The 85% Nonsense
As established in my last post, the 85% statistic refers to a study of 159 people who tested positive, 85% wore masks "often or always."
Then Trump said in his Town Hall, "Just the other day, they [the CDC] came out with a statement that 85% of the people that wore masks catch it [the coronavirus]."
See the video in my last post if you don't believe me.
That said, as a math major and former actuary, I can state unequivocally that this is a terrible misinterpretation. As I have said hundreds of times, correlation does not mean causation. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to claim that 85% of mask wearers "catch it." If 85% of Americans worse masks often or always and then 85% of them "catch it," then infection rates would be at least (85%)^2 = 72.55%. It would actually be higher from the cases of non-mask-wearers. As of this writing there are 8,617,022 cases (Source: CDC) and a US population of 328.2 million. That is 2.63% of the population. A far cry from 72.55%.
This is like taking the statistic that 74.2% of NBA players are African-American (source: statsta) and interpreting it as 74.2% of African Americans are NBA players.
They did not mention that a huge majority got the vaccine or that they never are 100% effective.
Why don't we also analyze the false comparison the the Spanish Flu. The Spanish Flu was statistically far worse.
Why we are doing math analysis why don't we examine the false claim that Biden's tax plan will not raise taxes on those making less than 400k a year.
Quote: Keyser
Masks are worthless unless you're wearing an N95 or a KN95 mask. Cloth and surgical masks are about as effective as using a screen door to block water.
Maybe if I post a description written for children from an epidemiologist from Boston’s Children’s Hospital the above nonsense will stop being repeated.
Quote:When infected individuals talk, cough, or sing, they generate large, wet droplets containing the virus that causes COVID-19. If you’re within 6 feet of someone who is infected, those droplets can land on your eyes, nose, or mouth and infect you, too. And if you’re very close physically to someone who is infected, you can potentially inhale some of the droplets as well.
The main benefit of wearing a mask is preventing spread of the virus. If you are infected yourself and wear a mask, the mask largely blocks those droplets from coming in contact with other people when you talk or cough.
Quote: radicalwinIt is very clear he simply got it flipped around. Study showed 85% of infected were wearing masks. That is a significant point, but Trump is not very bright and he is older. So, he tends to get things flipped around a bit.
I did not hear him flip it around. I did see people on here flip it around.
I keep giggling to myself how the maskers on here are going crazy because they cannot seem to handle a study that did not show masks to be a great thing. Their world is almost falling apart. When it was some kind of a quick and limited study on hydroxychloroquine they were shouting from the rooftops. Now they are attacking a study?
Quote: billryanI don't see anyone attacking the study. What I do see is people like you either misunderstanding it or using it to make claims that the study simply doesn't support.
Have you not been reading the thread? It had to be opened so the study could be attacked. Yes, someone somewhere flipped the wording (not me) but even after that the maskers have gone after it. All because it showed that people wearing masks got sick.
Which is what a minority of us here suggested from the beginning.
Quote: AZDuffmanI did not hear him flip it around. I did see people on here flip it around.
I keep giggling to myself how the maskers on here are going crazy because they cannot seem to handle a study that did not show masks to be a great thing. Their world is almost falling apart. When it was some kind of a quick and limited study on hydroxychloroquine they were shouting from the rooftops. Now they are attacking a study?
I'm not attacking the study. But the more a study has to rely on survey information, rather than actual, or even better yet, controlled observation, the more likely it will have limited value.
I certainly would give the controlled double blind studies showing hydroxychloroquine ineffective more credence.
Quote: rxwineI'm not attacking the study. But the more a study has to rely on survey information, rather than actual, or even better yet, controlled observation, the more likely it will have limited value.
I certainly would give the controlled double blind studies showing hydroxychloroquine ineffective more credence.
But you cannot really do that in this case. At the least you would have to force one group not to wear masks. It is not a study of a new drug, just about mask habits.
Quote: rxwineQuote: Keyser
Masks are worthless unless you're wearing an N95 or a KN95 mask. Cloth and surgical masks are about as effective as using a screen door to block water.
Maybe if I post a description written for children from an epidemiologist from Boston’s Children’s Hospital the above nonsense will stop being repeated.
Quote:
When infected individuals talk, cough, or sing, they generate large, wet droplets containing the virus that causes COVID-19. If you’re within 6 feet of someone who is infected, those droplets can land on your eyes, nose, or mouth and infect you, too. And if you’re very close physically to someone who is infected, you can potentially inhale some of the droplets as well.
The main benefit of wearing a mask is preventing spread of the virus. If you are infected yourself and wear a mask, the mask largely blocks those droplets from coming in contact with other people when you talk or cough.
Rxwine,
Perhaps I should quote what virologists and even Dr. Fauci said about it early on for you. Oh, and don't worry I'll rewrite some of it using smaller words and shorter sentences so that you can comprehend it, or perhaps have an adult read it to you. ;)
Quote: radicalwinWhy we are doing math analysis why don't we examine the false claim that Biden's tax plan will not raise taxes on those making less than 400k a year.
Warning issued for making a political statement. I don't mind a mathematical look at tax proposals, but just throwing out a political opinion is against forum rules.
Quote: WizardGoing back to the positive table, if you add the group of case patients, adding the groups who often or always wore masks, there are 130 of them. Out of 153 who tested positive, that is 130/153 = 85% of them.
The same statistic, for those who didn't test positive, is (23+118)/159 = 141/159 = 89%.
Does anyone dispute that this is the 85% in question?
No, but using the W.H.O. estimate that 10% of the world population has been infected, the uninfected control group should have been nine times larger. Everything else remaining the same, a 9 to 1 ratio would show only 8.5% of the total number of subjects who always or often wore a mask fourteen days before the onset, became infected.
Quote: TankoNo, but using the W.H.O. estimate that 10% of the world population has been infected, the uninfected control group should have been nine times larger. Everything else remaining the same, a 9 to 1 ratio would show only 8.5% of the total number of subjects who always or often wore a mask fourteen days before the onset, became infected.
Nobody is talking about a blended average for how often positive cases wore masks.
California 915,000
Texas 918,000
I'm just outside El Paso
Hospitals filled
Quote: radicalwinThis whole thread is full of political opinions.
This thread was started as a political opinion. How it has stayed open amazes me.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis thread was started as a political opinion. How it has stayed open amazes me.
It is supposed to be a discussion on statistics, which is allowed.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis thread was started as a political opinion. How it has stayed open amazes me.
Which sentence in the first post of the thread are you calling political?
Quote: AZDuffmanThis thread was started as a political opinion. How it has stayed open amazes me.
At least it allowed me to see the cross posters in the presidential betting thread. Now I know for sure who is a partisan and why they write what they write.
#Winning.
"I see people wearing winter coats and hats. What a bunch of sheep! LOL! I did my own research and found out that only 1500 people die from hypothermia in the US per year.
That's only 0.0005% of the population. They live in fear of something that 99.9995% of people won't die from.
It get's better, a lot of the people who died from hypothermia were wearing coats and hats, and they still died! Coats don't work!"
Quote: rawtuffPeople trying to downplay c-19 spread, disease and deaths and mocking personal protective equipment in a nutshell:
"I see people wearing winter coats and hats. What a bunch of sheep! LOL! I did my own research and found out that only 1500 people die from hypothermia in the US per year.
That's only 0.0005% of the population. They live in fear of something that 99.9995% of people won't die from.
It get's better, a lot of the people who died from hypothermia were wearing coats and hats, and they still died! Coats don't work!"
I wear a coat for comfort, not out of fear of hypothermia. Often I will not wear one if I am outside for just short hops. I sometimes keep one in my car for an emergency but do not wear one from house to car and car to store. Once at work a woman asked "where is your coat?!" I explained I park in an underground garage at work and a garage at home so I leave it in the car instead of having it at my desk at work.
Masks are not comfortable so I wear one only when I am absolutely forced to do so. If I worked in a high risk area like a hospital maybe I would see the need.
