COVID outbreak since masks optional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two more at SWS.

How many more in the city?

I work in public health, there’s an uptick across the city, including in populations that have very little overlap with the student population.

Pp here. Yes, I know. My point, badly made, was that the OP is hyperfocused on school specific cases when there is an overall rise in the city.

Of all the COVID denying arguments, this has to be the dumbest one. “Sure there’s a ton of cases in your school, which is a higher risk congregate setting, but those people probably all got COVID elsewhere!”

Not the claim being made. The claim clearly was that cases are up in schools because they are up everywhere (including places where masking did not recently change), as opposed to because masking in schools was recently dropped. As an example, my school is still masking, and we just had the first case in weeks. When COVID is being spread in the community, one of the places it may be spread is schools.

Exactly. It has been shown over and over that Covid case numbers in schools mirror case numbers in the surrounding community. Nothing "Covid denying" about that observation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an uptick because BA.2 is starting to become dominant. It's going to happen. Not clear that masks would prevent it, just like they didn't prevent the wave of BA.1 cases in December.

It did a pretty good job in the schools.

NP. And you know this how? Do you have a control group? How do you know what would have happened without a mask mandate?

[Anonymous]

I thought we were moving past number of cases as the metric for when to be concerned. Omicron spread like wildfire and ended up being no big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought we were moving past number of cases as the metric for when to be concerned. Omicron spread like wildfire and ended up being no big deal.

Ended up being no big deal? How do you define no big deal? Wow, disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an uptick because BA.2 is starting to become dominant. It's going to happen. Not clear that masks would prevent it, just like they didn't prevent the wave of BA.1 cases in December.

It did a pretty good job in the schools.

NP. And you know this how? Do you have a control group? How do you know what would have happened without a mask mandate?

Here you go, dipshit: https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19741

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an uptick because BA.2 is starting to become dominant. It's going to happen. Not clear that masks would prevent it, just like they didn't prevent the wave of BA.1 cases in December.

It did a pretty good job in the schools.

NP. And you know this how? Do you have a control group? How do you know what would have happened without a mask mandate?

Here you go, dipshit: https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19741

Pretty sure the PP was talking about *IN DC*, dipshit.

Also, I would advise you to read the critiques of that study, and also the much better study from Spain.

[Anonymous]

Study from Spain: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809

Or if you'd like to read a news article instead of the study itself: https://english.elpais.com/society/2022-03-11/masks-in-schools-are-not-associated-with-lower-coronavirus-transmission-says-new-study.html

"In Spain, it is still obligatory for children aged six and over to wear a face mask in class. But scientists have not found that neither the incidence rate nor the transmission of the virus was significantly lower among these groups compared to the under-sixes, who do not have to wear the coverings. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an uptick because BA.2 is starting to become dominant. It's going to happen. Not clear that masks would prevent it, just like they didn't prevent the wave of BA.1 cases in December.

It did a pretty good job in the schools.

NP. And you know this how? Do you have a control group? How do you know what would have happened without a mask mandate?

Here you go, dipshit: https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19741

You must be a special person in real life.

[Anonymous]

Some initial critiques of Pediatrics study:

https://twitter.com/MonicaGandhi9/status/1502111769560444931?s=20&t=OsXasgXI2JgnRxAL6fe9QA

Of note:

The masking group had 10x the rate of primary infections as the mask optional groups. (so at least a bad control group)

Secondary transmission is based on contact tracing, and schools with masks said that if you were wearing a mask then there were no linked infections to that. Ergo, you find less secondary transmission. Not because it did or did not happen, but because you didn't look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an uptick because BA.2 is starting to become dominant. It's going to happen. Not clear that masks would prevent it, just like they didn't prevent the wave of BA.1 cases in December.

It did a pretty good job in the schools.

NP. And you know this how? Do you have a control group? How do you know what would have happened without a mask mandate?

Here you go, dipshit: https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19741

No control group in this study, just like all the mask studies that show a significant effect of mask mandates. Do you know what it means to have a control group as part of a scientific study, and why it is important? Maybe you should refrain from name calling when you have no idea what you are talking about. It just makes you look more stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some initial critiques of Pediatrics study:

https://twitter.com/MonicaGandhi9/status/1502111769560444931?s=20&t=OsXasgXI2JgnRxAL6fe9QA

Of note:

The masking group had 10x the rate of primary infections as the mask optional groups. (so at least a bad control group)

Secondary transmission is based on contact tracing, and schools with masks said that if you were wearing a mask then there were no linked infections to that. Ergo, you find less secondary transmission. Not because it did or did not happen, but because you didn't look.

This. It's not a useful control group if other parameters aren't otherwise comparable. That's why the Spanish study is so much better: they compared kids in the same communities during the same time frames. Much less selection bias and confounding factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some initial critiques of Pediatrics study:

https://twitter.com/MonicaGandhi9/status/1502111769560444931?s=20&t=OsXasgXI2JgnRxAL6fe9QA

Of note:

The masking group had 10x the rate of primary infections as the mask optional groups. (so at least a bad control group)

Secondary transmission is based on contact tracing, and schools with masks said that if you were wearing a mask then there were no linked infections to that. Ergo, you find less secondary transmission. Not because it did or did not happen, but because you didn't look.

Also important to point out that the study concludes that "Secondary transmission across the cohort was modest (<10% of total infections)". Given that we cannot hope to eliminate Covid anymore, and given the extremely low risk the virus poses to children, we should balance this modest rate of in-school transmission (modest in both masked and unmasked districts) against the social and educational downsides of masking kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought we were moving past number of cases as the metric for when to be concerned. Omicron spread like wildfire and ended up being no big deal.

Ended up being no big deal? How do you define no big deal? Wow, disgusting.

That vast majority of people getting colds or no symptoms. The vast majority of vaccinated individuals having a cold for a few days. Where was your disgust when people were dying of pneumonia and such before the pandemic?