|
Post by donut on Aug 12, 2020 12:33:29 GMT -5
Except, where was the COVID explosion in the rest of the world when they opened up schools? There has been no correlation between spikes in COVID and opening up schools worldwide. Not to say this couldn't happen, but I don't understand why we would assume it will happen? We already know that various state mandated restrictions in the US has had zero correlation with COVID cases. And something that I don't think has been brought up - there is no statistical evidence that wearing masks has impacted COVID cases. Looking specifically at the differences in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in Louisiana. I think masks may make some differences at the margin - but the statistical evidence doesn't support a difference - and certainly not a material difference. Except in the places where COVID was running 'rampant' and opening up schools (or never closing them) and didn't see spikes in cases. See Sweden. I mean... I am curious as to reasons - the list I provided above was/is intended to say that COVID is very complicated and when we try to use data to support a preconceived notion it is likely to quickly escape via holes. We can find something to support what we believe - but it is likely to also support something very different. So I am not a fan of some of these neat narratives claimed by many. And claiming support from science doesn't cut it - the science is evolving and most of the science on this is subject to the same biases right now. Yes - and that was the point. No matter one's opinion - they can try and support that opinion with data while there can also be data that points a different direction. It is part of the reason so many have dug in their heals on this issue.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,445
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 12, 2020 13:08:05 GMT -5
Except, where was the COVID explosion in the rest of the world when they opened up schools? There has been no correlation between spikes in COVID and opening up schools worldwide. Not to say this couldn't happen, but I don't understand why we would assume it will happen? We already know that various state mandated restrictions in the US has had zero correlation with COVID cases. And something that I don't think has been brought up - there is no statistical evidence that wearing masks has impacted COVID cases. Looking specifically at the differences in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in Louisiana. I think masks may make some differences at the margin - but the statistical evidence doesn't support a difference - and certainly not a material difference. Except in the places where COVID was running 'rampant' and opening up schools (or never closing them) and didn't see spikes in cases. See Sweden. I mean... I am curious as to reasons - the list I provided above was/is intended to say that COVID is very complicated and when we try to use data to support a preconceived notion it is likely to quickly escape via holes. We can find something to support what we believe - but it is likely to also support something very different. So I am not a fan of some of these neat narratives claimed by many. And claiming support from science doesn't cut it - the science is evolving and most of the science on this is subject to the same biases right now. Yes - and that was the point. No matter one's opinion - they can try and support that opinion with data while there can also be data that points a different direction. It is part of the reason so many have dug in their heals on this issue. Correct - this is all consistent with 'There has been no correlation between spikes in COVID and opening up schools worldwide.' I am not saying it wouldn't or doesn't increase risk - I am just saying there has been no statistical correlation that it does. Yet, many want to continue to default to 'shut it down'. Totally agree that Sweden neither proves nor disproves the role of school open and COVID. Just questioning the default to 'shut down' or the COVID is rampant is the driving difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 13:15:20 GMT -5
And something that I don't think has been brought up - there is no statistical evidence that wearing masks has impacted COVID cases. Looking specifically at the differences in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in Louisiana. I think masks may make some differences at the margin - but the statistical evidence doesn't support a difference - and certainly not a material difference. No statistical evidence, because on the Orleans-Jefferson Louisiana study of 2020? Is that how it works? Are you just looking at data on your own and drawing a conclusion from this one “study”. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to, but I assume that you’re saying there was a mask mandate in one parish, there wasn’t a mask mandate in another and the infection rates were comparable, so ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL we can make the conclusion that masks don’t make a difference. I appreciate your statistical acumen and fairly reasoned takes on this board, but I have to say that there are actual scientists doing actual scientific studies using actual scientific method to answer a question that you cavalierly wave off by applying some secondary school maths. Isn’t it at least a little spurious to claim there is no statistical evidence that masks work (because, as you’ve said before, “No matter one's opinion - they can try and support that opinion with data while there can also be data that points in a different dirrection”), but then you pick a piece of statistical evidence to suggest that masks don’t work. Because I can definitely throw some statistical evidence on here suggesting that masks do work, and you would have the same problems with my numbers that I have with yours. And that brings us to your words “claiming support from science doesn't cut it - the science is evolving and most of the science on this is subject to the same biases right now.” So you seem to be saying 1. Don’t trust science 2. Don’t trust data 3. Here’s some data. It’s only my opinion based on the data, mind you. But you’re coming in a lot harder than “it’s only my opinion” when you say, “there is no statistical evidence...” So where does that leave me? Well it leaves me with the actual scientists using the scientific method to do actual science and maybe a little Pascal’s-wager-ish mask wearing.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,445
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 12, 2020 13:24:29 GMT -5
And something that I don't think has been brought up - there is no statistical evidence that wearing masks has impacted COVID cases. Looking specifically at the differences in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in Louisiana. I think masks may make some differences at the margin - but the statistical evidence doesn't support a difference - and certainly not a material difference. No statistical evidence, because on the Orleans-Jefferson Louisiana study of 2020? Is that how it works? Are you just looking at data on your own and drawing a conclusion from this one “study”. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to, but I assume that you’re saying there was a mask mandate in one parish, there wasn’t a mask mandate in another and the infection rates were comparable, so ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL we can make the conclusion that masks don’t make a difference. I appreciate your statistical acumen and fairly reasoned takes on this board, but I have to say that there are actual scientists doing actual scientific studies using actual scientific method to answer a question that you cavalierly wave off by applying some secondary school maths. Isn’t it at least a little spurious to claim there is no statistical evidence that masks work (because, as you’ve said before, “No matter one's opinion - they can try and support that opinion with data while there can also be data that points in a different dirrection”), but then you pick a piece of statistical evidence to suggest that masks don’t work. Because I can definitely throw some statistical evidence on here suggesting that masks do work, and you would have the same problems with my numbers that I have with yours. And that brings us to your words “claiming support from science doesn't cut it - the science is evolving and most of the science on this is subject to the same biases right now.” So you seem to be saying 1. Don’t trust science 2. Don’t trust data 3. Here’s some data. It’s only my opinion based on the data, mind you. But you’re coming in a lot harder than “it’s only my opinion” when you say, “there is no statistical evidence...” So where does that leave me? Well it leaves me with the actual scientists using the scientific method to do actual science and maybe a little Pascal’s-wager-ish mask wearing. Agree that Orleans/Jefferson is just one data point. I am just looking for something that could be remotely comparable where the data shows masks clearly making a difference. My speculation - masks make a difference, but it is a fairly small difference, but at a very low cost. That is just an opinion. The 'science' on this has been all over the map. Prevailing wisdom is that it is effective. I would be interested in seeing data supporting this...
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Aug 12, 2020 16:23:18 GMT -5
To simulate a cough, the researchers connected a mannequin's head to a fog machine (which creates a vapor from water and glycerin), and used a pump to expel the vapor through the mannequin's mouth. They then visualized the vapor droplets using a "laser sheet" created by passing a green laser pointer through a cylindrical rod. In this setup, simulated coughs appear as a glowing green vapor flowing from the mannequin's mouth.
The researchers then placed several types of non-medical masks on the mannequin head to test their effectiveness at blocking these "coughs." These included a homemade mask stitched with two layers of cotton fabric used for quilting (with 70 threads per inch), a single-layer bandana, a loosely folded cotton handkerchief and a non-sterile cone-style mask sold in pharmacies.
They found that, with no mask covering, the simulated coughs traveled up to 12 feet in 50 seconds.
The homemade stitched cotton mask — with its multiple layers and snug fit — reduced the spread of the droplets the most, although there was some leakage at the top of the mask between the nose and the cloth material. When the mannequin wore this mask, droplets traveled only about 2.5 inches (6.35 centimeters) forward from the face. The cone-style mask also worked well, with droplets traveling just about 8 inches (20 cm) from the face.
Draw your own conclusion: and if the person you are six feet from both have mask on it would be safe to assume no virus reaches you!! But you “smart persons” draw your own scientific conclusions
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Aug 12, 2020 21:27:13 GMT -5
Sweden kept preschool-middle schools open but closed high schools and universities. The interactions and risks associated with younger children are different from older ones.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 13, 2020 0:04:58 GMT -5
Sweden kept preschool-middle schools open but closed high schools and universities. The interactions and risks associated with younger children are different from older ones. Although I’d argue that high school and college students are going to mingle whether schools are open or not.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,445
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 13, 2020 7:41:49 GMT -5
Sweden kept preschool-middle schools open but closed high schools and universities. The interactions and risks associated with younger children are different from older ones. I have heard this - but it doesn't get much attention in the States. I wonder if this is really true about the younger infecting others at a much lower rate? I support opening up K-12 as much as possible - and recognize that it is not possible everywhere at this time. And 7-12 is more complicated than K-6. I know some places are going full for K-6 and 2 days a week for 7-12 - which I find to be an 'easy' solution.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 13, 2020 7:51:20 GMT -5
It just seems really strange to be using Sweden as an example of "what to do". I mean, since they (and the US also) volunteered to be the experimental control subjects, we can of course learn from them. But that's not the same thing as saying "Oh, Sweden did this, so it must work OK". We know that the Swedish example, which was the early darling of the "it's just the flu so the shutdown is stupid" crowd, did not turn out well.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Aug 13, 2020 7:54:52 GMT -5
Sweden kept preschool-middle schools open but closed high schools and universities. The interactions and risks associated with younger children are different from older ones. I have heard this - but it doesn't get much attention in the States. I wonder if this is really true about the younger infecting others at a much lower rate? I support opening up K-12 as much as possible - and recognize that it is not possible everywhere at this time. And 7-12 is more complicated than K-6. I know some places are going full for K-6 and 2 days a week for 7-12 - which I find to be an 'easy' solution. I posted this link earlier in this thread: www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html"A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do." At least in the U.S. K-5 students are typically with a single teacher and same peers all day, so contact tracing or group quarantining is much easier.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 13, 2020 7:58:15 GMT -5
www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/Belgium actually got hit the worst. I don't know anything about what they did or didn't do. The UK was next worst. They pretty much did what the US did. Spain and Italy are next. They got hit hard very early, essentially acting as the canaries in the coal mine. Then Sweden. Their death rate is 10x the death rate of their next-door neighbors Norway and Finland. Really, nobody should be looking at Sweden as an example of "here's what to do". Could be that we should be looking at Norway and Finland, though! I suppose it is true that Sweden's death rate per 100,000 is lower than 13 US states, so maybe we could learn something from Sweden. But the death rate in Norway is lower than at least 48 US states, so really Norway would be a better model to follow than Sweden.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Aug 13, 2020 7:59:03 GMT -5
Sweden kept preschool-middle schools open but closed high schools and universities. The interactions and risks associated with younger children are different from older ones. Although I’d argue that high school and college students are going to mingle whether schools are open or not. That's not really relevant. Social spread and school spread are too different risks that both have to be managed, similar to how having bars closed doesn't mean we can ignore adults having friends over for drinks without proper distancing.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Aug 13, 2020 8:43:08 GMT -5
www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/Belgium actually got hit the worst. I don't know anything about what they did or didn't do. The UK was next worst. They pretty much did what the US did. Spain and Italy are next. They got hit hard very early, essentially acting as the canaries in the coal mine. Then Sweden. Their death rate is 10x the death rate of their next-door neighbors Norway and Finland. Really, nobody should be looking at Sweden as an example of "here's what to do". Could be that we should be looking at Norway and Finland, though! I suppose it is true that Sweden's death rate per 100,000 is lower than 13 US states, so maybe we could learn something from Sweden. But the death rate in Norway is lower than at least 48 US states, so really Norway would be a better model to follow than Sweden. I don't think comparing countries is particularly useful. My point on Sweden was they did close down schools for older kids, which some people don't seem to realize. Per capita stats are interesting but I'm not sure how much insight one can take from them with respect to disease management. What really matters is the behavior of the population and the performance of the healthcare system. The U.S. is signficantly different from Europe in terms of healthcare and all over the map in population behavior. NYC had a lot of international visitors and workers (like the UK), the Rio Grande Valley has a lot of multigenerational living situations (like Italy).
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 13, 2020 9:07:18 GMT -5
I think any analysis which compares different countries must account for the political response to the pandemic. As in, how was the national government response affected by their political realities.
(I know it's not surprising that I, of all people, would have this opinion, but still. I have an academic background in political science and I can't turn off that part of my brain.)
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,445
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 13, 2020 10:15:48 GMT -5
www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/Belgium actually got hit the worst. I don't know anything about what they did or didn't do. The UK was next worst. They pretty much did what the US did. Spain and Italy are next. They got hit hard very early, essentially acting as the canaries in the coal mine. Then Sweden. Their death rate is 10x the death rate of their next-door neighbors Norway and Finland. Really, nobody should be looking at Sweden as an example of "here's what to do". Could be that we should be looking at Norway and Finland, though! I suppose it is true that Sweden's death rate per 100,000 is lower than 13 US states, so maybe we could learn something from Sweden. But the death rate in Norway is lower than at least 48 US states, so really Norway would be a better model to follow than Sweden. Cases are spiking in Norway, Finland, Denmark, & the Netherlands. Not a by much in Finland as of yet. Netherlands may pass Sweden in deaths per 1M in the next month.
|
|