Is Masking Kids at School (or CAP) Working?

Started by JohhnyD, January 17, 2022, 01:20:03 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JohhnyD

https://brownstone.org/articles/is-masking-kids-at-school-working/

Excerpt:

The hospitalization rate is nearly identical. There is no discernible difference between outcomes of infection or hospitalization for kids in communities where face masks are required in school and those where face coverings are optional.

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Masking at school or CAP is only a few hours of the day. No way to judge this. Mask all day at school, then out shopping and playing little leauge baseball in crowds with no mask.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

jeders

I can tell you for a fact that because none of the local school districts require masking, every single one closed for the last 2-3 days of last week and some won't open until Wednesday or Thursday of next week.

Please post actual data and not cherry picked data from a source with a stated political agenda.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Spam

Quote from: JohhnyD on January 17, 2022, 01:20:03 AMhttps://brownstone.org/articles/is-masking-kids-at-school-working/

Excerpt:

The hospitalization rate is nearly identical. There is no discernible difference between outcomes of infection or hospitalization for kids in communities where face masks are required in school and those where face coverings are optional.


I see your point, but current policy is clear, so lets keep ensuring compliance in our units while respectfully sharing available information with policy advocates.

The classic 3 health protection measures, Time in a contaminated airmass/distance from the source (mass airflow dose rate)/ and shielding logically should make a difference, yet outcomes are becoming pretty clear. For example, on universal masking, there is a disconnect between policy makers and the data:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01736-0/fulltext

In times of stress, masking subjectively offers some stressed, scared people an apparent means of controlling their safety, and it costs me relatively little to help allay that fear, stress, and overreaction by wearing a mask as a courtesy.

R/s
Spam


PS, other points since someone else has posted while writing this reply:
1.  I do hope that the Lancet (cited by me) meets the mods approval as a reputable source. I would hate to be sent to the gulag for referencing reputable journals and studies which returned unpopular results.  ;D

2. Although I grant that the Brownstone site may rub some the wrong way, before labeling them as fake science I would urge readers to examine their authors/contributors credentials, at https://brownstone.org/authors/. Galileo rubbed some powerful people the wrong way too. Didn't mean he was wrong.

3.  I can't help but compare the color coded US map of all the states showing the split between mask mandates/no mandates, with the absolutely solid red US map currently cited and shown elsewhere on this site. Purely visually striking of course. I'm sure no one would conclude any relevance there.

JohhnyD

Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2022, 03:02:50 AMPlease post actual data and not cherry picked (SIC) data from a source with a stated political agenda.
Where is the actual DATA wrong or BIASED? Ad hominem attacks are illogical, by definition.

JohhnyD

Quote from: Spam on January 17, 2022, 03:22:54 AMI see your point, but current policy is clear, so lets keep ensuring compliance in our units while respectfully sharing available information with policy advocates.
We comply. Always. But the data suggests that the policies are based on feelings, not science.

jeders

Quote from: JohhnyD on January 17, 2022, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2022, 03:02:50 AMPlease post actual data and not cherry picked (SIC) data from a source with a stated political agenda.
Where is the actual DATA wrong or BIASED? Ad hominem attacks are illogical, by definition.

The ACTUAL data is not wrong or biased, however, the data posted in the Brownstone article is cherry picked to suit a political narrative. It separates an entire country into two groups, masks required and masks not required, and then makes broad generalized statements regarding the data. The fact of the matter is that there is far more to slowing the spread of a disease than just masks. Further, within the "masks required" group, there is a spectrum of stances, everything from masks all the time to masks if the teachers and admins care enough to actually enforce the rules; and there is a similar spectrum in the "masks optional" group. My "attack" is not ad hominem, it is based on an analysis of the data provided.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2022, 03:02:50 AMI can tell you for a fact that because none of the local school districts require masking, every single one closed for the last 2-3 days of last week and some won't open until Wednesday or Thursday of next week.

For the local schools here, they required masks to be worn for the first two weeks of return following winter break (this Tuesday, tomorrow, starts the first day without the mandate). Over the past two weeks, the positive numbers went up 600% in a district of 7,500 students.

So the questions to be asked:
  • Is COVID more transmissible with a mask on or off? Definitely less transmissible with a mask worn.
  • Is school masking preventing the spread of COVID in schools? It's plausible that the spread is reduced when masks are worn in schools; however, to the points of some, people continue to engage socially/physically beyond school hours.
  • Do the inconsistencies in masking policies within the same district provide a benefit? Let's take wrestling, for example. Wrestling is a close-proximity contact sport in which team members are not wearing masks while engaged in the actual match/practice (contact); yet, those same students are required to wear masks throughout the school day. That said, the thought is that it will reduce transmission from wrestlers to other students, and only contain the transmission between sports mates (and making it more easy to trace the spread across a smaller population).

Now, I'll point you back to CAP policy versus local and state policy:
In my state, there is no mask mandate. In my county, there is no mask mandate. And in every city/town within my county, there is no mask mandate. CAP, however, requires that we wear face masks and gather in groups of no larger than 10 people.

Is CAP reducing transmission to a level significant enough to balance retention, programs efficacy, and health/safety?

foo

Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2022, 03:02:50 AMThe ACTUAL data is not wrong or biased, however, the data posted in the Brownstone article is cherry picked to suit a political narrative.

Which "ACTUAL" data are you referring to, and which "political narrative"? I had not been familiar with that site, but looking it over now I see efforts there to keep politics out of it. Take, e.g., its mission statement:

"The Brownstone Institute is not about partisan attachments or exclusionary ideological labels.

Our content is neither left nor right, though our contributors have their own views. As an institution, Brownstone celebrates democratic institutions, freedom as the path to scientific progress, a trustworthy system of public health, a vibrant culture, and economic prosperity. We also share a concern for all members of society, including the poor and the working class. In accordance with these ideals, we publish a wide variety of perspectives and viewpoints, including contradictory views by different authors."


Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2022, 02:46:01 PMMy "attack" is not ad hominem, it is based on an analysis of the data provided.

Concur that JohnnyD confused his logical fallacies. It wasn't ad hominem, rather it was its close cousin of the genetic variety. You summarily dismissed his information source and did not support your position with any analysis (even though you used that word) of the data in the link, which does provide supporting sources that people should feel free be encouraged to weigh on their own against other available information using critical thinking we teach our cadets. Apparently the audience is supposed to trust you because you simply claim your position is the authentic one?

Respectfully, your responses to this kind of thing tend to betray your own political narrative in a way I find unpersuasive, though I fully support your right to express your opinions subject to other opposing views. The rest of us can make up our own minds based on a robust body of knowledge and viewpoints instead of simply being spoon-fed by elite "experts."

Eclipse

#10
Quote from: foo on January 17, 2022, 10:08:54 PMWhich "ACTUAL" data are you referring to, and which "political narrative"? I had not been familiar with that site, but looking it over now I see efforts there to keep politics out of it. Take, e.g., its mission statement:

"The Brownstone Institute is not about partisan attachments or exclusionary ideological labels.

If you want to "discuss the discussion" (which is generally the end of the actual discussion),
then you can't accept a source's self-declaration as evidence of lack of bias.

In this case, Brownstone has a pretty well known slant and agenda:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95601

"The Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research aims to evaluate the "global crisis" stemming from the policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its stated mission is "constructively to come to terms with what happened, understand why, discover and explain alternative paths, and prevent such events from happening again."

It currently publishes articles that criticize COVID lockdowns, question vaccine mandates, and describe masking as "an attack on our communal life."

That may not be surprising given its strong ties to the Great Barrington Declaration, a document published last year that advocated lifting all lockdown restrictions on the young and healthy in a bid for promoting natural immunity.

All three of the scientists who were the lead authors of that declaration are senior scholars or authors at the Brownstone Institute -- and other contributors have risen to prominence for raising controversial ideas about the pandemic."

"That Others May Zoom"

foo

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2022, 10:27:30 PMIf you want to "discuss the discussion" (which is generally the end of the actual discussion),
I really don't; it's not necessary in order to defend my point.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2022, 10:27:30 PMthen you can't accept a source's self-declaration as evidence of lack of bias.

I didn't. I cited it as an example of their apparent intent to keep politics out of it. Folks could take it as a measure of good faith and have a look around for themselves before rejecting it out of hand. I haven't yet found anything at that site which contradicts its mission statement, including:

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2022, 10:27:30 PM[...]That may not be surprising given its strong ties to the Great Barrington Declaration, a document published last year that advocated lifting all lockdown restrictions on the young and healthy in a bid for promoting natural immunity.

All three of the scientists who were the lead authors of that declaration are senior scholars or authors at the Brownstone Institute -- and other contributors have risen to prominence for raising controversial ideas about the pandemic."

The declaration was authored by researchers with PhDs and expertise in infectious disease, epidemiology, and economics (one of whom also just happens to be an actual medical doctor who also teaches medicine). They're all scholars at prestigious, mainstream universities, not politicians or journalists. To simply cite their affilliation with this Brownstone Institute, which evidently was founded a few months ago, can only be considered lazy if not willingly deceptive.

Anyway where is evidence of a "political narrative"?  What those experts are advocating is arguably non political; their work is scholarly and research-based, and should at least be debated out in the open to allow people in a free society (such as it is these days) to consider other viewpoints to make up their own minds. That's how public policy, let alone science, used to work. Maybe it's the side trying desperately to suppress this kind of information who has the political narrative to defend.

Eclipse

The OP's question is unanswerable, especially from a CAP standpoint.

A article based on false premise written by a largely denounced group
of people from the "You can't make me club" isn't going to change that.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spam

Quote from: undefinedThe OP's question is unanswerable, especially from a CAP standpoint.

A article based on false premise written by a largely denounced group
of people from the "You can't make me club" isn't going to change that.

[Translated: "nyah nyah... they're all stinky poo poo buttheads, b'cause, just b'cause... um, we don't wanna listen"]

I'm waiting for discussion based on logic and evidence that comes with the "follow the science" approach. Denounce all you want, but we can't claim to be reasonably discussing and debating when we dismiss presented evidence by labeling a source this way. I'm still waiting for someone here to dismiss the degreed and experienced epidemiologists and virologists from Stanford, Harvard and so forth, and the studies referenced in the Lancet as "cranks" and "fake science".

A reasonable debate shouldn't so categorically dismiss a source without rebutting their points in better terms than saying they are "largely denounced". If a discussion on masking can't actually allow for looking at data for fear of finding something which might shake our beliefs/positions, what hope does CAP have of adapting better criteria (e.g. actual death rates) for reopening criteria?

#bluepilled.
#allegoryofthecave.

- Spam

Eclipse

#14
I prefer poopy pants.

When the people behind a source of information have stated goals outside science,
and the basic premise of the article is flawed, you can't expect people to accept
what they say, regardless of who they choose to put in the front to make them
appear unbiased.

I've had a snootful of WHO, the CDC, and Fauci too, but at least in theory they
have no specific political goals other then public health and stemming the tide.

The trouble is people want on/off quick fixes, and that's not how science works.

Twenty years from now the plant-people who are left might have some idea
what was right and what was a waste of time, until then, it's all just play-by-play
adjustments, with the ref occasionally running into the QB.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spam

#15
How about some common ground then: having worked all my career in science and engineering and currently as Principal Research Scientist, I would agree strongly with you that trying to find quick fixes is a BAD IDEA and when that flows from guessing and unstructured trial and error, that is not how science works as a process.

Would you also agree that following from that, testing the hypothesis that masking will significantly impact transmission rates in the general population via looking at actual data would be worthwhile science to do?

Would you agree to take a look at the metastudies and actual referenced studies in the Lancet piece, which concluded that masking as an approach for the general population doesn't appreciably work to to reduce transmission?

Would you then agree that the CAP masking policy (which was sensible at the time we instituted it) now might be past its time?

If we could agree finally that looking critically at provided data without automatically dismissing the source out of hand, that would be progress. If we could agree that logic is valid what ever the source, that would be progress.

V/r
Spam


foo

@Eclipse, you keep repeating your assertions without backing them up. Discredited? How, by whom and on what basis? False premise? How is it false? "Stated goals outside science"? Which goals and how are they outside science, and what does that even imply?

I didn't think it was necessary to introduce Dr. Fauci or the CDC into the discussion, but since you did I'm just going to point out that the former, the supposed preeminent expert, has stated multiple conflicting versions about the efficacy of public masking, starting with "they don't help." I believe his latest position is that wearing them is simply "common sense." I expect more from the self-proclaimed representative of "science." As for the CDC, it recently reduced by half its official quarantine guidance as a result of pressure from major airlines. Apparently the airlines know more about the "science" than the CDC. It's sad if not delusional to believe that these authorities are only interested in promoting public health. There are a lot of smart, qualified, and conscientious people questioning these public policies with two years of hindsight, and the discussion needs to be had, not suppressed.

Eclipse

Read what I wrote, not what you want to.

Beyond that, seriously, what difference does it make?

Do you think the CT Think Tank is going to expose some long-hidden secret or
crunch the numbers and blow the lid off this?

Honestly, have at.

I'm going to start designing some "You can't Make Me" shirts on T-Spring...

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Why are you silly folks arguing this stuff in this forum that doesn't change anything in CAP?

All this posturing and puffing up of chests is meaningless.

Lets go back to to arguing  what color cap to wear with what uniform.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

LSThiker

Quote from: Spam on January 17, 2022, 03:22:54 AMWould you agree to take a look at the metastudies and actual referenced studies in the Lancet piece, which concluded that masking as an approach for the general population doesn't appreciably work to to reduce transmission?

That is not what the Lancet article states:
Quote from: Spam on January 17, 2022, 03:22:54 AMFor example, on universal masking, there is a disconnect between policy makers and the data:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01736-0/fulltext

This link is to a Correspondence article published in the Lancet regarding this article:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

That article states the use of face masks in health-care and public settings does significantly reduce virus transmission.  However, when you read the linked pdf there are other Correspondence articles criticizing the analysis of Chu et al, mostly for the reason of using pre-printed data, which I agree has a large source of errors due to the lack of peer-reviewed data and out of date data.  Nevertheless, understand that Correspondence articles are rarely peer-reviewed and are typically published as an opinion piece from the author.  Therefore, care must always be taken when referencing Correspondence articles. 

When Chu et al paper was originally published, June 2020, there was limited data supporting the use of facemasks in public.  Since that time, more data have become available. As noted:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30293-4/fulltext

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg6296

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117

JohhnyD

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2022, 10:27:30 PMThat may not be surprising given its strong ties to the Great Barrington Declaration, a document published last year that advocated lifting all lockdown restrictions on the young and healthy in a bid for promoting natural immunity.
And the Great Barrington Declaration became the target of rabid attacks by the establishment, including our own government. That free scientific inquiry and debate was the subject of such coordinated attacks should concern any and all who love freedom.

Q.E.D.

JohhnyD

Quote from: foo on January 17, 2022, 10:08:54 PMConcur that JohnnyD confused his logical fallacies.
Technically it was a "circumstantial ad hominem" attack. But still ad hominem.

JohhnyD

Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2022, 02:46:01 PMhowever, the data posted in the Brownstone article is cherry picked to suit a political narrative.
Not so much, but then the obvious question is what evidence have you that masking as we do it has any real impact?

Pace

And we're done. Go to reddit to debate COVID. Stay off of CAPTalk unless it is a topic unique to CAP.
Lt Col, CAP