All fair points. We have only what data we have. Studies are still ongoing and we truly won't know the true impact of mask mandates likely until years later.

I appreciate the discourse, honestly. I still believe that mask mandates lower transmission of COVID-19 based on the studies that we have, the epidemiological data that we have, and the epidemiologists whom study them for a living. There is evidence. I can keep pulling studies, but I imagine you would disagree with most. We both have made our minds up and that is okay.

Summary of Mask Mandate Studies

Canadian Study on Mask Mandates

Good debate. I think where I land is that in general masks can work but the distancing/ lack of big crowds are baked into that. And we can't measure just how much masks worked and we won't be able to. We do know that while other viruses were cut down COVID did what it wanted when it wanted. Sometimes we were in valleys and sometimes peaks and that was all the while we wore masks and distanced. So while I think it's correct to say that masks help it's not something that is able to be quantitatively defined or studied. All we know is by graphs of COVID cases over time that mandates themselves had no correlation to slowing the spread. We know that a mandate might've caused a larger population to wear them more often but still no correlation to spikes versus valleys.

Wayland said:

---

Since we are on it. I will post my deleted post and graphs.

Like you said, you have your opinions, and I likely won't change them. I have mine and I have yet to see any actual data that shows mask mandates work. I have seen limited cherry picked 'attempts'. Whether it a change in human behavior that increases risk when mandates are in place, the quality of mask being used not providing proper benefit, or the actual locations where masking might help masks aren't used.

Not even going into the actual efficacy of cloth masks to combat an aerosolized virus.

On a macro level

When comparing regions that share similar climates or geography

Nearby states. One had a mask mandate on July 28. One no statewide mandate.




Neighboring states. One implemented statewide 7/16 and one 8/4.
Then one of the two had statewide expire 9/30 and removed all mandates 3/3/21



You know when the mandates were introduced or removed in these charts. Which state is which? Who had the mandate?

---

I had a feeling this would be skipped over and not addressed. Also, note how it's "political" only if you disagree with the mandates.

packgrad said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Since we are on it. I will post my deleted post and graphs.

Like you said, you have your opinions, and I likely won't change them. I have mine and I have yet to see any actual data that shows mask mandates work. I have seen limited cherry picked 'attempts'. Whether it a change in human behavior that increases risk when mandates are in place, the quality of mask being used not providing proper benefit, or the actual locations where masking might help masks aren't used.

Not even going into the actual efficacy of cloth masks to combat an aerosolized virus.

On a macro level

When comparing regions that share similar climates or geography

Nearby states. One had a mask mandate on July 28. One no statewide mandate.




Neighboring states. One implemented statewide 7/16 and one 8/4.
Then one of the two had statewide expire 9/30 and removed all mandates 3/3/21



You know when the mandates were introduced or removed in these charts. Which state is which? Who had the mandate?

---

I had a feeling this would be skipped over and not addressed.

---

I did address it in a earlier post. You cannot make a conclusion from those random lines on the chart.

In the 1st graph, the difference is seen either early after the mandate was imposed or later during the peak. Either way there is a difference.

In the second graph, both states have mandates. 1 stopped them at a low point in COVID transmission. That may or may not have had an impact depending on if its the blue line or not. It may have not.

There you go, Grad. You really are trolling me today. Not sure what for.

PackPA2015 said:

---

Agree to disagree, my friend. We know masks work - we have plenty of evidence for that. Mandates are debatable. I believe they do. I don't think either one of us will convince the other and that is okay.

---

I appreciate the discourse. Maybe there will come a day when my opinion is changed.

And I certainly hold biases. While I am certainly a proponent of 'highly quality' masking in 'targeted locations'.

I think the level and quality of low grade cloth masks (not to mention the overestimation by many *not necessarily current company* as a panacea) has not had the impact commensurate to the level of damage it has done since it became a 'political' hot button issue. The fight and shaming created a distraction to proper messaging, to go no further than the ludicrous statement by a former CDC director that he would rather have a mask over a vaccine.

I think a lot of damage was done with early shaming of those seeking solace outside since we especially now know that that is EXACTLY where people should have been going. And rather than encourage personal risk mitigation and awareness, we tried to preach COVID abstinence.

Cheat sheet answers:

Agreed on all points there.

ETA: The graphs are interesting. You could make the case for Indiana dropping cases initially, but then does behavior change or did masks adherence change? Hard to say as I do not follow those states at all. Does the data trend follow with hospitalizations and deaths in the same states?

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Since we are on it. I will post my deleted post and graphs.

Like you said, you have your opinions, and I likely won't change them. I have mine and I have yet to see any actual data that shows mask mandates work. I have seen limited cherry picked 'attempts'. Whether it a change in human behavior that increases risk when mandates are in place, the quality of mask being used not providing proper benefit, or the actual locations where masking might help masks aren't used.

Not even going into the actual efficacy of cloth masks to combat an aerosolized virus.

On a macro level

When comparing regions that share similar climates or geography

Nearby states. One had a mask mandate on July 28. One no statewide mandate.




Neighboring states. One implemented statewide 7/16 and one 8/4.
Then one of the two had statewide expire 9/30 and removed all mandates 3/3/21



You know when the mandates were introduced or removed in these charts. Which state is which? Who had the mandate?

---

I had a feeling this would be skipped over and not addressed.

---

I did address it in a earlier post. You cannot make a conclusion from those random lines on the chart.

In the 1st graph, the difference is seen either early after the mandate was imposed or later during the peak. Either way there is a difference.

In the second graph, both states have mandates. 1 stopped them at a low point in COVID transmission. That may or may not have had an impact depending on if its the blue line or not. It may have not.

There you go, Grad. You really are trolling me today. Not sure what for.

---

I'm not trolling you at all. I'm sorry if you're taking this personally. Like you said we can have different opinions, and that's ok.

The graphs clearly show the difference in mandates and no mandates is minimal. How can one look at them and think they prove mandates have/had any effect?

I agree. Mask mandates simply don't cover the scenarios where people are most likely to get covid. Namely, inside a dwelling from people they know during extended periods of close unmasked contact. I have seen numerous articles and studies that put the home as the most likely place to become infected. Wearing a mask while you walk down the grocery store aisle is fine, I'm sure it helps, I just don't think people wear masks in the most likely scenarios for them to get the virus, and short of sending the national guard door to door, you really can't control what people do in their home.

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Since we are on it. I will post my deleted post and graphs.

Like you said, you have your opinions, and I likely won't change them. I have mine and I have yet to see any actual data that shows mask mandates work. I have seen limited cherry picked 'attempts'. Whether it a change in human behavior that increases risk when mandates are in place, the quality of mask being used not providing proper benefit, or the actual locations where masking might help masks aren't used.

Not even going into the actual efficacy of cloth masks to combat an aerosolized virus.

On a macro level

When comparing regions that share similar climates or geography

Nearby states. One had a mask mandate on July 28. One no statewide mandate.




Neighboring states. One implemented statewide 7/16 and one 8/4.
Then one of the two had statewide expire 9/30 and removed all mandates 3/3/21



You know when the mandates were introduced or removed in these charts. Which state is which? Who had the mandate?

---

I had a feeling this would be skipped over and not addressed.

---

I did address it in a earlier post. You cannot make a conclusion from those random lines on the chart.

In the 1st graph, the difference is seen either early after the mandate was imposed or later during the peak. Either way there is a difference.

In the second graph, both states have mandates. 1 stopped them at a low point in COVID transmission. That may or may not have had an impact depending on if its the blue line or not. It may have not.

There you go, Grad. You really are trolling me today. Not sure what for.

---

I'm not trolling you at all. I'm sorry if you're taking this personally. Like you said we can have different opinions, and that's ok.

The graphs clearly show the difference in mandates and no mandates is minimal. How can one look at them and think they prove mandates have/had any effect?

---

10-4. Your posts just seemed a little more passive aggressive today.

But anyways, as far as the graphs show, there are differences and that is what matters. If you lower transmission of a pandemic virus even in statistically miniscule amounts, that is still a step in the right direction, is it not? We can look at other graphs of states that may show a different story, but we like to pick data that proves our point.

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Since we are on it. I will post my deleted post and graphs.

Like you said, you have your opinions, and I likely won't change them. I have mine and I have yet to see any actual data that shows mask mandates work. I have seen limited cherry picked 'attempts'. Whether it a change in human behavior that increases risk when mandates are in place, the quality of mask being used not providing proper benefit, or the actual locations where masking might help masks aren't used.

Not even going into the actual efficacy of cloth masks to combat an aerosolized virus.

On a macro level

When comparing regions that share similar climates or geography

Nearby states. One had a mask mandate on July 28. One no statewide mandate.




Neighboring states. One implemented statewide 7/16 and one 8/4.
Then one of the two had statewide expire 9/30 and removed all mandates 3/3/21



You know when the mandates were introduced or removed in these charts. Which state is which? Who had the mandate?

---

I had a feeling this would be skipped over and not addressed.

---

I did address it in a earlier post. You cannot make a conclusion from those random lines on the chart.

In the 1st graph, the difference is seen either early after the mandate was imposed or later during the peak. Either way there is a difference.

In the second graph, both states have mandates. 1 stopped them at a low point in COVID transmission. That may or may not have had an impact depending on if its the blue line or not. It may have not.

There you go, Grad. You really are trolling me today. Not sure what for.

---

I'm not trolling you at all. I'm sorry if you're taking this personally. Like you said we can have different opinions, and that's ok.

The graphs clearly show the difference in mandates and no mandates is minimal. How can one look at them and think they prove mandates have/had any effect?

---

10-4. Your posts just seemed a little more passive aggressive today.

But anyways, as far as the graphs show, there are differences and that is what matters. If you lower transmission of a pandemic virus even in statistically miniscule amounts, that is still a step in the right direction, is it not? We can look at other graphs of states that may show a different story, but we like to pick data that proves our point.

---

How do the differences matter? They're not substantive in proving benefit. They showed a similar curve with or without mandate and timeline differences in instituting mandates.

Mormad said:

---

I sometimes wonder if HIV was just now being discovered and ramping up, what would be reaction to a condom mandate. Before the current profoundly brilliant treatments for it, there was only condoms (a barrier like a mask) and abstinence (social distancing). The only way to truly avoid getting it was to avoid relations and needles and transfusions (the safest you can be from sars-cov-2 is to completely avoid any human interaction), but that choice sucked so people hooded up and took their chances with a barrier that offered less than 100% protection. People studied the risk of viral penetration thru the barrier and they tried to study how often they were used, blah blah blah. Condoms MAY work. Hell they probably work most of the time. But there's little doubt they also fail. But if HIV were running rampant through the community and you were putting yourself out there, would you really need a mandate to make you lower the risk to yourself? Would you be angry about a mandate or even care what studies showed about whether condom mandates make a difference? Would it be different for you now knowing there are really effective treatments? Maybe the answers mirror those for masking and mask mandates. Idk. But i think it's an interesting thought.

---

Interesting. The first thing I thought was the mandates you suggest with HIV and Covid are total opposites. No one is making anyone wear a mask inside their home and I know of no place where you can have sex in public.

That's an interesting comparison. I don't think I really like it though because the mortality of aids in the early days was very very high versus a virus that is much less deadly for the majority of the population, though much more easily transmitted. Also because of the intimacy of the acts typically involved in the transmission of aids, I think that it is much easier for people to see that they need to cover their private parts before they stick them in someone they don't know than it is to see why you need to wear a mask to walk past someone in the store.

Small differences make a large impact when you add them together. When you put masks with social distancing and hand washing, you can make a larger impact. Any positive impact is welcome.

Now, I'm trying to post a graph and IPS said it is too large for the post, but compare NC and TN cases and death data. NC has a mask mandate as we all know and TN does not. Tell me which one looks better.

PackPA2015 said:

---

Small differences make a large impact when you add them together. When you put masks with social distancing and hand washing, you can make a larger impact. Any positive impact is welcome.

Now, I'm trying to post a graph and IPS said it is too large for the post, but compare NC and TN cases and death data. NC has a mask mandate as we all know and TN does not. Tell me which one looks better.

---

This one? Test...


Just realized that's deaths. But ultimately that's what is mostly relevant since the vast majority never even knew they had it.

Cthepack said:

---

Mormad said:

---

I sometimes wonder if HIV was just now being discovered and ramping up, what would be reaction to a condom mandate. Before the current profoundly brilliant treatments for it, there was only condoms (a barrier like a mask) and abstinence (social distancing). The only way to truly avoid getting it was to avoid relations and needles and transfusions (the safest you can be from sars-cov-2 is to completely avoid any human interaction), but that choice sucked so people hooded up and took their chances with a barrier that offered less than 100% protection. People studied the risk of viral penetration thru the barrier and they tried to study how often they were used, blah blah blah. Condoms MAY work. Hell they probably work most of the time. But there's little doubt they also fail. But if HIV were running rampant through the community and you were putting yourself out there, would you really need a mandate to make you lower the risk to yourself? Would you be angry about a mandate or even care what studies showed about whether condom mandates make a difference? Would it be different for you now knowing there are really effective treatments? Maybe the answers mirror those for masking and mask mandates. Idk. But i think it's an interesting thought.

---

Interesting. The first thing I thought was the mandates you suggest with HIV and Covid are total opposites. No one is making anyone wear a mask inside their home and I know of no place where you can have sex in public.

---

Lol, that's a really great point!!

I used HIV as the comparison not because of similarities in viral behavior, but the parallels it has with covid in regards to emotional reactions, media frenzy, fear mongering, and political reactiveness. Can you imagine 1985 if social media were a thing?

Adjust it for population to remove population # out of the equation - by 100K - and then you will see what I was alluding to. I tried to post it again. I think if you click the the links I put in my last post, it will bring you to it. Not sure as IPS will not allow me to upload anything since I'm not paying for premium right now.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

That's an interesting comparison. I don't think I really like it though because the mortality of aids in the early days was very very high versus a virus that is much less deadly for the majority of the population, though much more easily transmitted. Also because of the intimacy of the acts typically involved in the transmission of aids, I think that it is much easier for people to see that they need to cover their private parts before they stick them in someone they don't know than it is to see why you need to wear a mask to walk past someone in the store.

---

See above why i chose HIV. The sheer number of cases i think offsets the mortality per case, but that's neither here nor there for my argument. But you are exactly correct. People used common sense to cover their junk if they were choosing to put themselves at risk (engage with another human). There was no need for mandates. People figured it out. But can you imagine the intrusiveness into people's personal lives and the outcry if the gubmint imposed a condom mandate and MADE you wear a condom in situations of potential exposure, even if it was so obvious it was for your own protection?

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I agree. Mask mandates simply don't cover the scenarios where people are most likely to get covid. Namely, inside a dwelling from people they know during extended periods of close unmasked contact. I have seen numerous articles and studies that put the home as the most likely place to become infected. Wearing a mask while you walk down the grocery store aisle is fine, I'm sure it helps, I just don't think people wear masks in the most likely scenarios for them to get the virus, and short of sending the national guard door to door, you really can't control what people do in their home.

---

You're quite correct, my friend. But somebody has to be the first to bring it into your household and they got it somewhere outside the household i presume. Isn't it important to reduce the risk of infection outside the home as much as we can no matter the mode? Masking certainly plays a role in circumstances outside the home i would think. I know you mask appropriately based on your comments, I'm just adding to the thought process for everybody.

Mormad said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I agree. Mask mandates simply don't cover the scenarios where people are most likely to get covid. Namely, inside a dwelling from people they know during extended periods of close unmasked contact. I have seen numerous articles and studies that put the home as the most likely place to become infected. Wearing a mask while you walk down the grocery store aisle is fine, I'm sure it helps, I just don't think people wear masks in the most likely scenarios for them to get the virus, and short of sending the national guard door to door, you really can't control what people do in their home.

---

You're quite correct, my friend. But somebody has to be the first to bring it into your household and they got it somewhere outside the household i presume. Isn't it important to reduce the risk of infection outside the home as much as we can no matter the mode? Masking certainly plays a role in circumstances outside the home i would think. I know you mask appropriately based on your comments, I'm just adding to the thought process for everybody.

---

Which brings up other questions. If they got it out of the household, where and how did that happen, and is the answer to that question a further indictment of the mandates failure, or of the failure of personal responsibility?

I have believed, and still believe, that the great majority of people are wearing masks in an appropriate way in the places required, in addition to social distancing and hand washing. I know that everyone's experiences are different in that regard, but it's what I see with my eyes and hear from those around me. Yet the virus continued to spread.

Is that because of the small percentage of people not wearing a mask? If you aren't wearing a mask, but are surrounded by people who are, how are you getting the virus? Is it because the people who don't wear masks tend to socialize together? So they are spreading it between themselves and then taking it home? And if we don't know the answer to these questions, why not?

It's very easy, and dangerous, to paint with a broad brush and say that it's one group that is spreading it around. I just think there are plenty of careful, conscious, mask wearing people that have ended up with the virus, and mask mandates didn't have anything to do with it. There's quite a few people on this board that have had it, and I haven't seen one that said they got it because they, or the person they got it from, weren't wearing their mask in a place where it was mandated the they do so.

This is, in a large part, why i avoid arguing the effectiveness of a mask mandate or the complete eradication of transmission by masking alone, just as condoms alone could have never led to the control of HIV that we see today. It is but one mitigating factor, though i fully realize there are those here who believe they've made no difference whatsoever.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I agree. Mask mandates simply don't cover the scenarios where people are most likely to get covid. Namely, inside a dwelling from people they know during extended periods of close unmasked contact. I have seen numerous articles and studies that put the home as the most likely place to become infected. Wearing a mask while you walk down the grocery store aisle is fine, I'm sure it helps, I just don't think people wear masks in the most likely scenarios for them to get the virus, and short of sending the national guard door to door, you really can't control what people do in their home.

---

You're quite correct, my friend. But somebody has to be the first to bring it into your household and they got it somewhere outside the household i presume. Isn't it important to reduce the risk of infection outside the home as much as we can no matter the mode? Masking certainly plays a role in circumstances outside the home i would think. I know you mask appropriately based on your comments, I'm just adding to the thought process for everybody.

---

Which brings up other questions. If they got it out of the household, where and how did that happen, and is the answer to that question a further indictment of the mandates failure, or of the failure of personal responsibility?

I have believed, and still believe, that the great majority of people are wearing masks in an appropriate way in the places required, in addition to social distancing and hand washing. I know that everyone's experiences are different in that regard, but it's what I see with my eyes and hear from those around me. Yet the virus continued to spread.

Is that because of the small percentage of people not wearing a mask? If you aren't wearing a mask, but are surrounded by people who are, how are you getting the virus? Is it because the people who don't wear masks tend to socialize together? So they are spreading it between themselves and then taking it home? And if we don't know the answer to these questions, why not?

It's very easy, and dangerous, to paint with a broad brush and say that it's one group that is spreading it around. I just think there are plenty of careful, conscious, mask wearing people that have ended up with the virus, and mask mandates didn't have anything to do with it. There's quite a few people on this board that have had it, and I haven't seen one that said they got it because they, or the person they got it from, weren't wearing their mask in a place where it was mandated the they do so.

---

Mandates, masks, hand washing, and distancing are nowhere close to perfect but that doesn't make them a failure. It just makes them limited. Limited is still way better than nothing though.

In rough numbers, say hand washing reduces risk of infection by 10%; masks reduce risk by 30%; and distancing reduces risk by 40%.

The additive benefit is clear but none are close to conferring vaccine levels of protection on their own or even cumulatively, especially when you consider vaccines offer 70%+ protection from catching the virus but essentially 100% protection from serious illness or death.

People catching the virus even if they wash, mask, and distance isn't an indictment of them, of masks, or of anything else. It's just the reality when none of the three individually or collectively confer total protection.

*****

Civilized said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I agree. Mask mandates simply don't cover the scenarios where people are most likely to get covid. Namely, inside a dwelling from people they know during extended periods of close unmasked contact. I have seen numerous articles and studies that put the home as the most likely place to become infected. Wearing a mask while you walk down the grocery store aisle is fine, I'm sure it helps, I just don't think people wear masks in the most likely scenarios for them to get the virus, and short of sending the national guard door to door, you really can't control what people do in their home.

---

You're quite correct, my friend. But somebody has to be the first to bring it into your household and they got it somewhere outside the household i presume. Isn't it important to reduce the risk of infection outside the home as much as we can no matter the mode? Masking certainly plays a role in circumstances outside the home i would think. I know you mask appropriately based on your comments, I'm just adding to the thought process for everybody.

---

Which brings up other questions. If they got it out of the household, where and how did that happen, and is the answer to that question a further indictment of the mandates failure, or of the failure of personal responsibility?

I have believed, and still believe, that the great majority of people are wearing masks in an appropriate way in the places required, in addition to social distancing and hand washing. I know that everyone's experiences are different in that regard, but it's what I see with my eyes and hear from those around me. Yet the virus continued to spread.

Is that because of the small percentage of people not wearing a mask? If you aren't wearing a mask, but are surrounded by people who are, how are you getting the virus? Is it because the people who don't wear masks tend to socialize together? So they are spreading it between themselves and then taking it home? And if we don't know the answer to these questions, why not?

It's very easy, and dangerous, to paint with a broad brush and say that it's one group that is spreading it around. I just think there are plenty of careful, conscious, mask wearing people that have ended up with the virus, and mask mandates didn't have anything to do with it. There's quite a few people on this board that have had it, and I haven't seen one that said they got it because they, or the person they got it from, weren't wearing their mask in a place where it was mandated the they do so.

---

Mandates, masks, hand washing, and distancing are nowhere close to perfect but that doesn't make them a failure. It just makes them limited. Limited is still way better than nothing though.

In rough numbers, say hand washing reduces risk of infection by 10%; masks reduce risk by 30%; and distancing reduces risk by 40%.

The additive benefit is clear but none on their are close to conferring vaccine levels of protection on their own or even cumulatively, especially when you consider vaccines offer 70%+ protection from catching the virus but essentially 100% protection from serious illness or death.

People catching the virus even if they wash, mask, and distance isn't an indictment of them, of masks, or of anything else. It's just the reality when none of the three individually or collectively confer total protection.

---

And there are 2 questions I'm glad we'll never know the answer to:

1. What would our numbers have been if there had been no mask wearing at all?

2. What would disease severity have been on average if there were no physical barriers to catch at least some percentage of droplets expelled or exhaled into the local environment?