The 85% Nonsense

Okay, this "85% who wore masks got it" must be flagged and addressed. It is completely misinforming to state something like that without qualifying the study in question. I'm doing a more thorough blog entry later today on this very topic that addresses the provenance of the lie, which is what it is. I will actually ask Wizard's permission to post the link, which I never do, because I am horrified that a site that purports to do valid statistical analyses would have folks spreading this numbers garbage.

The CDC study, which I suggest you go read, is dealing with people WHO ALREADY SHOW SYMPTOMS. So it is not a referencing the general population. First important point -- the study is talking about people who have symptoms and suspect they have covid and therefore got tested.

Second point, the question was a survey question, which (unfortunately) is not behavior monitoring via camera or anything but a survey question relying on the accuracy of the people surveyed and their attitudes towards the fact they suspect they have covid because they have symptoms.

Third, the question under discussion has to do with whether people who have symptoms wore a mask "always or usually" when outside. That question was not the key question in the study, however -- it wasn't the thrust of the study. The study had to do with whether people ate in restaurants inside. The study was designed to see if people who wore masks in general, but ate in restaurants (where they would be removing masks), stayed safer than those people who wore masks less but also ate in restaurants (where they would not be wearing masks).

The conclusion was that, of those who showed symptoms and wound up testing positive for covid (I think half of those with symptoms wound up positive), that 85% had worn masks for the previous two weeks "always or usually" while 88% who did not wear masks "usually or always" tested positive.

So for those who ate in restaurants, where they didn't wear masks, and who got covid, whether they did or did not wear the masks in public elsewhere, did not matter very much.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with whether wearing masks in a general population results in 85% of those who wear them getting covid.

Now here's what gets me. I thought the study was so clear that anybody claiming it proves "85% of people who wear masks get covid" would get eye rolls for being dense. But evidently not.

Finally, I will repeat once again -- masks are primarily and most effective in preventing YOU from giving disease to OTHERS. While masks have some limited protective value for the wearers, their primary value is for protecting OTHERS from the MASK WEARERS.

I think I did a reasonable paraphrasing of the study.

Wiz, let me know if I got anything significant wrong.

You did a better job than my attempt to explain it.

I also noted this forum is distinctly quiet when it comes to science disputing but quite vocal about math disputing.

While not the same they are linked in many ways and the disparity in forum members being quiet about science distortions here surprises me.

Quote: redietz

Okay, this "85% who wore masks got it" must be flagged and addressed. It is completely misinforming to state something like that without qualifying the study in question. I'm doing a more thorough blog entry later today on this very topic that addresses the provenance of the lie, which is what it is. I will actually ask Wizard's permission to post the link, which I never do, because I am horrified that a site that purports to do valid statistical analyses would have folks spreading this numbers garbage.

The CDC study, which I suggest you go read, is dealing with people WHO ALREADY SHOW SYMPTOMS. So it is not a referencing the general population. First important point -- the study is talking about people who have symptoms and suspect they have covid and therefore got tested.

Second point, the question was a survey question, which (unfortunately) is not behavior monitoring via camera or anything but a survey question relying on the accuracy of the people surveyed and their attitudes towards the fact they suspect they have covid because they have symptoms.

Third, the question under discussion has to do with whether people who have symptoms wore a mask "always or usually" when outside. That question was not the key question in the study, however -- it wasn't the thrust of the study. The study had to do with whether people ate in restaurants inside. The study was designed to see if people who wore masks in general, but ate in restaurants (where they would be removing masks), stayed safer than those people who wore masks less but also ate in restaurants (where they would not be wearing masks).

The conclusion was that, of those who showed symptoms and wound up testing positive for covid (I think half of those with symptoms wound up positive), that 85% had worn masks for the previous two weeks "always or usually" while 88% who did not wear masks "usually or always" tested positive.

So for those who ate in restaurants, where they didn't wear masks, and who got covid, whether they did or did not wear the masks in public elsewhere, did not matter very much.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with whether wearing masks in a general population results in 85% of those who wear them getting covid.

Now here's what gets me. I thought the study was so clear that anybody claiming it proves "85% of people who wear masks get covid" would get eye rolls for being dense. But evidently not.

Finally, I will repeat once again -- masks are primarily and most effective in preventing YOU from giving disease to OTHERS. While masks have some limited protective value for the wearers, their primary value is for protecting OTHERS from the MASK WEARERS.

I think I did a reasonable paraphrasing of the study.

Wiz, let me know if I got anything significant wrong.

Way too wordy. If you can break it down to a sound bite and throw in a picture or two, you might reach the intended audience.

I need to rewrite one clause above. I should have said, "85% of those who wound up positive reported having worn masks 'always or usually' the previous two weeks (not including inside restaurants) while 88% of those who wound up positive said they had NOT worn masks always or usually." That's clearer.

I took a cognitive psych course back in the late 70's, and one book dealt a lot with processing positive and negative statements contained in single sentences and clauses and how it slows people down in terms of understanding what's being said. This topic has those elements to it. You have the negative of "not wearing masks" affected by the positive of "getting the virus" and then the implicit understanding that people remove masks to eat in restaurants, another negative. So a bevy of positives and negatives all jammed together.

Yeah, when you're reading limits are twitter-based, not much gets understood. It really is 1984-ish when everything is sound bites and twitter, and people repeat 100 characters as if it's some gospel understanding of reality.

My blog entry just assumed almost everyone grasped what the study was about. The entry is about how some lie regarding the study gets vetted for the president and repeated -- what is the process (or failed process)?

But evidently not everyone grasped the gist of the study.

Not to worry. We have turned the corner and can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. The cavalry is just over the next hill.

Quote: billryan

Not to worry. We have turned the corner and can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. The cavalry is just over the next hill.

Taiwan and New Zealand yes
because
They are not depending on a vaccine and the world may never get a vaccine

Quote: billryan

Not to worry. We have turned the corner and can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. The cavalry is just over the next hill.

Quite often the only thing you can do is wait things out. Americans cannot accept this for the most part.

Quote: darkoz

You did a better job than my attempt to explain it.

I also noted this forum is distinctly quiet when it comes to science disputing but quite vocal about math disputing.

While not the same they are linked in many ways and the disparity in forum members being quiet about science distortions here surprises me.

Exactly. I don't get it. Interpreting the study as "85% of people who wear masks get covid" is completely wrong, and obviously wrong. You may as well say the sun orbits the earth. Why tolerate misinformation like this without calling it out?

Quote: redietz

Exactly. I don't get it. Interpreting the study as "85% of people who wear masks get covid" is completely wrong, and obviously wrong. You may as well say the sun orbits the earth. Why tolerate misinformation like this without calling it out?

What AZ is attempting is to claim people aren't wearing their masks properly so they are going to catch and spread covid regardless. Ergo, mask wearing is worthless.

That is completely the reverse of the study findings which is that mask wearing is important and needs to be done in totality (not removed in drinking and dining establishments) and of course done correctly.

I don't get AZ way of thinking.

It's like saying 85% of people who wore condoms incorrectly resulted in pregnancy and STD transmission ergo no one should wear condoms.

Completely ass-backward thinking

Quote: redietz

Yeah, when you're reading limits are twitter-based,

It should be "your", right?
The joy of the non native correcting others on grammar, couldn't resist sry.

Otherwise, yeah, there are too many misreadings/misinterpretations of basic concepts in virology and stats related to the pandemic from all sides, but my hopes were there should be a common sense consensus among the majority of the first world population at least.
Not the case sadly.

At the end of the day, we all have better things to do than argue with a rock. If, after eight months and 220,000+ dead Americans, someone is still spewing nonsense, I think it is safe to say nothing you say will bring on an epiphany.

Quote: darkoz

What AZ is attempting is to claim people aren't wearing their masks properly so they are going to catch and spread covid regardless. Ergo, mask wearing is worthless.

That is completely the reverse of the study findings which is that mask wearing is important and needs to be done in totality (not removed in drinking and dining establishments) and of course done correctly.

I don't get AZ way of thinking.

That is because you seem to be the type who believes what you are told by those in power somewhere. I have been lied to enough in life that I do not believe near as easily, I also subscribe to the "born with a bucket of common sense" philosophy. Together they mean I am not buying what the maskers are selling.

To me this 85% business shows people never did get this. The masks almost all of us wear do not protect us much, this was said in the beginning of the time wearing masks was urged in the US, if you were paying attention. Not directly, that is. Wearing masks helps protect other people from YOU.

Do people think that a surgeon traditionally wears a mask in order to protect himself LOL?

Not 100% for protecting others from you, either. For the other, protecting you directly that is, I'm surprised it isn't 90% or worse.

We protect each other by wearing masks. I think it is working as well as can be expected.

Now, covering the nose, that is another matter, which I have been ranting about over at DT

Quote: AZDuffman

That is because you seem to be the type who believes what you are told by those in power somewhere. I have been lied to enough in life that I do not believe near as easily, I also subscribe to the "born with a bucket of common sense" philosophy. Together they mean I am not buying what the maskers are selling.

lol... its like



oh wait not these doctors they have no idea!!!

wait maybe this expert doctor... no he is insulting the peoples intelligence...




cant wait til you people defund the police...

Quote: redietz

Exactly. I don't get it. Interpreting the study as "85% of people who wear masks get covid" is completely wrong, and obviously wrong. You may as well say the sun orbits the earth. Why tolerate misinformation like this without calling it out?

That’s not what I saw him say. I saw him say “85% of people who got the virus were wearing masks.” Now he took that statement to mean that masks don’t work as opposed to taking it to be about people wearing masks incorrectly or removing them. But you may have just written a long post addressed to correcting an error that AZ didn’t make. Congratulations I guess?

Any reason, other than attention seeking behavior, that this was split off from coronavirus math thread? This is literally a coronavirus math thread/title, and everyone should have known it would devolve into the exact same thing as the other.

Quote: mcallister3200

Any reason, other than attention seeking behavior, that this was split off from coronavirus math thread? This is literally a coronavirus math thread/title, and everyone should have known it would devolve into the exact same thing as the other.

Can it be considered a math thread when people claim statistics in science doesn't matter and Anecdotal evidence is more compelling?

Quote: darkoz

Can it be considered a math thread when people claim statistics in science doesn't matter and Anecdotal evidence is more compelling?

Im assuming you intended to use the singular form of people.

Quote: darkoz

Can it be considered a math thread when people claim statistics in science doesn't matter and Anecdotal evidence is more compelling?

Really depending on whose numbers you believe. This thread was started by someone with an agenda, and a misquotation. Comrade Dietz has an agenda, probably more than one. But as they say, "No publicity is bad publicity!"

Quote: DeMango

Really depending on whose numbers you believe. This thread was started by someone with an agenda, and a misquotation. Comrade Dietz has an agenda, probably more than one. But as they say, "No publicity is bad publicity!"

I concede the op misquoted the other person.

The other person was misconstruing data.

Both have an agenda and hell, most people do.

But in the end science should be agreed upon by all agendas just like there should not be agenda driven math.

Let's make one thing clear because it can be argued each side is entitled to their interpretation.

The study in question, HAS FORMALLY ISSUED A FOLLOWUP THAT ANY INTERPRETATION OF THE 85% QUOTATION IS MEANT TO DISCOURAGE MASK USAGE IS THE WRONG INTERPRETATION!!!

Forgetting agendas and sides, the authors intent has been clarified by the authors themselves. Any further misconstrued information is the height of working under an agenda!

The 85% comment probably isn't too far off.

Most people are only wearing cloth masks or surgical masks which are about as effective as a screen door on a submarine. Actual N95 and KN95 are somewhat effective. The big problem are the eyes. If you're going to wear a mask, then cover your eyes too. Not covering your eyes is like leaving your nose uncovered while wearing a mask.

Hang in there a little longer, we should have the first vaccine later in Nov. and antibody treatments. It looks like most people will have immunity lasting for a lifetime once they've had the China virus. Fortunately we're doing much better than most of Europe and in locations where they've had the most draconian lock downs thanks to great leadership. Operation Warp Speed is going to provide us with several vaccine options.

Quote: Keyser

The 85% comment probably isn't too far off.

Most people are only wearing cloth masks or surgical masks which are about as effective as a screen door on a submarine. Actual N95 and KN95 are somewhat effective. The big problem are the eyes. If you're going to wear a mask, then cover your eyes too. Not covering your eyes is like leaving your nose uncovered while wearing a mask.

Hang in there a little longer, we should have the first vaccine later in Nov. and antibody treatments. Fortunately it looks like most people will have immunity lasting for a lifetime once they contract the China virus.

Here we go again with bad science.

Covid-19 is a respiratory disease.

You Inhale through your mouth.

You inhale through your nose.

Now suddenly you inhale through your eyes?

Darkoz,

The virus also sticks to the eyes. It's a route of entry. Do a little research on viruses and diseases and it will help you comprehend it.

'COVID-19 is spread through respiratory droplets from an infected person. These droplets enter the air through a cough or sneeze and pass into another person through the nose, mouth, eyes or any mucous membrane. The usual method of spread is through close personal contact, such as touching or shaking hands with an infected person, and then touching your mouth, nose or eyes. Objects and surfaces can also carry the virus to another person. Rarely the virus can spread to another person through contact with infected feces (stool)."

"A mucous membrane or mucosa is a membrane that lines various cavities in the body and covers the surface of internal organs. It consists of one or more layers of epithelial cells overlying a layer of loose connective tissue. It is mostly of endodermal origin and is continuous with the skin at various body openings such as the eyes, ears, inside the nose, inside the mouth, lip, vagina, the urethral opening and the anus. Some mucous membranes secrete mucus, a thick protective fluid. The function of the membrane is to stop pathogens and dirt from entering the body and to prevent bodily tissues from becoming dehydrated."-Wiki

Quote: DeMango

Really depending on whose numbers you believe. This thread was started by someone with an agenda, and a misquotation. Comrade Dietz has an agenda, probably more than one. But as they say, "No publicity is bad publicity!"

Comrade Dietz?

So, from now on, as per Keyser, don't eat shit!

Quote: darkoz

I concede the op misquoted the other person.

The other person was misconstruing data.

Both have an agenda and hell, most people do.

But in the end science should be agreed upon by all agendas just like there should not be agenda driven math.

Let's make one thing clear because it can be argued each side is entitled to their interpretation.

The study in question, HAS FORMALLY ISSUED A FOLLOWUP THAT ANY INTERPRETATION OF THE 85% QUOTATION IS MEANT TO DISCOURAGE MASK USAGE IS THE WRONG INTERPRETATION!!!

Forgetting agendas and sides, the authors intent has been clarified by the authors themselves. Any further misconstrued information is the height of working under an agenda!

Actually, I wasn't quoting a forum member in the leadoff post. I was addressing this verbatim quote:

"Did you see the CDC? That's 85% of the people wearing a mask catch it, okay?"

So maybe I was presumptuous by thinking that forum members who were using the 85% figure were referencing this quote. Perhaps they received their information from another source. But really, how likely is that -- LOL.

And yes, the people who did the study, at Vanderbilt, have explained in national media interviews that their study demonstrated nothing of the kind and was not designed to even ask that question.

By the way, "Comrade Dietz" has no hidden agendas here, other than trying to maintain some semblance of sanity and spread it around a little. I derive no income from any site. I have tried to partner up with zero -- as in nada -- of the people I have interacted with online. That's zero since the inception of the internet. For the record, I'm also not a big fan of communism, as it's basically a religion since it can't be disconfirmed, which reminds me a religion making its way through the U.S. right now. But I am, from a social perspective, somewhat left of Marx, so what I suggest is "Sir Comrade Dietz," so as to assign proper respect and all.

Quote: Keyser

Darkoz,

The virus also sticks to the eyes. It's a route of entry. Do a little research on viruses and diseases and it will help you comprehend it.

'COVID-19 is spread through respiratory droplets from an infected person. These droplets enter the air through a cough or sneeze and pass into another person through the nose, mouth, eyes or any mucous membrane. The usual method of spread is through close personal contact, such as touching or shaking hands with an infected person, and then touching your mouth, nose or eyes. Objects and surfaces can also carry the virus to another person. Rarely the virus can spread to another person through contact with infected feces (stool)."

"A mucous membrane or mucosa is a membrane that lines various cavities in the body and covers the surface of internal organs. It consists of one or more layers of epithelial cells overlying a layer of loose connective tissue. It is mostly of endodermal origin and is continuous with the skin at various body openings such as the eyes, ears, inside the nose, inside the mouth, lip, vagina, the urethral opening and the anus. Some mucous membranes secrete mucus, a thick protective fluid. The function of the membrane is to stop pathogens and dirt from entering the body and to prevent bodily tissues from becoming dehydrated."-Wiki

There has yet to be a study that conclusively found the virus is going through the eyes.

Yes, if it's on your hands you could theoretically touch your eyes and get infected, I suppose, but eye covering probably would not stop a person with an itchy eye from rubbing his own eye.

Anecdotally (but now in magnitude) if covering only the mouth and nose was insufficient, we should be seeing rises in cases for those areas with strict mask requirements.

Everything is pointing to mouth and facial covering as more than sufficient.

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

The one as I mentioned was one Trump quoted but I forget when.

85% of people catching the virus were regular mask wearers.

Another way, if 100 people tested positive, 85% wore masks regular.

Quote: AZDuffman

The one as I mentioned was one Trump quoted but I forget when.

85% of people catching the virus were regular mask wearers.

Another way, if 100 people tested positive, 85% wore masks regular.

I'll say it again. The only people who were shocked by this are those who thought the mask *directly* protected them. I think the Fauci types out there were happy for this illusion to be widespread, as it got people to wear masks.

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

I see what you did there. I get 85.1351%.

Quote: redietz

For the record, I'm also not a big fan of communism, as it's basically a religion since it can't be disconfirmed, which reminds me a religion making its way through the U.S. right now. But I am, from a social perspective, somewhat left of Marx, so what I suggest is "Sir Comrade Dietz," so as to assign proper respect and all.

Left of Marx? Wow comrade, just wow!

Quote: Keyser

Fortunately we're doing much better than most of Europe and in locations where they've had the most draconian lock downs thanks to great leadership.

Why compare the US to the worst and say we are ok
Why not compare the USA to countries that have had the best response, essentially defeated the virus and are not depending on the fantasy vaccine?
I have relatives in Taiwan. I am following this virus very closely where I have relatives
Taiwan 7 deaths
We should be looking at Taiwan and saving lives instead giving an ok to 225,000 dead

Warp speed??????????
This is real life and people are dying today. It's not a star trek episode. I really doubt we will have a vaccine. To bank on just that just sentences more people to death

Quote: AZDuffman

The one as I mentioned was one Trump quoted but I forget when.

85% of people catching the virus were regular mask wearers.

Another way, if 100 people tested positive, 85% wore masks regular.

Thank you. By itself, this statement does tell us much about masks. It would be helpful to know the percentage of people who wear masks as well, to compare this 85% against something. I say this not to make a political statement, but more of a statistical one.

Quote: unJon

I see what you did there. I get 85.1351%.

Correct!

Quote: DeMango

Left of Marx? Wow comrade, just wow!

Quote: redietz

For the record, I'm also not a big fan of communism, as it's basically a religion since it can't be disconfirmed, which reminds me a religion making its way through the U.S. right now. But I am, from a social perspective, somewhat left of Marx, so what I suggest is "Sir Comrade Dietz," so as to assign proper respect and all.

Warning given to both of you for making political statements. Let's keep it mathematical.

Quote: terapined

We should be looking at Taiwan and saving lives instead giving an ok to 225,000 dead

This, too, is getting too political. Warning issued.

I am fine with discussion about the virus, but it should be statistical in nature or how it directly affects casinos.

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)

That was the findings of the study.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)

That was the findings of the study.

That’s incorrect. You mixed up the percentage in the same way the OP did.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)

That was the findings of the study.

The study says that of the people who caught covid, 85% of them wore masks
It does not say that 85% of the people who wore mask caught covid.

We have a set of people. The ones who caught covid are a subset. The ones who caught covid and wore mask are a subset of that subset.
The biggest subset is the people who didn't catch covid. Without looking at the study, it would seem obvious that the biggest group of people who ate were not infected, mask or no mask.

Quote: darkoz

85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)

That was the findings of the study.

Don't you HAVE to remove the mask to eat or drink?

Quote: Wizard

Don't you HAVE to remove the mask to eat or drink?

The purpose of the study was to see the effect of mask removal under public dining options.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm

Quote: billryan

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)

That was the findings of the study.

The study says that of the people who caught covid, 85% of them wore masks
It does not say that 85% of the people who wore mask caught covid.

WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE STUDY, it would seem obvious that the biggest group of people who ate were not infected, mask or no mask.

Unlike you, I actually did read the study

Quote: darkoz

Quote: billryan

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)

That was the findings of the study.

The study says that of the people who caught covid, 85% of them wore masks
It does not say that 85% of the people who wore mask caught covid.

WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE STUDY, it would seem obvious that the biggest group of people who ate were not infected, mask or no mask.

Unlike you, I actually did read the study

Then why do you keep getting the statistic wrong?

:-)

Quote: darkoz

Quote: billryan

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Wizard

Can someone please explain to me, in as few words as possible, what this 85% statistic is saying? Just put it in a sentence. I don't need an interpretation.

Math puzzle time!

Let's say 94.5% of the population wear masks. The probability a mask-wearer gets the CV is 1%. The probability a non-mask-wearer gets the CV is 3%. A person positive with CV is chosen at random. What is the probability he was a mask-wearer?

85% of people who wore masks and removed them in public dining areas/drinking establishments caught covid (that participated in the study)

That was the findings of the study.

The study says that of the people who caught covid, 85% of them wore masks
It does not say that 85% of the people who wore mask caught covid.

WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE STUDY, it would seem obvious that the biggest group of people who ate were not infected, mask or no mask.

Unlike you, I actually did read the study

Then you have no excuse for spreading misinformation.

Quote: Wizard

Don't you HAVE to remove the mask to eat or drink?

Exactly. So one of the questions raised, but certainly not the only one, is if you are a consistent mask wearer in general, but eat inside restaurants, are you essentially undoing whatever advantage mask wearing provides in other environments (while understanding that mask wearing is primarily to protect others from you as opposed to protecting you)? Does eating in restaurants, for example, override the advantage of wearing masks in general? It's a valid question. If you're pristine elsewhere, but expose yourself in restaurants, are you negating the fact you're pristine elsewhere?

Anyway, I don't see how anyone could interpret the study as was expressed by certain famous folks.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-repeats-inaccurate-claim-masks-194453508.html

This lays it out pretty simply. I'll put a link to my blog entry over in Diversity, which I haven't visited in awhile. My main interest was the provenance of what was said making it to a nationally televised town hall while being completely incorrect. I just do not understand how that can happen.

Before getting grief about the political aspect of this, allow me to point out that what was initially mentioned here by other posters was directly spouted by the president the day before, so clearly it didn't come from out of the blue and wasn't invented by them. They simply adopted the language as gospel. Following WoV directives, the people who mentioned it did not attribute it to the president.

Page after page here of maskers saying "BUT-BUT-BUT" to the study and claim. Even if it is "because people ate in restaurants" the point is the same. The point being you are not getting the protection from masks that you are led to believe you are getting.

Wearing a mask in an OR. The masks are new and clean each time. The rest of the room is sanitized and the medical staff is sanitized before they even enter. They are also wearing gloves and gowns, which were sanitized. Only the bare needed people are in the OR. With all this extra sanitizing as well as the fact that a person is cut open giving direct exposure of course the extra protection of a mask works.

Wearing a mask on a hospital ward. Clean but not sanitized to the level of the OR. Usually these wards are of cancer patients or others who have wiped out immune systems. Entry is limited to healthy people. There will be some wearing of other sanitized coverings but not to the level of the OR. The mask gives some extra help because the patients are so weak that any extra protection is a good thing.

Wearing masks in public because of the virus. They claim they are cleaning some things like the shopping carts. They can clean some small things like plates and tables, but reality is they cannot sanitize either the carts or all the items in the stores. Some people will use hand sanitizer, but just some. Their clothes head to toe are not sanitized. Stores or restaurants and other public places can only be kept clean and even then only to an extent. While a few people wear the fancy masks many are just bandanas over the mouth. Most are cheapo masks worn over, over, over, and over. So they catch any germs which get sent to the air when someone exhales thru it.

Then a study shows that 85% of people catching the virus were mask wearers and the maskers go insane trying to debunk it.

What has really happened it their little "safe" world has been shattered and they have to live with the reality that the virus is going to do what it is going to do and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. They are used to a "safe" society with few real security worries now they have one and cannot deal with it. Mos people cannot deal with it so the idea of masks gets pushed. The masks marginally help but they make people feel secure because they see everyone wearing one, we are "doing something!"

I think they are so mad about the 85% study because they are upset that they realize they were sold a bill of goods on the masks and realize they are not getting the protection they thought they were getting.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think they are so mad about the 85% study because they are upset that they realize they were sold a bill of goods on the masks and realize they are not getting the protection they thought they were getting.

I feel very protected living in NY where masks are mandatory and the daily death rate looks like this:

How is the term “mask wearer” defined for the study? It seems highly subjective.

I wear a mask whenever I am in indoors in public.

I go into the office maybe once a week, and the 10 or so other people don’t wear a mask, so I don’t either.

I don’t wear a mask when I am outside in public, like on the AC boardwalk.

I don’t wear a mask when I visit family.

Am I a “mask wearer”?

Quote: gamerfreak

How is the term “mask wearer” defined for the study? It seems highly subjective.

I wear a mask whenever I am in indoors in public.

I go into the office maybe once a week, and the 10 or so other people don’t wear a mask, so I don’t either.

I don’t wear a mask when I am outside in public, like on the AC boardwalk.

I don’t wear a mask when I visit family.

Am I a “mask wearer”?

this isnt about definition. this is about their lack of ability to understand independent thought, and that without independent thought we wouldnt be the diverse nation that we are today.

they think that because "science" or data tells them something, that everyone is immediately going to change, for what they consider to be "better". they think they can control thoughts, and actions by simply telling us something and adding a bit of emotional charm to it. "think about the children" or "think about the elderly".

you will never be able to control the people who can think for themselves. there are too many hypocrites out in the world who are living their lives without the fear of getting sick and not wearing a mask for me to even consider wearing a mask. ive been approached by the police in a store because i wasnt wearing a mask, and what did i do? i told him i wasnt going to wear the mask, and what did they do? said ok and walked away. i live in pa where its a "mandate". whatever that means but what i do know is that its not illegal. otherwise i would have been arrested, no?

this is about control by fear. thats all its about.