ADVERTISEMENT

Kansas runs experiment on masks

we are showing declines here in austin. and it has been hot. i bet it is hot in ks... the heat kills this thing more than a mask does
My god, you just can’t let go of that bone. Leave it, leave it, leave it oit. Heat has nothing on the Covid, and a mask slows transmission. Nobody claims it kills anything.
 
t_c2b1c7195f514248a2dae6897d73e388_name_file_1280x720_2000_v3_1_.jpg


Updated info. They seem to still be working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sooner-Be-Dead
Good stuff.

Too bad our federal "experts" told us early on that masks didn't help.

Science is messy. That's the way it works. Usually, we don't see results until all the disagreeing is over with but you got a live action play by play of science in action this spring. Once there was enough data, the reality on wearing masks became pretty obvious and a consensus was formed. Just because people were demanding them to publicly guess before there was enough data to be certain doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just means we need to make sure we have enough data before making conclusions.
 
Science is messy. That's the way it works. Usually, we don't see results until all the disagreeing is over with but you got a live action play by play of science in action this spring. Once there was enough data, the reality on wearing masks became pretty obvious and a consensus was formed. Just because people were demanding them to publicly guess before there was enough data to be certain doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just means we need to make sure we have enough data before making conclusions.


Watching the science evolve in real time has been interesting. We don't normally have such a large portion of people actively trying to sidetrack the process. This has been a horrible experiment of public involvement.

And the instant politicization of this by the president has been a very good example why you don't include people in the process.
 
t_c2b1c7195f514248a2dae6897d73e388_name_file_1280x720_2000_v3_1_.jpg


Updated info. They seem to still be working.

Did you notice what they had done with the scale on each side of the first graph you posted?

I'm wondering why that same info differs from this one that presumably has the same scale for both lines.

"But the chart was consciously manipulated to produce that appearance by comparing the same data (cases per day) on different axes.

Cases for mandate counties are based on the left axis, with a range of 15 to 25, while those without mandates are based on a secondary axis on the right, with a scale of 4 to 14.

But the results look dramatically different when shown below on the same axis."

vPjXDIN.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: shank hawk
Did you notice what they had done with the scale on each side of the first graph you posted?

I'm wondering why that same info differs from this one that presumably has the same scale for both lines.

"But the chart was consciously manipulated to produce that appearance by comparing the same data (cases per day) on different axes.

Cases for mandate counties are based on the left axis, with a range of 15 to 25, while those without mandates are based on a secondary axis on the right, with a scale of 4 to 14.

But the results look dramatically different when shown below on the same axis."

vPjXDIN.png

Someone doesn't understand what "trends" are.
 
Did you notice what they had done with the scale on each side of the first graph you posted?

I'm wondering why that same info differs from this one that presumably has the same scale for both lines.

"But the chart was consciously manipulated to produce that appearance by comparing the same data (cases per day) on different axes.

Cases for mandate counties are based on the left axis, with a range of 15 to 25, while those without mandates are based on a secondary axis on the right, with a scale of 4 to 14.

But the results look dramatically different when shown below on the same axis."

vPjXDIN.png
The chart @tarheelbybirth posted is new data done by a scientist at the University of Kansas. It has nothing to do with Lee Norman and KDHE except he reviewed the data.
 
Looks like for about three months over the summer, you were safer not wearing a mask according to this data.


That would be the wrong way to interpret this:

April-June- Virus starts hitting areas. Cities have local mask mandates (blue) so cased didn't really spike. Rural areas (red) didn't have masks. State goes into lock down. Cases all over drop due to statewide measures.

June-Sept- Republican legislature overules governors power to declare disasters/emergency orders without approval by legislative committee of leadership. This makes her statewide mask mandate/shutdown invalid and it is left to counties to decide on mask use. Cases generally trend up all over state consistent with upslope of blue and red lines. Blue is worse because it's population dense cities which are going to have the virus spreading more quickly. Meanwhile rural red goes about its business without masks or restrictions.

Sept-Oct- Mask mandates by cities and counties keep curve flat (blue). Counties in rural areas without mask mandates continue to trend upward and are the source of our covid spike in Kansas (red).
 
Did you notice what they had done with the scale on each side of the first graph you posted?

I'm wondering why that same info differs from this one that presumably has the same scale for both lines.

"But the chart was consciously manipulated to produce that appearance by comparing the same data (cases per day) on different axes.

Cases for mandate counties are based on the left axis, with a range of 15 to 25, while those without mandates are based on a secondary axis on the right, with a scale of 4 to 14.

But the results look dramatically different when shown below on the same axis."

vPjXDIN.png
The first chart showed differences in trends. Non-masked counties rising...masked counties controlled. The data now shows a difference in absolute terms. Unmasked counties are now at double the rate of those that are masked.
 
Last edited:
That would be the wrong way to interpret this:

April-June- Virus starts hitting areas. Cities have local mask mandates (blue) so cased didn't really spike. Rural areas (red) didn't have masks. State goes into lock down. Cases all over drop due to statewide measures.

June-Sept- Republican legislature overules governors power to declare disasters/emergency orders without approval by legislative committee of leadership. This makes her statewide mask mandate/shutdown invalid and it is left to counties to decide on mask use. Cases generally trend up all over state consistent with upslope of blue and red lines. Blue is worse because it's population dense cities which are going to have the virus spreading more quickly. Meanwhile rural red goes about its business without masks or restrictions.

Sept-Oct- Mask mandates by cities and counties keep curve flat (blue). Counties in rural areas without mask mandates continue to trend upward and are the source of our covid spike in Kansas (red).

Yep.

Pinehawk ignores the biases in the data, completely.
Cities and populated areas will almost ALWAYS have higher case counts, and more difficulty controlling cases.

It's literally why South Korea and Taiwan's control of this is such an incredibly stark contrast from here in the US (and particularly, "Middle America")
 
There were three months where a mask mandate still showed more cases than those without a mask mandate.
With a virus with a two week incubation period.
 
That apparently turned out to be a false positive.

And even if DeWine has/had the virus, no one is saying that masks guarantee you won’t catch it. Masks don’t completely stop the spread, they limit the spread.

If someone who’s wearing a seat belt dies in a car accident, it doesn’t mean we should all stop wearing our seat belts.

Nor should we stop driving cars.
 
There were three months where a mask mandate still showed more cases than those without a mask mandate.

And, AGAIN, that is a comparison of "cities" vs "rural areas".

The point in their analysis was that masks resulted in a large difference in TRENDS in the two places. In cities, where control is far harder, it reduced the spread. Absence of masks in areas that spread is attenuated, already, resulted in no change in the trends.
 
ADVERTISEMENT