Facts that show COVID spread was altered by human behavior

[TexasHusker]

I'll be waiting.

[disneysteve]

Thanks for making this it's own thread.

I'm not going to waste much time on this, but since you asked nicely, here's just one study. A simple Google search will turn up plenty of others.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

From the study:
"There was a significant decline in daily COVID-19 growth rate after the mandating of face covers in public, with the effect increasing over time after the orders were signed."

"The study provides evidence that US states mandating the use of face masks in public had a greater decline in daily COVID-19 growth rates after issuing these mandates compared with states that did not issue mandates."

[TexasHusker]

That study was done in June 2020, almost a year ago. We didn't know anything about this virus then.

Let's look at things a year later.

[ua_guy]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/12/fact-check-cdc-study-links-mask-mandates-slowed-covid-infections/6938262002/

A good fact-check and discussion of real studies, based on data collected through the end of 2020, including links to the studies.

[disneysteve]

You asked for evidence showing human behavior affected the spread. I gave you exactly that. That study documented that the widespread use of masks did, in fact, slow the spread of COVID.

[TexasHusker]

You asked for evidence showing human behavior affected the spread. I gave you exactly that. That study documented that the widespread use of masks did, in fact, slow the spread of COVID.

So anything that might be produced nearly a year later that directly contradicts that would be rubbish?

[TexasHusker]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ns/6938262002/

A good fact-check and discussion of real studies, based on data collected through the end of 2020, including links to the studies.

Semantics. Instead of reading CDC's editorial words such as "may have" and "significant", look at the actual data they produced:



In the first 20 days after implementing mask mandates, new cases slowed by 0.5 percentage points. They continued to fall over the 100 days analyzed in the study. COVID-19 death rates dropped by 0.7 percentage points in the first 20 days after masks were required.

I don't call that significant. CDC is a mouthpiece for the gubmit. Look at actual fatality numbers to get your true answer.

[disneysteve]

So anything that might be produced nearly a year later that directly contradicts that would be rubbish?

Not necessarily, but that wasn't your question.

The chart you posted is looking only at daily death rates in two very different states demographically speaking (population density, etc.). The study I posted was looking at the rate of COVID cases, so entirely different focus. Your chart doesn't in any way contradict the study I posted.

[ua_guy]

Semantics. Instead of reading CDC's editorial words such as "may have" and "significant", look at the actual data they produced:



In the first 20 days after implementing mask mandates, new cases slowed by 0.5 percentage points. They continued to fall over the 100 days analyzed in the study. COVID-19 death rates dropped by 0.7 percentage points in the first 20 days after masks were required.

I don't call that significant. CDC is a mouthpiece for the gubmit. Look at actual fatality numbers to get your true answer.

It is, actually, statistically significant. The study also does not take into account how closely the mandates were actually observed, nor does it comment on the efficacy of masks. The fact that the mandate itself was responsible for a statistically significant drop, is significant. You asked for evidence, and there it is.

You are welcome to believe it or not, but it doesn't change the results of the study.

[disneysteve]

I don't call that significant.

Why not? Statistical significance is a mathematical calculation, not an opinion.

[rennigade]

Not gonna lie...I actually do not mind wearing a mask. I dont get much enjoyment out of interacting with people that I dont know. When you wear a mask, you really cant see peoples expressions, you're not sure if they're pleasant or having a bad day, so interactions are way down. On the flip side, this is absolutely horrible for children who are developing (I would think anyway, not sure if there is data to prove this, more common sense.) Expressions are a massive part of how humans interact. I already know facial expressions and body language, so it doesnt affect adults much. Kids who are learning and growing, this cant help them with social skills.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I plan on wearing a mask when I go out. I have the creepers in public transit and honestly I don't find it a big deal to wear it to the store.

[Like2Plan]

That study was done in June 2020, almost a year ago. We didn't know anything about this virus then.

Let's look at things a year later.

You have floated out an theory. But, there is no control group in each state under similar conditions (with and without masks). What I mean by this is you are not measuring how many cases CA would have had with no mask mandate. And, you are not measuring how many cases TX would have with a mask mandate over the same time periods. (This also assumes that folks are adhering to the standard)

If we look at the overall statistics (World O Meter) at this point in time (the pandemic is not over),
TX has had 96,177 cases per million in population with 1,668 deaths per million in population.
CA has had 92,741 cases per million in population with 1,485 deaths per million in population.
MS has had 102,434 cases per million in population with 2,356 deaths per million in population.

[disneysteve]

Folks, TexasHusker asked for data showing that the spread of COVID was impacted by mitigation efforts. A couple of us have shared that data.

The question wasn't what you personally think or feel about masks or distancing or shut downs. If you have additional data to show how all of those things slowed the spread of the disease, please share it.

[disneysteve]

In the first 20 days after implementing mask mandates, new cases slowed by 0.5 percentage points. They continued to fall over the 100 days analyzed in the study. COVID-19 death rates dropped by 0.7 percentage points in the first 20 days after masks were required.

Two issues with this particular data.

The incubation period for COVID is 14 days, so only looking at the results in that initial 20-day period doesn't tell you a lot since many of the cases occurring during that period would be in people who were already exposed at the start of that period. As your quote notes, though, the rate continue to fall over the 100-day period. That's more meaningful. Don't focus on those first 20 days and make a conclusion (even though the rate did fall even in that initial period).

Deaths are a lagging indicator. People are often sick for days or weeks before dying, so again, a 20-day period really won't tell you much. but still, there was a significant drop in the death rate even during that first 20 days.

The biggest drop in deaths due to COVID is likely due to vaccination and improved treatment options.