Could it be because Spain opened the borders widely, people came in for holidays, went to the beach / clubs / bars and didn't wear masks?

Could it be because people in Switzerland (and Germany) followed the lock-down rules pretty well? Yet now that things have relaxed and re-opened (WITHOUT mask requirement) cases are RISING again in Switzerland?

Could it be because schools haven't opened until recently in most places and those that have are starting to see infections?

Could it be that children seemingly don't carry / spread the virus as much as adults? This is clearly confounding and not at all associated with any other disease models but for some reasons seem to be the case.

Come on, man, use some critical thinking.

Another proof how mandatory masks not worn properly can make more damage.

This is from Croatia where there is a new surge of infections after masks were made mandatory. As it seems, when people have a mask they think they don't need to keep a distance, they wear them for few days as they are somewhat a financial burden to buy regularly and generally the possibility of infections is bigger than simply not wearing one and keeping distance. Nothing to do with c02 levels.



The first red is mandatory masks on public transport and the second red is mandatory masks in shops. See how the new cases just fly up since?

__________________
"FAQ is not binding."

I'd say since school holidays and tourists showing up, really. But maybe both.

Awesome. Saved for my statistic classes Thank you

I didn't question the article, I just wrote that he misunderstood it. Or maybe did I, we'll see after his answer.

I disagree, as soon as you bring science into it, it's over with opinions and perceptions (well, at least in STEM). And if you want to critices people or organizations with scientific facts, you better make sure they are peer reviewed and you actually understand them in full.

I tend to count on people not rushing back with anwers after being called dumb, really. Which is ok if that's what the intent was, it is their decision.

Personally, I agree with your standards. But in real EF world, you can criticize whatever you want here, as long as it is civil

All you risk is your own credibility, nothing else.

What a bizarre thing to say, of course there are facts not everything is just somebody’s opinion.

My grandfather has been dead for over 50 years, that is definitely a fact it’s not just my opinion.

Now there’s an oxymoron if ever I’ve seen one.

Me, but that's just like my opinion, man.

29 May 2020 - Croatia reopens it's tourist industry to visitors from selected countries. By late June, 722,565 foreign tourists had visited the country.
Source: https://www.oecd.org/south-east-euro...in-Croatia.pdf

What's this obsession over infection rates? Masks have been made mandatory in closed spaces and infections are rising. Good news: deaths and hospitalizations in CH are extremely low. So why are people so bent on masks being the saving grace? They might help to some degree, but probably not in the grand scheme of things.

Malls, shopping centres, grocery stores and public transport, where masks are mandatory have been close to empty anytime I've used them (a nice change, tbh)... so I think this is one of those measures that's going to hurt the economy even more because people will be more inclined to order their stuff online as opposed to visiting a store. It has second-order effects that go way beyond 'not being able to breathe/see people's faces'.
If you think you're saving lives/reducing human suffering by wearing one religiously, well, maybe you should consider the deep human suffering nested into our consumption of: electronic devices, clothes, shoes, food,...

The way the authorities think they can control this thing with a piece of cloth, some hand gel and whatnot is just silly. This virus will propagate differently depending on the various cultural lines that define each country and people need to come to terms with that. Wear a mask when it's sensible, but this whole virtue-signalling and shaming others for not wearing one/being against them does just as much harm.
Very psychologically in line with the times we live in, though.

It's not an either / or.

It's not virtue-signalling or shaming. Neither is it optional. It's a legal requirement / compulsory / obligatory.

Apologies, I was busy yesterday afternoon.

You asked whether, "it's not proven that wearing mask reduces the probability of droplet infection?"

I posted a paper what has said that the data is very limited. Furthermore they have tested only 37 people, this is not a large enough sample to "prove" anything, and certainly not enough to enforce masks on entire populations. Finally, even the findings of the paper show that masks have limited effect on fine particles which carry way more viruses than coarse particles. Look at the box and whisker plots and see the level of overlap between wearing a mask and not wearing a mask for fine particles (Very likely down to the small sample size used).

All one can say is that there is evidence to support a benefit, however far more research is needed and the benefit is in any case minimal.

Men are stronger than women. Have fun disproving my invalid opinion

No that's not "proof".
There are so many confounding variables here, as others have pointed out.
Croatia's population has risen by probably 25% during the past 2 months due to tourists, for one.

Not half as sad as people who are willing to blindly accept whatever they are told without any sort of critical evaluation! We were told back in March not to wear masks, we know that there is very limited evidence to support the efficacy of masks, yet remarkable the advice has completely changed.

There has been no conclusive studies performed between March and now and yet the advice has changed. The best we have is that "there is evidence to support that there could be a benefit". Even of the studies that have been performed the majority focus on one aspect of mask wearing e.g. how effective they are as a filter. Such studies can be risky as they don't consider other important factors such as how the virus is transmitted or the effects of reusing masks.

The reverence given to scientists is so often misplaced (and that's speaking as a scientist btw!) whilst scientists are very good at showing that A results in B, the wider effects of changing A to stop B from happening are so often not considered. This is where critical thinking comes into play, which in my experience and apologies for the gross generalisation, is so often lacking in scientists and academics!

History has taught us that when rash decisions are made without considering the wider implications that more often than not they turn out catastrophically wrong. The hard lockdown implemented across much of Europe is the latest example of this. We know that the WHO has been lobbied to change its recommendation on mask wearing, we know that the evidence is weak at best, and for these reasons we should be extremely sceptical as to blindly following this advice.

Hi Tony np, thanks for your anwer.


What would you consider a suitable sample size? How many different types/techniques of exhaling do you think exists within humankind that ask for a broader sample? Apart from that, I'm sure that more studies have been carried out since 2013.



A 2.8 fold reduction in fine particels is still neat. Almost 100% of coarse particles filtered of even better. Especially since it comes with the low price of just wearing a peace of cloth for some time


You are not one of those saying that evolution is just a "theory" right? Evidence to support is already quite a thing.
We can agree that there is benefit then.
Since there is benefit, why is it so hard for some to just wear that damn mask for some hours a day. It's not that hard. I asked several times in my last posts and I still don't get your or others problem, except from not hearing what others say properly, but seriously how much would you talk in the tram anyway.

I suspect I would have a lot of fun watching you try to fight Ronda Rousey or return a serve from Serena Williams.

You went there, cute

That's the point, since 2013 there have been remarkably few studies carried out. Before the pandemic hit, there was very little data available on masks, and of the data available suggested masks were not an effective measure. Not much has changed since March, it's not as if some grand study has been carried out in the meantime, which is why I find it all the more remarkable for the U-turn on masks recommendation. This decision has been driven by politics rather than science.

For a study like this I would expect 200 or so could give some pretty decent data. 37 is simply too small.

Sure, it's a start, but remember whilst strictly statistically speaking 2.8 fold reduction is correct, it is only based on the data available from the small sample size. According to the study, fine particles contain 8.8 times more viral copies than coarse particles. Looking at the data available in the box and whisker plots for fine particles it appears to be there is significant overlap between wearing and not wearing a mask which requires further study. This is also only for viral copies, the text of the study states that for viral RNA detection in fine particles the effect of wearing a mask is even less.

There may be a benefit. Equally, there may not be. This is the point, we can't enforce people to wear masks when the evidence is so weak! We don't understand the effects on anxiety, the environment, re-using masks etc. to be able to make an informed decision.

Cane Toads were introduced to Australia about a hundred years ago in order to control cane beetle numbers on sugar cane plantations there. 100 years on it has become an ecological disaster with over 100 million of them in the country. Incredibly poisonous they kill almost all predators that try to eat them and have reaped havoc on the environment. What's best is that cane beetles populations are higher now than when the toads were introduced into Australia. This is an extreme example but just goes to show when blanket measures are taken without the consequences being considered. So no, I don't think we should just sit there and where the damn mask.

No sir, we two have already established that there is a benefit. Don't you dare taking that away from us.

Discussions with my father in law about CO2 lvls, bill gates and how the srf is manipulating us, are causing me anxiety. If he starts with adenochrome I guess I have to file for divorce

We clearly see risks and benefits differently.

True story, I was worried at the beginning, but I am glad that you don't compare the introduction of ecdemic poisonous animals to an ecosystem with wearing a mask...

And yes, maybe mask-wearing has devastating effects we don't know yet, I'd say its a safe bet though.