BASEBALL IS BACK JULY 23rd ??? V2

Odd, I see that thread was locked, never in favor of that, dear SOM. Why? So, while I don't agree we all have to have doctorates to debate some common sense things (that would be elitism in the highest sense), let's start anew here, I've enjoyed watching the discussion. I point you toward Stanford's Michael Levitt's preprint study that the pandemic is essentially self-flattening and is already subsiding in much of the world. Let's hope so, and I realize hope is not a strategy, but that's not the point. His research is. Read seriously what Levitt says: https://reason.com/2020/07/02/is-the-co ... lessly-on/

Censorship??
Nice going SOM.
Let's get this one locked too, shall we:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/02/no- ... sociation/

If opinions/data offering alternatives to the LIES (Lee Harvey Oswald, really??) we are continually force-fed are not acceptable to you then I suppose I've played my final squad with y'all.

The problem with Leavitt's theory is he looked at Covid outbreaks and observed they tended to die down and then posited that the virus just naturally died down. But those outbreaks were met with extreme social distancing measures, so he has not controlled for other factors that caused the virus to slow down. That's kind of a basic tenet of science to try and control for other factors that may be causing the effect that one is positing as being the result of your proposed causal mechsnism. So maybe he's right, who knows, but that's more of a conjecture at this point. And it's a conjecture not founded in say an analogous situation where you could say, ah yes, this is how viral outbreaks operate. And his supposition of 30% infection for herd immunity makes him an outlier among epidemiologists, which of course he is not one.

I am not sure who caused the original topic to be locked but I think it was probably appropriate for a non-political website where things were getting a little personal.

It is important to be respectful. This allows for the free exchange of ideas. A theory of "discursive democracy" (See Habermas) requires that all can take part, that participants are treated as equals, that participants are not subject to power compelling their beliefs. Of course that is an ideal. In reality powerful interests influence societal discourse and nowadays in "civil discourse" society is so fragmented by political polarization that ideology has creeped into mask wearing.

So I am not naive about how power and money can influence ideas. On the other hand, what is the evidence against using masks? You cant do randomized controlled trials because it would be unethical for the control group not to wear masks, but there are different ways to get at the problem. The types of studies I have seen:

(1) Measurement of mask absorption: these indicate even cloth masks absorb virus droplets. Of course in and of itself that does not tell you that masks have a significant impact on virus tranmission.
(2) Effect on Coronavirus growth rates due to adoption by masks by states/growth: One study simply looked at mask norms in 198 states and found that countries that had societal norms for wearing masks did better than those that did not. Another looked at 15 states that required mask wearing and coronavirus growth rates a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks after the mask wearing requirement was put into effect and found statistically significant drops in new cases due to the measure.
(3) Anectdotal real-world cases:

a. Two hair stylists in Missouri had the virus but wore masks and did not transmit it to 140 clients.
b. An air traveler on a flight from China to Toronto who had the virus and a dry cough wore a mask and it was not transmitted to 25 nearby passengers
c. In China a study found that when there was a person found with Covid in a household where people in the household all wore masks indoors prior to knowing anyone was infected there was a 79% drop in transmission.

There is also the observation that other countries have been able to clamp down on Covid cases after outbreaks (Spain, France, Italy, England, Germany, etc.) while we have failed. What would be the explanation other than our haphazard compliance with social distancing measures, including mask wearing?

I am not aware of any studies that are contra to mask wearing.

By the way, the example of Sweden is completely misapplied by some. They have a societal theory of everyone doing their part which is sorely lacking in our individualistic culture. Japan is another example where lockdowns were not needed (of course they wear masks, too). But there is much less resistance in those countries to being responsible about taking prudent health care measures. That's too harsh. It's more we all have our ideas on things and we Americans dont like to be told by the government what to do when we dont agree with it. We're the cats in the world and it's hard to herd us and that does not work well with asking for voluntary compliance during a pandemic, as was done in Sweden

The studies are discussed in the articles linked below.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... -heres-why

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41790 ... ks-prevent