ADVERTISEMENT

Study says school masking wasn't associated lower covid cases

Colonoscopy

HR Legend
Feb 20, 2022
10,441
11,348
113
51
Saint Louis, Mo
Using the same data/methodology as large CDC study; but extending time period and adding more data.


Findings: Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates. These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.
 
All those poor children who were asked to wear a piece of cloth on their face. However will they recover? Certainly far more traumatic than watching children get gunned down while at school.
What a terrible post. First downplays the science being wrong about a massive policy requirement over the past two years.
Then makes a terrible, and unrelated comparison to the recent mass murder.
 
What a terrible post. First downplays the science being wrong about a massive policy requirement over the past two years.
Then makes a terrible, and unrelated comparison to the recent mass murder.
I want to see these results used appropriately. We’re two years out. In the spring of 2020, the CDC, the Fed, the states and localities were doing the best they could with a new and quickly-spreading illness. I want to see real results push for future actions more than I want to hear armchair quarterbacking.
 
‘Arm chair quarterbacking’…could also be called an ‘after action report’ which is required after major events. So, yeah we do need to look back to see where mistakes were made and how to prevent them in the future.
And, in this case it looks like a big mistake was made in regards to masking, which should be corrected, so it doesn’t happen again.
 
The science has shown that cloth masks aren’t very effective against this and kids also suck at wearing masks for their intended purpose. It’s really not surprising.

We now know what kind of masks offer protection and how to treat the environment to reduce spread. Unfortunately, a vocal percentage of the population do not think it’s worth protecting against this virus. It will be interesting to see what kind of precautions and policies the schools implement next Fall. IMO it will say a lot about the quality of the education at each institution. However with the giant exodus of educators I don’t have a lot of hope for rational policies.
 
The science has shown that cloth masks aren’t very effective against this and kids also suck at wearing masks for their intended purpose. It’s really not surprising.

We now know what kind of masks offer protection and how to treat the environment to reduce spread. Unfortunately, a vocal percentage of the population do not think it’s worth protecting against this virus. It will be interesting to see what kind of precautions and policies the schools implement next Fall. IMO it will say a lot about the quality of the education at each institution. However with the giant exodus of educators I don’t have a lot of hope for rational policies.
Air flow seems to be the biggest environmental variable you can affect.
 
Air flow seems to be the biggest environmental variable you can affect.
Exactly. What schools have made that investment to mitigate airborne pathogens? I would guess there is a decent number who are leaving education where safety is a sizable factor.
 
Basic common sense told us masks don’t prevent a virus from spreading. It’s nice to finally have data to prove it to those that have been pushing this nonsense for two years.
Basic common sense data brought to us by the school of hard knocks.
 
Really key blurb:

Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.

So many of these studies we're getting just aren't designed well to begin with. Michael Osterholm pointed this out more than once.
 
Using the same data/methodology as large CDC study; but extending time period and adding more data.

Could someone explain to me what the sentence means that starts with “School districts that choose…”? That doesn’t read like some of you think it says. I could be wrong.

I also know we were back to going through a bunch of kleenex, less colds, kids were out sick, stomach bug going around last 2 weeks when none of that happened the mask mandate year. So normal. I don’t want to go back to masks, but you have a hard time convincing a lot of teachers that masks weren’t keeping kids from passing germs around to each other.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk
Using the same data/methodology as large CDC study; but extending time period and adding more data.


Weird

"1" scholarly paper for the one author.
Don't appear to be any epidemiologists in on the work.
A "management school" teacher isn't my go-to for epidemiology.

How about you?
 
Classic micro aggression from Coffhawk.
So the guy who was a denier for two years starts a thread validating his last two years of work on HROT, and, there isn't anything linked as far as I can see. If he is referencing something, I would appreciate seeing it, and seeing if it's been reviewed.
But, jerk away at yourself if you must.
 
Classic micro aggression from Coffhawk.
So the guy who was a denier for two years starts a thread validating his last two years of work on HROT, and, there isn't anything linked as far as I can see. If he is referencing something, I would appreciate seeing it, and seeing if it's been reviewed.
But, jerk away at yourself if you must.

And it hasn't been reviewed; it's a pre-print.

Neither author appears to hold any experience, whatsoever, in the area.
Just a few red flags, but just look at the MAGAs flock to it!!!!
 
Could someone explain to me what the sentence means that starts with “School districts that choose…”? That doesn’t read like some of you think it says. I could be wrong.

I also know we were back to going through a bunch of kleenex, less colds, kids were out sick, stomach bug going around last 2 weeks when none of that happened the mask mandate year. So normal. I don’t want to go back to masks, but you have a hard time convincing a lot of teachers that masks weren’t keeping kids from passing germs around to each other.

Tom would prefer to rely on his biased personal observations, rather than the scientific study.
 
So desperate to discredit this scientific study...almost like a personal investment in a specific result…
He wasn't discrediting anything. He was saying he needs more evidence. One study or paper does not make a consensus. If more reports like this come out, preferably ones that include epidemiologists, then you can have your "I told you so" moment. Which brings me back to, without data, the consequence for playing it safe was being just a little bit uncomfortable some of the time while in school. It certainly exposed how weak many Americans have become.
 
Yes, that's why the pediatric wards showed no flu or RSV transmission early in the pandemic when masks were mandated.
I was going to say, masks certainly cut down on everything else. I’m not saying we need them going forward, but they probably helped conserve resources during the worst of Covid.
 
And it hasn't been reviewed; it's a pre-print.

Neither author appears to hold any experience, whatsoever, in the area.
Just a few red flags, but just look at the MAGAs flock to it!!!!

genetic​

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.​

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

 

genetic​


Your logical fallacy is jumping onboard to a paper that has very poor authorship credentials, zero experience related to the actual content and has not been reviewed for publication yet.

At this point, it's like an Op Ed. Put someone with actual credentials on the work and you at least have SOME credibility.
 
Your logical fallacy is jumping onboard to a paper that has very poor authorship credentials, zero experience related to the actual content and has not been reviewed for publication yet.

At this point, it's like an Op Ed. Put someone with actual credentials on the work and you at least have SOME credibility.
Can you quote where I "jump[ed] onboard"?

Credentials are irrelevant to the soundness of an argument. A proposition is either true or false irrespective of the proponent of the proposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
Fantastic. Epidemiologists suck and have an agenda.
What, specifically, is their "agenda"?

If masks (or anything else) are ineffective, then what "agenda" would they have in pushing publications that are factually false?

How's come we haven't seen much about "ivermectin" lately? Or "drinking your own pee" to cure Covids?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5
Credentials are irrelevant to the soundness of an argument.

This is true

However, they are absolutely relevant to the likelihood of a pre-publication outside any of their areas of expertise that has not been reviewed yet.

Amazeballs how you MAGAts jump onboard stuff w/o even bothering to look at where it came from. This is pretty much Science:101 in vetting the credibility of any "source".
 
What, specifically, is their "agenda"?

If masks (or anything else) are ineffective, then what "agenda" would they have in pushing publications that are factually false?

How's come we haven't seen much about "ivermectin" lately? Or "drinking your own pee" to cure Covids?
Their agenda? Keep the fantasy going as long as possible to stay relevant and make $$$$. They were wrong about everything, why would we listen now?
 
Their agenda? Keep the fantasy going as long as possible to stay relevant and make $$$$. They were wrong about everything, why would we listen now?

So, your premise here is that the entire field of epidemiology, and every epidemiologist’s “salary” is dependent on holding up a claim that masks prevent infection.

What an odd take.
 
This is true

However, they are absolutely relevant to the likelihood of a pre-publication outside any of their areas of expertise that has not been reviewed yet.

Amazeballs how you MAGAts jump onboard stuff w/o even bothering to look at where it came from. This is pretty much Science:101 in vetting the credibility of any "source".
Again, please quote where I "jump[ed] onboard"? I bet you cannot, given that I did not say anything about the substance of the article.

Kudos on your resort to two additional logical fallacies. That's three in one string.

 
So, your premise here is that the entire field of epidemiology, and every epidemiologist’s “salary” is dependent on holding up a claim that masks prevent infection.

What an odd take.
No. The premise is as long as the corona bros are around freaking out about the virus, the more money they’ll make. They are complete failures in almost every regard on the pandemic. We would be better off firing all of them and donating the extra $ to fight poverty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
ADVERTISEMENT