[BostonCard]

Yes, the ‘don’t tread on me” mentality has absolutely led to spread. Claiming New York doesn’t have that, but look at their numbers, as an example, is misguided, because New York didn’t resist wearing masks and stayed in lock down with great discipline. Now look at New York’s cases declining. Compare to states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona. Those states have large populations who didn’t take precautions because they see mask wearing as a political issue. I have friends who have told me this. So just because we don’t see mask wearing and distancing as a political issue, some absolutely do.

The data says otherwise.  Weekly deaths in those states have been flat since April with the possible exception of Arizona, and even there, deaths peaked three weeks ago.  There was a small jump in deaths last week, but even then, it didn't reach previous highs.  California, has broadly the same pattern.



And mind you, per capita none of these states have particularly high death rates per million inhabitants (Arizona at 143, Florida at 126, Georgia at 205, Texas at 64) are all below the US average, and are comparable to California 118 per million.  I don't dispute that some people don't see mask wearing and social distancing as a political issue; the thing is, it doesn't seem to translate to a growing death rate from COVID-19 so far.  Maybe if there is a fall return, those states will be hit much harder, but right now there is no evidence that a "don't tread on me" attitude is leading to more people dying from COVID-19.

I don’t need data about mask and distance efficacy specifically, to tell me if everyone wore a mask and kept distance that the U.S. numbers would be lower and declining across the board. It’s just common sense.

While I think there is enough data to support the use of masks, I vehemently disagree with your attitude about it.  The medical literature is filled with things that were self-evidently obvious to the point where high profile scientists said it would be unethical to test in a randomized, controlled study, until someone tested it in a randomized, controlled study and showed that what we thought ain't so.  Now, I don't disagree with your conclusion.  I do think masks work, and I think there is enough evidence to support their use (especially because the risk and cost is pretty negligible).  I posted a meta analysis that suggested masks, as well as physical distance, could reduce transmissions substantially.  There was also this study, using hamsters, from Hong Kong:

https://afludiary.blogspot.com/2020/05/h...study.html

• When naive (unifected) hamsters were exposed to the air flow from an infected hamster's cage, 66% (10 of 15) became infected with COVID-19 after a 7 day exposure.
  

• When a surgical mask was place at the inlet of the naive hamster's cage, 4 or 12 (33.3%) were infected. [p = 0.18]
  
• When a surgical mask was placed at the outlet of the infected hamster's cage, that number dropped to just 16.6% (2 of 12). [p = .027]
  

Though formally, if you adjust for multiple hypothesis, the experiment should be considered non-significant.  My problem is not your conclusion; it's your process for getting there.  Because just as you might say "I don't need any data to conclude that masks work..." plenty of people will say "I don't need any data to conclude that masks don't work..."


BC

[BostonCard]

Yes, the ‘don’t tread on me” mentality has absolutely led to spread. Claiming New York doesn’t have that, but look at their numbers, as an example, is misguided, because New York didn’t resist wearing masks and stayed in lock down with great discipline. Now look at New York’s cases declining. Compare to states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona. Those states have large populations who didn’t take precautions because they see mask wearing as a political issue. I have friends who have told me this. So just because we don’t see mask wearing and distancing as a political issue, some absolutely do.

The data says otherwise.  Weekly deaths in those states have been flat since April with the possible exception of Arizona, and even there, deaths peaked three weeks ago.  There was a small jump in deaths last week, but even then, it didn't reach previous highs.  California, has broadly the same pattern.



And mind you, per capita none of these states have particularly high death rates per million inhabitants (Arizona at 143, Florida at 126, Georgia at 205, Texas at 64) are all below the US average, and are comparable to California 118 per million.  I don't dispute that some people don't see mask wearing and social distancing as a political issue; the thing is, it doesn't seem to translate to a growing death rate from COVID-19 so far.  Maybe if there is a fall return, those states will be hit much harder, but right now there is no evidence that a "don't tread on me" attitude is leading to more people dying from COVID-19.

I don’t need data about mask and distance efficacy specifically, to tell me if everyone wore a mask and kept distance that the U.S. numbers would be lower and declining across the board. It’s just common sense.

While I think there is enough data to support the use of masks, I vehemently disagree with your attitude about it.  The medical literature is filled with things that were self-evidently obvious to the point where high profile scientists said it would be unethical to test in a randomized, controlled study, until someone tested it in a randomized, controlled study and showed that what we thought ain't so.  Now, I don't disagree with your conclusion.  I do think masks work, and I think there is enough evidence to support their use (especially because the risk and cost is pretty negligible).  I posted a meta analysis that suggested masks, as well as physical distance, could reduce transmissions substantially.  There was also this study, using hamsters, from Hong Kong:

https://afludiary.blogspot.com/2020/05/h...study.html

• When naive (unifected) hamsters were exposed to the air flow from an infected hamster's cage, 66% (10 of 15) became infected with COVID-19 after a 7 day exposure.
  

• When a surgical mask was place at the inlet of the naive hamster's cage, 4 or 12 (33.3%) were infected. [p = 0.18]
  
• When a surgical mask was placed at the outlet of the infected hamster's cage, that number dropped to just 16.6% (2 of 12). [p = .027]
  

Though formally, if you adjust for multiple hypothesis, the experiment should be considered non-significant.  My problem is not your conclusion; it's your process for getting there.  Because just as you might say "I don't need any data to conclude that masks work..." plenty of people will say "I don't need any data to conclude that masks don't work..."


BC