Some Businesses 'Still Require' Customers To Wear Masks (I knew this would happen)

[oldag]

For Texas45. The study OD is referencing is comparing mask mandates with restaurants closed against mask mandates with restaurants open.

You are being deceptive again.

" Weighted least-squares regression with county and day fixed effects was used to compare COVID-19 case and death growth rates before and after 1) implementing mask mandates and 2) allowing on-premises dining at restaurants. "

" 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. "

Then
" 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. "

The two were analyzed separately.

My point still stands. You still refuse to admit you are wrong.

 

[Dougw1515]

You are being deceptive again.

" Weighted least-squares regression with county and day fixed effects was used to compare COVID-19 case and death growth rates before and after 1) implementing mask mandates and 2) allowing on-premises dining at restaurants. "

" 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. "

Then
" 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. "

The two were analyzed separately.

My point still stands. You still refuse to admit you are wrong.

LOL.... DD refuses to even admit he "may" be wrong....

 

[DubiousDan]

You are being deceptive again.

" Weighted least-squares regression with county and day fixed effects was used to compare COVID-19 case and death growth rates before and after 1) implementing mask mandates and 2) allowing on-premises dining at restaurants. "

" 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. "

Then
" 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. "

The two were analyzed separately.

My point still stands. You still refuse to admit you are wrong.

In that study restaurants/restaurant is mentioned 40 times. I copied the study and created a PDF document and did a word count.

Summary
What is already known about this topic?
Universal masking and avoiding nonessential indoor spaces are recommended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
What is added by this report?
Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Mask mandates and restricting any on-premises dining at restaurants can help limit community transmission of COVID-19 and reduce case and death growth rates. These findings can inform public policies to reduce community spread of COVID-19.

In the summary written by the people who did the study talk about indoor spaces and restaurants. You say that the numbers disagree with the summary. If I was going to do a study that I wanted support a specific viewpoint but the numbers didn't support that viewpoint, why would I even publish it. if the study showed what you think it showed they would most likely trash it and start over.


BTW. welcome back.

 

[Texas45]

It is about limiting exposure as much as is reasonably possible. Obviously, you can't wear a mask while eating.

No shiat Sherlock.
But wearing one while I wait is well for those sheeple that have swallow all the yr long malarky.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Texas45]

Maybe it's the places you go. Where I go the table/booths are six feet apart or there are plastic partitions between them. The servers all wear masks. The less exposure a person has the less likely they are to contract a disease. The more things you do to lessen your exposure the safer you are. That doesn't mean you are protected 100%. People use sun screen to block UV radiation but they still get exposed to some. By your logic, people shouldn't use sunscreen because it doesn't block 100% of the UV radiation.

When the restaurants reopened I started going out to eat a couple times a week because I was tired of home cooking. I didn't catch covid by doing that or by going anywhere else, I caught it at home when a family member (who didn't know he was infected yet) stopped by to drop something off and wasn't wearing a mask. Neither was I and we just talked a couple minutes and I got it. He owns a small business and was like you and thought masks were useless. He didn't require his employees to wear a mask. Apparently one of them got it and went to work thinking it was just seasonal allergies. Within a week all but two people in his office tested positive.


STUPID is as STUPID does.

Hook
Line
Sinker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DubiousDan]

You are being deceptive again.

" Weighted least-squares regression with county and day fixed effects was used to compare COVID-19 case and death growth rates before and after 1) implementing mask mandates and 2) allowing on-premises dining at restaurants. "

" 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. "

Then
" 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. "

The two were analyzed separately.

My point still stands. You still refuse to admit you are wrong.

And in this portion of the study:

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. "

It shows the the case rate decreased by an increasing rate over a period of 100 days. It also showed that the death progressively decreased over a period of 100 days. The portions you highlighted were for the days at beginning of the mandate a
where the percentages of change were low but the study showed a steady increase in the percentage of change towards the end on the 100 days they looked at.

 

[Dougw1515]

And in this portion of the study:



It shows the the case rate decreased by an increasing rate over a period of 100 days. It also showed that the death progressively decreased over a period of 100 days. The portions you highlighted were for the days at beginning of the mandate a
where the percentages of change were low but the study showed a steady increase in the percentage of change towards the end on the 100 days they looked at.

Soòoo... Theres no chance during the study intervals on the front end the weakest and most frail succumbed to the virus? As the Study progressed the numbers improved simply because the health was better and comorbidity was less in the remaining samples?

 

[DubiousDan]

No shiat Sherlock.
But wearing one while I wait is well for those sheeple that have swallow all the yr long malarky.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may be on to something there. What you should do is put together a flyer with all the evidence you have that proves that masks don't work. Then you go to the nearest hospital a shift change and hand out those flyers to the doctor sheeple and the nurse sheeple and explain to them why they don't need to wear a mask. The operating room sheeple really need this information. They they think masks stop their patients from getting infections while they're fiddling about with their innards.

It might take less time if you were to get an appointment with the infection control coordinator and explain it to them and let them pass it on to the staff in a memo. It would save you a lot of time.

 

[V-Tach]

Mask do not make a "significant statistical difference" in China virus transmission......and there has been 0 (zero) studies proving they do.....

I've sat across the table from DD, both of us maskless eating lunch..........good guy...I think he may be arguing for the sake of arguing....not that I would ever do that.....................

 

[DubiousDan]

Soòoo... Theres no chance during the study intervals on the front end the weakest and most frail succumbed to the virus? As the Study progressed the numbers improved simply because the health was better and comorbidity was less in the remaining samples?

If by succumbed you mean died then I wouldn't think so. The number of people who got the virus steadily decreased. When someone tests positive they contact that person and find out how many people are in their household and they count those people as being positive even if they haven't been tested. I don't know if all localities do this but some do. I'm sure it skews the numbers.

 

[rotor]

Well I personally dont get that close to others I dont know.
Also explain to me how wearing said mask while IN LINE at the restaurant will help when you sit for an hr or so with out it the entire time then slap it on again as you leave.

Like Covid and all the other coodies in the air only hang out by the line or some shiat.


STUPID is as STUPID does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point entirely is that the person wearing the mask is not the one being protected unless it is one of those sophisticated masks that nobody has. Most of the "rules" about wearing masks are NOT logical. But, in general the thought is that the mask may (I don't know) keep someone with an asymptomatic infection from spreading it to someone else. If trying to protect others from infection is "sheepie" than I guess most people are sheepie. What do you call someone who is infected and doesn't care if he spreads it to others? Wolfie?

 

[DubiousDan]

Mask do not make a "significant statistical difference" in China virus transmission......and there has been 0 (zero) studies proving they do.....

I've sat across the table from DD, both of us maskless eating lunch..........good guy...I think he may be arguing for the sake of arguing....not that I would ever do that..................... View attachment 249183

LOL. They say masks don't work while I say a good mask worn correctly can work. I know this from personal experience working with patients in isolation. I got covid from a person not wearing a mask. I just don't want to see people misled by conspiracy theories.

If we had met in mid October you'd be cursing me because I would have given you and your wife covid. And I would have felt like shit for doing so.

Cheers, stay safe.

 

[Shady]

and the wheels on the short bus go round and round.

 

[DubiousDan]

My point entirely is that the person wearing the mask is not the one being protected unless it is one of those sophisticated masks that nobody has. Most of the "rules" about wearing masks are NOT logical. But, in general the thought is that the mask may (I don't know) keep someone with an asymptomatic infection from spreading it to someone else. If trying to protect others from infection is "sheepie" than I guess most people are sheepie. What do you call someone who is infected and doesn't care if he spreads it to others? Wolfie?

I'd rather err on the side of caution. Wearing a mask does me no harm and if doing so while infected, symptomatic or not, keeps someone else from getting infected well great. If the mask doesn't work, at least I tried and I showed some consideration for a fellow human being,

If you're infected and don't know it and pass the infection on to other people because you refuse to take precautions, you are selfish inconsiderate asshole.

 

[oldag]

In that study restaurants/restaurant is mentioned 40 times. I copied the study and created a PDF document and did a word count.



In the summary written by the people who did the study talk about indoor spaces and restaurants. You say that the numbers disagree with the summary. If I was going to do a study that I wanted support a specific viewpoint but the numbers didn't support that viewpoint, why would I even publish it. if the study showed what you think it showed they would most likely trash it and start over.


BTW. welcome back.

So what? So you can run a word count? What does that mean? Nothing.

Read and comprehend what is written. The analyses were performed separately - read the quoted sections.

If you will bother to actually read the article and think about what is written, you would have the answers.

Does anyone with a modicum of intelligence believe that a ~1% reduction justifies their conclusion that mask mandates are helpful? I bet you will not answer that question directly, rather you will evade again.

Why would anyone publish a summary that the data does not support? Guess you think politics and narratives are not present in the CDC and the government is here to help.

Too funny.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I'd rather err on the side of caution. Wearing a mask does me no harm and if doing so while infected, symptomatic or not, keeps someone else from getting infected well great. If the mask doesn't work, at least I tried and I showed some consideration for a fellow human being,
If you're infected and don't know it and pass the infection on to other people because you refuse to take precautions, you are selfish inconsiderate asshole.

Does this mean that you intend to wear a mask for the rest of your life?

 

[oldag]

And in this portion of the study:



It shows the the case rate decreased by an increasing rate over a period of 100 days. It also showed that the death progressively decreased over a period of 100 days. The portions you highlighted were for the days at beginning of the mandate a
where the percentages of change were low but the study showed a steady increase in the percentage of change towards the end on the 100 days they looked at.

They are still within the margin of error at 100 days. Less than 2% (e.g., after 100 days) is not significant.

You are trying so hard to justify your position that you have left common sense behind. Man up. I refuse to believe that you are not more intelligent than this.

 

[DubiousDan]

Does this mean that you intend to wear a mask for the rest of your life?

No, I've had covid and the vaccine and I suspect we'll reach herd immunity before long. Fingers crossed.

 

[glenbo]

I was going to go to Target yesterday afternoon, everyone in the parking lot was wearing masks. I got halfway to the door and saw a sign that said face coverings must be worn in the store, turned around, and drove off. My dollars will be spent where a mask is not required.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Target...nope

Whole Foods...nope

Starbucks...nope

I avoid doing business with them.