We've been seeing a lot of Covid-placed restrictions lifted in Michigan the past few weeks. Yes Michigan, home of the legendary governor who follows her own guidelines...when she feels like it.(This would almost be funny, if it didn't happen so often.)
All of the restrictions in Michigan, and hopefully other states, are supposed to lift July 1st, though many are in evidence now. One of the biggest changes is the lack of masks. Although 'masks recommended' or even 'mask required' signs are still everywhere, hardly anyone is wearing them. A few are, here and there, and even those are mostly workers that are required to do so, I assume, by their bosses.
Other than that? Bright shiny faces everywhere -- including ours. I wore a mask when it was required -- because it was required. I kept it on, even when I could barely breathe. (Although I didn't wear it outside -- that just seemed silly. I kept social distancing, though.)
Was it all for little or no reason? I'm not sure.
A very interesting study was released recently from the CDC regarding mask-wearing. (I heard about it first from this guy, but the CDC study results are the same. Have major media sources been talking much about it? Naaahhh...)
Here's the general sumup, directly from the CDC study; it's a bit difficult to follow, but the conclusions are important. (Or check the tables at the end of this article -- also from the CDC.) Emphasizing italics are mine.
---------------------
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. (The CDC said this straight out Notice decreases are less than two percent, at worst.)
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.
Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8). Mask mandates are associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and hospitalization growth rates (6,7), whereas reopening on-premises dining at restaurants, a known risk factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (2), is associated with increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, particularly in the absence of mask mandates (8). The current study builds upon this evidence by accounting for county-level variation in state-issued mitigation measures and highlights the importance of a comprehensive strategy to decrease exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Prohibiting on-premises restaurant dining might assist in limiting potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2; however, such orders might disrupt daily life and have an adverse impact on the economy and the food services industry (9). If on-premises restaurant dining options are not prohibited, CDC offers considerations for operators and customers which can reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 in restaurant settings.*** COVID-19 case and death growth rates might also have increased because of persons engaging in close contact activities other than or in addition to on-premises restaurant dining in response to perceived reduced risk as a result of states allowing restaurants to reopen. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of a multicomponent community mitigation strategy on economic activity.
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, although models controlled for mask mandates, restaurant and bar closures, stay-at-home orders, and gathering bans, the models did not control for other policies that might affect case and death rates, including other types of business closures, physical distancing recommendations, policies issued by localities, and variances granted by states to certain counties if variances were not made publicly available. Second, compliance with and enforcement of policies were not measured. Finally, the analysis did not differentiate between indoor and outdoor dining, adequacy of ventilation, and adherence to physical distancing and occupancy requirements.
----------------------------
(Heads-up, Trolls among my Gentle Readers. If you want to argue with the results, go complain to the CDC. They're the ones who compiled these numbers -- not me. Don't think I'm gloating; this was not a fun post to write.)
---------------------------
So...wearing masks made a big difference. And that's why the CDC is continuing to not only strongly promote their use, but state that they made a big difference in infection rates.
Not exactly.
And keeping those restaurants and other public places closed, thus destroying businesses, employees and crippling our country and everyday lives, was worth it -- because Covid infection rates substantially decreased.
Again, not exactly.
Yes, I'm aware that that defining 2%, or even 4%, may have saved the lives of some people...especially if they had previous health conditions. The CDC does not mention them in this survey. (Could their numbers be skewing the survey results even more?)
So, in spite of the extremely small percentages, the CDC continues to strongly promote wearing masks. Why? Dr. Anthony Fauci has been equally disingenuous. In spite of a Feb. 2020 e-mail to a Team Obama health official that says masks were for infected people, not healthy ones, the good doctor continued to push (and wear) a mask. ("...the typical mask you buy in a drug store is not really effective in keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.")
Says the editorial:
'Fauci now claims that new information emerged in the time since that email proving the efficacy of masks. But did it? What was that new information?
Did the virus magically grow in size, so that the masks could contain it? When he referred to masks in the drug store at that point, he meant medical masks. But most Americans spent more than a year wearing cloth masks. If medical masks couldn’t contain the tiny virus, how could the cloth ones? Can Fauci point to any studies showing that masks made a significant difference in containing the coronavirus?'
After all, says Fauci, attacks on him are attacks on science.
(Just like this guy, I guess.)
Now that most people are not wearing masks, probably the only way to know whether we're going to have another major outbreak, due to our 'carelessness,' is to wait -- and compare the 2021 numbers to the 2020 results. But in a way, I don't want to know. I don't want to find out that a lot of the irritating and damaging 'precautions' we took to avoid this disease...
really didn't matter that much.
Time will tell.
Tables furnished by the CDC. (See the link in the first paragraph.)
| Time relative to day state mask mandate was implemented | Case growth rates | Death growth rates | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage point change (95% CI) | p-value§ | Percentage point change (95% CI) | p-value§ | |
| 41–60 days before | 0.0 (−0.7 to 0.7) | 0.98 | −0.8 (−1.8 to 0.1) | 0.07 |
| 21–40 days before | 0.5 (−0.8 to 1.8) | 0.49 | 0.3 (−0.8 to 1.5) | 0.56 |
| 1–20 days before | Referent | — | Referent | — |
| 1–20 days after | −0.5 (−0.8 to −0.1) | 0.02 | −0.7 (−1.4 to −0.1) | 0.03 |
| 21–40 days after | −1.1 (−1.6 to −0.6) | <0.01 | −1.0 (−1.7 to −0.3) | <0.01 |
| 41–60 days after | −1.5 (−2.1 to −0.8) | <0.01 | −1.4 (−2.2 to −0.6) | <0.01 |
| 61–80 days after | −1.7 (−2.6 to −0.9) | <0.01 | −1.6 (−2.4 to −0.7) | <0.01 |
| 81–100 days after | −1.8 (−2.8 to −0.7) | <0.01 | −1.9 (−3.0 to −0.8) | <0.01 |
Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval.
* A state-issued mask mandate was defined as the requirement that persons operating in a personal capacity (i.e., not limited to specific professions or employees) wear a mask 1) anywhere outside their home or 2) in retail businesses and in restaurants or food establishments.
† Percentage points are coefficients from the weighted least-squares regression models. Reported numbers are from regression models, which controlled for county, time (day), COVID-19 tests per 100,000 persons, closure of restaurants for any on-premises dining, closure of bars for any on-premises dining, and the presence of gathering bans and stay-at-home orders.
§ P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
FIGURE. Association between changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates* and implementation of state mask mandates† (A) and states allowing any on-premises restaurant dining§ (B) — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020
* With 95% confidence intervals indicated with error bars.
† A state-issued mask mandate was defined as the requirement that persons operating in a personal capacity (i.e., not limited to specific professions or employees) wear a mask 1) anywhere outside their home or 2) in retail businesses and in restaurants or food establishments.
§ The effective date of the state order allowing restaurants to conduct any on-premises dining or the date a state-issued restaurant closure expired.
Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval.
* The effective date of the state order allowing restaurants to conduct any on-premises dining or the date a state-issued restaurant closure expired.
† Percentage points are coefficients from the weighted least-squares regression models. Reported numbers are from regression models, which controlled for county, time (day), COVID-19 tests per 100,000 persons, mask mandates, closure of bars for any on-premises dining, and the presence of gathering bans and stay-at-home orders.
§ P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Dandelion photos by Greg Hume via Wikipedia:
No comments:
Post a Comment