A CDC study reported mask mandates and restaurant re-openings barely affected the spread of Covid-19. Such news should be welcome, right? Well, not so fast my friends. In true bureaucratic fashion, the CDC said good was bad and bad was good. The CDC reported the results of a nine-month study on March 5:
During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.
So after 100 days, mask requirements affected the case growth rate by all of 1.8%. That's it. However, the CDC said in the bullet points at the top of the page:
Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.
The growth rate decreased all of 1.8% after three months and 1.1% after only a month. The study observed similar trends in areas where restaurants reopened:
During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted. Allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with 0.9 (p = 0.02), 1.2 (p<0.01), and 1.1 (p = 0.04) percentage point increases in the case growth rate 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after restrictions were lifted (Table 2) (Figure). Allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with 2.2 and 3.0 percentage point increases in the death growth rate 61–80 and 81–100 days, respectively, after restrictions were lifted (p<0.01 for both). Daily death growth rates before restrictions were lifted were not statistically different from those during the reference period, whereas significant differences in daily case growth rates were observed 41–60 days before restrictions were lifted.
This should be good news, right? Almost everyone welcomes a return to normalcy. These statistically insignificant changes in the case and death rates should be welcome news. Watch how the CDC told its tale in the bullet points:
Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.
The CDC even provided a pretty little graphic to drive the point home.
Remember, the CDC is referring to decreases or increases in growth rates, not absolute numbers, of around 1%.
25 comments:
Fauci is a deep-state shill. He now advises that seniors who have been fully vaccinated should wear masks if they visit with family.
Why? It is POSSIBLE for the vaccinated seniors to carry the virus in their nasal pharynx and pass it off to family.
No proof; no evidence; no data; nothing; just pulling more control rhetoric from his ass.
Note: I am not an anti-masker, and I still wear one in public and in stores, so don't go there!
How tall are the tires on Fauci's F-350?
Never trust a guy who can't be fired.
Please all you mask nazis refer back to when y’all railed me for daring to question. I even posted links to scientific studies over the last thirty years that said it didn’t help. I then posted them again once they were taken down. Y’all called me every name in the book. Shame shame on all of you! Literally thirty minutes of research and you could have found this for yourself over one year ago...
" Fauci "
It's been awhile since mentioning only one name can evoke
laughter from both the left & right.
Exactly. If the growth rate in cases before the mask mandate was 5%, then a reduction in the growth rate of 1.8% is highly significant.That's a 36% reduction in the growth rate. I don''t know (and I didn't see in your report) what the growth rate was before the mask mandate, so the 5% figure is a guess. KF, do you know the growth rate before the mask mandates?
If the championship level football coaches tell us to wear masks, to save the season like they did last year, then we’ll wear masks.
don't forget, that 1.8% is within the statistical margin of error. In other words, masks are Bravo Sierra.
This is a ridiculous misinterpretation of basic math.
Let's go over the findings.
The OAN Article FALSELY claims that CASES and DEATHS "only' dropped 1.5 or so percent for masks, and KF posted correct numbers but INTERPRETED them wrong later. Guess that blonde is not so smart, eh? Law degree, I bet. Not a lot of math or epidemiology there, I bet. It shows.. This is embarrassing.
The study is not showing a decrease in the number of cases and deaths but a decrease in the GROWTH RATE of the daily cases and deaths.
GROWTH RATE. Duh.
“Because the growth rate is exponential,” the impact compounds, José Luis Jiménez, an analytical and atmospheric chemist at the University of Colorado Boulder who was not involved in the study, told us. “So, it’s kind of like your mortgage — you change your interest a little bit, and then you save a ton of money. Because the cases compound.”
The authors of the OAN study did not respond to an interview request from FactCheck.org.
But the CDC’s Gery P. Guy Jr., the lead author, told the Associated Press that although those changes in daily growth rates may sound small, they quickly add up.
“Each day that growth rate is going down, the cumulative effect — in terms of cases and deaths — adds up to be quite substantial,” Guy told the AP.
For example, if cases were growing at 5% per day and that growth rate dropped to 3.5% per day, the total number of cases could shrink substantially, particularly over time.
Vermund told FactCheck.org since the results show changes in the daily growth rate they are “much more impressive” than they may appear.
“This is actually quite a large effect, the opposite of what the scurrilous journalist said,” Vermund told us, referring to the OAN story.
The lives SAVED by MASK MANDATES are a big SAVINGS, especially over time.
NOT good news per se for restaurant.
Other FALSE interpretations: " They misunderstood a line of the study that says “daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.”
But the “reference period” is 20 days before implementation of mask mandates.
The cherry-picked quote from the study merely says there wasn’t a significant difference in the daily case and death growth rates during three time periods before implementation, not after. As Guy explained to the AP, the study looked at growth rates before implementation to make sure there wasn’t already a trend happening before the mask mandates were put into place.
The study did find “statistically significant decreases” after implementation of the mandates.
Cherry picking, misinterpretation, and outright lying. This stuff works great for personal injury lawyers because lots of juries are just as dumb in math and science.
I've had stats and genetics as well as finance. I think I know what exponential growth is.
The Hodge Twins call him Dr. Falsey. I like the twins, they got good ole fashioned common sense.
Most people in this backwater state can’t read, much less interpret this data in any meaningful way other than “lol I told y’all they don’t werk! Bubba wuz right!” Fuck right off Kingfish, just as ignorant as the rest. Thank you @6:00pm. I know no one is going to read it because it’s way too many words, but thank you.
Yes, Kingfish, you had stats and genetics and finance, but looking at what you write here to generate attention to your blog, I am honestly not so sure if you know the details of exponential growth. How about leaving it to full time statisticians and epidemiologists.
Here's another Opportunity. 3 Days ago, FEMA announced they would pay up to 9k for Funeral Expenses for Deaths after Jan 2020, due to COVID or COVID LIKE SYMPTOMS. With a maximum Benefit of 35k per applicant. Including non citizens. Gonna B lot more COVID deaths.
And all you need is a receipt from your friendly local Funeral Home.
The applicant must be a U.S. citizen, non-citizen national, or QUALIFIED ALIEN who incurred funeral expenses after Jan. 20, 2020 for a death attributed to COVID-19.
If multiple individuals contributed toward funeral expenses, they should apply under a single application as applicant and co-applicant. FEMA will also consider documentation from other individuals not listed as the applicant and co-applicant who may have incurred funeral expenses as part of the registration for the deceased individual.
An applicant may apply for multiple deceased individuals.
The COVID-19-related death must have occurred in the United States, including the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.
This assistance is limited to a maximum financial amount of $9,000 per funeral and a maximum of $35,500 per application.
Funeral assistance is intended to assist with expenses for funeral services and interment or cremation.
https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210324/fema-help-pay-funeral-costs-covid-19-related-deaths
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fema-covid-19-funeral-costs/
Hold on, 7:22.
I see the Funeral Fraud Conspiracy Theory is already swirling on FB, OAN and Parler amongst Covidiots like the contents of their bowels after that nice serving of prunes, GrandPa.
It's not "just a receipt from a funeral home." It's full receipts, an OFFICIAL death certificate from Govt showing Covid, which will be checked for forgery (a Federal felony), cross checks to avoid another family member applying, and you CAN'T duplicate ANY other charitable payment, government payment, BURIAL insurance, Funeral insurance, payments from volunteer agencies, etc. Along with you signing an affidavit acknowledging the Federal prison time you might get for fraud.
So, no, your worst fear is not happening. Your HORRIBLE nightmare that you might not get some GubMint money, like a poor kid getting $4 a day to eat, is not happening. Folks are not going to "Get rich" off their relatives DYING.
Today, the Govt is admitting HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of lives could have been saved. And this is NO different than 9/11 or Katrina payments.
I know Mee Maw kicked the bucket choking on a chicken wing and POOR YOU had to pay for the funeral. Like everybody else usually. Sorry. Welcome to wearing long pants.
P.S. Oh, but they Ain't a Never done this be Four!!! WRONG.
"Has FEMA ever done something like this before?
Yes. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA can offer help with funeral costs if the deaths were caused by a presidentially declared disaster. This was the case after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012. After three hurricanes hit Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico in 2017, FEMA paid about $2.6 million in response to 976 approved applications for related funeral expenses, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office."
So, YES, a few Mississippians got "Free Funerals" before, in Katrina, UNLESS, again, it was paid for by something else.
You can cry us a river after you acknowledge the HUGE abuse of PPP, unemployment, etc.
All these people bitching about the incorrect interpretation of the data were the same people bitching about Tater removing the mask mandate, saying that cases were going to spike in a few weeks. It’s been a few weeks. Virus gonna virus. Cases are doing what they’re gonna do, regardless of masks.
6:47 PM
Have you considered moving to one of your preferred Blue states?
Listen up troops! 7:22 has listed your choices, as follows:
Internment (mask up, stay at home, associate with nobody)
Interment (go out - you die! Funeral in two days)
Get ready for an absolute run on funeral fraud. The funeral homes will be complicit in this 'entrepreneurial endeavor'. They'll gladly work up a $9000 funeral bill when it only cost $2850. This might even eclipse unemployment insurance covid fraud.
I continue to wear a mask in hopes that it helps even a little to put Covid behind us. I don’t have to prove my masculinity by boasting that “nobody can make me wear a mask.” Grow up!
Damn, NASA just put out a press release that we are free of Asteroid impacts for at least 100 years. Gotta find another natural disaster to take us out. Shit. They're gonna have you all in masks until at least 2025.
"I continue to wear a mask in hopes that it helps even a little to put Covid behind us." Covid will be behind us. They will keep it, and it's reported variant's, around for years on end. It's all about the money my friend, all about the money. Should call this Covid Green.
In the CL today they left out the headlines of how many cases were reported yesterday like they have been doing instead it read 7000 total deaths. You had to read down the article to see it was barely 200 cases vs over 3000 a few months ago. I have been wary with all the conspiracy theories and did get my shots, but its obvious that the press wants to keep the gloom and doom alive! I apologize for reading the CL. I’m old and set in my ways.
These "new strains" that seem to appear each week make me laugh.
After one year, the Fauci/Dobbs types love a camera crew in their offices.
Noticed no more covid updates on this site.
Did the local pundits, media, and experts' prediction of mass spread and death result from Tater's restriction removal a couple of weeks ago?
Didnt the UMMC head pooba make some dire warnings?
Post a Comment