[Leftcoast]

0 deaths, 7 new cases in Santa Clara today - That’s pretty darn good.  

I’m starting to believe masks and adherence to new infectious disease protocols combined with the unquantified but observable seasonality is making a big difference alongside social distancing. I’m increasingly in favor of careful loosening of shelter-in-place rules within the Bay Area.

As an aside, our church community supports a grass roots food bank and healthcare center working within some of San Jose’s low income apartment complexes. I got a chance to visit and deliver food last week and those communities have been hammered.  It’s not unusual for families with no reserves to have lost jobs, face evictions and be trying to maintain a family within a crammed multi-generation household.    Many are facing hunger risk and relying on a relatively insecure safety net for basic nutrition.  When we inevitably do reopen it is their service economy jobs that are most at risk of not returning.

When we discuss reopening be sure to factor in the shutdown experiences different from your own and family impacts not as easy for us to see. We need to weigh those needs and risks too when decisions are made.

[Leftcoast]

0 deaths, 7 new cases in Santa Clara today - That’s pretty darn good.  

I’m starting to believe masks and adherence to new infectious disease protocols combined with the unquantified but observable seasonality is making a big difference alongside social distancing. I’m increasingly in favor of careful loosening of shelter-in-place rules within the Bay Area.

As an aside, our church community supports a grass roots food bank and healthcare center working within some of San Jose’s low income apartment complexes. I got a chance to visit and deliver food last week and those communities have been hammered.  It’s not unusual for families with no reserves to have lost jobs, face evictions and be trying to maintain a family within a crammed multi-generation household.    Many are facing hunger risk and relying on a relatively insecure safety net for basic nutrition.  When we inevitably do reopen it is their service economy jobs that are most at risk of not returning.

When we discuss reopening be sure to factor in the shutdown experiences different from your own and family impacts not as easy for us to see. We need to weigh those needs and risks too when decisions are made.

[Snorlax94]

I agree in every possible way.
1) The numbers in SCC are fantastic!
2) More widespread adoption of masks probably helped
3) It feels like it's around time to slowly, carefully continue to loosen the SCC Shelter-In-Place. Technically, it's already started and is all part of a continuum as SCC already added construction work and a few additional outdoor recreational activities like golf.
4) I definitely agree we should consider economic suffering, but also to me there are some very low hanging fruit that are very safe (like more outdoor recreational activities).
5) Additionally, some freedoms have been curtailed where I feel restrictions are no longer required. In particular:
i) SJPD recently disagreed with SCCDPH because the SCCDPH says that a decorated birthday car caravan 100 feet in front of a child's home violates the shelter-in-place because it is not an "essential" trip. SJPD thought it was OK, SCCDPH said it was not. I think they no longer need to limit trips to "essential" ones so long as all rules are met in terms of spacing, no gatherings, and only permitted businesses. It should be permissible for me to drive 3 miles even if it's not for a permitted essential activity as long as I stay outdoors. I should be able to sit in a park (according to the current county order, we can leave our homes to go to a park to exercise, but technically, lying in the grass, sunbathing, or picnicking would be neither exercise nor an essential activity).

ii) SCC residents should be permitted to drive outside of their county for non-essential trips for activities that are outdoors. Denying a person's right to leave their county is a big deal and should be lifted as early as it is safe to do so. While people still should not be able to go to any store they want, or get a haircut, or go to a concert or a rodeo or a party or other gathering, I should be able to get take-out from San Mateo County or go to a park in Santa Cruz County so long as all spacing, crowding and all other requirements are met. (Technically, both of these activities are violations of the current county order because I would be leaving my county for a non-essential activity).

[Snorlax94]

I agree in every possible way.
1) The numbers in SCC are fantastic!
2) More widespread adoption of masks probably helped
3) It feels like it's around time to slowly, carefully continue to loosen the SCC Shelter-In-Place. Technically, it's already started and is all part of a continuum as SCC already added construction work and a few additional outdoor recreational activities like golf.
4) I definitely agree we should consider economic suffering, but also to me there are some very low hanging fruit that are very safe (like more outdoor recreational activities).
5) Additionally, some freedoms have been curtailed where I feel restrictions are no longer required. In particular:
i) SJPD recently disagreed with SCCDPH because the SCCDPH says that a decorated birthday car caravan 100 feet in front of a child's home violates the shelter-in-place because it is not an "essential" trip. SJPD thought it was OK, SCCDPH said it was not. I think they no longer need to limit trips to "essential" ones so long as all rules are met in terms of spacing, no gatherings, and only permitted businesses. It should be permissible for me to drive 3 miles even if it's not for a permitted essential activity as long as I stay outdoors. I should be able to sit in a park (according to the current county order, we can leave our homes to go to a park to exercise, but technically, lying in the grass, sunbathing, or picnicking would be neither exercise nor an essential activity).

ii) SCC residents should be permitted to drive outside of their county for non-essential trips for activities that are outdoors. Denying a person's right to leave their county is a big deal and should be lifted as early as it is safe to do so. While people still should not be able to go to any store they want, or get a haircut, or go to a concert or a rodeo or a party or other gathering, I should be able to get take-out from San Mateo County or go to a park in Santa Cruz County so long as all spacing, crowding and all other requirements are met. (Technically, both of these activities are violations of the current county order because I would be leaving my county for a non-essential activity).

[chrisk]

I agree in every possible way.
1) The numbers in SCC are fantastic!
2) More widespread adoption of masks probably helped
3) It feels like it's around time to slowly, carefully continue to loosen the SCC Shelter-In-Place. Technically, it's already started and is all part of a continuum as SCC already added construction work and a few additional outdoor recreational activities like golf.
4) I definitely agree we should consider economic suffering, but also to me there are some very low hanging fruit that are very safe (like more outdoor recreational activities).
5) Additionally, some freedoms have been curtailed where I feel restrictions are no longer required. In particular:
i) SJPD recently disagreed with SCCDPH because the SCCDPH says that a decorated birthday car caravan 100 feet in front of a child's home violates the shelter-in-place because it is not an "essential" trip. SJPD thought it was OK, SCCDPH said it was not. I think they no longer need to limit trips to "essential" ones so long as all rules are met in terms of spacing, no gatherings, and only permitted businesses. It should be permissible for me to drive 3 miles even if it's not for a permitted essential activity as long as I stay outdoors. I should be able to sit in a park (according to the current county order, we can leave our homes to go to a park to exercise, but technically, lying in the grass, sunbathing, or picnicking would be neither exercise nor an essential activity).

ii) SCC residents should be permitted to drive outside of their county for non-essential trips for activities that are outdoors. Denying a person's right to leave their county is a big deal and should be lifted as early as it is safe to do so. While people still should not be able to go to any store they want, or get a haircut, or go to a concert or a rodeo or a party or other gathering, I should be able to get take-out from San Mateo County or go to a park in Santa Cruz County so long as all spacing, crowding and all other requirements are met. (Technically, both of these activities are violations of the current county order because I would be leaving my county for a non-essential activity).

Regarding Santa Clara County relaxing essential travel rules, San Mateo County limits driving to less than 10 miles from home for recreation so that would place severe restrictions of SC County residents. Also Santa Cruz is limiting beach access to certain hours inconvenient to out-of-county residents and are considering limiting parking near beaches.

[chrisk]

I agree in every possible way.
1) The numbers in SCC are fantastic!
2) More widespread adoption of masks probably helped
3) It feels like it's around time to slowly, carefully continue to loosen the SCC Shelter-In-Place. Technically, it's already started and is all part of a continuum as SCC already added construction work and a few additional outdoor recreational activities like golf.
4) I definitely agree we should consider economic suffering, but also to me there are some very low hanging fruit that are very safe (like more outdoor recreational activities).
5) Additionally, some freedoms have been curtailed where I feel restrictions are no longer required. In particular:
i) SJPD recently disagreed with SCCDPH because the SCCDPH says that a decorated birthday car caravan 100 feet in front of a child's home violates the shelter-in-place because it is not an "essential" trip. SJPD thought it was OK, SCCDPH said it was not. I think they no longer need to limit trips to "essential" ones so long as all rules are met in terms of spacing, no gatherings, and only permitted businesses. It should be permissible for me to drive 3 miles even if it's not for a permitted essential activity as long as I stay outdoors. I should be able to sit in a park (according to the current county order, we can leave our homes to go to a park to exercise, but technically, lying in the grass, sunbathing, or picnicking would be neither exercise nor an essential activity).

ii) SCC residents should be permitted to drive outside of their county for non-essential trips for activities that are outdoors. Denying a person's right to leave their county is a big deal and should be lifted as early as it is safe to do so. While people still should not be able to go to any store they want, or get a haircut, or go to a concert or a rodeo or a party or other gathering, I should be able to get take-out from San Mateo County or go to a park in Santa Cruz County so long as all spacing, crowding and all other requirements are met. (Technically, both of these activities are violations of the current county order because I would be leaving my county for a non-essential activity).

Regarding Santa Clara County relaxing essential travel rules, San Mateo County limits driving to less than 10 miles from home for recreation so that would place severe restrictions of SC County residents. Also Santa Cruz is limiting beach access to certain hours inconvenient to out-of-county residents and are considering limiting parking near beaches.

[OutsiderFan]

Mask wearing is the absolute key. I wear one even when outside just to remind people to wear them. One thing I have noticed is every time I have encountered someone walking towards me since mid-March, they walk way around me. It’s like a game of chicken and I never lose. This is mostly when walking dog(s) but also walking to store. 

Anyway, more on mask wearing being the best solution. It’s so damn infuriating that if everyone wore masks since March, that we’d have avoided so much more pain and misery.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/...study-says

[OutsiderFan]

Mask wearing is the absolute key. I wear one even when outside just to remind people to wear them. One thing I have noticed is every time I have encountered someone walking towards me since mid-March, they walk way around me. It’s like a game of chicken and I never lose. This is mostly when walking dog(s) but also walking to store. 

Anyway, more on mask wearing being the best solution. It’s so damn infuriating that if everyone wore masks since March, that we’d have avoided so much more pain and misery.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/...study-says

[BostonCard]

Mask wearing is the absolute key. I wear one even when outside just to remind people to wear them. One thing I have noticed is every time I have encountered someone walking towards me since mid-March, they walk way around me. It’s like a game of chicken and I never lose. This is mostly when walking dog(s) but also walking to store. 

Anyway, more on mask wearing being the best solution. It’s so damn infuriating that if everyone wore masks since March, that we’d have avoided so much more pain and misery.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/...study-says

The issue I have with the article is that the simulation (you can see it here) is that it assumes the efficacy of the masks (you can read it in the paper):

Mask wearing.

A gradual increase inmask wearing was  modelled  using  a  linear  increase  in  the  proportion of individuals randomly allocated with a reduced rate of transmission.  The  factor  by  which β was  reduced  was conservatively set to 2. The period of time over which the mask wearing went from 0 to maximum % was set to 10 days. 50% and 80% maximum values were considered.

(ß is the probability that an infected individual will transmit the virus to a susceptible individual if they have contact).  I mean, if you start with the assumption that masks work, then of course you are going to find out that masks work if everyone wears them.  

My personal view is that masks are a low-cost and simple mechanism that might help reduce transmission.  They probably help on the margins, and every little bit helps, so I wear them in higher-risk situations (enclosed areas or when I have face to face contact with a stranger, such as when I'm picking up take-out).  However, I don't think masks are a panacea, and I don't consider them key to anything.  They should be a complement to, and not a substitute for, other risk minimizing mechanisms.

BC

[BostonCard]

Mask wearing is the absolute key. I wear one even when outside just to remind people to wear them. One thing I have noticed is every time I have encountered someone walking towards me since mid-March, they walk way around me. It’s like a game of chicken and I never lose. This is mostly when walking dog(s) but also walking to store. 

Anyway, more on mask wearing being the best solution. It’s so damn infuriating that if everyone wore masks since March, that we’d have avoided so much more pain and misery.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/...study-says

The issue I have with the article is that the simulation (you can see it here) is that it assumes the efficacy of the masks (you can read it in the paper):

Mask wearing.

A gradual increase inmask wearing was  modelled  using  a  linear  increase  in  the  proportion of individuals randomly allocated with a reduced rate of transmission.  The  factor  by  which β was  reduced  was conservatively set to 2. The period of time over which the mask wearing went from 0 to maximum % was set to 10 days. 50% and 80% maximum values were considered.

(ß is the probability that an infected individual will transmit the virus to a susceptible individual if they have contact).  I mean, if you start with the assumption that masks work, then of course you are going to find out that masks work if everyone wears them.  

My personal view is that masks are a low-cost and simple mechanism that might help reduce transmission.  They probably help on the margins, and every little bit helps, so I wear them in higher-risk situations (enclosed areas or when I have face to face contact with a stranger, such as when I'm picking up take-out).  However, I don't think masks are a panacea, and I don't consider them key to anything.  They should be a complement to, and not a substitute for, other risk minimizing mechanisms.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

BC, this lukewarm attitude toward mask wearing is really baffling to me. These are absolute facts:

1. Masks reduce the amount of droplets that can escape
2. If someone does intake droplets there will be fewer that are taken in
3. The amount of exposure load impacts ability of immune system to fight off the virus

I just had a routine doctor visit by Zoom today. My Dr. was wearing a surgical mask. She asked me if I'm wearing one. I said yes and she urged me to continue doing so. When I suggested if everyone wears one we'll stop this virus in its tracks, she agreed, for all the above reasons.

While I'm here, Doc also told me that they are now allowing tests for asymptomatic people who have been around other known cases. A few months ago, you almost had to be dying to get a test.

[OutsiderFan]

BC, this lukewarm attitude toward mask wearing is really baffling to me. These are absolute facts:

1. Masks reduce the amount of droplets that can escape
2. If someone does intake droplets there will be fewer that are taken in
3. The amount of exposure load impacts ability of immune system to fight off the virus

I just had a routine doctor visit by Zoom today. My Dr. was wearing a surgical mask. She asked me if I'm wearing one. I said yes and she urged me to continue doing so. When I suggested if everyone wears one we'll stop this virus in its tracks, she agreed, for all the above reasons.

While I'm here, Doc also told me that they are now allowing tests for asymptomatic people who have been around other known cases. A few months ago, you almost had to be dying to get a test.

[Genuine Realist]

Mask wearing is the absolute key. I wear one even when outside just to remind people to wear them. One thing I have noticed is every time I have encountered someone walking towards me since mid-March, they walk way around me. It’s like a game of chicken and I never lose. This is mostly when walking dog(s) but also walking to store. 

Anyway, more on mask wearing being the best solution. It’s so damn infuriating that if everyone wore masks since March, that we’d have avoided so much more pain and misery.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/...study-says

The issue I have with the article is that the simulation (you can see it here) is that it assumes the efficacy of the masks (you can read it in the paper):

Mask wearing.

A gradual increase inmask wearing was  modelled  using  a  linear  increase  in  the  proportion of individuals randomly allocated with a reduced rate of transmission.  The  factor  by  which β was  reduced  was conservatively set to 2. The period of time over which the mask wearing went from 0 to maximum % was set to 10 days. 50% and 80% maximum values were considered.

(ß is the probability that an infected individual will transmit the virus to a susceptible individual if they have contact).  I mean, if you start with the assumption that masks work, then of course you are going to find out that masks work if everyone wears them.  

My personal view is that masks are a low-cost and simple mechanism that might help reduce transmission.  They probably help on the margins, and every little bit helps, so I wear them in higher-risk situations (enclosed areas or when I have face to face contact with a stranger, such as when I'm picking up take-out).  However, I don't think masks are a panacea, and I don't consider them key to anything.  They should be a complement to, and not a substitute for, other risk minimizing mechanisms.

BC

I was at Walmart (Mountain View)  yesterday with younger daughter. The store requires masks as a condition of entry. There was 100% compliance (with the exception of one older man who might have had a problem after entering the store - they do break). Social distancing was respected, though complete compliance is impossible - people did come closer than six feet but did their best. It was interesting.

[Genuine Realist]

Mask wearing is the absolute key. I wear one even when outside just to remind people to wear them. One thing I have noticed is every time I have encountered someone walking towards me since mid-March, they walk way around me. It’s like a game of chicken and I never lose. This is mostly when walking dog(s) but also walking to store. 

Anyway, more on mask wearing being the best solution. It’s so damn infuriating that if everyone wore masks since March, that we’d have avoided so much more pain and misery.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/...study-says

The issue I have with the article is that the simulation (you can see it here) is that it assumes the efficacy of the masks (you can read it in the paper):

Mask wearing.

A gradual increase inmask wearing was  modelled  using  a  linear  increase  in  the  proportion of individuals randomly allocated with a reduced rate of transmission.  The  factor  by  which β was  reduced  was conservatively set to 2. The period of time over which the mask wearing went from 0 to maximum % was set to 10 days. 50% and 80% maximum values were considered.

(ß is the probability that an infected individual will transmit the virus to a susceptible individual if they have contact).  I mean, if you start with the assumption that masks work, then of course you are going to find out that masks work if everyone wears them.  

My personal view is that masks are a low-cost and simple mechanism that might help reduce transmission.  They probably help on the margins, and every little bit helps, so I wear them in higher-risk situations (enclosed areas or when I have face to face contact with a stranger, such as when I'm picking up take-out).  However, I don't think masks are a panacea, and I don't consider them key to anything.  They should be a complement to, and not a substitute for, other risk minimizing mechanisms.

BC

I was at Walmart (Mountain View)  yesterday with younger daughter. The store requires masks as a condition of entry. There was 100% compliance (with the exception of one older man who might have had a problem after entering the store - they do break). Social distancing was respected, though complete compliance is impossible - people did come closer than six feet but did their best. It was interesting.

[BostonCard]

The evidence is mixed at best.  Mechanistically, it should help.  I believe it probably does help.  However, viral transmission dynamics are complicated.  For example, this meta analysis suggests that it doesn't help to prevent influenza transmission:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.

Here's the figure looking at the effect of the various studies in the meta-analysis:



Note that it also finds no support of a substantial effect of hand hygiene, even though it is widely accepted.  I think this paragraph from the discussion is most relevant:

It is essential to note that the mechanisms of person-to-person transmission in the community have not been fully determined. Controversy remains over the role of transmission through fine-particle aerosols (3,46). Transmission by indirect contact requires transfer of viable virus from respiratory mucosa onto hands and other surfaces, survival on those surfaces, and successful inoculation into the respiratory mucosa of another person. All of these components of the transmission route have not been studied extensively. The impact of environmental factors, such as temperature and humidity, on influenza transmission is also uncertain (47). These uncertainties over basic transmission modes and mechanisms hinder the optimization of control measures.

As I mentioned, this is a low-cost, low-risk intervention, so I am not against implementation, and use masks myself in cases where social distancing is not possible.  But we should also be honest about the uncertainties.  We don't know that it will work, and even if it does make a difference, it might not be as dramatic as some people think it will be.

I am just naturally cynical against any measure that is advocated as a "magic bullet" (not saying that you are making that assertion).  Experience has shown me that these are few and far between.  Usually, a long slog of small, incremental improvements are needed, rather than a single intervention.

BC

[BostonCard]

The evidence is mixed at best.  Mechanistically, it should help.  I believe it probably does help.  However, viral transmission dynamics are complicated.  For example, this meta analysis suggests that it doesn't help to prevent influenza transmission:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.

Here's the figure looking at the effect of the various studies in the meta-analysis:



Note that it also finds no support of a substantial effect of hand hygiene, even though it is widely accepted.  I think this paragraph from the discussion is most relevant:

It is essential to note that the mechanisms of person-to-person transmission in the community have not been fully determined. Controversy remains over the role of transmission through fine-particle aerosols (3,46). Transmission by indirect contact requires transfer of viable virus from respiratory mucosa onto hands and other surfaces, survival on those surfaces, and successful inoculation into the respiratory mucosa of another person. All of these components of the transmission route have not been studied extensively. The impact of environmental factors, such as temperature and humidity, on influenza transmission is also uncertain (47). These uncertainties over basic transmission modes and mechanisms hinder the optimization of control measures.

As I mentioned, this is a low-cost, low-risk intervention, so I am not against implementation, and use masks myself in cases where social distancing is not possible.  But we should also be honest about the uncertainties.  We don't know that it will work, and even if it does make a difference, it might not be as dramatic as some people think it will be.

I am just naturally cynical against any measure that is advocated as a "magic bullet" (not saying that you are making that assertion).  Experience has shown me that these are few and far between.  Usually, a long slog of small, incremental improvements are needed, rather than a single intervention.

BC

[82 Card]

My non-professional understanding is that masks can be very helpful at 6' or more and that 6' is not nearly enough without masks. The masks tend to keep the droplet cloud within a short distance of the person. I don't think the fabric masks are all that helpful if you are right in someones face.

[82 Card]

My non-professional understanding is that masks can be very helpful at 6' or more and that 6' is not nearly enough without masks. The masks tend to keep the droplet cloud within a short distance of the person. I don't think the fabric masks are all that helpful if you are right in someones face.

[magnus]

Am I reading it right?  28 new cases, 1 death reported today?

The usual weekend catchup in reporting?

[magnus]

Am I reading it right?  28 new cases, 1 death reported today?

The usual weekend catchup in reporting?

[M T]

Am I reading it right?  28 new cases, 1 death reported today?

The usual weekend catchup in reporting?

Yes, 28 and 1.  I don't know where Leftcoast saw 7 and 0.   I believe yesterday was 32 cases received.  The numbers have been up for the past few days (from sub 20 numbers a week or so ago).

It is easy to get confused.  One could look at Cases Dashboard data and see a low number of cases (by date sample was taken) for the most recent day (because the results won't be back yet).  Or one could look at the Testing Dashboard data and see different numbers (by date test is returned).  Or maybe there was an error in updating the site.

[M T]

Am I reading it right?  28 new cases, 1 death reported today?

The usual weekend catchup in reporting?

Yes, 28 and 1.  I don't know where Leftcoast saw 7 and 0.   I believe yesterday was 32 cases received.  The numbers have been up for the past few days (from sub 20 numbers a week or so ago).

It is easy to get confused.  One could look at Cases Dashboard data and see a low number of cases (by date sample was taken) for the most recent day (because the results won't be back yet).  Or one could look at the Testing Dashboard data and see different numbers (by date test is returned).  Or maybe there was an error in updating the site.

[M T]

For example, this meta analysis suggests that it doesn't help to prevent influenza transmission:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.

I am just naturally cynical against any measure that is advocated as a "magic bullet" (not saying that you are making that assertion).  Experience has shown me that these are few and far between.  Usually, a long slog of small, incremental improvements are needed, rather than a single intervention.

Likewise, I'm just as cynical against studies that find nothing is good enough.  They mix studies together like apples & oranges and say that orange cider isn't very good, even though one did apple cider and the other did orange juice.  I'm sure it will be quoted by those supporting not using masks, not washing hands, not coughing into elbows, or not washing surfaces.  This was out in early release in March at the CDC when I was looking at evidence about face masks back when the CDC was insisting that there was no reason to wear masks unless you're taking care of a sick person.

[M T]

For example, this meta analysis suggests that it doesn't help to prevent influenza transmission:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.

I am just naturally cynical against any measure that is advocated as a "magic bullet" (not saying that you are making that assertion).  Experience has shown me that these are few and far between.  Usually, a long slog of small, incremental improvements are needed, rather than a single intervention.

Likewise, I'm just as cynical against studies that find nothing is good enough.  They mix studies together like apples & oranges and say that orange cider isn't very good, even though one did apple cider and the other did orange juice.  I'm sure it will be quoted by those supporting not using masks, not washing hands, not coughing into elbows, or not washing surfaces.  This was out in early release in March at the CDC when I was looking at evidence about face masks back when the CDC was insisting that there was no reason to wear masks unless you're taking care of a sick person.

[dabigv13]

No trial can replicate the widespread mask usage that is presently happening in our society. When I went to Ralph's yesterday, there was one person not wearing a mask. I wouldn't have predicted that was even possible. Particularly since the main benefit of surgical masks is to prevent onward transmission rather than protect the wearer, I really doubt any existing RCT can really inform our present situation. And also flu is not coronavirus, limiting the applicability of flu studies.

I think mechanistically, widespread masking is a really good idea and needs to be implemented as a part of any reopening strategy.

[dabigv13]

No trial can replicate the widespread mask usage that is presently happening in our society. When I went to Ralph's yesterday, there was one person not wearing a mask. I wouldn't have predicted that was even possible. Particularly since the main benefit of surgical masks is to prevent onward transmission rather than protect the wearer, I really doubt any existing RCT can really inform our present situation. And also flu is not coronavirus, limiting the applicability of flu studies.

I think mechanistically, widespread masking is a really good idea and needs to be implemented as a part of any reopening strategy.

[BostonCard]

Likewise, I'm just as cynical against studies that find nothing is good enough.  They mix studies together like apples & oranges and say that orange cider isn't very good, even though one did apple cider and the other did orange juice.  I'm sure it will be quoted by those supporting not using masks, not washing hands, not coughing into elbows, or not washing surfaces.  This was out in early release in March at the CDC when I was looking at evidence about face masks back when the CDC was insisting that there was no reason to wear masks unless you're taking care of a sick person.

Your points are well taken.  I think if you look at the figure I linked in, you can see that almost none of the individual studies that make up the meta analysis showed an effect; the confidence intervals for most of the studies include 1.  Also, if you look, the meta analysis reports a measure of heterogeneity; I2 is roughly a measure of how much variability there is between studies.  A value of 30% is fairly low, and a statistical test for heterogeneity (do you see more heterogeneity between studies than you would based on chance alone) was non-significant.

Now, none of this is to say that any of this proves that masks are harmful or even that it proves they aren't helpful.  If they make even a small difference, the cost (a few dollars and some mild discomfort) will be well worth it, because this is a very low cost intervention.  And theoretically, they should be helpful.  The bottom line is that I do use a mask when other social distancing measures like staying at home can't be pursued.  My pushback comes against those people who say it is self-evident that masks work, and especially, those who believe that masks are a substitute for other measures.

BC

[BostonCard]

Likewise, I'm just as cynical against studies that find nothing is good enough.  They mix studies together like apples & oranges and say that orange cider isn't very good, even though one did apple cider and the other did orange juice.  I'm sure it will be quoted by those supporting not using masks, not washing hands, not coughing into elbows, or not washing surfaces.  This was out in early release in March at the CDC when I was looking at evidence about face masks back when the CDC was insisting that there was no reason to wear masks unless you're taking care of a sick person.

Your points are well taken.  I think if you look at the figure I linked in, you can see that almost none of the individual studies that make up the meta analysis showed an effect; the confidence intervals for most of the studies include 1.  Also, if you look, the meta analysis reports a measure of heterogeneity; I2 is roughly a measure of how much variability there is between studies.  A value of 30% is fairly low, and a statistical test for heterogeneity (do you see more heterogeneity between studies than you would based on chance alone) was non-significant.

Now, none of this is to say that any of this proves that masks are harmful or even that it proves they aren't helpful.  If they make even a small difference, the cost (a few dollars and some mild discomfort) will be well worth it, because this is a very low cost intervention.  And theoretically, they should be helpful.  The bottom line is that I do use a mask when other social distancing measures like staying at home can't be pursued.  My pushback comes against those people who say it is self-evident that masks work, and especially, those who believe that masks are a substitute for other measures.

BC

[oldalum]

Effective or not, Palo Alto is requiring everyone to wear a "face covering" outside the house beginning tomorrow (Wed.), with the exception of people exercising by biking, running, hiking, or walking--but they have to maintain at least 6 feet distance from everyone else.

[oldalum]

Effective or not, Palo Alto is requiring everyone to wear a "face covering" outside the house beginning tomorrow (Wed.), with the exception of people exercising by biking, running, hiking, or walking--but they have to maintain at least 6 feet distance from everyone else.

[akiddoc]

Effective or not, Palo Alto is requiring everyone to wear a "face covering" outside the house beginning tomorrow (Wed.), with the exception of people exercising by biking, running, hiking, or walking--but they have to maintain at least 6 feet distance from everyone else.

Overzealous.

[akiddoc]

Effective or not, Palo Alto is requiring everyone to wear a "face covering" outside the house beginning tomorrow (Wed.), with the exception of people exercising by biking, running, hiking, or walking--but they have to maintain at least 6 feet distance from everyone else.

Overzealous.

[Leftcoast]

“I don't know where Leftcoast saw 7 and 0.“

The SCC reported numbers were 7 and 0 and are in line with the general improvement Santa Clara has been seeing. New cases are higher today but not unusually so. 

[Leftcoast]

“I don't know where Leftcoast saw 7 and 0.“

The SCC reported numbers were 7 and 0 and are in line with the general improvement Santa Clara has been seeing. New cases are higher today but not unusually so. 

[OutsiderFan]

Here's a REALLY simple exercise anyone can do right now, to demonstrate the basic value of face covering.

Put one hand over your mouth and the other in front of it about a foot away. Blow out of your mouth as hard as you can. You'll feel nothing on the hand not covering your mouth as the exhaust is suppressed and leaks slowly through your fingers. Now don't cover your mouth and do the same thing. You absolutely feel the exhaust.

There is no credible argument against face coverings reducing spread of what comes out of the mouth and nose. Sure if you are in close quarters with lots of people in the same room wearing masks, for an extended period of time, the particle and droplet build up will ensure inhaling them through most face coverings. But in fluid situations in the most common social interactions, it will be very difficult for enough infectious material to build up and actually cause infection if everyone wears a face covering.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's a REALLY simple exercise anyone can do right now, to demonstrate the basic value of face covering.

Put one hand over your mouth and the other in front of it about a foot away. Blow out of your mouth as hard as you can. You'll feel nothing on the hand not covering your mouth as the exhaust is suppressed and leaks slowly through your fingers. Now don't cover your mouth and do the same thing. You absolutely feel the exhaust.

There is no credible argument against face coverings reducing spread of what comes out of the mouth and nose. Sure if you are in close quarters with lots of people in the same room wearing masks, for an extended period of time, the particle and droplet build up will ensure inhaling them through most face coverings. But in fluid situations in the most common social interactions, it will be very difficult for enough infectious material to build up and actually cause infection if everyone wears a face covering.

[Mick]

Effective or not, Palo Alto is requiring everyone to wear a "face covering" outside the house beginning tomorrow (Wed.), with the exception of people exercising by biking, running, hiking, or walking--but they have to maintain at least 6 feet distance from everyone else.

A week ago, there was only one store in Willow Glen (SJ) requiring face masks.  Today, all but one are requiring face masks.

[Mick]

Effective or not, Palo Alto is requiring everyone to wear a "face covering" outside the house beginning tomorrow (Wed.), with the exception of people exercising by biking, running, hiking, or walking--but they have to maintain at least 6 feet distance from everyone else.

A week ago, there was only one store in Willow Glen (SJ) requiring face masks.  Today, all but one are requiring face masks.

[2006alum]

My admittedly non-expert view on this is is that if mandating masks also permits, at the margins, more opportunities to "go back to (new) normal," then this seems like a worthwhile trade-off. SF has mandated masks for entry to all public accommodations for the past week or two, and that seems like a no-brainer as we try to find ways to allow more businesses to reopen safely. Anyone who fears the encroachment of tyranny need only read back to 1918-19 flu pandemic to realize that the same conditions were (temporarily) imposed then, a fringe contingent of pseudo-libertarians loudly and vehemently objected then while the vast majority of people quietly complied, and eventually life went back to normal and masks became a curiosity of a distant past. 

So to put it more crudely, suit up, sack up, and let's get on with it!

[2006alum]

My admittedly non-expert view on this is is that if mandating masks also permits, at the margins, more opportunities to "go back to (new) normal," then this seems like a worthwhile trade-off. SF has mandated masks for entry to all public accommodations for the past week or two, and that seems like a no-brainer as we try to find ways to allow more businesses to reopen safely. Anyone who fears the encroachment of tyranny need only read back to 1918-19 flu pandemic to realize that the same conditions were (temporarily) imposed then, a fringe contingent of pseudo-libertarians loudly and vehemently objected then while the vast majority of people quietly complied, and eventually life went back to normal and masks became a curiosity of a distant past. 

So to put it more crudely, suit up, sack up, and let's get on with it!