the fact that no comparrison to unmasked anything is made is not cherry picking, its a ■■■■■■■ watermelon.
2 Likes
Nope. You are wrong and being close minded and cherry picking without sonsideribg all the information presented. I’m on a phone and heading out to enjoy the 95f temps so will have to pick it up tomorrow.
Read the nyt piece. They compared nc to unmasked schools.
Go to the nyt piece. Iirc the paragraph starts how do we know make work?
i am absolutely right. let me know when you find that quote saying they compared anything to anything unmasked. doesn’t have to be a school, hell, it can be a wal mart. when you find that quote “specifically explaining” that they did that, post it.
why would i go to a leftist propoganda rag? they have a study, not an opinion about a study, not what someone said about a study, a study. there is absolutely no comparrison made to any unmasked situation anywhere. they see a percieved “benefit” and attribute it to masks with absolutely no science to back up the assertion. the only thing you can conclude from this study is that in a masked environment, social distancing for kids does nothing. you can’t even claim the mask makes a difference or that in an unmasked environment social distancing makes no difference for kids.
1 Like
not from this study
Link? Is it somewhere in this thread?
yes, i linked it yesterday, two studies
or the kids getting hit hard thread
CDC does 750 a week. Private labs are contracted to do up to 20,000 a week. Universities, state and local health departments do varying amounts. The last week available (August 7) there were about 18,500 sequences. The week before there were 16,600. For this year the most sequences in a week was 37,600 on April 24, the least was 1,300 on January 9.
From the first study:
This study found that before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of COVID-19 was 37% lower in schools that required mask use among teachers and staff members and was 39% lower in schools that reported implementing one or more strategies to improve classroom ventilation.
The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional. This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but might also result from dif- ferences in mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with optional requirements.
Mandatory masking was statistically significant for school staff. The incidence of cases in students was also lower but not statistically significant. They gave reasons why, such as since staff were masked they were less likely to spread the virus to students and they were uncertain as to how frequently students at mask-optional schools wore masks.
From the second study:
It is important to note that this does not imply masks are ineffective, as these results focus only on masking in schools and do not take community behavior into consideration. Additionally, as noted above, we focus only on mask mandates and not actual masking behavior.
This represents a preliminary analysis and carries limitations. First, we have comprehensive data for only three states, which are not representative of students across the U.S. as a whole. Second, there is variation in masking only in Florida, meaning that the data may be even less generalizable to all U.S. students. Third, our data only represent cases among people associated with schools, not cases spread in schools. Careful contact tracing would be helpful in focusing on the latter, but is not widely available. Finally, we do not focus on possible community spread as a result of schools opening, which is a separate consideration and has been considered in other work.
It is a limited retrospective study which designated cohorts by stated rather than actual observed behavior and did not assess in school spread. It even states you cannot draw conclusions about mask effectiveness from the study.
Neither study says masks are ineffective. One approached but did not meet statistical significance for decreased incidence with mandatory student masking and gave possible reasons why. The other flatly stated they are not implying masks are ineffective.
2 Likes
You believe that?
1 Like
Sure. I have no reason not to. If there is objective data showing otherwise, let’s see it. Otherwise, I’ll chalk it up to more guessing and claiming.
On faith.
No. The CDC presented data. You can literally download every single genome sequenced. I can give you the link. There’s around 133,000 in total. Tell us which ones are fake.
Faith
Nope. My mistake though. There are over 1 million sequences available to review. Come on, prove me wrong.
Here’s the link. Can’t wait to hear what you find! I have faith.
https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf
I’ll defer to your faith in government.
I don’t have faith in government.
When an accountable person or organization presents a sourced dataset including time, location, method, testing organization and anonymized patient information faith isn’t needed. I don’t live in a world where science is scary and academics are not trusted by default. Some do.
