Poll: Masks and Face Shields

[silentreader]

Was anybody "puffing" during their interactions?

Is that a question about second hand smoke or about Covid-19? I don't know if they inhaled, either.

Evidently the one worker infected the other, were they masked around each other?
Was the salon taking any other precautions than masking?
How effective were those precautions in preventing patron infection?
Of the major risk factors for infection: density of contacts, duration of contacts, proximity of contacts, force of exhalations, force of inhalations, how many would have been relevant in the salon setting?
Was anybody "puffing" during their interactions?
Is there a point where an infected person is no longer contagious?
What about the patrons who were not tested?

This report was dated July 14th, how soon should higher masking rates show a pronounced effect on the rates of new infections?

I'm not sure that I follow all of your questions, but the level of information you are asking for can be found in the underlying JAMA article, which you can see here:

Universal Masking to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Transmission—The Time Is Now

For instance, I think these two quotes will answer the basic questions. For the hair salon, they tracked symptoms for two weeks after last contact:

Another report from investigators in Missouri found that adherence to universal masking for source control as mandated by city ordinance and company policy helped prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from 2 symptomatically infected stylists at a hair salon in Springfield, Missouri. Before they were diagnosed as having COVID-19, the hair stylists had served 139 clients but had been required to wear masks at all times while working with them. After public health contact tracing with the hair salon clients and after 2 weeks of follow-up, no symptoms of COVID-19 were identified among the exposed clients or their secondary contacts. Among 104 interviewed clients, 102 (98%) reported wearing face coverings for their entire appointment.13 In addition, another analysis published by Goldman Sachs Research suggests that expanding community masking by 15% could prevent the need to bring back stay-at-home orders that would otherwise cost an estimated 5% of gross domestic product, or a projected cost of $1 trillion.

Here are the underlying articles for the salon experience and the Goldman Sachs article estimating the effect on the economy:

MMWR: Absence of Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists After Exposure at a Hair Salon with a Universal Face Covering Policy

Face Masks and GDP

Here is a summary of the hospital findings:

In this issue of JAMA, Wang et al present evidence that universal masking of health care workers (HCWs) and patients can help reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.1 In the largest health care system in Massachusetts with more than 75 000 employees, in tandem with routine symptom screening and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 infection, leadership mandated a policy of universal masking for all HCWs as well as for all patients. The authors present data that prior to implementation of universal masking in late March 2020, new infections among HCWs with direct or indirect patient contact were increasing exponentially, from 0% to 21.3% (a mean increase of 1.16% per day). However, after the universal masking policy was in place, the proportion of symptomatic HCWs with positive test results steadily declined, from 14.7% to 11.5% (a mean decrease of 0.49% per day). Although not a randomized clinical trial, this study provides critically important data to emphasize that masking helps prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

The Wang article mentioned in that paragraph is here:

Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers

That's all fine and dandy Boot, but I am in the midst of a group of health units who have chosen to mandate masking, they have been doing it for varying lengths of time, and so far there is absolutely no sign of improved infection rates in any of them. Units where new infections had been going down pre mandate have either risen for a while and then dropped close to previous numbers and leveled off or else levelled off at this point. The region I am in is midway through the 6th week of mandated masking and this weeks numbers are already the same as they were in the last week pre-masking.
There is increasing difference between the ivory tower wisdom and the reality on the ground.

[Ernie]

Six months ago, the experts told us not to wear masks.

And what were the reasons for why they told us not to wear masks?

Conservative minded people do not change their mind just because (left wing) experts did so.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ic-than-me
So how does this tweet fit into your view of things?

[Josh]

Six months ago, the experts told us not to wear masks.

And what were the reasons for why they told us not to wear masks?

They told us they weren’t effective in January / February. By April, they told us the real reason they said was that they were effective, but wanted to preserve stockpiles for health care workers.

That does not inspire any confidence in “experts” who change their story frequently.

Conservative minded people do not change their mind just because (left wing) experts did so.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ic-than-me
So how does this tweet fit into your view of things?

Trump is not exactly what I’d call a “conservative”.

[Bootstrap]

Conservative minded people do not change their mind just because (left wing) experts did so.

This is very much a question of what "conservative" means. Here are a few possibilities:

Conservative (political=religious): There is a group of "conservatives" who very much seem to defend the talking points of political conservatives, change their talking points as the current conservative talking points change, and use political labels as one of their main ways of thinking. If the current Republican president is Trump, all that concern about moral leadership fades away like morning dew. To dismiss something, throw the "liberal" label at it. Use the phrase "left-wing" a lot. If "conservatives" start a character assassination campaign on Twitter, join in, their enemies are our enemies. Never use the phrase "right-wing" in the same disparaging way. I am not accusing Conservative Anabaptists of being this way in general, but I think some Christians of many stripes are like this, and that does include some CAs.

Conservative (biblical) There is a group of "conservatives" who believe we need to obey the Bible, simply and directly, and be wary of the world, the flesh, and the devil. To these conservatives, both political parties are worldly, and whether something is right-wing or left-wing is neither here nor there.

In this case, experts across the political spectrum, including the Trump Administration, agree on what we should be doing. We don't need political labels to discuss the evidence. That's like reading a recipe book to learn about how to teach children to read. Politics is not science. It's not Christianity, either.

But with the politicization of everything and polarization of everything, our faith sometimes does get conflated with politics, and so does our understanding of science. That's not a good thing. It does not help us remember that our true enemy is the world, the flesh, and the devil and that all true Christians are one in Christ and should not be divided by political labels. It does not help us think for ourselves or discern within the body.

[Josh]

Bootstrap,

I would defer to Jonathan Haidt’s definition of “conservative”. Can we agree to use that definition?

[Bootstrap]

That's all fine and dandy Boot, but I am in the midst of a group of health units who have chosen to mandate masking, they have been doing it for varying lengths of time, and so far there is absolutely no sign of improved infection rates in any of them. Units where new infections had been going down pre mandate have either risen for a while and then dropped close to previous numbers and leveled off or else levelled off at this point. The region I am in is midway through the 6th week of mandated masking and this weeks numbers are already the same as they were in the last week pre-masking.

Thanks - this is a direct and relevent response to what I said. You have experience in the same kinds of things these reports are talking about. But of course, so do they, and the papers are based on precisely the same kind of data you are providing.

Can you say more about the setting? Are these nursing homes? What are the various factors that might need to be controlled to assess the role of face masks? Has anyone done a careful analysis of this?

There is increasing difference between the ivory tower wisdom and the reality on the ground.

The papers I point to are precisely numbers taken from "reality on the ground". They don't seem to match your experiences. One of the roles of experts is to look at all the reality they can find and assess it. I think you know that.

That's why I like to point to the countries that are doing well and what they are doing compared to the countries that are not doing well and did something else. Some countries have done a great job of controlling Covid-19. In reality. On the ground.

More reporting on reality on the ground:

Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US

State policies mandating public or community use of face masks or covers in mitigating novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) spread are hotly contested. This study provides evidence from a natural experiment on effects of state government mandates in the US for face mask use in public issued by 15 states plus DC between April 8 and May 15. The research design is an event study examining changes in the daily county-level COVID-19 growth rates between March 31, 2020 and May 22, 2020. Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage-points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21+ days after signing, respectively. Estimates suggest as many as 230,000–450,000 COVID-19 cases possibly averted By May 22, 2020 by these mandates. The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public might help in mitigating COVID-19 spread.

[Bootstrap]

Bootstrap,

I would defer to Jonathan Haidt’s definition of “conservative”. Can we agree to use that definition?

The same word is used to mean so many different things. In philosophy, people deal with that by giving names with distinguishing characteristics, like conservative (biblical). I suspect it might be useful to have a separate thread on different meanings of conservative, what that means for our identity and moral decision making, and how that relates to biblical Christianity. I might do that later today. I have to focus now.

[Robert]

Six months ago, the experts told us not to wear masks.

And what were the reasons for why they told us not to wear masks?

Not directed to me, but there were reasons. According to Dr. Fauci, healthcare workers needed them more than everyone else. Once the supply was available, they delayed telling everyone to mask up so they could hide the white lie a bit.

I like the way we are doing it here in Indiana. From the Indiana gov website:

We need you to #MaskUpHoosiers

Indiana is slowly reopening for business, but the fight against COVID-19 is far from over. Wearing a face mask is one of the simplest, most effective ways to slow the spread of the virus, but we need everyone to do their part to keep our state safe. That’s why we are asking all Hoosiers to mask up — and speak up about how wearing your mask can save lives.

Underline is mine. They are doing an educational campaign and asking people to do it. I have been wearing one this week because of this. I am not sure the science backs it and it will really do much, but it takes little from me to do it, other than having to listen to my boys whine. If they did not whine about this, they would find something else to whine about. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[silentreader]

That's all fine and dandy Boot, but I am in the midst of a group of health units who have chosen to mandate masking, they have been doing it for varying lengths of time, and so far there is absolutely no sign of improved infection rates in any of them. Units where new infections had been going down pre mandate have either risen for a while and then dropped close to previous numbers and leveled off or else levelled off at this point. The region I am in is midway through the 6th week of mandated masking and this weeks numbers are already the same as they were in the last week pre-masking.

Thanks - this is a direct and relevent response to what I said. You have experience in the same kinds of things these reports are talking about. But of course, so do they, and the papers are based on precisely the same kind of data you are providing.

Can you say more about the setting? Are these nursing homes? What are the various factors that might need to be controlled to assess the role of face masks? Has anyone done a careful analysis of this?

There is increasing difference between the ivory tower wisdom and the reality on the ground.

The papers I point to are precisely numbers taken from "reality on the ground". They don't seem to match your experiences. One of the roles of experts is to look at all the reality they can find and assess it. I think you know that.

That's why I like to point to the countries that are doing well and what they are doing compared to the countries that are not doing well and did something else. Some countries have done a great job of controlling Covid-19. In reality. On the ground.

More reporting on reality on the ground:

Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US

State policies mandating public or community use of face masks or covers in mitigating novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) spread are hotly contested. This study provides evidence from a natural experiment on effects of state government mandates in the US for face mask use in public issued by 15 states plus DC between April 8 and May 15. The research design is an event study examining changes in the daily county-level COVID-19 growth rates between March 31, 2020 and May 22, 2020. Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage-points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21+ days after signing, respectively. Estimates suggest as many as 230,000–450,000 COVID-19 cases possibly averted By May 22, 2020 by these mandates. The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public might help in mitigating COVID-19 spread.

We very obviously have differing perspectives, we are probably both right at least to some degree. Do notice that in a lot of these studies the words "might", "may", "suggest" are often used "suggesting" that a lot of the statements are presumptive.
In your one link, something was said like, Wearing a mask may help protect others and wearing a mask may help protect you. The statement would be logically just as accurate and probably at least as honest if it was stated...may or may not...
In reference to the links you had posted in response to my questions, as far as I could tell there was one question answered but some more questions raised.
As for the "puffing", no I was not referring to smoking, I should have probably not used quotation marks.
I wasn't sure if you were being facetious or if you didn't understand what I meant.
As to the cases I mentioned, the outbreaks in LTCFs are all considered resolved new cases seem to be random community transfers, there is some uncertainty often as to actual source.
In the one local region yesterday, 2 of the 3 new cases were HealthCare workers, but no further details were given.
So possibly when dealing with large numbers of infections masks will have a large effect, when dealing with smaller numbers, not so much. Do they prevent smaller numbers from developing into larger numbers? How do you know for sure? I'm afraid of what will happen when the bars are fully opened.
FYI, I have been wearing a mask,(properly) where mandated, but I am also anti-social enough that I avoid crowds like the plague and haven't been meeting a lot of random people.
I'm suspicious that if we view masking as the silver bullet we will become careless in other areas, which have more potential to do us harm.
Mention has been made several times that the usefulness of masks is well established, has been for a hundred years or more. I agree absolutely, but the Covid virus is a brand new ball game, and even the Asian countries are discovering that. Time will tell, I guess.
Mandatory masking and mandatory seat belts have been favorably compared, and it is true for both of them that they may or may not protect from harm, but neither of them actually solves the problem.

[Josh]

Mandatory masking might end up being like automatic seatbelts, which were mandatory in the 1990s, and were finally removed when it turned out they were worse than ineffective.

Or like airbags - which were meant to improve outcomes for obese people who aren’t wearing seatbelts. Turns out that they ended up killing or badly maiming children in front seats who were wearing seatbelts. So then we had a campaign that children should sit in back seats.

I’m opposed to using government force to force “solutions” on people with no evidence they work. Hastily made decisions like this often don’t work and do more harm than good.