Causality

[sk8knight]

Not to confuse the issue, but it's more than a mask/no-mask issue. Boosted, since you're up on the latest information more than anybody else here, have you seen studies actually isolating the mask variable as the only difference in behavior among the groups? Because it seems logical to assume that people wearing masks are also more likely to practice other mitigating measures as well, such as frequent hand-washing, avoidance of crowded spaces, and others. Does that play any role in these studies?

 

[DaShuckster]

Massive amounts of people are getting covid wearing a mask and that is undeniable.

It is? Show us your data, professor.

 

[Crazyhole]

It is? Show us your data, professor.

Um, the op? The data that came from the CDC?

 

[DaShuckster]

You guys and your 'scientific analysis' crack me up!!!

 

[Boosted87]

Not to confuse the issue, but it's more than a mask/no-mask issue. Boosted, since you're up on the latest information more than anybody else here, have you seen studies actually isolating the mask variable as the only difference in behavior among the groups? Because it seems logical to assume that people wearing masks are also more likely to practice other mitigating measures as well, such as frequent hand-washing, avoidance of crowded spaces, and others. Does that play any role in these studies?

Good questions. There's two things to look at - population level evidence like your discussing - then the laboratory side of why masking might work. I'm not super up to speed on the answer to your question. I know those studies exist but I haven't done a deep dive. What I've briefly reviewed has all found benefit to masking.

My early support of masking (had my mom start sewing home-made masks early March) was based on limited data and inferences that have held up. I found this surprisingly great article early on (https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-masks-virus/) that linked to good information. The basic takeaway was that crappy homemade single layer masks could still capture greater than 50% of viral particles smaller than COVID.

Thus a super simple premise is born. IF infection is spread via airborn micro-droplets, crappy masks likely reduce the exhaled viral load by 50%. If a single viral particle leads to an infection, then masks probably do very little. But if infection is dependent on viral load/time exposed, then masking would logically lengthen the time needed for an infection and reduce the viral load in an enclosed space.

Cost/benefit becomes a no brainer. Even if the impact is very small, the cost benefit is there. Particularly when you consider the nature of viral growth. If all else constant, mask wearing only reduced infection rates by 10%, that would result in roughly 1/2 the total case count after 6 generations.

If you combine that with lab videos of talking/coughing particle transfer with and without masks, you have a really good logical argument to masks being beneficial. Thus, I think the burden flips here. The risk/reward or cost/benefit strongly favor masking. If you were wrong and they didn't help, the cost was negligible. But if they do help and you're wrong the other way, the cost comes from increased hospital stays, potential business or school closures, etc. So there's an asymmetric risk/reward here that strongly favors masking.

Study with hamsters - using a surgical mask barrier between cages reduced infection by ~60% (over a week I think) AND reduced severity of infections. There's LOTS of evidence that viral load matters here.

Lots and lots and lots of evidence for masking, almost a total dearth of evidence against it. Most of the evidence against it is pre-covid (based on flu or other viruses).

 

[DaShuckster]

Lots and lots and lots of evidence for masking, almost a total dearth of evidence against it.

Well said. I'm positive that your post will change the minds of our 'masks are worthless' crowd.

 

[Crazyhole]

Good questions. There's two things to look at - population level evidence like your discussing - then the laboratory side of why masking might work. I'm not super up to speed on the answer to your question. I know those studies exist but I haven't done a deep dive. What I've briefly reviewed has all found benefit to masking.

My early support of masking (had my mom start sewing home-made masks early March) was based on limited data and inferences that have held up. I found this surprisingly great article early on (https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-masks-virus/) that linked to good information. The basic takeaway was that crappy homemade single layer masks could still capture greater than 50% of viral particles smaller than COVID.

Thus a super simple premise is born. IF infection is spread via airborn micro-droplets, crappy masks likely reduce the exhaled viral load by 50%. If a single viral particle leads to an infection, then masks probably do very little. But if infection is dependent on viral load/time exposed, then masking would logically lengthen the time needed for an infection and reduce the viral load in an enclosed space.

Cost/benefit becomes a no brainer. Even if the impact is very small, the cost benefit is there. Particularly when you consider the nature of viral growth. If all else constant, mask wearing only reduced infection rates by 10%, that would result in roughly 1/2 the total case count after 6 generations.

If you combine that with lab videos of talking/coughing particle transfer with and without masks, you have a really good logical argument to masks being beneficial. Thus, I think the burden flips here. The risk/reward or cost/benefit strongly favor masking. If you were wrong and they didn't help, the cost was negligible. But if they do help and you're wrong the other way, the cost comes from increased hospital stays, potential business or school closures, etc. So there's an asymmetric risk/reward here that strongly favors masking.

Study with hamsters - using a surgical mask barrier between cages reduced infection by ~60% (over a week I think) AND reduced severity of infections. There's LOTS of evidence that viral load matters here.

Lots and lots and lots of evidence for masking, almost a total dearth of evidence against it. Most of the evidence against it is pre-covid (based on flu or other viruses).

Any idea how often the hamsters touched the mask fabric? That seems to me to be the biggest issue with how effective they are. People who wouldn't regularly be touching their face are doing so multiple times what they otherwise would without a mask.

 

[sk8knight]

Good questions. There's two things to look at - population level evidence like your discussing - then the laboratory side of why masking might work. I'm not super up to speed on the answer to your question. I know those studies exist but I haven't done a deep dive. What I've briefly reviewed has all found benefit to masking.

My early support of masking (had my mom start sewing home-made masks early March) was based on limited data and inferences that have held up. I found this surprisingly great article early on (https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-masks-virus/) that linked to good information. The basic takeaway was that crappy homemade single layer masks could still capture greater than 50% of viral particles smaller than COVID.

Thus a super simple premise is born. IF infection is spread via airborn micro-droplets, crappy masks likely reduce the exhaled viral load by 50%. If a single viral particle leads to an infection, then masks probably do very little. But if infection is dependent on viral load/time exposed, then masking would logically lengthen the time needed for an infection and reduce the viral load in an enclosed space.

Cost/benefit becomes a no brainer. Even if the impact is very small, the cost benefit is there. Particularly when you consider the nature of viral growth. If all else constant, mask wearing only reduced infection rates by 10%, that would result in roughly 1/2 the total case count after 6 generations.

If you combine that with lab videos of talking/coughing particle transfer with and without masks, you have a really good logical argument to masks being beneficial. Thus, I think the burden flips here. The risk/reward or cost/benefit strongly favor masking. If you were wrong and they didn't help, the cost was negligible. But if they do help and you're wrong the other way, the cost comes from increased hospital stays, potential business or school closures, etc. So there's an asymmetric risk/reward here that strongly favors masking.

Study with hamsters - using a surgical mask barrier between cages reduced infection by ~60% (over a week I think) AND reduced severity of infections. There's LOTS of evidence that viral load matters here.

Lots and lots and lots of evidence for masking, almost a total dearth of evidence against it. Most of the evidence against it is pre-covid (based on flu or other viruses).

Thank you for the considered reply. The issue that I have with the studies isn't the information that they're providing, it's that they're experiments in a lab. Masking is good until it's not in real life. Cloth masks (and any mask really) work until they are saturated (with COVID or even liquid) and then they are detrimental. So do people wash/dispose of the masks effectively or not? If not, is their lack of protocol making the masks more dangerous or not?

Similarly, people's behavior makes sense as well. If someone with no mask distances, washes, etc. more than they do when they wear a mask, what is the overall effect?

Bottom line, I don't know if we have enough information from a holistic standpoint to make the moral judgement that masks, in real life, are great and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is stupid. Nor do we have it the other way. Just my honest opinion. I will still wear the mask as I've been wearing it lately.

 

[DaShuckster]

The issue that I have with the studies isn't the information that they're providing, it's that they're experiments in a lab. Masking is good until it's not in real life. Cloth masks (and any mask really) work until they are saturated (with COVID or even liquid) and then they are detrimental. So do people wash/dispose of the masks effectively or not? If not, is their lack of protocol making the masks more dangerous or not?

The thing that I find screwy about this discussion is that it's being approached here as if the issue was whether there is a better safeguard than face masks. But many of the posters here (you are the exception) are squarely in the "I don't need no stinkin' mask" crowd.

Whether it's perfect or less-than-perfect, it's better than walking around other people without one.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

I found this surprisingly great article early on (https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-masks-virus/) that linked to good information. The basic takeaway was that crappy homemade single layer masks could still capture greater than 50% of viral particles smaller than COVID.

Ha! That's the same one I found back then too (crazy to think how few articles existed just 6-7 months ago). It was this + the common sense arguments being discussed by Eric and Bret Weinstein that sold me early on, even when we were told not to mask up.

 

[sk8knight]

The thing that I find screwy about this discussion is that it's being approached here as if the issue was whether there is a better safeguard than face masks. But many of the posters here (you are the exception) are squarely in the "I don't need no stinkin' mask" crowd.

Whether it's perfect or less-than-perfect, it's better than walking around other people without one.

Not if your mask is capturing virus, saturating, and supplying you with a higher load than otherwise. If that is happening, you’re more likely to get sick and maybe even more severely. I think that’s something that we need to know.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

If you have a nasty cough that is flying everywhere I can see the benefit in that scenario. My biggest issue with the mask people is that they think the cloth mask is invincible. I'm at the theme parks and everyone is all up in my personal space thinking they are protected. If they were honest to let people know the virus can easily travel passed a cloth mask. You need to do normal things that people should do. Wash hands before eating. Wash hands after the bathroom. Then there is a concept of constantly touching everything and bringing your hands to your face that wouldn't be done without a mask.

So if they didn't have a mask do you think they all of a sudden wouldn't be in your personal space?

For every example you cite of someone thinking masks are "invincible", I'll counter with someone who still doesn't understand the very simple premises Boosted outlined above.

And yea, Sk8 is making a very nuanced argument that should be respected and considered but I guarantee that is not the argument you've been making over time... your post history proves that, as does the history of people having to break really simple shit down to you. Unless of course you want to admit you've just been a troll all along. One of the two..

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Thank you for the considered reply. The issue that I have with the studies isn't the information that they're providing, it's that they're experiments in a lab. Masking is good until it's not in real life. Cloth masks (and any mask really) work until they are saturated (with COVID or even liquid) and then they are detrimental. So do people wash/dispose of the masks effectively or not? If not, is their lack of protocol making the masks more dangerous or not?

Similarly, people's behavior makes sense as well. If someone with no mask distances, washes, etc. more than they do when they wear a mask, what is the overall effect?

Bottom line, I don't know if we have enough information from a holistic standpoint to make the moral judgement that masks, in real life, are great and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is stupid. Nor do we have it the other way. Just my honest opinion. I will still wear the mask as I've been wearing it lately.

So this is the conversation worth having and why I was frustrated earlier. I feel like too much damn time is wasted explaining math and laboratory science when the real world conversation that we need to be having is what you bring up. I'm not sure if people are incapable of putting thoughts together or what but the surface level science believer vs science denier level is where we keep getting stuck when the root of the argument is more in line with what you put forth.

 

[sk8knight]

You can't deny the infections. There is no major difference in the US between areas with stricter mask mandates vs lighter rules. CDC data even showed a high level of infections with mask wearing dudes.

I'm part of a high level sports program that travels across the entire southern east coast. Nobody wears a mask in the group and we had 2 infections only out of probably 100 people. We were told sending kids in person school would be a sh!tshow. Nothing is happening.

While your experience is not insignificant, virus outbreaks are not linear occurrences. They occur in clusters and there are a lot of variables beyond simple proximity that determine whether the virus is able to infect any one individual. This includes protective measures, the biology of the uninfected, hygiene, viral composition at shedding. It is perfectly reasonable that you might encounter sick people 100 times and not get sick. It is also perfectly reasonable that you may get sick on the 101st encounter and then hit your team at a point where you are all now a cluster.

We have advanced mathematical models of contagiousness of viruses that we use for military operational planning in the case of biological attacks. These are built by places like MIT and John’s Hopkins. Yet these are still planning tools and not reality because real life is extremely complicated. In the end, you decide how safe-sided that you want to be and then you do the best you can.

It’s the demonization of the other side that has to stop in society today. Across all of society today. Unfortunately, freezing someone into a moral position that they cannot defend is a basic tenet of activism today and so I fear nothing will change on this front anytime soon.

 

[PhDee]

If I told you that if you do (x), 85% of the time (y) happens, would you consider that to be strong evidence of causality?

View embedded media

No because people who wear a mask are

1) more likely to live in a place that has higher infections

2) more likely to take riskier actions because they feel safer with a mask

3) more inclined to lie about wearing a mask if they get caught with the virus out of fear of being seen as doing something wrong.

4) more health conscious and are more likely to get themselves tested if feeling sick.