Delta a Blessing in Disguise?

 

Delta a blessing?  I am not often accused of being a raging optimist/Pollyanna type.  But I really am seeing a bright silver lining around the Indian variant.

Here is what we know:

First, unlike variant alpha which was really fiercely “seasonal” within defined regions, delta is causing a noticeable simultaneous “case” increase all over the US (even more in the southern US  because late July-early August is the southern COVID “seasonality” period.) indicating a big difference in contagiousness. That may seem like bad news but…

Second, fatalities per case are extremely low compared to all previous waves.

And a glance at the excess deaths running chart from CDC–much lower compared to this time last year:

Third, hospitalizations remain remarkably low despite the increase in reported COVID-positives cases all over:

Fourth,  antibodies are being mass-produced!  We are adding lots of new COVID-antibody-possessing Americans at a very low cost in illness and/or death and doing so at a faster pace. Delta and the vaccines are parallel tracks toward broader resistance and immunity.  Some real scientists might even step forward and say that while COVID-19 will hang around indefinitely as an endemic nuisance, the chances of another life-threatening dangerous surge are rapidly approaching zilch if not already there.

ADDED BONUS:  What little credibility the CDC had left has been squandered over its response to the Delta wave. The CDC decided to base new mask guidance on a weird interpretation of data resulting from an enthusiastic non-socially distanced gathering of tens of thousands of gay guys in P-town MA for “Bear Week.” That should have been the ultimate superspreader event but instead resulted in only 5-7 hospitalizations (some of which may have been for other medical reasons but accompanied by a positive COVID test) and zero deaths.  Delta spread widely with minimal or no adverse effects among the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.  No big subsequent COVID surge in the surrounding community.  The entire state of Massachusetts is still averaging only 2-5 COVID deaths per day.

The CDC/media panic porn addiction contrary to reality, science, and common sense will be their undoing.

So an increasing mild, rapidly spreading variant is rapidly pulling us toward the clear end of the pandemic and hopefully to the dawn of accountability and retribution.  Masks off, businesses and schools open, and pitchforks out.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 195 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    The obsession over surface cleaning has been mostly a waste of time, effort & money

    I agree with this. We knew this months ago, and yet people are still obsessively cleaning every surface. We get new data all the time, and people are still behaving like it’s March 2020 and we know nothing.

    Yea but, my countertops are cleaner then they have ever been.

    • #61
  2. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Mask use need not be perfect to be helpful

    I think this is where the general public stands on this issue, having listened to the debate over the past 18 months. I think that’s why so many people favor masks even though there is some question about whether and/or to what extent they are protective. 

    There is an innate human aversion to other people’s coughing and sneezing. We are hardwired to recoil in the presence of coughs and sneezes. We have been teaching kids to sneeze into their elbows for several decades now. When my son was in middle school, he and his friends would play the “sneeze game,” where they would stand behind one of their friends who was sitting at a desk and they would pretend to cough, just to watch the victim jump out of his seat. :-) 

    I assume that God gave us that strong reflex for a purpose. 

    On the other hand, neither the mask nor coughing into one’s elbow is very protective in reality, so I am with the 50 percent of the public that is grateful for the vaccines.

    Staying home is probably the best answer for very vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated for some reason. When my son was born thirty years ago, there was a bad pneumonia virus in circulation in the community. My pediatrician was adamant that I keep the new baby out of all crowded situations and closed-air-system places for six months. Some of what the CDC and others have been saying has been standard advice for decades. 

    The pneumonia viruses are microscopic beasts. 

    • #62
  3. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Caryn (View Comment):

    My employer, an academic medical center, just re-instituted a mask mandate. Just as the rash from the last one is finally starting to clear up. I’m spending a lot of time in my office. Unmasked. Restaurants and stores are still mask optional for vaccinated people (by honor system). I hope they don’t go backwards.

    Masks don’t work.

    I’d say don’t hope they don’t go backwards. If you have any leverage at all, refuse to go backwards.

    The study you cite is garbage. The Swiss Policy Research sounds impressive but it isn’t respected-it used to be named Swiss Propaganda Research. The authors are either medical neophytes or dishonest- b/c they are grossly misrepresenting the state of the science. They cite 10 articles in the 1st section- several (citations #1, #2, #5,#6) are studies of flu transmission- news flash this AIN’T THE FLU. Furthermore, relying on flu data after almost 18 months of this pandemic is ridiculous. Here is small list of other mistakes/misrepresentation in their cited articles:

    1. The 2nd citation- the infamous Danish mask study-DID NOT FIND MASKS DO NOT WORK-the study was only powered to find a 50%+ reduction in infection. They clearly state in their concluding section: “cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction…. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control …”. This study has been misrepresented more than almost any other study on the planet. A 46% reduction in transmissions would be a significant achievement. This study was so small as to be worthless-but the authors wanted to publish quickly rather than do good work.
    2. While the European CDC review did not find high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical masks the study did conclude: “The evidence regarding the effectiveness of medical face masks for the prevention of COVID-19 in the community is compatible with a small to moderate protective effect, but there are still significant uncertainties about the size of this effect.”
    3. The Oxford review they cite was of flu outbreaks and heavily quotes a now superseded study by MacIntyre. For more on the MacIntyre study read below-the authors of your cited study misuse MacIntyre’s data more than once…
    4. The Cochrane study is a review of flu data-this ain’t the flu…
    5. The Univ of Illinois article was mainly a review of flu studies and lab research with models-the best lab study they cited (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2) concludes:”Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”
    6. They misuse a commentary in the NEJM by Klompas- Klompas has written a subsequent piece to SPECIFICALLY refute their interpretation his cited work. Their subsequent commentary begins thusly: “We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less”(https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836
    7. The BMJ Open article they cite has been reanalyzed by the original authors and now supports the use of masks (note this was a flu study-https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045). The failure to report this change is either poor diligence or purposeful misleading of the reader. Additionally, MacIntyre strongly supports the use of masks for COVID-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/
    8. The last citation is in German who knows what it really says?

    @MiMac, this is all lovely. But the question at issue is: WHY DIDN’T MASK MANDATES SHOW ANY MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POPULATIONS IN IDENTICAL COVID SEASONALITY REGIONS WHERE THERE WERE DIFFERENT MASK POLICIES IN PLACE?

    You keep arguing brilliantly and in-depth about why masks should work but you never provide a cogent answer as to why the mandates did not work anywhere.  Why are the case curves and numbers relentlessly similar in comparable jurisdictions with very different NPI policies?

    I have seen lots of studies claiming mask effectiveness of 70-80% or higher (@Roderic provided a bunch).  And yet, there was no difference between the two groups in the Danish study.  Discussing levels of significance is nice but surely if masks are that effective, there should have been at least some noticeable difference before we did any deeper number crunching.

    At one time you cited the Kansas study comparing masked versus mask-free counties which we now know with certainty did not hold up–no difference over time.  The maskless Swedes wound up with the identical per million incidence of COVID deaths in exactly the same time periods as Germany where mask compliance was reported as being invariably over 90%.

    Is the paradigm of lots of droplets and microloogies as the vehicle of transmission wrong?  Is that which masks block not the primary means of transmission?  I don’t have any answers but the complete lack of curiosity from so many people with the training, skill, and wit to pursue this exact question is frustrating.  With more than a year of data from the entire world at hand, why didn’t any NPIs (mask mandates in particular) have any quantifiable effect? Why isn’t that the starting point?

    In a nutshell: (1) It is undeniable that masking has been shown to significantly block immediate transmission of exhaled viral particles, especially if contained within larger exhalates (even though viruses are generally much smaller than the fabric openings in most mask materials in general use).  (2) It is undeniable that mask-mandates as a general suppression strategy have shown absolutely no quantifiable effect in controlling or reducing the spread of COVID-19. 

    Therefore, aren’t we clearly missing something about the nature of transmission of COVID-19 precisely because masks should have worked but did not? Now, can we move on to the real question?

     

    • #63
  4. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    MarciN (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Mask use need not be perfect to be helpful

    I think this is where the general public stands on this issue, having listened to the debate over the past 18 months. I think that’s why so many people favor masks even though there is some question about whether and/or to what extent they are protective.

    There is an innate human aversion to other people’s coughing and sneezing. We are hardwired to recoil in the presence of coughs and sneezes. We have been teaching kids to sneeze into their elbows for several decades now. When my son was in middle school, he and his friends would play the “sneeze game,” where they would stand behind one of their friends who was sitting at a desk and they would pretend to cough, just to watch the victim jump out of his seat. :-)

    I assume that God gave us that strong reflex for a purpose.

    On the other hand, neither the mask nor coughing into one’s elbow is very protective in reality, so I am with the 50 percent of the public that is grateful for the vaccines.

    Staying home is probably the best answer for very vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated for some reason. When my son was born thirty years ago, there was a bad pneumonia virus in circulation in the community. My pediatrician was adamant that I keep the new baby out of all crowded situations and closed-air-system places for six months. Some of what the CDC and others have been saying has been standard advice for decades.

    The pneumonia viruses are microscopic beasts.

    This is where I stand. I don’t mind wearing a mask when I’m inside someone’s business shopping, for instance, but as soon as I go outside I take it off because the mask impairs my sense of breathing and makes me uncomfortable. Wear it when necessary don’t wear it when not necessary.

    • #64
  5. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Mask use need not be perfect to be helpful

    I think this is where the general public stands on this issue, having listened to the debate over the past 18 months. I think that’s why so many people favor masks even though there is some question about whether and/or to what extent they are protective.

    There is an innate human aversion to other people’s coughing and sneezing. We are hardwired to recoil in the presence of coughs and sneezes. We have been teaching kids to sneeze into their elbows for several decades now. When my son was in middle school, he and his friends would play the “sneeze game,” where they would stand behind one of their friends who was sitting at a desk and they would pretend to cough, just to watch the victim jump out of his seat. :-)

    I assume that God gave us that strong reflex for a purpose.

    On the other hand, neither the mask nor coughing into one’s elbow is very protective in reality, so I am with the 50 percent of the public that is grateful for the vaccines.

    Staying home is probably the best answer for very vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated for some reason. When my son was born thirty years ago, there was a bad pneumonia virus in circulation in the community. My pediatrician was adamant that I keep the new baby out of all crowded situations and closed-air-system places for six months. Some of what the CDC and others have been saying has been standard advice for decades.

    The pneumonia viruses are microscopic beasts.

    This is where I stand. I don’t mind wearing a mask when I’m inside someone’s business shopping, for instance, but as soon as I go outside I take it off because the mask impairs my sense of breathing and makes me uncomfortable. Wear it when necessary don’t wear it when not necessary.

    I am with you 100% on that, Bob. You and I are retired. Our mask options are much greater than those folks still working and wearing a mask 9 or 10 hours a day–every day.

    • #65
  6. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Roderic (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    We are sick and tired of masking up, shutting down, being non-socially distanced, all the while having to hear day in and day out about COVID.

    The virus is calling to tune here, not officials who have no control over the transmissibility or virulence of the virus and can only react to what is happening. The virus doesn’t care how sick and tired you are.

    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public. Government officials have little choice but to go along with that.

    I agree that politicians are politically vulnerable if they don’t go along with the guidance of “health experts” but at what point do we acknowledge that our “health experts” have done an abysmal job and don’t appear to have even mastered the basic science.

    • There was always zero scientific justification for closing schools or repeated, extended closures.
    • Even as the pattern of COVID numbers rising and falling in near metronomic lockstep across well-defined regions became blindingly obvious, the head of the CDC and the head of Minnesota’s COVID program et al continued to make utterly asinine predictions about infection numbers.
    • The experts stubbornly opted for costly, futile general suppression strategies instead of focused protection strategies (see, e.g., the Great Barrington Declaration)
    • The refusal to admit, re-examine or adjust policy failures is not science. It is politics.
    • Mass testing generated a lot of false positives and never led to no effective tracking programs precisely because (as we already knew) asymptomatic transmission and long incubation periods make that largely impossible.

    Roderic, at what point does your quasi-religious deference to raw credentialism give way to an empirical look at actual “expert” performance?  Their collective guidance has been one long disastrous farce whose sole purpose is to try to protect failed policy choices and create the illusion of control–and provide cover for the politicians who relied on them.  That guidance was not even consistent with accepted pre-existing pandemic-handling protocols.

    • #66
  7. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    @ MiMac, this is all lovely. But the question at issue is: WHY DIDN’T MASK MANDATES SHOW ANY MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POPULATIONS IN IDENTICAL COVID SEASONALITY REGIONS WHERE THERE WERE DIFFERENT MASK POLICIES IN PLACE?

    You keep arguing brilliantly and in-depth about why masks should work but you never provide a cogent answer as to why the mandates did not work anywhere. Why are the case curves and numbers relentlessly similar in comparable jurisdictions with very different NPI policies?………

    In a nutshell: (1) It is undeniable that masking has been shown to significantly block immediate transmission of exhaled viral particles, especially if contained within larger exhalates (even though viruses are generally much smaller than the fabric openings in most mask materials in general use). (2) It is undeniable that mask-mandates as a general suppression strategy have shown absolutely no quantifiable effect in controlling or reducing the spread of COVID-19.

    Therefore, aren’t we clearly missing something about the nature of transmission of COVID-19 precisely because masks should have worked but did not? Now, can we move on to the real question?

    Such data exists but it is generally for more restricted populations. Large aggregated data from statewide/countywide surveys have too many uncontrolled variables to be very useful-but even some of those support mask use (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293). Better data is from hospitals-for example during the 1st wave a Boston hospital adopted mandatory masks for personnel and the infection rate for staff DECLINED while the community rate increased (https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/70/8/606/5932361)- you do not expect an uncontrollable pandemic to spare hospital staff in the early phases-you expect the staff to be harder hit (hence one justification for the “flatten the curve” slogan-since abused). Many other studies support the use of masks-https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/70/8/606/5932361. Obviously, proper compliance in the community is a factor in mask effectiveness-but arguing masks didn’t work b/c the virus spread is to create a hypothetical counterfactual that is unverifiable-ie the spread could easily have been worse w/o masks. But masks are nowhere near as important as a successful vaccination program. And mandating community wearing of masks BY the vaccinated to protect those who refuse to avail themselves of the best mitigation strategy is unreasonable. But being reasonable will not restrain the Biden administration since they do not think the constitution nor the Supreme Court should restrain them-see yesterday’s Commentary article Noah Rothman.

     

    • #67
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    We are sick and tired of masking up, shutting down, being non-socially distanced, all the while having to hear day in and day out about COVID.

    The virus is calling to tune here, not officials who have no control over the transmissibility or virulence of the virus and can only react to what is happening. The virus doesn’t care how sick and tired you are.

    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public. Government officials have little choice but to go along with that.

    I agree that politicians are politically vulnerable if they don’t go along with the guidance of “health experts” but at what point do we acknowledge that our “health experts” have done an abysmal job and don’t appear to have even mastered the basic science.

    • There was always zero scientific justification for closing schools or repeated, extended closures.
    • Even as the pattern of COVID numbers rising and falling in near metronomic lockstep across well-defined regions became blindingly obvious, the head of the CDC and the head of Minnesota’s COVID program et al continued to make utterly asinine predictions about infection numbers.
    • The experts stubbornly opted for costly, futile general suppression strategies instead of focused protection strategies (see, e.g., the Great Barrington Declaration)
    • The refusal to admit, re-examine or adjust policy failures is not science. It is politics.
    • Mass testing generated a lot of false positives and never led to no effective tracking programs precisely because (as we already knew) asymptomatic transmission and long incubation periods make that largely impossible.

    Roderic, at what point does your quasi-religious deference to raw credentialism give way to an empirical look at actual “expert” performance? Their collective guidance has been one long disastrous farce whose sole purpose is to try to protect failed policy choices and create the illusion of control–and provide cover for the politicians who relied on them. That guidance was not even consistent with accepted pre-existing pandemic-handling protocols.

    Isn’t this just a description of how absolute socialism has failed every time it has been tried?

    • #68
  9. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    On that note . . .

    The countries that got through COVID the best (eg South Korea and Taiwan) controlled it through test-and-trace. This allowed them to scrape by with minimal lockdown and almost no deaths. But it only worked because they started testing and tracing really quickly – almost the moment they learned that the coronavirus existed. Could the US have done equally well?

    I think yes. A bunch of laboratories, universities, and health care groups came up with COVID tests before the virus was even in the US, and were 100% ready to deploy them. But when the US declared that the coronavirus was a “public health emergency”, the FDA announced that the emergency was so grave that they were banning all coronavirus testing, so that nobody could take advantage of the emergency to peddle shoddy tests. Perhaps you might feel like this is exactly the opposite of what you should do during an emergency? This is a sure sign that you will never work for the FDA.

    The FDA supposedly had some plan in place to get non-shoddy coronavirus tests. For a while, this plan was “send your samples to the CDC in Atlanta, we’ll allow it if and only if they do it directly in their headquarters”. But the CDC headquarters wasn’t set up for large-scale testing, and the turnaround time to send samples to Atlanta meant that people had days to go around spreading the virus before results got back. After this proved inadequate, the FDA allowed various other things. They told labs that they would offer emergency approval for their kits – but placed such onerous requirements on getting the approval that almost no labs could achieve it (for example, you needed to prove you’d tested it against many different coronavirus samples, but it was so early in the pandemic that most people didn’t have access to that many). Then they approved a CDC kit which that the CDC could send to places other than their headquarters, but this kit contained a defective component and returned “positive” every time. The defective component was easy to replace, but if you used your own copy like a cowboy then the test wouldn’t be FDA-approved anymore and you could lose your license for administering it.

    A group called the Association of Public Health Laboratories literally begged the FDA to be allowed to deploy the COVID tests they had sitting on the shelf ready for use. The head of the APHL went to the head of the FDA and begged him, in what they described as “an extraordinary and rare request”, to be allowed to test for the coronavirus. The FDA head just wrote back saying that “false diagnostic test results can lead to significant adverse public health consequences”.

    So everyone sat on their defective FDA-approved coronavirus tests, and their excellent high-quality non-FDA approved coronavirus tests that they were banned from using, and didn’t test anyone for coronavirus.

    • #69
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Our public health experts are proving to be dangerous to public health.

    • #70
  11. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    I’m in FL and its rampant here – thank you vacationers. I had to go to local clinic this week for some antibiotics and the place was full with mostly people wanting tests and the phone ringing off the hook for same question. I check the counties daily since the start, but now reporting is only weekly. It’s been doubling almost daily. My old neighbor is chaplain at local hospital and he said they are packed with COVID cases, 98% unvaccinated. That’s what he said. I wish this mess would be over with!

    Florida will be back on the case-numbers downswing within two weeks.  Deaths are remaining lower than previous waves. Hospitalizations will likely increase.  Articles calling DeSantis a mass murderer will increase and level off by October.

    • #71
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    I’m in FL and its rampant here – thank you vacationers. I had to go to local clinic this week for some antibiotics and the place was full with mostly people wanting tests and the phone ringing off the hook for same question. I check the counties daily since the start, but now reporting is only weekly. It’s been doubling almost daily. My old neighbor is chaplain at local hospital and he said they are packed with COVID cases, 98% unvaccinated. That’s what he said. I wish this mess would be over with!

    Florida will be back on the case-numbers downswing within two weeks. Deaths are remaining lower than previous waves. Hospitalizations will likely increase. Articles calling DeSantis a mass murderer will increase and level off by October.

    And then skyrocket again for the 2022 election cycle, then even moreso for 2024.

    • #72
  13. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I keep returning in my mind to the larger question concerning masks. The reason the issue became so contentious in the first place is that people don’t like wearing them. There were a hundred counter-virus measures on the table that states and cities and towns considered. They threw out the other 99 because they believed the public either couldn’t or wouldn’t comply with them or implement them. I think at this point, since the efficacy of wearing masks is questionable and most people don’t like wearing them, the public health officials need to put this measure in the “intolerable” column. As Captain Kirk was fond of saying to Scottie and Dr. Spock, “I don’t like those solutions. Bring me another one.” :-)

    If there’s anything to learn from the Provincetown outbreak, perhaps the most effective measure is simply reasonable social distancing for a while. Perhaps the CDC can issue “virus reports” resembling weather reports: “It’s going to rain today.” People decide on their own whether or not to carry an umbrella. :-) Or their air-quality reports: “It’s hazy today.” People with asthma decide whether or not to risk going outside.

    I’d like to see the CDC clarify their function and relationship to the American public so that it more closely resembles the National Weather Service: Just do the best job on the planet of amassing and processing accurate data. Leave the rest to us.

    • #73
  14. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I’d like to see the CDC clarify their function and relationship to the American public so that it more closely resembles the National Weather Service: Just do the best job on the planet of amassing and processing accurate data. Leave the rest to us.

    But who would violate the property rights of landlords, then?

    • #74
  15. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Here in the good old USA we are the number 1 worst COVID victims among the advanced developed nations with more infected and more dead per capita.  Go USA!

    There’s probably lots of blame to go around. 

    Uh, how about there are more obese Americans than obese in other advanced developed nations. How about some individual responsibility. I thought that was a conservative thing.

    • #75
  16. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    MiMac (View Comment):
    …but arguing masks didn’t work b/c the virus spread is to create a hypothetical counterfactual that is unverifiable-ie the spread could easily have been worse w/o masks. But masks are nowhere near as important as a successful vaccination program. And mandating community wearing of masks BY the vaccinated to protect those who refuse to avail themselves of the best mitigation strategy is unreasonable. But being reasonable will not restrain the Biden administration since they do not think the constitution nor the Supreme Court should restrain them-see yesterday’s Commentary article Noah Rothman.

    I knew I would get the old “but how do you know it would have been worse but for [this or that policy] which is a hell of a lot more of a counter-factual guess than merely asking to see a statistical difference between actual data sets.

    All I want was for someone to show me two COVID-similar jurisdictions (the Hope-Simpson “seasonality” model has been vindicated in spades) with different policy choices where any intervention made one different from the other.  A general policy applied to a large, entire population but not another is not about uncontrolled variables.  If masks are indeed 70-80% effective, it would take a hell of a lot of conflicting variance in other factors not to see a difference in outcomes.

    Also, I’m not all that persuaded by that Boston hospital personnel study.  What I saw in the graph is that COVID peaked earlier among hospital workers than the general public for obvious reasons of more exposure earlier in the wave. Subsequent decline was more gradual than you might expect from a sudden effective intervention.

    I also have issues with studies among medical workers (speaking of variables) whose exposure history and cross-reactive immunity is likely to be somewhat atypical.  Not wearing street clothes at work, better air filtration, more education, and instinctive health risk avoidance.. are these the conditions and the sorts of people who are the kinds of primo transmitters the virus is looking for?  

    But I come back to the fundamental issue as to why the mask mandates have has so little effect: “uncontrolled variables” seems like more of a dodge and a BS response to the fundamental questions.

     

     

     

     

     

    • #76
  17. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Roderic (View Comment):
    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public.

    All the health experts in my office don’t agree about what should be done to protect the public.

    Incidentally, I run a solo office.

    • #77
  18. Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer Member
    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer
    @ape2ag

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    My understanding has always been that there is an inverse relationship between lethality and ease of spread with influenza.

    Generally, viruses mutate to become more transmissible, but less deadly. They don’t want to kill off their hosts before they can reproduce.

    Anyway, there’s now a “lambda variant” for the fearmongers to worry everyone about, so, while the COVID pandemic is over, the fear pandemic is still out there.

    Wait till they find out the zeta variant is undetectable, 100% contagious and produces no symptoms or deaths so we can never know when it’s gone.

    There are probably dozens of viruses that do exactly this.  We’ve only recently discovered a few of them.

    • #78
  19. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):
    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public.

    All the health experts in my office don’t agree about what should be done to protect the public.

    Incidentally, I run a solo office.

    You mean to say that neither you nor your shadow can agree? My suggestion…you both better go see a doctor!

    • #79
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Roderic (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    We are sick and tired of masking up, shutting down, being non-socially distanced, all the while having to hear day in and day out about COVID.

    The virus is calling to tune here, not officials who have no control over the transmissibility or virulence of the virus and can only react to what is happening. The virus doesn’t care how sick and tired you are.

    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public. Government officials have little choice but to go along with that.

    Exxcept Masks and Lockdowns don’t work to slow the spread of the virus. 

    https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

    Masks don’t work. Period. 

    Lock downs did not work. They did not change the spread 

    • #80
  21. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Also I do think masks work otherwise all the medical facilities and medical staff would not be using them. You are required to wear one when you enter a medical office. Also the flu season never showed up – so that proves you have some protection which is better than none, until this thing dies down.

    They don’t. 

    See my post above. 

    Or don’t, and continue to demand others mask up to make you feel better. 

    • #81
  22. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Masks and lockdowns don’t work because they have been tried and not change the trajectory of the virus when compared to others who did neither.

    That is fact. From a Friend of Mine in the industry with his quotes on the information:

     

    Here’s a graph I made at the end of April. It shows a correlation coefficient of COVID cases in the U.S. by state as a function solely of population of 0.98. Contrast that with the differential responses (lockdowns, mask mandates, etc.) and ask why there is literally no measurable effect.

     I’m saying that in the case data there is (or at least was in April, though I doubt it’s changed much other than in numbers of cases) no correlation between public health measures such as masking, lockdowns, etc. and doing anything else i.e. there’s no evidence that anything the CDC or our other experts told us to do did any good at all, at least with respect to the ‘controls’ (such as they are, but not really) of states that did little, e.g. South Dakota, or were villified for reopening or otherwise being cavalier with containment/mitigation efforts, e.g. Texas and Florida relative to everyone else. That’s why the line goes through the points really well – all the states basically have the same number of cases/person regardless of anything (0.097, or 9.7% of the population had had COVID).

    Incidentally, the death numbers tell basically the same story, though the R^2 is 0.91. Interestingly, without NY and NJ (the blue and red dots, respectively), the R^2 is 0.95. NY and NJ got hit early and terribly with nursing home and other elderly deaths before we got a hold over the relative risks, but that simply reinforces that other than having your most vulnerable population hunker down and isolate, it doesn’t seem that anything mattered with respect to death rate (though, again, the data are more scattered than the case numbers, in part because they are much smaller, at 0.018 deaths/person).

     

     

    Finally:

    Indeed it is the vaccines that have ended the pandemic, at least for those who choose to get vaccinated. Almost no one who is vaccinated dies from COVID (I did a calculation during the J&J pause — another colossal CDC&FDA blunder that by my estimation, cost several hundred lives — that dying from COVID after getting vaccinated was less likely than getting killed by lightning and about 2x less likely than dying in a plane crash). Almost no one really gets sick. The vaccinated-but-died numbers are basically the same as the clinical trials — all three vaccines are almost 100% effective against serious cases/deaths from COVID. It’s Big Pharma (and Operation Warp Speed) that ended the pandemic, not Fauci or the CDC.

    So, folks, no matter that doctor’s wear masks, or that someone in a lab showed they “work”, no matter the models on lockdowns, no matter the in vitro study, the reality is when we compare the mask mandates vs. no mask mandates, and extreme lockdowns vs. no extreme lockdowns, we see there is no difference in effect. None. Nada. 

     

    • #82
  23. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    We are sick and tired of masking up, shutting down, being non-socially distanced, all the while having to hear day in and day out about COVID.

    The virus is calling to tune here, not officials who have no control over the transmissibility or virulence of the virus and can only react to what is happening. The virus doesn’t care how sick and tired you are.

    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public. Government officials have little choice but to go along with that.

    Exxcept Masks and Lockdowns don’t work to slow the spread of the virus.

    https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

    Masks don’t work. Period.

    Lock downs did not work. They did not change the spread

    The site isn’t a reliable source of information as per one of my previous posts above….if you wish to be deceived then by all means believe their articles- they misrepresent & misinterpret medical articles on a regular basis.

    • #83
  24. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    We are sick and tired of masking up, shutting down, being non-socially distanced, all the while having to hear day in and day out about COVID.

    The virus is calling to tune here, not officials who have no control over the transmissibility or virulence of the virus and can only react to what is happening. The virus doesn’t care how sick and tired you are.

    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public. Government officials have little choice but to go along with that.

    Exxcept Masks and Lockdowns don’t work to slow the spread of the virus.

    https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

    Masks don’t work. Period.

    Lock downs did not work. They did not change the spread

    The site isn’t a reliable source of information as per one of my previous posts above….

    Somehow, that only works in one direction with you. 

    Besides, I have my own source, who is reliable, as “in the industry” reliable. See above. 

    Masks and Lockdowns don’t change things. At all.

    And there is nothing you can say to change the facts. Sorry, but your feelings are not facts. 

    • #84
  25. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Roderic (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    We are sick and tired of masking up, shutting down, being non-socially distanced, all the while having to hear day in and day out about COVID.

    The virus is calling to tune here, not officials who have no control over the transmissibility or virulence of the virus and can only react to what is happening. The virus doesn’t care how sick and tired you are.

    All the health experts in all the developed countries are in agreement about what should be done to protect the public. Government officials have little choice but to go along with that.

    Ah, no.  Ask Sweden.

    That’s a really broad statement about “all the health experts in all the developed countries”.  If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow?  Were they all on board with triple-masking?  How about avoiding Trump’s vaccine?  How about taking the vaccine, if they turn out to have negative long-term effects?

    If we’re going to be talking about garbage, let’s be careful about slinging it.

     

    • #85
  26. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Also I do think masks work otherwise all the medical facilities and medical staff would not be using them. You are required to wear one when you enter a medical office. Also the flu season never showed up – so that proves you have some protection which is better than none, until this thing dies down.

    Hospitals, unlike the pharma companies, are liable.  So they’re going to default to something that’s mostly annoying, cheap, and is at best mildly effective, mostly by preventing sneezing from going everywhere.

    But that’s not the rest of humanity.  I only have casual contact with people.  I do not have regular contact, close contact, with sick people, administer to them, etc.

    It’s 2 different things.  Completely.  If all truck drivers wore them, would that mean hospital workers should all wear them?  No, for obvious reasons.

    • #86
  27. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    All I want was for someone to show me two COVID-similar jurisdictions (the Hope-Simpson “seasonality” model has been vindicated in spades) with different policy choices where any intervention made one different from the other.

    Well here you are! (I have posted this above in an earlier response):

    Significance

    Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 is the objective of most governments. It is of utmost importance to understand how effective various public health measures are. We study the effectiveness of face masks. We employ public regional data about reported severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections for Germany. As face masks became mandatory at different points in time across German regions, we can compare the rise in infections in regions with masks and regions without masks. Weighing various estimates, we conclude that 20 d after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45%. As economic costs are close to zero compared to other public health measures, masks seem to be a cost-effective means to combat COVID-19.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293

    • #87
  28. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    The best analysis of the mask issue that I have read was written by our own Dr. Bastiat last May: “It Doesn’t Matter if Masks Work.” 

    • #88
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    All I want was for someone to show me two COVID-similar jurisdictions (the Hope-Simpson “seasonality” model has been vindicated in spades) with different policy choices where any intervention made one different from the other.

    Well here you are! (I have posted this above in an earlier response):

    Significance

    Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 is the objective of most governments. It is of utmost importance to understand how effective various public health measures are. We study the effectiveness of face masks. We employ public regional data about reported severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections for Germany. As face masks became mandatory at different points in time across German regions, we can compare the rise in infections in regions with masks and regions without masks. Weighing various estimates, we conclude that 20 d after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45%. As economic costs are close to zero compared to other public health measures, masks seem to be a cost-effective means to combat COVID-19.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293

    I don’t think they are a trustworthy source ;)

    More seriously, the charts I posted above tell me all the story I need for America.

    • #89
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I will not wear a mask to make someone else feel better. 

    I will not do it. And MiMac, people like you are going to have to put a gun to my head to force me to do it. Are you prepared to shoot me?

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.