I missing your point all together?
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
ETA: Fixed the link above and added another study/evidence review discussing the widespread use of masks and mask mandates.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
"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. "PackPA2015 said:Wayland said:
nm. Not even worth debate at this point.
You're not bothering me. I read your post before you took it down.
It's hard to know what I am looking at with your graphs without the description beside the color. There are differences between each that are noticeable.
You make fair points and they are data-based which is greatly appreciated. I have attached a study which I believe I've shared before which is not cherry picked data and provides evidence that mask mandates do lower numbers/transmission. As I have shared before, my county does me no favors in changing my opinion of mask mandates. We have 50% wearing a mask with a mandate. With talking to patients and others in the community, without a mandate this likely drops to around 20-25%. We have dealt with climbing covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths much longer when compared to similar surrounding counties that have more mask adherence.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that our focus should be on increasing vaccination rates as quickly as possible and we are doing that currently. The rest of the equation is, do we keep on doing the rest of what has worked or not? In my opinion, we do in order to guarantee or lower the risk of prolonging a return to normalcy until vaccination rates get there. We can have our sole focus on vaccination rates and still wear a mask. One does not prevent the other, right? Or am I missing your point all together?
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
Now they certainly had a limitation in time because the study was done so early but still if they had revisited this same study much later, it might hold more weight.
"COVID-19 growth rates between March 31 and May 22, 2020" (Not a very big time frame to look at).
I don't have the list of the 15 states they have included, but that certainly could be a heavily biased selection.
(Found the appendix. Here are the states:
CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, KT, ME, MD, MA, MI, NJ, NM, NY, RI, UT).
Those states identified with early mandates are SUPER heavily biased to include states that had spring C19 seasonal peaks. Nowhere in the article or appendix is seasonality addressed. So it would follow that those locations would also see a decrease in cases as they were already past their initial seasonal peak. Timing and place in a seasonal outbreak curve is as or more important as timing of mandate. I could show you any number of charts and you wouldn't be able to guess when the mandate was put in place.
The time frame of the study is ridiculously early in the pandemic and testing levels were not sufficient during this period. Places that had an early spring peak were also more likely to enact earlier NPI's including mask mandates.
For example, North Carolina did not hit its first seasonal peak until July, so all throughout March->July cases were increasing mirror the case growth through the majority of the South.
Their simple conclusion is :
"As countries worldwide and states begin to relax social distancing restrictions and considering the high likelihood of a second COVID-19 wave in the fall/winter, requiring use of face masks in public might help in reducing COVID-19 spread."
It is so early in the pandemic that they haven't even recognized we are about to catch a summer wave in the South. And the conclusion is just they "might" help, certainly not super conclusive evidence.
If there was a study that further incorporated the full summer and winter waves accounting for regional climate and geographical difference, maybe I find something compelling.
Again, I respect your opinion and the right of anyone to wear a mask who wants to. I wear one, as required, and do not create a fuss. I have just watched a years worth of empirical evidence myself and not seen any compelling evidence that they have successfully made a significant impact in the pandemic. I would have much rather seen FOCUSED and DIRECTED efforts.
Whether that is a focus on much higher level and quality of masking in ACTUAL risky environment where the iterative impact could be significantly higher or any number of other non-divisive focused interventions.
Featured Stories
See All
RELEASE: Pack Adds Two Signees in Class of 2025
by NC State Athletics
8:43
2h ago
253
IPS IN 5: Jayden Taylor Leads The Way
by James Henderson
GAME HIGHLIGHTS: NC State's Home Win Over Coastal Carolina
by James Henderson
8:37
14h ago
616
Kevin Keatts: "I Love the Way This Group Plays"
by Rob McLamb
5:40
15h ago
317
LOCKER ROOM REPORT: Wolfpack Players
by Daniel Wilson
StrengthOfThePack92
BOX SCORE: NC State 82, Coastal Carolina 70 (POSTGAME THREAD)
in Reynolds Concourse
11
StrengthOfThePack92
BOX SCORE: NC State 82, Coastal Carolina 70 (POSTGAME THREAD)
in Reynolds Concourse
6